Lorry drivers who think the are the Police
Discussion
I always found folks in the USA much less inclined to get irate if you were a 'late merger', although I did start to fear for my life driving along at about 40mph in the left lane, with near-stationary traffic in the right light travelling through Louisinana with "left lane closed ahead" signs. I clocked up 11 miles of this, only to see a crew of blokes driving along the verge pulling down the signs, and carried on my way pissing myself with laughter. It was a good lesson in life.
Just MY opinion, not adding fuel to the fire.
I am a waiter not a merger. My son is a merger not a waiter. We 'discuss' this now and again.
A fun question I ask people sometimes applies I think.
If you were in a race and you pass the person in second place what place are you in then? Some people say first. No, you are now in second, the second place person is in third.
So, by my reasoning if you are in a queue in second place and somebody goes in front of you, they have taken your second place and relegated you to third.
Waiting for '
bloody racing on the public highway, according to the highway code..............'
I am a waiter not a merger. My son is a merger not a waiter. We 'discuss' this now and again.
A fun question I ask people sometimes applies I think.
If you were in a race and you pass the person in second place what place are you in then? Some people say first. No, you are now in second, the second place person is in third.
So, by my reasoning if you are in a queue in second place and somebody goes in front of you, they have taken your second place and relegated you to third.
Waiting for '
bloody racing on the public highway, according to the highway code..............'Meh, people who are unintelligent enough to be acting as road captains are welcome to it to be honest, if that is the one bit of power they have in their lonely little lives before they go home to their microwave meal for one or ginsters pasty eaten in a service station then so be it, life is too short to worry what some minimum IQ dingbat thinks the road network should look like.
For the people who merge in way earlier than needed, cheers, I'm going to the merge in point anyway, you just made it much faster for me to get to it.
For the people who merge in way earlier than needed, cheers, I'm going to the merge in point anyway, you just made it much faster for me to get to it.
Faz50 said:
There does not have to be an act. The sign says merge in turn.
Unfortunately, in comparison with the number of merge points on the UK road network there are pitifully few such signs instructing drivers to do so.Faz50 said:
The Highway Code suggests that’s the way it should be done.
Indeed, but I will wager the vast majority of drivers never look at again after passing their test.If you don't maintain your vehicle the more likely it is to break down.
Leave it sitting unused exposed to the elements the quicker it will rust away.
It's the same with knowledge.
People forget things which they don't keep in mind and/or ignore those they don't attach any importance to.
Faz50 said:
The problem as the thread title suggests is when a hgv or a vehicle blocks the lane that is clearly there to be used and this creates an offence. Careless or inconsiderate driving, 3 bonus points on licence and a fine.
Unless there are cameras leading up to every pinch point to catch them doing it...Where were you when I needed you earlier this year?
Parts of the A303 in Somerset are alternate single and double sections in each direction so there are several pinch points in each direction. It is not a problem when traffic is light but when it is heavy the same problems of merging exist. It could do with some 'use both lanes' and 'merge in turn' signs.
OddCat said:
Maybe there is a difference between:
1. a two into one 50/50 merge
2. a "your lane ends soon so you need to make your way across to the priority (continuing) lane well beforehand otherwise you are screwed" situation
Where the priority lane is backed up to / near stationary well before the pinch point, option number 2 isn't a merge. It like joining the "till closed" queue and then expecting to nip across and 'merge' into the "till open" queue (try doing that).
Unfortunately, for all the "letter of the highway code" warrior types out there (who never, ever, do more than 70 of course......) the general perception of Joe Public is that, having had plenty of warning, folks should get themselves organised and into the lane that is continuing as soon as possible and not at the last minute.....
Cue Highway Code police........
Hand in your licence now. I don't ever want to be on the same stretch of road as an idiot like you.1. a two into one 50/50 merge
2. a "your lane ends soon so you need to make your way across to the priority (continuing) lane well beforehand otherwise you are screwed" situation
Where the priority lane is backed up to / near stationary well before the pinch point, option number 2 isn't a merge. It like joining the "till closed" queue and then expecting to nip across and 'merge' into the "till open" queue (try doing that).
Unfortunately, for all the "letter of the highway code" warrior types out there (who never, ever, do more than 70 of course......) the general perception of Joe Public is that, having had plenty of warning, folks should get themselves organised and into the lane that is continuing as soon as possible and not at the last minute.....
Cue Highway Code police........
OddCat said:
Hell yes. Absolutely.
By moving to the inside lane early, and not merging people, are effectively (accidentally) compensating for their lack of ability / understanding. Because if everyone does that then everyone also gets through:
a) more quickly
b) in roughly the order in which they were already on the road
Unless someone is going to tell me that if you take 200 average Joe drivers and make them go through a merge in a single organised line at 60 they will be slower than they would be if they went through as two rows of 100 cars at 60 doing a zip merge. And that no one will mis-judge and brake. Because if one person does.......
.
What are you trying to say in point b)? That no-one should ever be allowed to overtake anyone? That's the inference of your comment. By moving to the inside lane early, and not merging people, are effectively (accidentally) compensating for their lack of ability / understanding. Because if everyone does that then everyone also gets through:
a) more quickly
b) in roughly the order in which they were already on the road
Unless someone is going to tell me that if you take 200 average Joe drivers and make them go through a merge in a single organised line at 60 they will be slower than they would be if they went through as two rows of 100 cars at 60 doing a zip merge. And that no one will mis-judge and brake. Because if one person does.......
.
I don't think you really understand what a road is. It's a piece of tarmac over which drivers are allowed to travel at a safe speed, within the applicable limits and according to the conditions. Just because you decide to bimble along at 15mph below the speed limit or below the safe speed for that stretch of road it doesn't mean that I have to pull in behind you because "you're first in the queue".
You're only first in the queue because you're the one causing it.
Centurion07 said:
Okay, if you're right and EVERYONE else is wrong, give me one piece of evidence, actual evidence, of any motoring organisation, any government department or individual, or anyone else even vaguely connected with roads/traffic management, that say you should merge well in advance of the physical merge point.
Just one.
Yet more bullsJust one.
t statistics, who exactly is everyone? because wherever I have been in the country and there is a merge point, 80% or of people seem to get into the left lane as early as they can and the other 20% drive right to the front. Now do you think those 80% of drivers think "merge in turn is a wonderful idea and works perfectly so I think I'll join the back of the left lane"?I do also think though that drivers should be able to do what they want and drive to the front of the closing lane and merge in if they can, they pay road tax and can use all of the road if they want to, there are no laws against it. I also think people that block the outside lane are wrong and idiots, its not their place to do so.
However what I cant understand is the drivers that (quite rightly) say I can do what and drive to the front then are saying to the car in the left lane you must do as I say and let me in and if you don't you are a
. How can you possibly say "I can do what I want but you must do as I say".Personally I don't think merge in turn works so when I'm at the front I don't let anyone else in front of me, I don't get angry and upset I just drive forward like I would in any other queue of traffic. If someone then tries aggressively to push in it would be them who are acting dangerously, like that woman in the Audi who started driving over the cones to get in.
You simply don't get it, do you?
It's only because so many people merge too early that there is any advantage to driving to the end of lane 2 for the few of us that do. Unlike an earlier poster I believe that on a normal DC the traffic is divided roughly equally, so if people just stayed in their lane and started thinking about merging at about the 200 yard mark, it would work fine.
I can sort of understand the annoyance of people that were in L1 all along. Because people in L2 start merging too early, they will have had to let multiple people in.
It's only because so many people merge too early that there is any advantage to driving to the end of lane 2 for the few of us that do. Unlike an earlier poster I believe that on a normal DC the traffic is divided roughly equally, so if people just stayed in their lane and started thinking about merging at about the 200 yard mark, it would work fine.
I can sort of understand the annoyance of people that were in L1 all along. Because people in L2 start merging too early, they will have had to let multiple people in.
Johnnytheboy said:
You simply don't get it, do you?
It's only because so many people merge too early that there is any advantage to driving to the end of lane 2 for the few of us that do. Unlike an earlier poster I believe that on a normal DC the traffic is divided roughly equally, so if people just stayed in their lane and started thinking about merging at about the 200 yard mark, it would work fine.
I can sort of understand the annoyance of people that were in L1 all along. Because people in L2 start merging too early, they will have had to let multiple people in.
I don't need to get it, I don't believe merge in turn has any benefits and neither do most of the driving population so it would seem,that will never change, how about commenting on my other points.It's only because so many people merge too early that there is any advantage to driving to the end of lane 2 for the few of us that do. Unlike an earlier poster I believe that on a normal DC the traffic is divided roughly equally, so if people just stayed in their lane and started thinking about merging at about the 200 yard mark, it would work fine.
I can sort of understand the annoyance of people that were in L1 all along. Because people in L2 start merging too early, they will have had to let multiple people in.
Red Devil said:
None of the 'form a conga line' adherents on this thread have been able to say where the merge should begin.
All they can offer is that an open lane which is there to be used shouldn't be.
The fixation most of them seem to have with 'people racing up the outside' and 'cutting in' misses the point.
If both open lanes are utilised properly there would be no opportunity for those people they perceive as 'queue jumpers' to do so.
The issue simply wouldn't arise.
what exasperates things is the range of behaviours inevitably feeds the 'right/wrong'-ness of others actions:All they can offer is that an open lane which is there to be used shouldn't be.
The fixation most of them seem to have with 'people racing up the outside' and 'cutting in' misses the point.
If both open lanes are utilised properly there would be no opportunity for those people they perceive as 'queue jumpers' to do so.
The issue simply wouldn't arise.
the early mergers think they are being 'good' by getting into line before it becomes a wrestling match in the last few yards or metres, but that effectively creates multiple merge points into lane 1 (assuming it is a right to left merge) so slows lane 1 even more; so someone going down other lanes at higher (and perceived as very much higher) speeds are seen as 'queue jumping', when they are actually using the road as intended. The ire this causes could be reduced if the progress was more moderate, but I suspect there would still be some resentment from some!
The designated merge point is marked by the signs, cones etc, merging earlier if it is easy to do in free flowing traffic - fantastic, we all move more smoothly, but if the flow exceeds what can comfortably do this there will be inevitable adjustments and braking to give each driver their own space including whatever comfort zone they want between them and the next vehicle in front and behind.
If you merge early and think that is right - how early is optimum? 100m, 1/2 a mile, a couple of miles... which leads to an empty lane for a couple of miles and the back of lane 1 queue 2 miles further down the road than it could be..... better be safe than sorry and stay in lane 1 regardless of whether there is multiple lanes.... just in case there is a merge a hundred miles up the road!
Personally I generally merge fairly late, but also don't 'zoom' down the outside as I'm wary of someone in the other lane deciding they want some of the clear lane darting out in front of me and/or someone deciding to 'police' the lane swerving in front!
mickmcpaddy said:
Johnnytheboy said:
You simply don't get it, do you?
It's only because so many people merge too early that there is any advantage to driving to the end of lane 2 for the few of us that do. Unlike an earlier poster I believe that on a normal DC the traffic is divided roughly equally, so if people just stayed in their lane and started thinking about merging at about the 200 yard mark, it would work fine.
I can sort of understand the annoyance of people that were in L1 all along. Because people in L2 start merging too early, they will have had to let multiple people in.
I don't need to get it, I don't believe merge in turn has any benefits and neither do most of the driving population so it would seem,that will never change, how about commenting on my other points.It's only because so many people merge too early that there is any advantage to driving to the end of lane 2 for the few of us that do. Unlike an earlier poster I believe that on a normal DC the traffic is divided roughly equally, so if people just stayed in their lane and started thinking about merging at about the 200 yard mark, it would work fine.
I can sort of understand the annoyance of people that were in L1 all along. Because people in L2 start merging too early, they will have had to let multiple people in.
If someone writes the above, with all the available evidence to the contrary, what would you think of them?
You don't know anything about traffic modelling, you won't read the evidence and I would guess the maths would elude you if you looked at the methods, yet you reject all of this, because you know best.
It is strikingly similar to the anti-vaxxer behaviour
wsurfa said:
I don't need to understand how vaccines are supposed to work, I don't believe vaccines have any benefit and neither do most of the lentil knitting community I know. We also know vaccines cause all autism and these beliefs will never change.
If someone writes the above, with all the available evidence to the contrary, what would you think of them?
You don't know anything about traffic modelling, you won't read the evidence and I would guess the maths would elude you if you looked at the methods, yet you reject all of this, because you know best.
It is strikingly similar to the anti-vaxxer behaviour
If people believe all that about vaccines then they are hardly likely to get in line when they are being dished out are they.If someone writes the above, with all the available evidence to the contrary, what would you think of them?
You don't know anything about traffic modelling, you won't read the evidence and I would guess the maths would elude you if you looked at the methods, yet you reject all of this, because you know best.
It is strikingly similar to the anti-vaxxer behaviour
The problem is you are asking me to believe evidence presented by road planners, the same ones that decide to install bus lanes and out of phase traffic lights, generally the type of people that run communist car hating councils, its hardly unbiased thinking is it?
mickmcpaddy said:
wsurfa said:
I don't need to understand how vaccines are supposed to work, I don't believe vaccines have any benefit and neither do most of the lentil knitting community I know. We also know vaccines cause all autism and these beliefs will never change.
If someone writes the above, with all the available evidence to the contrary, what would you think of them?
You don't know anything about traffic modelling, you won't read the evidence and I would guess the maths would elude you if you looked at the methods, yet you reject all of this, because you know best.
It is strikingly similar to the anti-vaxxer behaviour
If people believe all that about vaccines then they are hardly likely to get in line when they are being dished out are they.If someone writes the above, with all the available evidence to the contrary, what would you think of them?
You don't know anything about traffic modelling, you won't read the evidence and I would guess the maths would elude you if you looked at the methods, yet you reject all of this, because you know best.
It is strikingly similar to the anti-vaxxer behaviour
The problem is you are asking me to believe evidence presented by road planners, the same ones that decide to install bus lanes and out of phase traffic lights, generally the type of people that run communist car hating councils, its hardly unbiased thinking is it?
They are not the same.
Unfortunately political idiots often instruct traffic planners.
In one thing I do agree though. After a junction has been implemented a lot more work should be done to fine tune it. Eg with merge, its works better if you merge both lanes into one middle one as no one feels they have right of way.
Has no-one ever tried to get out of a car park after a big sporting event or concert, you have multiple lines of cars all trying to get out of a single exit, its chaos, you can be stuck in there for hours. If they released one row of cars at a time the car park would empty much quicker.
Also when trying to get into such places you are told to form an orderly queue and no pushing etc. This tends to work out quite well instead of having a free for all. With the risk of getting called sick, wker, disgusting, shameful, I'm going to get you etc. etc. can I just say - Hillsborough.
Also when trying to get into such places you are told to form an orderly queue and no pushing etc. This tends to work out quite well instead of having a free for all. With the risk of getting called sick, w
ker, disgusting, shameful, I'm going to get you etc. etc. can I just say - Hillsborough.mickmcpaddy said:
Has no-one ever tried to get out of a car park after a big sporting event or concert, you have multiple lines of cars all trying to get out of a single exit, its chaos, you can be stuck in there for hours. If they released one row of cars at a time the car park would empty much quicker.
.
That's flawed logic. If there is one exit and it can let one car through every 30 seconds, it can still only let 120 cars an hour through. regardless of how they join the central route through the carpark.
blueg33 said:
mickmcpaddy said:
Has no-one ever tried to get out of a car park after a big sporting event or concert, you have multiple lines of cars all trying to get out of a single exit, its chaos, you can be stuck in there for hours. If they released one row of cars at a time the car park would empty much quicker.
.
That's flawed logic. If there is one exit and it can let one car through every 30 seconds, it can still only let 120 cars an hour through. regardless of how they join the central route through the carpark.
mickmcpaddy said:
blueg33 said:
mickmcpaddy said:
Has no-one ever tried to get out of a car park after a big sporting event or concert, you have multiple lines of cars all trying to get out of a single exit, its chaos, you can be stuck in there for hours. If they released one row of cars at a time the car park would empty much quicker.
.
That's flawed logic. If there is one exit and it can let one car through every 30 seconds, it can still only let 120 cars an hour through. regardless of how they join the central route through the carpark.
k up a merge on a DC.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff