Lorry drivers who think the are the Police

[Centurion07]

4rephill said:

By straddling the lanes earlier than the coned off section, the truck drivers make it far easier for themselves to get into the remaining open lane, they prevent car/van drivers from taking stupid chances trying to drive down the outside of them, and they reduce the risks of accidents being caused.

If that were the reason then why don't they just get in the open lane instead of blocking both? I'll give you a clue; it's not because they're trying to make their own merge safer.

[Chrisgr31]

robinessex said:

I never see any traffic travelling 2 seconds apart. You try it, and you'll continuously get people jumping in front of you.

It doesn’t matter what the gap is, the principle remains the same

[catso]

4rephill said:

It would be interesting to hear from some actual HGV drivers as to why they do this, rather than just all the irate car/van drivers whose lives have been completely devastated by not being able to get past a truck prior to a lane restriction.

My suspicion is, the truck drivers start to straddle the white line early to block the outer lane off because, if they remain in the left hand lane until they reach the coned off section, as some on here are suggesting they should, they know that there will be a queue of cars/vans in the right hand lane, all driving nose to tail, refusing to let the truck in, because none of them want to be stuck behind it, resulting in the truck having to sit and wait in the left hand lane, causing a tailback in that lane.

A couple of years back I was on a 2-lane DC that had a section of roadworks going to one lane with the usual warning signs for the distance to the narrowing.

To my surprise a Police minivan (large transit type thing with seats in it) was doing the 2-lane straddle to prevent people passing, long in advance of the narrowing. Van had just the driver in it and was not showing any lights etc. - just being a dick...

[mickmcpaddy]

Jbeale96 said:

mickmcpaddy said:

Was the queue served quicker than if there was only one queue? Or was it a bit slower because people were saying after you sir.

As has been said, the queue moved at the same pace but didn’t spill out of the door getting in other people’s way.

Surely the left queue moved half as quickly if it was going in turn with the right queue, unless the cashier suddenly started serving twice as quick, granted it would be half as long but if there was an infinite number of people joining the back of it, it would soon grow to the original size again, then you would have 2 queues out the door.

[Centurion07]

mickmcpaddy said:

Surely the left queue moved half as quickly if it was going in turn with the right queue, unless the cashier suddenly started serving twice as quick, granted it would be half as long but if there was an infinite number of people joining the back of it, it would soon grow to the original size again, then you would have 2 queues out the door.

It doesn't matter. The overall length of the queue would still be shorter which is THE ENTIRE POINT of merging at the designated merge point.

Secondly, two lanes of traffic are not two seperate queues for two seperate pinch points; they are ONE queue, albeit occupying two lanes, to get through ONE pinch point.

These issues are created by some fkwit deciding THEY should be the arbiter of where the merge point should be, when the simplest, fairest, most obvious way to decide that is TO USE THE ACTUAL MERGE POINT AS DESIGNATED BY THE CONES!!!! That way everyone knows exactly where they should merge.

Lane-straddling road captains need a fking good kick in the balls. Prefereably one for every metre of empty lane they block.

[mickmcpaddy]

I just don't see it, A queue moving half as fast with half the number of people joining it will still be the same length as a queue moving twice the speed with twice as many people joining it. You don't get anything for nothing.

I'm not advocating blocking lanes that's a dick move, just pointing out the physics of it.

[Centurion07]

Anyone thinking you should merge earlier than than the physical merge point, feel free to educate yourself:

maybe I'M the idiot?

[Centurion07]

mickmcpaddy said:

I just don't see it, A queue moving half as fast with half the number of people joining it will still be the same length as a queue moving twice the speed with twice as many people joining it. You don't get anything for nothing.

I'm not advocating blocking lanes that's a dick move, just pointing out the physics of it.

How long will a lane of 50 cars be versus two lanes of 25 cars each?

As has been mentioned, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SPEED OF THE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE PINCH POINT.

[R0G]

SARP = Self Appointed Road Police = totally illegal to deliberately block the flow of traffic

Drivers. especially lorry drivers, have been prosecuted for doing this

If the road space was not to be used then it would have been coned off earlier

What really annoys me is those who fly down a clear bit then force their way in instead of gently cruising past and asking by way of an indicator to be let in

[mickmcpaddy]

Centurion07 said:

mickmcpaddy said:

I just don't see it, A queue moving half as fast with half the number of people joining it will still be the same length as a queue moving twice the speed with twice as many people joining it. You don't get anything for nothing.

I'm not advocating blocking lanes that's a dick move, just pointing out the physics of it.

How long will a lane of 50 cars be versus two lanes of 25 cars each?

As has been mentioned, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SPEED OF THE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE PINCH POINT.

Its not 50 cars though is it, if it was I would agree. Its an infinite number joining the back of each queue until the traffic has subsided.

[mickmcpaddy]

Also if the left lane leaves a gap big enough for the right hand cars to merge into then the left lane will be twice as long anyway.

I was thinking of it with a water analogy, if you have two tanks emptying with a separate outlet pipe each and these tanks are being filled with a pipe above them to keep them topped up then everything is fine and the two tanks will remain full.

If you then join the two outlet pipes together like a letter Y and reduce the flow to the two fill pipes by half the two tanks will still remain full, they wont be half empty, gain is zero.

[Mandat]

Centurion07 said:

Secondly, two lanes of traffic are not two seperate queues for two seperate pinch points; they are ONE queue, albeit occupying two lanes, to get through ONE pinch point.

I explain it by saying that there are two separate queues leading to the merge point, as this negates the erronous supermarket queue jumping analogy that is always quoted.

With there being two separate queues, people are free to join whichever queue they want, with some chossing to join the longer queue, and others choosing to join the shorter queue.

Obviously, if drivers joined both queues equally then we could eradicate the phenomenon of one long queue next to a largely clear lane of road. It's the early mergers that are causing the problems and they need to be educated about the error of their ways.

[Red Devil]

mickmcpaddy said:

Centurion07 said:

mickmcpaddy said:

I just don't see it, A queue moving half as fast with half the number of people joining it will still be the same length as a queue moving twice the speed with twice as many people joining it. You don't get anything for nothing.

I'm not advocating blocking lanes that's a dick move, just pointing out the physics of it.

How long will a lane of 50 cars be versus two lanes of 25 cars each?

As has been mentioned, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SPEED OF THE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE PINCH POINT.

Its not 50 cars though is it, if it was I would agree. Its an infinite number joining the back of each queue until the traffic has subsided.

It doesn't make the slightest difference what the actual number is.

If there are two lanes and both are fully utilised, then with any given number of vehicles the extent of the queue will always be shorter than if only one lane is used.
The fact that you even thought about using the word infinite in your post shows how divorced from reality your thinking processes are.
It's about minimising the length of the tailback and thereby blocking junctions/roundabouts/etc,

The perception of 'cutting in' / 'queue jumping' is due to people simply not using the available road space properly.
If both lanes are used up to the pinch point there will be no empty tarmac, no major speed differential, and the zip can function effectively.
People who deliberately try to stop the latter from happening are the real ds.

As my college tutor told me more than 50 years ago in respect of my course: "if you fail to plan, you're planning to fail".
It is no different for any activity which requires a high degree of concentration and application. Including driving.

[Boosted LS1]

carlove said:

I don't get how this is so controversial.
The road was designed with two lanes so two lanes could be used, if the road designers wanted only one lane queuing they would have only put one lane in. If it's a lane closure in 500 yards, then that means you can use that lane for another 500 yards and then merge in. Merging in turn isn't a social no-no, it's using the road how it was designed to be used to minimise congestion.

I use the merging lanes however personally don't force my way in, if a car accelerates to block me, I just hang back and normally the car behind will let me in, if they don't then I will start being forceful as a queue would start building behind.
One thing I do like doing if I'm queuing in the loser lane (there's one I use daily where I enter the road from the first exit so no point in me using lane 2) and the car behind me is nearly rear ending me so they don't have to let someone in, I'll wave that car in front of me, the anger on the idiot behinds face is priceless. I honestly have much better things to do and more important things to worry about than block someone merging.

I agree completely and it's what I do.

[sim72]

xjay1337 said:

"Might is right".

Other things include pulling out infront of you at roundabouts...

If they didn't do that on the Gibbet roundabout on the A5, the whole thing would grind to a halt. In rush hour there's hardly ever a gap big enough to get a slowly accelerating HGV into!

[Lopey]

Chrisgr31 said:

Errmm it’s not that easy. 2 lanes of traffic travelling 2 seconds apart at 50mph. Arriving at merge point 1st Car in lane 1 can carry on at 50mph, however second Car in lane 2 can’t, as they want to maintain a 2 second gap so they slow down, Car 2 in lane 1 also has to slow down etc. Generally speaking the cars continue to merge in turn but because they are slowing the merge point moves further and further back.

Not sure on the exact maths but you now have a queue of traffic in lane 1 travelling at 40mph 2 seconds apart with the traffic slowing from 50 joining at the back.

One of those at the back now decides to go down the empty lane 2 to the merge point and join there. As there is only a 2 second gap the traffic travelling at 40mph has to slow to let them in to maintain the 2 second gap.

Alternatively of course a lorry decides to block lane 2 and travels along with the other traffic at 40mph when they get to the merge point they merge in turn, and the result is traffic in both lanes has to slow down

Wow some people like to complicate an easy situation. How about as car 1 goes through the merge point, and is past the hazard, it increases its speed, therefore maintaining the gap between it and car 2? It's still not difficult. All it requires is a bit of planning, patience and consideration for others.

[xjay1337]

sim72 said:

If they didn't do that on the Gibbet roundabout on the A5, the whole thing would grind to a halt. In rush hour there's hardly ever a gap big enough to get a slowly accelerating HGV into!

Maybe. I don't drive them so can't see from their point of view.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

Queue where the merge STARTS. If you see idiot being a 'traffic cop' and baulking the flow of traffic down the merge, then snap a picture, and send to the local cops.
Driving without reasonable consideration
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendant's driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the driver's licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC.

Use your phone whilst driving to a take a picture of a driver driving illegally... haven't really thought this through have you...

[OddCat]

Am up for merging when both lanes of traffic are moving at roughly the same speed.

But if the lane into which everyone is merging is virtually stationary (due to congestion after the merge point), and is backed up to well before the merge point, then all drivers should be joining end of the queue in main lane knowing full well that the other lane ends and merging ain't happening. Anyone zipping past everyone down the empty lane is simply queue jumping......

[Lopey]

OddCat said:

Am up for merging when both lanes of traffic are moving at roughly the same speed.

But if the lane into which everyone is merging is virtually stationary (due to congestion after the merge point), and is backed up to well before the merge point, then all drivers should be joining end of the queue in main lane knowing full well that the other lane ends and merging ain't happening. Anyone zipping past everyone down the empty lane is simply queue jumping......

What would be better is if there were congestion after the merge point, then those at the front of the queue should use both lanes rather than sitting in a single lane moaning about "queue jumpers".