Merging: join the end or merge at the front?
Discussion
I was driving some colleagues about the other day and came across a 2 lanes down to 1 situation. There was 800 yards to go and everyone was queuing in 1 lane. So, as I've always been taught to do, I drove right to the front and merged by the cones.
I could see behind a lorry saw what I did and blocked both lanes to stop others doing the same.
This sparked a big debate about whether I was wrong or right. Everyone in car knew I was technically right to do that but said it was 'cheeky'.
What do you think?
I could see behind a lorry saw what I did and blocked both lanes to stop others doing the same.
This sparked a big debate about whether I was wrong or right. Everyone in car knew I was technically right to do that but said it was 'cheeky'.
What do you think?
Its one of those common mis-conceptions where being right is still being wrong as the majority of drivers are thick/mis informed.
My approach is to use whichever lane is the least queued and merge in turn at the choke point as per the guidance, but try not to make it look like I'm trying to push in. So trundle along at a steady pace and if someone wants to be a twunt and block me, they can, life's too short.
My approach is to use whichever lane is the least queued and merge in turn at the choke point as per the guidance, but try not to make it look like I'm trying to push in. So trundle along at a steady pace and if someone wants to be a twunt and block me, they can, life's too short.
Do a steady pace and then merge in turn, if someone is out and out not willing to let me in then I won't push it.
That being said it does get and my goat when someone tries and merges from the lesser used lane and starts trying to merge with a significant distance to go, use all the space you numpty!
But in true fashion they are scared of getting in from the closing the lane.
Always remember my MIL complaining about the roadworks between us and them when we lived elsewhere she said it used to take 15-20 minutes to get through, I replied saying I don't see the issue it usually takes me about 10 max. Which started a whole debate about merge in turn.
My old boss called me a "jibber" for using the closing lane...it did cause quite an office debate.
That being said it does get and my goat when someone tries and merges from the lesser used lane and starts trying to merge with a significant distance to go, use all the space you numpty!
But in true fashion they are scared of getting in from the closing the lane.
Always remember my MIL complaining about the roadworks between us and them when we lived elsewhere she said it used to take 15-20 minutes to get through, I replied saying I don't see the issue it usually takes me about 10 max. Which started a whole debate about merge in turn.
My old boss called me a "jibber" for using the closing lane...it did cause quite an office debate.
Nothing will change until all road layouts have giant signs saying "use both lanes and merge in turn" and you have a big public campaign on TV and social media. Maybe some people getting fined for obstruction, careless driving or whatever would help. It's nothing less than a cultural change that's required and the majority of the public have got it into their head that people using the shortest lane are queue jumpers.
ScoobyChris said:
I think a lot of it is in how you do it, rather than what you are doing. If you crawl along past the queue looking for a gap, you're more likely to merge without incident than if you go flying up to the front of the queue, hard on the brakes, and force yourself in.
Chris
Chris
/endthreadThe best solution I’ve seen is:
If the RH lane is the ultimate closed lane, close the left lane and cone people to the right lane, then chicane them to the left.
I don’t think that works as well for a LH lane closure.
I think people have been a bit more relaxed lately, leaving gaps for people to merge. Then again, I have not been to crazy, pent-up, metropolitan areas lately.
If the RH lane is the ultimate closed lane, close the left lane and cone people to the right lane, then chicane them to the left.
I don’t think that works as well for a LH lane closure.
I think people have been a bit more relaxed lately, leaving gaps for people to merge. Then again, I have not been to crazy, pent-up, metropolitan areas lately.
The vast majority of drivers do not know how it works or do and just don't want to, so they form a queue.
I'm always delighted at the opportunity to let the cars that have driven up to the merge point, merge in front of me as the last ten cars behind invariably won't let them in, I'll even put my arm out of the window to signal them when I see the road captains blocking the merge.
deckster said:
and get angry when people do follow the instructions of the giant road signs.
Saw a chap jumping up and down in his seat, screaming ang giving fingers to the van that had obeyed the road signs! He was in his little 3 door volvo, not a good idea when the van could have been filled with builders.
t 
Nomme de Plum said:
Depends on the situation.
Depends on all sorts of things. If the traffic is moving at good speed, it's generally better to merge reasonably early when you're sure there will be a decent gap to merge into without impacting the traffic in the inside lane. I was taught in this situation to merge at least a mile before the lane actually closes (same situation with leaving a dual carriageway, I was taught to be in the left-hand lane at least a mile before the actual junction). If the traffic is very slow, it's often better to use both lanes as equally as possible right up to the merge point so as to shorten the queue and stop it impacting people who want to leave the road by an exit which is before the constriction. What you should never do is drive through a "lane closed" marking even if it's well before the actual obstruction.
In some countries, it's law to stay in lane once the notification of closure is given, and to merge in turn at the final point.
This is the most logical and efficient method in all scenarios, and merely requires a small modicum of awareness and accommodation from all parties.
Which is of course why it doesn't work at all in the UK or US, both of which I've experienced actively dangerous behaviours within the last couple of months in this exact situation.
Worst example was a lady in a Audi Q5 aggressively, and at the last second, swerve into lane 2 to attempt to block someone on a motorbike who was damned fortunate to be travelling just slowly enough to stop in time. As was I, just behind them.
This is the most logical and efficient method in all scenarios, and merely requires a small modicum of awareness and accommodation from all parties.
Which is of course why it doesn't work at all in the UK or US, both of which I've experienced actively dangerous behaviours within the last couple of months in this exact situation.
Worst example was a lady in a Audi Q5 aggressively, and at the last second, swerve into lane 2 to attempt to block someone on a motorbike who was damned fortunate to be travelling just slowly enough to stop in time. As was I, just behind them.
Terminator X said:
I do same as you, it does spark some road rage though!
TX.
Well said.TX.
If the highways agency wanted the merger 50m, 100m, or 800m earlier, that where they would put it.
In the ideal scenario traffic in both lanes is flowing at the same speed and seamlessly zip.
It would also be half the length - just like the HA intended.
Forums | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff