Police view of lane hoggers
Discussion
Graveworm said:
Flibble said:
There you have it, Highways Agency employee is wrong, Graveworm is right. We can all go home now lads.
As a matter of interest if I were equally or better qualified would that automatically make me right? Happy to prove my qualifications to any official of these forums. As it happens if you read I didn't fundamentally disagree with what was said? It's not about qualifications, it's about experience of trying to install systems that work in harmony with each other - or at least that don't trip each other up. It would be no help to have a queue of such a length that it blocks the slip roads or the roundabout a mile back up the road. Extreme example, but there could be an ambulance or fire engine sitting in the blocked road that can't get to where it is needed. Or lesser serious, but irritating, like every day the kids school bus is delayed. Or it becomes a reliably bad issue and starts to affect nearby property prices (it does happen!).
What also doesn't help is people with a driving licence thinking they know all about traffic behaviour and the reasons roads are how they are, and then extending that to becoming a self-appointed road captain, who blocks, obstructs, and generally interferes with how the network should be optimally used. They may be doing it with the best of intentions, thinking they will be increasing the smoothness of the flow, but their ignorance of the actual reasons just gums things up for everyone.
Car-Matt said:
I would and I do....its not being a dick, its not being stupid
100%I used to use cash machines on Tottenham Ct Road in London. 3 machines in the wall. A very wide pavement. On the road side, about a good 15 feet away from the cash machines, were 4 steel railings, angled , for locking your bikes to. People assumed they were some form of "queuing gates", or queuing "lanes". A mad distance from the machines - 15 foot is a long way - enough for a LOT of pedestrains to walk past between you and the machines. Enough that lots of passing people never saw the muppets in the "lanes" and just used the machines.
I did the same. No one ever said anything. I used to chuckle as I withdrew cash, chuckling at the muppets.
No car, no steel box.
I'll post a vid up of the local "lane discipline/queueing" where I live soon enough for your entertainment. Half a mile long tailbacks as everyone refuses to use one lane as it has occasionally parked cars in it. I drive up it, uncontested, then filter back in when needed, then back into the totally unused lane. Affects no one and I get my own "express lane"
It really does make me smile :-)
p.s. no reasoning with glowworm is going to make any difference. I have acquaintances that totally refuse to undertsand merging and think its "pushing in". One tried to tell me not to when I was driving (an employee of mine).
Johnnytheboy said:
It's shorthand for "everyone else (except maybe nonsequitur) will repeatedly tell you you are wrong, but you'll stick to your guns that merge-in-turn is wrong and that anyone who uses Lane 2 when Lane 1 is stationary is 'jumping the queue'".
nonsequiter neither confirms or denies any skullduggery concerning merge in turn. His only comment is no comment.
OpulentBob said:
He's right though.
It has been discussed, dissected, and explained (at length, by the people responsible for installing and locating them) many times on PH over the last 10 years.
If you do a PH search for "APIS" you should find it.
Edit splenlign.
And after ten years it is no closer to reaching a PH conclusion.It has been discussed, dissected, and explained (at length, by the people responsible for installing and locating them) many times on PH over the last 10 years.
If you do a PH search for "APIS" you should find it.
Edit splenlign.
Edited by OpulentBob on Wednesday 20th June 14:18
APIS was just a figment of someones imagination. It had no relevance in todays modern motoring world. It wishes all drivers well in the land of ' Lane closing in 800 yards '.
Graveworm said:
In driving pragmatism is frequently necessary. In this case for example the vehicle in the empty outside lane is quite within its rights to use it. However when it ends it has no right to join the queue so needs someone to chose to do the pragmatic thing and let them in, which is what I and most people do.
Except that's it's not a queue is it, just a line of clueless people in stationary/slow moving vehicles positioning themselves incorrectly on the highway by not using all of the available road space.Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 21st June 12:20
Do you have the same dilemma at a London Underground station? Two escalators, both going down to the same platform, but almost everyone is using the nearest escalator on the right hand side meaning that it is dangerously congested and takes a bit more time to board. Mr Smart Alec, then comes along and uses the almost empty escalator on the left hand side (how dare he). Mr Smart Alec makes it to the platform ahead of many of those on the right hand escalator and just boards the train before the doors shut leaving you to wait for the next train. By your rules - what a complete ars*hole!
Andy20vt said:
Except that's it's not a queue is it, just a line of clueless people in stationary/slow moving vehicles positioning themselves incorrectly on the highway by not using all of the available road space.
Do you have the same dilemma at a London Underground station? Two escalators, both going down to the same platform, but almost everyone is using the nearest escalator on the right hand side meaning that it is dangerously congested and takes a bit more time to board. Mr Smart Alec, then comes along and uses the almost empty escalator on the left hand side (how dare he). Mr Smart Alec makes it to the platform ahead of many of those on the right hand escalator and just boards the train before the doors shut leaving you to wait for the next train. By your rules - what a complete ars*hole!
As I have said people should use both lanes /escalator. The difference is that in your example the second empty escalator does not rejoin the first. They get to the same destination in parallel routes and never inconvenience each other. The only one who benefits on a 2 lane to 1 where lane 1 is queueing (Wrongly) is the person who joins lane 2 and then rejoins lane 1. Everyone in lane 1 is inconvenienced.Do you have the same dilemma at a London Underground station? Two escalators, both going down to the same platform, but almost everyone is using the nearest escalator on the right hand side meaning that it is dangerously congested and takes a bit more time to board. Mr Smart Alec, then comes along and uses the almost empty escalator on the left hand side (how dare he). Mr Smart Alec makes it to the platform ahead of many of those on the right hand escalator and just boards the train before the doors shut leaving you to wait for the next train. By your rules - what a complete ars*hole!
I know they should not all be there in the first place but I take the view that if its me or many then it's many unless there is a real and compelling reason why it's me. Which by no coincidence is a test the RTA applies.
I am not so up to date on the escalator traffic act.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 21st June 21:47
Graveworm said:
Andy20vt said:
Except that's it's not a queue is it, just a line of clueless people in stationary/slow moving vehicles positioning themselves incorrectly on the highway by not using all of the available road space.
Do you have the same dilemma at a London Underground station? Two escalators, both going down to the same platform, but almost everyone is using the nearest escalator on the right hand side meaning that it is dangerously congested and takes a bit more time to board. Mr Smart Alec, then comes along and uses the almost empty escalator on the left hand side (how dare he). Mr Smart Alec makes it to the platform ahead of many of those on the right hand escalator and just boards the train before the doors shut leaving you to wait for the next train. By your rules - what a complete ars*hole!
As I have said people should use both lanes /escalator. The difference is that in your example the second empty escalator does not rejoin the first. They get to the same destination in parallel routes and never inconvenience each other. The only one who benefits on a 2 lane to 1 where lane 1 is queueing (Wrongly) is the person who joins lane 2 and then rejoins lane 1. Everyone in lane 1 is inconvenienced.Do you have the same dilemma at a London Underground station? Two escalators, both going down to the same platform, but almost everyone is using the nearest escalator on the right hand side meaning that it is dangerously congested and takes a bit more time to board. Mr Smart Alec, then comes along and uses the almost empty escalator on the left hand side (how dare he). Mr Smart Alec makes it to the platform ahead of many of those on the right hand escalator and just boards the train before the doors shut leaving you to wait for the next train. By your rules - what a complete ars*hole!
I know they should not all be there in the first place but I take the view that if its me or many then it's many unless there is a real and compelling reason why it's me. Which by no coincidence is a test the RTA applies.
I am not so up to date on the escalator traffic act.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 21st June 21:47
Car-Matt said:
If they didn’t join lane two to beat the queue but had been in lane 2 for the past ten miles then what? Your back to your nonsense lane priority rubbish that has nil substance with no official guidance for road users.....
Who should be in lane 2 for 10 miles who is driving properly? But if they were then I have no issue with them continuing in lane 2 but accepting that they should try to join the queuing traffic in lane 1 with the priority being to minimise the inconvenience to those in lane 1 and if moving slowly should merge in turn. My "Nonsense" is that it is widely accepted that if one lane ends then the traffic in that lane is joining another as I supported with an ADI and the highways agency guidance and so the behaviour expected when joining another lane should apply. If it helps to support this view the DFT HA Traffic Sign Manual also says that there is signage available for the rare occasions when this doesn't apply it also says that it will never apply when going from three lanes to 2 or 1. It does clarify that it should only be considered at sites "Where a two-lane dual carriageway is being reduced to one lane, and regular and substantial queuing is likely to occur. It is likely to be particularly useful at sites where single-lane queues block back and affect secondary junctions." "Merge in turn should only be considered when significant queuing is likely on the approach to lane closures at road works for substantial parts of the day".
I am happy to be proved wrong by anything you have to support your view.
My other nonsense is that it is an offence for a driver to cause inconvenience to a user of the road or other public place, this is a very low bar, if they have to slow down to let you in then that is over that bar. I am not suggesting for one moment that this will result in a prosecution but technically it's made out. Surrey Police did have a crack down on exactly this on the Northbound A3 where it goes from 3 lanes to 2 a couple of years back. But after a few tries they stopped because they couldn't deal with the volumes and it was not changing behaviour.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 21st June 23:35
Graveworm said:
Car-Matt said:
If they didn’t join lane two to beat the queue but had been in lane 2 for the past ten miles then what? Your back to your nonsense lane priority rubbish that has nil substance with no official guidance for road users.....
Who should be in lane 2 for 10 miles who is driving properly? But if they were then I have no issue with them continuing in lane 2 but accepting that they should try to join the queuing traffic in lane 1 with the priority being to minimise the inconvenience to those in lane 1. An example would traffic in lane one travelling at intermittent speed as there are numerous junctions with people pulling out/slowing to pull in, average speed less than 60 due to this and commercial vehicles on the road, lane two travelling at 60 mph continually passing vehicles on the left then a merge fairly average on the outskirts of a big city.
But you expect a car in lane 2 to leave the less busy lane with a small queue and join the big queue when there is no guidance to suggest this is best.....The more you answer the more insane you sound...
Mandat said:
Graveworm seems to be on a massive windup exercise.
He says that he understands merge in turn but then everything else that he says seems to contradictory.
I may not understand merge in turn, I know what it should be in my mind "Zip merge" but that can't happen when one side of the zip is hundreds of teeth hardly moving and the other one tooth moving at a significantly higher speed. That can be on occasions merge but it's not in turn and is usually queue jumping. Now I KNOW that is more the fault of the hundreds but that doesn't excuse the one either who usually benefits no one but themselves. He says that he understands merge in turn but then everything else that he says seems to contradictory.
Graveworm said:
Mandat said:
Graveworm seems to be on a massive windup exercise.
He says that he understands merge in turn but then everything else that he says seems to contradictory.
I may not understand merge in turn, I know what it should be in my mind "Zip merge" but that can't happen when one side of the zip is hundreds of teeth hardly moving and the other one tooth moving at a significantly higher speed. That can be on occasions merge but it's not in turn and is usually queue jumping. Now I KNOW that is more the fault of the hundreds but that doesn't excuse the one either who usually benefits no one but themselves. He says that he understands merge in turn but then everything else that he says seems to contradictory.
Queue in Lane 1 already.
People in L2 keep driving down Lane 2.
Merge at end. In a perfect world in turn.
Due to queue in Lane 1 forming first, Lane 2 rapidly fills up as well.
Your bizarre interpretation would only hold true if literally everyone else except one driver was in Lane 1 from the dawn of time.
Graveworm said:
Mandat said:
Graveworm seems to be on a massive windup exercise.
He says that he understands merge in turn but then everything else that he says seems to contradictory.
I may not understand merge in turn, I know what it should be in my mind "Zip merge" but that can't happen when one side of the zip is hundreds of teeth hardly moving and the other one tooth moving at a significantly higher speed. That can be on occasions merge but it's not in turn and is usually queue jumping. Now I KNOW that is more the fault of the hundreds but that doesn't excuse the one either who usually benefits no one but themselves. He says that he understands merge in turn but then everything else that he says seems to contradictory.
Where in the Highway Code does it say you must joint the back of a stationary queue when there is a second perfectly clear lane in front of you to use?
Graveworm said:
Mandat said:
Graveworm seems to be on a massive windup exercise.
He says that he understands merge in turn but then everything else that he says seems to contradictory.
I may not understand merge in turn, I know what it should be in my mind "Zip merge" but that can't happen when one side of the zip is hundreds of teeth hardly moving and the other one tooth moving at a significantly higher speed. That can be on occasions merge but it's not in turn and is usually queue jumping. Now I KNOW that is more the fault of the hundreds but that doesn't excuse the one either who usually benefits no one but themselves. He says that he understands merge in turn but then everything else that he says seems to contradictory.
You’ve started off on here saying that there are hard and fast rules which you haven’t been able to substantiate and it’s all nonsense,the actuality is that you have an interpretation of a situation that you are trying to force on the rest of us who are driving perfectly lawfully and respectfully.
Bore off
Johnnytheboy said:
nonsequitur said:
His only comment is no comment.
Can I hold you to that?
OpulentBob said:
Nonseq I fully respect and understand your viewpoint. I don't agree with it but I totes understand why you/others would think that way. In a queue of actual people one would behave differently and apis would be far more front and centre - I know I'd be a member! 
Thank you Bob. I always knew.Andy20vt said:
So what? I like to make progress when driving and if I can make easy progress past other traffic, whilst still remaining within the rules of the road then I'll sure as hell take that opportunity. If you want to queue then that's totally up to you and not my problem.
Where in the Highway Code does it say you must joint the back of a stationary queue when there is a second perfectly clear lane in front of you to use?
The highway code does say that you should not change lanes to overtake a queue of traffic, but of course as others have said if already in lane 2 continue in lane 2 is OK. What the RTA says is that you should not be inconsiderate when you drive. That is defined as no road user should be inconvenienced by you. Clearly that's where we differ, it's clear a lot of people think it's not inconsiderate. I fail to see how me gaining and others losing is anything but inconsiderate. As I said Surrey Police on the A3 did have a purge and prosecuted loads of motorists for inconsiderate driving for doing exactly this so it's not just my view.Where in the Highway Code does it say you must joint the back of a stationary queue when there is a second perfectly clear lane in front of you to use?
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 22 June 09:06
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff