Police view of lane hoggers
Discussion
nonsequitur said:
Johnnytheboy said:
nonsequitur said:
His only comment is no comment.
Can I hold you to that?
Graveworm said:
Car-Matt said:
I think perhaps your problem here is your linking of inconsiderate to 'gains' and 'losses', if you let another car into the gap in front of you that you should be leaving that is not a 'loss' its just using the road correctly..
What gap they should be leaving? The highway code says in slow moving traffic "reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow" However if you are entering a gap that exists and no one is inconvenienced then that should be an issue with no one especially me. Where that doesn't or can't happen is the only place I disagree with the tone of this thread. Graveworm said:
Car-Matt said:
You claim that a lane is ending..........theres no such terminology, on roadworks its lane closure or a merge its loss of lane, this is usually signified by a sign showing the number of lanes and the lanes ending with a horizontal red bar across them and a distance marker. for a lane closure.......... a lane closure is not signified by one arrow bending into another......iv'e already explained this to you and given you the government published guidance......no straw man, just hard fact
page 115 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen... lane lost, not lane ended, and zero indication of priority, you are interpreting blending as being inconsiderate as we've already discussed.
From the DOT traffic signs manual Chapter 5 4.56:page 115 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen... lane lost, not lane ended, and zero indication of priority, you are interpreting blending as being inconsiderate as we've already discussed.
4.56 When a dual carriageway road changes to a
single carriageway road other than at a junction,
traffic should be guided into the slower lane when
leaving the dual carriageway section.
Also STILL no mention of priority and no mention of leavi. The lane early to join the queue!
Johnnytheboy said:
On a side note, as I've mentioned before, on those rare occasions in roadworks when Lane 1 closes and has to merge in to Lane 2, has anyone else noticed how much more smoothly it all goes?
Until it goes wrong, then it goes VERY wrong. All guidance is to merge faster in to slower. To reverse it is permitted but you need to be VERY sure that it's appropriate and well planned/signed/sighted.
Car-Matt said:
Who is the manual aimed at? Those who create and implement the signs or those that use them?
Also STILL no mention of priority and no mention of leavi. The lane early to join the queue!
I have said all along that no lane has priority. You said no lane was joining the other. I said it was which brings responsibilities on the person joining it. It is it does. Also STILL no mention of priority and no mention of leavi. The lane early to join the queue!
For the last time I wish merge in turn happened and all lanes got used, it should happen it seldom does. When it doesn't, if I have any twinge of anger it is at the people who have blindly queued in lane 1 and prevented it from happening. At that point I could convince myself that I was crusading for what is right and starting a bridgehead in lane 2, or that I was really merging in turn all on my own, which is best for everyone and the traffic flow. But deep down inside I would know that I was disinclined to sit in traffic and wanted to reduce how long I did that, even if in increased the time for many others.
Knowing this then I would think I was using the lane to "Avoid queueing or gaining an advantage over other drivers" which as we all know is driving without reasonable consideration.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 22 June 12:09
Graveworm said:
Car-Matt said:
Who is the manual aimed at? Those who create and implement the signs or those that use them?
Also STILL no mention of priority and no mention of leavi. The lane early to join the queue!
I have said all along that no lane has priority. Also STILL no mention of priority and no mention of leavi. The lane early to join the queue!
Graveworm said:
The sign or arrows on the road show which lane is joining which. The existing lane always has priority in the absence of anything indicating the contrary.
Car-Matt said:
Graveworm said:
Car-Matt said:
Who is the manual aimed at? Those who create and implement the signs or those that use them?
Also STILL no mention of priority and no mention of leavi. The lane early to join the queue!
I have said all along that no lane has priority. Also STILL no mention of priority and no mention of leavi. The lane early to join the queue!
Graveworm said:
The sign or arrows on the road show which lane is joining which. The existing lane always has priority in the absence of anything indicating the contrary.
Graveworm said:
No lane has priority but vehicles joining a lane have responsibilities. Happy to see anything you have to the contrary.
And what the Highways agency said ..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'.
But again happy to see anything you have to the contrary
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 22 June 11:55
jagnet said:
Graveworm said:
The highway code does say that you should not change lanes to overtake a queue of traffic ... Surrey Police on the A3 did have a purge and prosecuted loads of motorists for inconsiderate driving for doing exactly this
Citation neededOpulentBob said:
Johnnytheboy said:
On a side note, as I've mentioned before, on those rare occasions in roadworks when Lane 1 closes and has to merge in to Lane 2, has anyone else noticed how much more smoothly it all goes?
Until it goes wrong, then it goes VERY wrong. All guidance is to merge faster in to slower. To reverse it is permitted but you need to be VERY sure that it's appropriate and well planned/signed/sighted.
Graveworm said:
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.
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.
Nonsense.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:
I actually agree this should happen, I have no issue with it at all. What often happens is most people in lane 2 join lane 1 (Incorrectly). So the traffic in lane 2 dwindles and then there are only 2 or 3 vehicles that follow lane 2 to the end. Then people approaching the queue in lane 2 make a choice and again nearly all join the queue. Those who adopt lane 2, I am sure, know that at some point someone will have to let them in. That is textbook inconsiderate driving by any definition.
Not by any credible definition.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff