Lorry drivers who think the are the Police
Discussion
llewop said:
what exasperates things is the range of behaviours inevitably feeds the 'right/wrong'-ness of others actions:
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!
Likewise, and thus I very seldom get any grief. I'm in complete agreement with the rest of your post. 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!
Where one of the lanes ceases the merge has to take place somewhere. All the 'conga' merchants are doing is moving the merge point back and lengthening the queue unncessarily.
None of them (because they will struggle to do so) will provide any evidence or guidance as to where the 'early' merge point should be - i.e.other than where the road design places it.
Using their logic there is no point in having anything other than S2 or continuous D/C everywhere. Non-continuous stretches of the latter should not have been built.
Likewise the alternating 2 and 1 sections of the A303 which should be converted back to S2.
These same people resolutely set their face against education believing 'that's the way many people do it so change is pointless/impossible'.
If you always do things the same way you'll never change the outcome. At one time the consensus was that the earth was flat. Some people still believe it.
Most were gradually converted to a different belief system and it's now generally accepted that we all live on an oblate sphere.
Some on here are also vocal about road planners. I agree they don't always get it right, but I would ask the critics this: if you know so much why are you not in that job?
I'm sure we could benefit from your experience and expertise.
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?
Flow (people, traffic, fluid) is complex and does not lend itself well to 'bloke down t'pub' explanations - a good example being that obstacles at an exit can increase exit flow in pedestrians
Merging in the middle a bad idea because:
All existing markings would need to be obliterated to such an extend it would damage the road, temp markings added, studs etc. This would then need removing and permanent markings reinstated. This would involve closing the road, would be incredibly expensive and extend the works.
A central lane gives insufficient working space either side for trucks putting signs in, cones down etc.
Practise is to merge fast in to slow, so should go from 2 lanes to lane 1, then switch once single lane running is in. The faster traffic has better visibility as they are approaching in the L1 blind spot. To ask L1 to make a manoeuvre at the same time as L2 with the speed differential disadvantage adds another risk. Much safer to just have one manoeuvre and put the onus on one driver, not have a confused split risk situation.
Layouts are pretty much all the same across the industry and works can be easily planned, with safe works accesses etc. Central merging would mean much longer approach lengths, in practice, to be able to then fit in the relevant accesses that can take trucks delivering machines etc.
There are other reasons but the rugby is on - those will have to do for now. I'll update later if I haven't lost the will to live reading this thread.
All existing markings would need to be obliterated to such an extend it would damage the road, temp markings added, studs etc. This would then need removing and permanent markings reinstated. This would involve closing the road, would be incredibly expensive and extend the works.
A central lane gives insufficient working space either side for trucks putting signs in, cones down etc.
Practise is to merge fast in to slow, so should go from 2 lanes to lane 1, then switch once single lane running is in. The faster traffic has better visibility as they are approaching in the L1 blind spot. To ask L1 to make a manoeuvre at the same time as L2 with the speed differential disadvantage adds another risk. Much safer to just have one manoeuvre and put the onus on one driver, not have a confused split risk situation.
Layouts are pretty much all the same across the industry and works can be easily planned, with safe works accesses etc. Central merging would mean much longer approach lengths, in practice, to be able to then fit in the relevant accesses that can take trucks delivering machines etc.
There are other reasons but the rugby is on - those will have to do for now. I'll update later if I haven't lost the will to live reading this thread.
wsurfa said:
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?
Flow (people, traffic, fluid) is complex and does not lend itself well to 'bloke down t'pub' explanations - a good example being that obstacles at an exit can increase exit flow in pedestrians
I drive on the roads too. I don't want to be delayed any more than anyone else. It's in my best interests to make the cones as efficient as possible so I can get home and have an extra hour with the kids.
Such aggressive driving this afternoon from a lone female.
There is merging and bloody mindedly pushing your way in, she was on her horn for a good ten seconds because we were in a bit of road space that she thought she desperately needed to be in, her journey was more important than ours.
I was quite shocked just how worked up she was getting.
There is merging and bloody mindedly pushing your way in, she was on her horn for a good ten seconds because we were in a bit of road space that she thought she desperately needed to be in, her journey was more important than ours.
I was quite shocked just how worked up she was getting.
randomeddy said:
Such aggressive driving this afternoon from a lone female.
There is merging and bloody mindedly pushing your way in, she was on her horn for a good ten seconds because we were in a bit of road space that she thought she desperately needed to be in, her journey was more important than ours.
I was quite shocked just how worked up she was getting.
Entitled female on the blob??There is merging and bloody mindedly pushing your way in, she was on her horn for a good ten seconds because we were in a bit of road space that she thought she desperately needed to be in, her journey was more important than ours.
I was quite shocked just how worked up she was getting.
Not going to end well!!!!
randomeddy said:
Such aggressive driving this afternoon from a lone female.
There is merging and bloody mindedly pushing your way in, she was on her horn for a good ten seconds because we were in a bit of road space that she thought she desperately needed to be in, her journey was more important than ours.
I was quite shocked just how worked up she was getting.
Was her vehicle stationary during those ten seconds?There is merging and bloody mindedly pushing your way in, she was on her horn for a good ten seconds because we were in a bit of road space that she thought she desperately needed to be in, her journey was more important than ours.
I was quite shocked just how worked up she was getting.
If so, another potential customer for Faz50.
Section 99 C&U 1986 offence
randomeddy said:
There is merging and bloody mindedly pushing your way in, she was on her horn for a good ten seconds because we were in a bit of road space that she thought she desperately needed to be in, her journey was more important than ours.
Tootles and Centurian will be on here in a minute to explain to you that merging means you should have adjusted your speed / attitude to anticipate and accommodate her need to merge as dictated by the Highway Code, and that she has every right to be upset with you yada, yada, yada.They are driving gods and must be obeyed....
Oh Blimey. Just thought. Maybe it WAS Tootles. And she's a girl. In which case you'd better get your tin hat on as she'll be along shortly.....
Bright Halo said:
when joining the M5 from the M6 the road works take it from two to one lane with the left lane merging into the right.
I am usually in the right lane anyway as it is less hassle than trying to merge.
Anyway twice last week a lorry has taken it upon themselves to crawl along the left hand land creating hundreds of yards of free lane in front of them and basically forcing other vehicles to merge earlier. Why do they do that, they are not the police or traffic officers? All they do is cause a greater tailback as the traffic cannot fill the available lane. If people want merge later on near where the cones start then that is up to them. I think there is even a sign stating to merge near the end.
This was standard procedure for HGV's,(or lorries as we used to call them), when I started driving in the sixties, through the seventies and eighties, but seemed to drop out of favour in recent years, although it seems, still happening today.I am usually in the right lane anyway as it is less hassle than trying to merge.
Anyway twice last week a lorry has taken it upon themselves to crawl along the left hand land creating hundreds of yards of free lane in front of them and basically forcing other vehicles to merge earlier. Why do they do that, they are not the police or traffic officers? All they do is cause a greater tailback as the traffic cannot fill the available lane. If people want merge later on near where the cones start then that is up to them. I think there is even a sign stating to merge near the end.
It all stems from the British attitude to queuing, that it must be orderly, fair with no 'pushing in, as they see it.
largelunchbox said:
Also to those lorry kin police, what if someone is in desperate need to get along asap, dying relative,need there medicine, whatever.
That has to be irrelevant as if the people that were queuing had followed the advice of merging at the obstruction there would be two lanes of queuing traffic presumably half the length of the one that exists, but taking same time to clear.Chrisgr31 said:
Johnnytheboy said:
. Unlike an earlier poster I believe that on a normal DC the traffic is divided roughly equally,
Ohhh that was me. Interesting that you have a different opinion on traffic volume. Wonder if there are any stats out there on it.I'd say the proportion in L2 gets higher as volume increases until you reach a saturation point, then it starts to even out.
That's a whole different thread!
llewop said:
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.
This is a potentially interesting point. In general lane closures are sign posted well in advance and generally people tend to start merging as soon as the signs appear which results in the whole problem.Perhaps therefore a lane closure shouldn't be signposted in advance and just a warning given of a potential queue? That way people wouldnt start merging until they saw the merge point.
Chrisgr31 said:
This is a potentially interesting point. In general lane closures are sign posted well in advance and generally people tend to start merging as soon as the signs appear which results in the whole problem.
Perhaps therefore a lane closure shouldn't be signposted in advance and just a warning given of a potential queue? That way people wouldnt start merging until they saw the merge point.
Very good point.Perhaps therefore a lane closure shouldn't be signposted in advance and just a warning given of a potential queue? That way people wouldnt start merging until they saw the merge point.
Start the signs at 400 yards, or maybe a sign at 200 yards saying "merge now"?
Johnnytheboy said:
Chrisgr31 said:
This is a potentially interesting point. In general lane closures are sign posted well in advance and generally people tend to start merging as soon as the signs appear which results in the whole problem.
Perhaps therefore a lane closure shouldn't be signposted in advance and just a warning given of a potential queue? That way people wouldnt start merging until they saw the merge point.
Very good point.Perhaps therefore a lane closure shouldn't be signposted in advance and just a warning given of a potential queue? That way people wouldnt start merging until they saw the merge point.
Start the signs at 400 yards, or maybe a sign at 200 yards saying "merge now"?
Chrisgr31 said:
That has to be irrelevant as if the people that were queuing had followed the advice of merging at the obstruction there would be two lanes of queuing traffic presumably half the length of the one that exists, but taking same time to clear.
Only irrelevant if as you say both lanes full and you wait your turn to merge, my point was a lorry deliberately holding back traffic with a long empty road ahead.This Also reminds me of the bus lanes around my way, a lot of them are only in force in the mornings and afternoon and are free to use all other times normally between 10am and 4pm,but you still get twunts queuing leaving the bus lane empty,then when I swan along the empty lane I get dirty looks. Mind you I quite like them queuing as it makes my journey much quicker.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff