Lorry drivers who think the are the Police

[Durzel]

People on a slip road joining a queue pretty much don't have a choice about where they join so people already in the queue are tolerant of them, whereas people on a lane that is closing further up the road do.

The further down the road you choose to merge, the more egregious you are seen to be, because you had a choice about where to merge and decided to be selfish (again I'm talking about perceptions of the general public).

[Chrisgr31]

Lopey said:

What car in front?

The car in front in my original example! After all the reality is this whole issue of queuing only becomes a problem when there is heavy traffic. If the traffic is light then there is no queue.

[Lopey]

Chrisgr31 said:

The car in front in my original example! After all the reality is this whole issue of queuing only becomes a problem when there is heavy traffic. If the traffic is light then there is no queue.

Your example didn't have a car in front of the car in lane 1, though you added extra traffic to the back to justify your long winded theory.

[danspec]

7 pages and still trying to explain the obvious to ‘driving enthusiasts’

It’s not hard - use the road up to the cones and merge in turn, it works if you do it properly.

The reason why it doesn’t work is because of all the over thinking the subject -

Do the obvious, drive to the front and expect to merge in turn. Other drivers should be expecting you to do it and should allow you to because it’s single file onwards.

If everyone did this you would have the same person next to you until you had to let him in at the merge point.

Anyway, I lost the will to endure bks like this and after 23 years of driving I’ve gone to motorbikes, and just use the car for family stuff.

[Chrisgr31]

As I see it there are a number of potential advantages of these people moving out to stop people passing queuing traffic and driving right down to the merge point: -

- They actually move the merge point back to pinchpoint because of course they will be moving forward at the same speed as the traffic going through the merge point

- They will be preventing a potential accident when someone in the slow moving lane, moves out in to the empty lane and doesnt see the vehicle tanking down the clear lane to the pinchpoint.

- They will be reducing the stress to those in the slow moving lane caused by the "queue jumpers" passing them.

- For foreign trucks in particular I guess it avoids a potential problem of them being unable to see someone merging in at a pinchpoint from their right hand side.

The disadvantages are of course: -

- that whilst they are in the process of moving the pinchpoint forward the distance of road used by the slow moving traffic is longer

- It increases the stress of those that want to get to the pinchpoint as fast as possible.

Incidentally all of this can of course be avoided by alternate drivers in the slow moving lane moving out in to the clear one and therefore filling both lanes. So if you have an adjacent empty lane to you just move in to it!

[xjay1337]

Chrisgr31 said:

As I see it there are a number of potential advantages of these people moving out to stop people passing queuing traffic and driving right down to the merge point: -

- They actually move the merge point back to pinchpoint because of course they will be moving forward at the same speed as the traffic going through the merge point

- They will be preventing a potential accident when someone in the slow moving lane, moves out in to the empty lane and doesnt see the vehicle tanking down the clear lane to the pinchpoint.

- They will be reducing the stress to those in the slow moving lane caused by the "queue jumpers" passing them.

- For foreign trucks in particular I guess it avoids a potential problem of them being unable to see someone merging in at a pinchpoint from their right hand side.

The disadvantages are of course: -

- that whilst they are in the process of moving the pinchpoint forward the distance of road used by the slow moving traffic is longer

- It increases the stress of those that want to get to the pinchpoint as fast as possible.

Incidentally all of this can of course be avoided by alternate drivers in the slow moving lane moving out in to the clear one and therefore filling both lanes. So if you have an adjacent empty lane to you just move in to it!

Reducing stress of other drivers?
You mean glossing over the fact the other drivers don't know how to queue?

It's totally knobbish in every way.

[OddCat]

Chrisgr31 said:

As I see it there are a number of potential advantages of these people moving out to stop people passing queuing traffic and driving right down to the merge point: -

- They actually move the merge point back to pinchpoint because of course they will be moving forward at the same speed as the traffic going through the merge point

- They will be preventing a potential accident when someone in the slow moving lane, moves out in to the empty lane and doesnt see the vehicle tanking down the clear lane to the pinchpoint.

- They will be reducing the stress to those in the slow moving lane caused by the "queue jumpers" passing them.

- For foreign trucks in particular I guess it avoids a potential problem of them being unable to see someone merging in at a pinchpoint from their right hand side.

^^^^^ .......and the nail gets hit directly on the head........

All bets are off once the static queue has backed up past the official pinch point. That normally happens when there is a further issue, island, junction, malarkey, a bit further on (after the official merge) that stops cars going through the merge, getting their foot down and getting moving (the "I can't get through the merge quickly because of the car in front of me" thing that Lopey seems to be struggling with).

Once things are static you affectively need the permission / compliance of the driver(s) in the main lane to let you in. You can't happily and seemlessly merge into a bumper to bumper queue.

Once this happens it is not merging any more, it is queue jumping. It simply is. No point being all 'Highway Code police' about it. Or even trying to apply logic about queue length etc.

[Centurion07]

Chrisgr31 said:

Incidentally all of this can of course be avoided by alternate drivers in the slow moving lane moving out in to the clear one and therefore filling both lanes. So if you have an adjacent empty lane to you just move in to it!

Or, you know, maybe not leave the lane that's closing until necessary, say for example, where the cones have created a merge point...? Just a thought.

You have literally just presented a solution to the solution. Good job.

[Centurion07]

OddCat said:

^^^^^ .......and the nail gets hit directly on the head........

All bets are off once the static queue has backed up past the official pinch point. That normally happens when there is a further issue, island, junction, malarkey, a bit further on (after the official merge) that stops cars going through the merge, getting their foot down and getting moving (the "I can't get through the merge quickly because of the car in front of me" thing that Lopey seems to be struggling with).

Once things are static you affectively need the permission / compliance of the driver(s) in the main lane to let you in. You can't happily and seemlessly merge into a bumper to bumper queue.

Once this happens it is not merging any more, it is queue jumping. It simply is. No point being all 'Highway Code police' about it. Or even trying to apply logic about queue length etc.

You really are hard of understanding, aren't you?

When traffic is at a standstill that's when merging in turn is at it's easiest.

[anonymous-user]

OddCat said:

Chrisgr31 said:

As I see it there are a number of potential advantages of these people moving out to stop people passing queuing traffic and driving right down to the merge point: -

- They actually move the merge point back to pinchpoint because of course they will be moving forward at the same speed as the traffic going through the merge point

- They will be preventing a potential accident when someone in the slow moving lane, moves out in to the empty lane and doesnt see the vehicle tanking down the clear lane to the pinchpoint.

- They will be reducing the stress to those in the slow moving lane caused by the "queue jumpers" passing them.

- For foreign trucks in particular I guess it avoids a potential problem of them being unable to see someone merging in at a pinchpoint from their right hand side.

^^^^^ .......and the nail gets hit directly on the head........

All bets are off once the static queue has backed up past the official pinch point. That normally happens when there is a further issue, island, junction, malarkey, a bit further on (after the official merge) that stops cars going through the merge, getting their foot down and getting moving (the "I can't get through the merge quickly because of the car in front of me" thing that Lopey seems to be struggling with).

Once things are static you affectively need the permission / compliance of the driver(s) in the main lane to let you in. You can't happily and seemlessly merge into a bumper to bumper queue.

Once this happens it is not merging any more, it is queue jumping. It simply is. No point being all 'Highway Code police' about it. Or even trying to apply logic about queue length etc.

It simply isn't queue jumping. You are both wrong. Queue in one lane if you want, but that doesn't mean the person that has just overtaken you in the closing lane is pushing in. They are using the road/traffic system as designed. The lane 1 queuing sheep are the idiots.

[Antony Moxey]

Chrisgr31 said:

As I see it there are a number of potential advantages of these people moving out to stop people passing queuing traffic and driving right down to the merge point: -

- They actually move the merge point back to pinchpoint because of course they will be moving forward at the same speed as the traffic going through the merge point

No, they ARE the pinchpoint because they're blocking two lanes from moving freely. I genuinely can't believe people are having such difficulty with this - if you were meant to merge 800yds back from where the cones are then the cones would be 800yds back.

[Red Devil]

Durzel said:

Like I said - how it should work and how it does work are often, and especially in this case, completely different things.

You're preaching to the choir in terms of convincing me of the correct thing to do, but nothing will change the animosity held towards people who do the correct thing.

Either you make peace with that and accept everyone in the queue will hate you, will probably obstruct you or make it hard for you to merge, or you follow the crowd for an easy life. It's a self-reinforcing system really - people don't want to be isolated, don't want to be public enemy number 1, so they do the socially conscious thing - the incorrect thing.

I find it thoroughly ironic that some posters talk about people 'zipping past' the queue. If people were educated in the art of zip merging there wouldn't be any empty lane for them to 'zip down'!
I always merge as near the pinch point as practicable. I seldom get any grief because I don't drive along the unoccupied lane as if my pants are on fire. It's all about observation/anticipation.
Do it right and there is no need to 'barge in'. It is very seldom that I encounter a who deliberately closes the gap in order to prevent the merge. I can only recall one in the last 12 months.
If it happens I just shrug it off and slot in behind them. Conversely if someone is determined to force their way in instead of zip merging I let them. In both cases he/she is the one with raised blood pressure, not me. I decline to let it spoil my day.

I'm not a psychologist but it baffles me why some people seem to undergo a personality change when they get behind the wheel of a vehicle.
I know a guy who, if you were to meet him, would seem to be nothing out of the ordinary but get him behind the wheel and he gives every indication of being a sociopath.
It only took a couple of journeys for me to decide I would rather catch a bus or get a taxi than be his passenger.

As for following the crowd that's a pathetic cop out. If everyone adopted that approach we would never have any progress.
Slavery in the UK would still be legal. We would have capital punishment and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

OddCat said:

Interesting that, at airport check in, it is now more common to make everyone queue in a single snaking line. Splitting between check in desks at the end. presumably more efficient. That way there is none if the "oh bugger we chose the wrong queue" malarkey. And check in desk usage is optimised.

Hardly a revolutionary idea: we've been doing that in Post Offices and banks for decades.

OddCat said:

Perhaps it's more efficient for everyone to form a single queue as quickly (early) as possible, and then move smoothly through the slow moving pinch point as one line, rather than a log jam at the pinch point with people jamming on brakes to let others merge. When I say "perhaps" I mean "obviously"....

It's not a good analogy though. It's what happens before the pinch point (your check-in queue above) that matters. I very much doubt that people form a conga to enter the airport building.

OddCat said:

If you got 100 drivers of mixed ability on a long dual carriageway that goes into one lane I bet everyone would get through more quickly if they organized themselves into a singe line way before the pinch point. They could go through at 70 no probs. Try getting people of varying skill to merge at that speed.

On that basis there is no point in having any dual (or more) lane roads unless they are so constructed for their entire length. You might as well keep everything as S2.

A considerable number of pinch points are a result of road works. If the coning off is done properly (see the post by Opulent Bob) there shoudn't be an issue.
Unfortunately the contractors don't always get it right: the lower the class of road the worse it seems to be.

[Chrisgr31]

Centurion07 said:

Or, you know, maybe not leave the lane that's closing until necessary, say for example, where the cones have created a merge point...? Just a thought.

You have literally just presented a solution to the solution. Good job.

But the reality is that there will almost always be more vehicles on the inside lane than the outer one(s), therefore merge in turn will never effectively work because the traffic on the inner lane will move slower and slower. For merge in turn to work exactly as some seem to think it should you need equal traffic volumes in each lane. As one approaches the merge point both lanes adjust speed until they are at the same speed and everything slots together as it is meant to.

In the real world the process does generally work as long as the the traffic once past the merge point is driving at the same average speed as the traffic speed as the traffic approaching the merge point and there is capacity for the same amount of vehicles in the one lane as the number of vehicles that were in the two lanes.

In reality where the queues form that are subject to this thread there is either a problem somewhere forward of the merge point which means traffic is travelling slower beyond the merge point, or the traffic volume is too high to allow the same average traffic speed. this is when the queue forms.

I am fairly certain that if you were to watch these queues form what happens is that the merge point usually forms at the physical merge point. Traffic approaching adjusts its speed and goes through with no difficulty. Something then happens which means the traffic is no longer flowing as fast beyond the merge point. Traffic therefore starts moving slower at the merge point, and as it does so the merge point moves back. Generally speaking everyone is merging in turn but are just merging at a point that is moving back, because they are joining at a speed faster than the traffic is clearing at the front.

You now have a point where traffic has merged in turn but there is a clear lane on the outside.

You can't blame the drivers involved for what has happened, they have merged in turn etc, the issue is caused by something out of their control further ahead and in these circumstances the merge point will move back very quickly.

If I was a mathematician I could do some maths to demonstrate why it all occurs but I am not!

I do agree that once the merge point has moved back then a greater length of the road is used up than strictly necessary, but dont believe that the solution is as easy as you suggest as some people will have to move from lane 1 to lane 2 in order to equal out traffic volumes.

[OddCat]

Centurion07 said:

OddCat said:

^^^^^ .......and the nail gets hit directly on the head........

All bets are off once the static queue has backed up past the official pinch point. That normally happens when there is a further issue, island, junction, malarkey, a bit further on (after the official merge) that stops cars going through the merge, getting their foot down and getting moving (the "I can't get through the merge quickly because of the car in front of me" thing that Lopey seems to be struggling with).

Once things are static you affectively need the permission / compliance of the driver(s) in the main lane to let you in. You can't happily and seemlessly merge into a bumper to bumper queue.

Once this happens it is not merging any more, it is queue jumping. It simply is. No point being all 'Highway Code police' about it. Or even trying to apply logic about queue length etc.

You really are hard of understanding, aren't you?

When traffic is at a standstill that's when merging in turn is at it's easiest.

You're funny

Trying to join traffic at a standstill is not 'merging'. To most ordinary folk, who positioned themselves in the correct lane in a timely manner, it's cutting in.

Once the traffic isn't all going through the merge point smoothly (no longer nicely alternating, zip, whatever), and the primary lane is backed up, it is a different ball game. It's then about getting into the primary lane as soon as possible so the cars at the head of the queue at the merge point can move smoothly without having to slow for cars cutting in from the other lane. Merging only works properly where the cars in the lane into which you are merging can allow you to do so without them having to brake, slow, wave you in etc.

One tooth of the zip being pulled up smoothly doesn't need to do anything to avoid hitting the next tooth. But if your zip gets stuck (I know, that's bad, but I couldn't resist!)

[anonymous-user]

OddCat said:

Once the traffic isn't all going through the merge point smoothly (no longer nicely alternating, zip, whatever), and the primary lane is backed up, it is a different ball game. It's then about getting into the primary lane as soon as possible so the cars at the head of the queue at the merge point can move smoothly without having to slow for cars cutting in from the other lane.

No, it's not. When the traffic queues (during planned works, not an emergency such as a truck going through the central barrier), it's all about keeping the tail of the queue in a reasonably safe location, well sighted, and not creating problems of it's own, and above all keeping the stationary length as short as possible.

That is the view of the Police, the HA/HE, the people who are putting the cones out, the highways authorities etc etc. I know having a driving licence automatically makes people think they intimately know the workins of traffic, but it doesn't. They WILL have more knowledge about traffic management than you...

You can write "cutting in" as often as you like, but it doesn't make it so. The lane-2 drivers are merging in to lane 1. Merge where the merge point is. It has been put there for reasons you don't know - that is not the same as not having a reason for being there.

What do you do for a living? Let me second-guess how you should work for a while, while telling you that you are wrong...

[anonymous-user]

Chrisgr31 said:

If I was a mathematician I could do some maths to demonstrate why it all occurs but I am not!

There are some very clever mathematicians who provide the simulations and logarithms for working out queue behaviour. They would prove your theory wrong quite quickly.

Do you not think this is something that gets brought up a dozen times a day at any substantial length of road works, by car dwellers who think they know it all? What you are saying is nothing new, it is an argument as old as the hills and oft refuted.

The advice remains, "merge at the merge point". How dare you decide that the merge point should be changed when you are not aware of the reasons, or indeed the consequences of moving it? Moving "your" merge point to the 800yd board, for example, could quite easily push the queue half a mile back, across a junction - gridlocking it unneccessarily. It's a bit Mrs Lovejoy, but what if there are ambulances that need to get through the junction? Or maybe someone needs to get somewhere for a job interview, or some other important reason? And all because you feel that people pushing in are somehow questioning your manhood, or something equally "me me me".

Merge at the merge point. You may not understand why, but it is the best option for all involved, not just the one person in your car. Stop being so incredibly selfish.

[OddCat]

OpulentBob said:

What do you do for a living? Let me second-guess how you should work for a while, while telling you that you are wrong...

I'm guessing that you run a brewery. And everyone in there is strangely sober.....

[anonymous-user]

OddCat said:

OpulentBob said:

What do you do for a living? Let me second-guess how you should work for a while, while telling you that you are wrong...

I'm guessing that you run a brewery. And everyone in there is strangely sober.....

I've told you what I do. And why you're wrong, with valid real-world examples. If you can't accept that, then it says a lot more about you than it does me.

Now, what do you do for a living? IT "professional"?

[Chrisgr31]

OpulentBob said:

There are some very clever mathematicians who provide the simulations and logarithms for working out queue behaviour. They would prove your theory wrong quite quickly.

Do you not think this is something that gets brought up a dozen times a day at any substantial length of road works, by car dwellers who think they know it all? What you are saying is nothing new, it is an argument as old as the hills and oft refuted.

The advice remains, "merge at the merge point". How dare you decide that the merge point should be changed when you are not aware of the reasons, or indeed the consequences of moving it? Moving "your" merge point to the 800yd board, for example, could quite easily push the queue half a mile back, across a junction - gridlocking it unneccessarily. It's a bit Mrs Lovejoy, but what if there are ambulances that need to get through the junction? Or maybe someone needs to get somewhere for a job interview, or some other important reason? And all because you feel that people pushing in are somehow questioning your manhood, or something equally "me me me".

Merge at the merge point. You may not understand why, but it is the best option for all involved, not just the one person in your car. Stop being so incredibly selfish.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I have not accused anyone of jumping the queue, and not said what action I take when approaching a merge point so therefore you cannot accuse me of being incredible selfish or believing anyone is questioning my manhood or indeed anything equally me, me me.

I have also not suggested moving the merge point, I have merely commented why it happens, and if lorry drivers or whatever block the lane that is closed by definition as they move forwards then the merge point will move back to where you want it.

You may not like what people actually do in real world situations but plainly you have not educated people properly as they continue to do it. But I guess if your education involves insulting them that is not a great surprise.

[Johnnytheboy]

Chrisgr31 said:

and if lorry drivers or whatever block the lane that is closed by definition as they move forwards then the merge point will move back to where you want it.

Surely where the person setting the cones up wants the merge point to be is, erm, the merge point?