Police view of lane hoggers
Discussion
Based on what I see every day, an unmarked cop could nick someone every 30 minutes for dangerous/reckless driving, phone use etc. Have something that stings like 200 quid and I don’t see how they wouldn’t be able to clear a grand a shift by issuing 5 tickets. That’s 20k a month and less cost of the officer and unmarked car, that’s a lot of money. More funding for police and people behaving better on the roads. I know naff all about policing however so I expect to be corrected at haste.
Graveworm said:
Rule 133 deals with where one changes lane, If one lane continues and another ends the vehicle in the latter is changing to the former isn't it?
But there isn’t anything telling you the lane ends, just two arrows telling you both lanes are directed to the same space.....rule 133 could potentially be applied if you knew which lane has priority but there is nothing to tell you. You set great store on the lane priority earlier but you are yet to show the official guidance on which lane has priority in my example. Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 20th June 22:51
Car-Matt said:
But there isn’t anything telling you the lane ends, just two arrows telling you both lanes are directed to the same space.....rule 133 could potentially be applied if you knew which lane has priority but there is nothing to tell you. You set great store on the lane priority earlier but you are yet to show the official guidance on which lane has priority in my example.
I suspect we have monopolised this too much already. I honestly thought this was obvious but happy from now on for you to have the last word. From hereThe answer is easy, unless it is specifically sign posted the person on the left hand position has the priority. You will usually see a curved arrow painted in the right hand lane directing the right hand driver to merge with the left lane.
Graveworm said:
I suspect we have monopolised this too much already. I honestly thought this was obvious but happy from now on for you to have the last word. From here
The answer is easy, unless it is specifically sign posted the person on the left hand position has the priority. You will usually see a curved arrow painted in the right hand lane directing the right hand driver to merge with the left lane.
So a small Derby based driving school is official guidance? Sorry pal but your credibility in this discussion is now ruined if that's the best you can do.The answer is easy, unless it is specifically sign posted the person on the left hand position has the priority. You will usually see a curved arrow painted in the right hand lane directing the right hand driver to merge with the left lane.
As I said there is no official literature that I have seen explaining this either verbally or with a sign, the Highway Code doesn’t say it and neither does the government published list of signs.....where are you getting this lane priority guidance from or are you making it up? If you can’t provide a link to the guidance it’s just your interpretation......
Edited by Car-Matt on Thursday 21st June 09:00
Two obvious points.
1. If road designers wanted people to merge into one late x hundred meters before the 'Official' merger point - then that's where they would have put the merger. [HINT: The who idea is to shorten any stationary queue into two lanes].
2. When the dotted line between the two lanes ends, that usually indicates the point where BOTH the two prior lanes end and are now one. Neither lane actually has priority over the other at this point - and the only reason the left hand lane continues straight on is because 'that's where the kerb side already is'. Its just easier to slot in behind the car on the left as a result as they don't have to steer.
1. If road designers wanted people to merge into one late x hundred meters before the 'Official' merger point - then that's where they would have put the merger. [HINT: The who idea is to shorten any stationary queue into two lanes].
2. When the dotted line between the two lanes ends, that usually indicates the point where BOTH the two prior lanes end and are now one. Neither lane actually has priority over the other at this point - and the only reason the left hand lane continues straight on is because 'that's where the kerb side already is'. Its just easier to slot in behind the car on the left as a result as they don't have to steer.
Hol said:
Two obvious points.
1. If road designers wanted people to merge into one late x hundred meters before the 'Official' merger point - then that's where they would have put the merger. [HINT: The who idea is to shorten any stationary queue into two lanes].
2. When the dotted line between the two lanes ends, that usually indicates the point where BOTH the two prior lanes end and are now one. Neither lane actually has priority over the other at this point - and the only reason the left hand lane continues straight on is because 'that's where the kerb side already is'. Its just easier to slot in behind the car on the left as a result as they don't have to steer.
Exactly, and until there is official .gov guidance to say otherwise that's how it will be treated, and if utter mongos in the left lane don't like it then they just need to use both lanes so the queue is the same in both lanes as intended.1. If road designers wanted people to merge into one late x hundred meters before the 'Official' merger point - then that's where they would have put the merger. [HINT: The who idea is to shorten any stationary queue into two lanes].
2. When the dotted line between the two lanes ends, that usually indicates the point where BOTH the two prior lanes end and are now one. Neither lane actually has priority over the other at this point - and the only reason the left hand lane continues straight on is because 'that's where the kerb side already is'. Its just easier to slot in behind the car on the left as a result as they don't have to steer.
The real beef is with those who deliberately close a gap to prevent you from merging when the gap existed originally!
Car-Matt said:
So a small Derby based driving school is official guidance? Sorry pal but your credibility in this discussion is now ruined if that's the best you can do.
As I said there is no official literature that I have seen explaining this either verbally or with a sign, the Highway Code doesn’t say it and neither does the government published list of signs.....where are you getting this lane priority guidance from or are you making it up? If you can’t provide a link to the guidance it’s just your interpretation......
How about the Highways agency clarification from this pistonheads thread... that some think (and this is reflected in the wider public) that a 1014 arrow (page 171 from the TSRGD means "merge in turn"), it does not.As I said there is no official literature that I have seen explaining this either verbally or with a sign, the Highway Code doesn’t say it and neither does the government published list of signs.....where are you getting this lane priority guidance from or are you making it up? If you can’t provide a link to the guidance it’s just your interpretation......
Edited by Car-Matt on Thursday 21st June 09:00
So when one approaches the end of a dual carriageway and is in lane 2 approaching a series of 1014 arrows (pointing to the left), this is a warning to the driver that there is a reduction of traffic lanes ahead (ie. the reduction being the lane you are travelling in and therefore can also be read in line with there being an 'obstruction ahead').
This warning/instruction is for lane two traffic and not for lane 1 traffic, so therefore the onus is on lane 2 traffic to move safely in to lane 1, using mirrors and making sure they find an appropriate gap. It is therefore also apparent that lane 2 traffic must 'give way' in a sense to traffic already in lane 1, it is not a case of who is simply 'ahead'.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 21st June 09:27
Johnnytheboy said:
In that thread he specifically talks about free flowing traffic. Are you talking about free flowing traffic or queuing traffic?
In the question I was asked both cars were travelling at 30mph. And my answer I think is in keeping with that thread where I said "Either one lane ends or hopefully arrows on the road will indicate which lane has priority. And if both are doing the same speed then the offside vehicle should generally not be there as it is not overtaking. However all things being equal, if there is other traffic then they should merge in turn at slow speed."
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 21st June 10:20
I apologise if what I have written is already in the topic, but I can't bring myself to read through all the 'left hand lane / merge' stuff.
In terms of MLM enforcement, there's very little time for it. We've had a large decrease of traffic officers for many, many years. Well before the cuts etc.
Those that remain are probably looking at more serious matters.
Automated enforcement is irrelevant as that's in its own bubble.
In terms of MLM enforcement, there's very little time for it. We've had a large decrease of traffic officers for many, many years. Well before the cuts etc.
Those that remain are probably looking at more serious matters.
Automated enforcement is irrelevant as that's in its own bubble.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Car-Matt is right.The merge point is located where it is for a reason. If there is/are available lanes, then use them. They are deliberately laid out to maximise capacity, to remove queues from hazardous locations, and to maximise available visibility. By queuing in one lane too early, you run a very real risk of extending the queue to other event sections, which could cause a hazard/block traffic in itself. Please use all of the available lanes, if the plan was for you to merge a mile previously, then the merge point would have been put there. If you feel that people are "pushing in" or "jumping the queue", then maybe you're taking things a little bit too personally/a bit of a victim.
OpulentBob said:
Car-Matt is right.
The merge point is located where it is for a reason. If there is/are available lanes, then use them. They are deliberately laid out to maximise capacity, to remove queues from hazardous locations, and to maximise available visibility. By queuing in one lane too early, you run a very real risk of extending the queue to other event sections, which could cause a hazard/block traffic in itself. Please use all of the available lanes, if the plan was for you to merge a mile previously, then the merge point would have been put there. If you feel that people are "pushing in" or "jumping the queue", then maybe you're taking things a little bit too personally/a bit of a victim.
If you read the thread no one including me said 2 lanes moving slowly was anything but the perfect solution and that people should use all lanes and merge in turn. However in an imperfect world that still doesn't happen and then "Stationary" queues occur with an empty outer lane. At this point the choice is being wrong and considerate or wrong and inconsiderate. The answer is to get everyone to understand that they should merge in turn.The merge point is located where it is for a reason. If there is/are available lanes, then use them. They are deliberately laid out to maximise capacity, to remove queues from hazardous locations, and to maximise available visibility. By queuing in one lane too early, you run a very real risk of extending the queue to other event sections, which could cause a hazard/block traffic in itself. Please use all of the available lanes, if the plan was for you to merge a mile previously, then the merge point would have been put there. If you feel that people are "pushing in" or "jumping the queue", then maybe you're taking things a little bit too personally/a bit of a victim.
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. Without pragmatism no one could ever join a busy roundabout or a free flowing road at a give way line.
There are circumstances where merge in turn, merge point and use all lanes signs can and are used and there are guidelines for when that happens in the manuals. However it is only in very limited circumstances. It is a long way from the default position, maybe it should be changed.
The tailback argument is a fallacy by that point because in practically stationary traffic of X cars then, if you join at the end, there is X+1 cars and if you join further up there will still be X+1 cars just the person joining doesn't wait as long and the people behind all wait a little longer.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 21st June 12:20
Graveworm said:
OpulentBob said:
Car-Matt is right.
The merge point is located where it is for a reason. If there is/are available lanes, then use them. They are deliberately laid out to maximise capacity, to remove queues from hazardous locations, and to maximise available visibility. By queuing in one lane too early, you run a very real risk of extending the queue to other event sections, which could cause a hazard/block traffic in itself. Please use all of the available lanes, if the plan was for you to merge a mile previously, then the merge point would have been put there. If you feel that people are "pushing in" or "jumping the queue", then maybe you're taking things a little bit too personally/a bit of a victim.
If you read the thread no one including me said 2 lanes moving slowly was anything but the perfect solution and that people should use all lanes and merge in turn. However in an imperfect world that still doesn't happen and then "Stationary" queues occur with an empty outer lane. At this point the choice is being wrong and considerate or wrong and inconsiderate. The answer is to get everyone to understand. There are circumstances where signs can and are used and there are guidelines for when that happens in the manuals. However it is only in very limited circumstances. The merge point is located where it is for a reason. If there is/are available lanes, then use them. They are deliberately laid out to maximise capacity, to remove queues from hazardous locations, and to maximise available visibility. By queuing in one lane too early, you run a very real risk of extending the queue to other event sections, which could cause a hazard/block traffic in itself. Please use all of the available lanes, if the plan was for you to merge a mile previously, then the merge point would have been put there. If you feel that people are "pushing in" or "jumping the queue", then maybe you're taking things a little bit too personally/a bit of a victim.
The tailback argument is a fallacy by that point because in practically stationary traffic of X cars then, if you join at the end, there is X+1 cars and if you join further up there will still be X+1 cars just the person joining doesn't wait as long and the people behind all wait a little longer.
te. 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? I have occasionally observed a trundler trundling in lane 4 of the M25 with no vehicle immediately ahead in lanes 1,2 or 3. Thus an undertake can be undertaken with a lateral clearance of two clear lanes. The trundler is generally transfixed, continuing in lane 4, perhaps on their second circumnavigation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff