Overtaking courtesy
Discussion
But Jon, Surely the traffic jam is the number of cars in it, not simply the length of road it is strung out over?!
I thought the police favoured the "keep everything moving slowly and you won't get jams " approach to traffic management. That was certainly the logic they put forward for the variable limits on the M25.
How can traffic keep moving in an orderly way if people have to keep stopping to let the queue jumpers in?
The "stop" has a ripple effect down the queue as each driver in turn has to react, stop, and restart. It's queue jumpers that make the jams longer!
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 4th December 13:43
I thought the police favoured the "keep everything moving slowly and you won't get jams " approach to traffic management. That was certainly the logic they put forward for the variable limits on the M25.
How can traffic keep moving in an orderly way if people have to keep stopping to let the queue jumpers in?
The "stop" has a ripple effect down the queue as each driver in turn has to react, stop, and restart. It's queue jumpers that make the jams longer!
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 4th December 13:43
JonRB: spot on.
If you leave empty lanes, don't blame someone else for using it. I do it all the time when leaving the M4, onto the M25.
Some of those saddo's queue because they see a queue !! I'll be home before they join the M25.
Poor judgement on their part, and I have no qualms about *driving* OR riding past.
It's a democracy! you queue when you HAVE to, but when you don't need to, then don't ! simple as that.
Agree with Ted about merge in turn. When it works, it's brilliant !
If you leave empty lanes, don't blame someone else for using it. I do it all the time when leaving the M4, onto the M25.
Some of those saddo's queue because they see a queue !! I'll be home before they join the M25.
Poor judgement on their part, and I have no qualms about *driving* OR riding past.
It's a democracy! you queue when you HAVE to, but when you don't need to, then don't ! simple as that.
Agree with Ted about merge in turn. When it works, it's brilliant !
You have the same volume of traffic (number of cars) trying to get through the obstruction (in this case 3 lanes to 2 lanes) regardless of where the people in the 3rd lane merge in.
By leaving it later to merge in the traffic flows for that bit longer. The jam is shorter (in length, at least).
Personally I think its the people who swerve into the middle lane the moment they see the 3-mile warning sign that start the gridlock in the first place. I'd rather motorists weren't warned as far out as 3 miles for this very reason. We could all then carry on using all three lanes for a bit longer without being made to feel guilty by the great British queue-joiners.
By leaving it later to merge in the traffic flows for that bit longer. The jam is shorter (in length, at least).
Personally I think its the people who swerve into the middle lane the moment they see the 3-mile warning sign that start the gridlock in the first place. I'd rather motorists weren't warned as far out as 3 miles for this very reason. We could all then carry on using all three lanes for a bit longer without being made to feel guilty by the great British queue-joiners.
I don't think we are both talking about the same thing. For moving traffic, (like is most common when a 3 lane goes to two), the late merge in turn works well. In fact it is a classic example of the "keep them moving" arguement for avoiding jams and queues I mentioned earlier.
What I am talking about on the other hand is when traffic is stationary because (maybe) 3 lanes is merged to one, and the speed of the traffic is low through that one lane. Under these circumstances the queue jumpers actions effectively slow the whole flow down by acting as an interrupter to the smooth flow at the head of the queue.
I know its not exactly the same but in my business we frequently have to take a large volume of free moving product spread over a wide belt and pass it through a narrow aperture. The best way to do this is to progressively narrow the aperture over a long distance . Lobbing a load of product at the opening just causes a massive jam. I see a major similarity between this example and the merge/queue jumper thing.
It's not a "freedom" thing, and people who are in the queues are not there by choice or because they are sad.
Ted is spot on when he says we need to have a proper system for this kind of thing.
What I am talking about on the other hand is when traffic is stationary because (maybe) 3 lanes is merged to one, and the speed of the traffic is low through that one lane. Under these circumstances the queue jumpers actions effectively slow the whole flow down by acting as an interrupter to the smooth flow at the head of the queue.
I know its not exactly the same but in my business we frequently have to take a large volume of free moving product spread over a wide belt and pass it through a narrow aperture. The best way to do this is to progressively narrow the aperture over a long distance . Lobbing a load of product at the opening just causes a massive jam. I see a major similarity between this example and the merge/queue jumper thing.
It's not a "freedom" thing, and people who are in the queues are not there by choice or because they are sad.
Ted is spot on when he says we need to have a proper system for this kind of thing.
JonRB ... the length of the queue behind the road works isn't really relevant is it? Its the time you spend in it, and that's down to the number of cars in the jam regardless of whether they are in in two or three lanes as they enter the bottle neck. What M5 is doing is queue jumping. If we're in the outside lane, we'll almost always end up doing this to some extent, but there is no need to take the piss.
Best solution would be for people to fan out into all three lanes so that people couldn't queue jump, accidently or otherwise. Of course this presupposes that the inside laners would then let people merge into "their" lane. They seem to believe that by driving along it very slowly for many, many miles they have got squatters rights.
Best solution would be for people to fan out into all three lanes so that people couldn't queue jump, accidently or otherwise. Of course this presupposes that the inside laners would then let people merge into "their" lane. They seem to believe that by driving along it very slowly for many, many miles they have got squatters rights.
quote:Not really, apart from when I run into a jam within sight of my turnoff and wish that it was just a bit shorter so I can exit without delay.
the length of the queue behind the road works isn't really relevant is it?
But seriously, you're quite right, the length isn't really that relevant.
Just to add something positive to this debate, if you take my analogy of the product going through a narrow aperture and extend that to traffic management it would suggest that to take a three lane road down to a single lane it should be laid out so that instead of a 3 mile warning followed by a mad dash to one lane over the last 200 yards (as is done now) it should be done like this:
3 mile point advise drivers of impending restriction
2 mile point merge 3 lanes to 2. Reduce speed to 50mph
1 mile point reduce speed to 35mph
advise immediate merge.
0.5 mile merge to one lane begins, INCREASE speed to 60mph on single lane to create space for merging cars and to ensure no stopping or conertinering of traffic.
As long as nobody stops in the single lane bit ot forgets to speed up, then this scenario would probably work I reckon!
Cheers
Andy
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 4th December 14:21
3 mile point advise drivers of impending restriction
2 mile point merge 3 lanes to 2. Reduce speed to 50mph
1 mile point reduce speed to 35mph
advise immediate merge.
0.5 mile merge to one lane begins, INCREASE speed to 60mph on single lane to create space for merging cars and to ensure no stopping or conertinering of traffic.
As long as nobody stops in the single lane bit ot forgets to speed up, then this scenario would probably work I reckon!
Cheers
Andy
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 4th December 14:21
Very good idea for heavy traffic, but a not appropriate for 2am and empty road. I wonder if there's a way it could be put into action only when the traffic was likely to be very heavy. I remember a stretch of the M5 into Birmingham used to have a lane reverse direction each day to cope with rush hour traffic while they were widening it.
nice idea andy but as if the traffic will speed up! its better to merger 100 mtr before the lane closes and not waste 1 mile of perfectly good road.
To stop any moaning gits and to educate the masses of numptys on are roads there should be 2 or 4 'merge in turn' signs at the merging point.
Another better way to sort this would be to have both lanes merge into a 'joint' lane rather than one going to the other. People would then not have feeling that others are trying to steal there place in the queue and it would be silly for people to not use the smaller queue if there was one so the two lanes would become equal lenght fairly soon anyway.
It REALLY pisses me of when people try and block the both lanes! i pay my road tax and il use every bit of fecking road im legally allowed to use if i want! sorry rant over!
To stop any moaning gits and to educate the masses of numptys on are roads there should be 2 or 4 'merge in turn' signs at the merging point.
Another better way to sort this would be to have both lanes merge into a 'joint' lane rather than one going to the other. People would then not have feeling that others are trying to steal there place in the queue and it would be silly for people to not use the smaller queue if there was one so the two lanes would become equal lenght fairly soon anyway.
It REALLY pisses me of when people try and block the both lanes! i pay my road tax and il use every bit of fecking road im legally allowed to use if i want! sorry rant over!
Andymadmak,
I've just read your posts several times to make sure, but what you appear to be saying is the merge should be over a distance and traffic flow directed down into a single lane.
Isn't this what happens !!!! most longer term road works (and I don't mean the emergency or overnight ones) direct traffic down into the restricted area as much as a mile or so before the actual work begins, they do this with cones to prevent the cars (or product) spilling over. However for this to work the cars need to travel all the way up to the cones then they are either nice to one another and filter in turn or act like product and bounce off one another and force there way in ! I think what you are saying is exactly what JonRB wants good traffic management has been developed over a number of years but it depends on people acting correctly and filtering in turn closer to the cones and I'm sorry but that means following the directions at the correct times not sitting in the inside lane like a Lemming or acting like a fat Yorkie muncher and blocking the outer lanes because your a) ignorant or b) believe because your vehicle weighs 38 tonne you must know more !
I've just read your posts several times to make sure, but what you appear to be saying is the merge should be over a distance and traffic flow directed down into a single lane.
Isn't this what happens !!!! most longer term road works (and I don't mean the emergency or overnight ones) direct traffic down into the restricted area as much as a mile or so before the actual work begins, they do this with cones to prevent the cars (or product) spilling over. However for this to work the cars need to travel all the way up to the cones then they are either nice to one another and filter in turn or act like product and bounce off one another and force there way in ! I think what you are saying is exactly what JonRB wants good traffic management has been developed over a number of years but it depends on people acting correctly and filtering in turn closer to the cones and I'm sorry but that means following the directions at the correct times not sitting in the inside lane like a Lemming or acting like a fat Yorkie muncher and blocking the outer lanes because your a) ignorant or b) believe because your vehicle weighs 38 tonne you must know more !
quote:
Very good idea for heavy traffic, but a not appropriate for 2am and empty road. I wonder if there's a way it could be put into action only when the traffic was likely to be very heavy.
Hmmm, this MUST be possible, how could we implement it...
Ah, I know, gantry matrix signs showing the speed limits. Could call it something snappy like "Variable Limit Speed". Hmmm...
Could be expensive - I know, let's put cameras on each gantry! With a bit of luck, we'll make some cash out of people who normally drive through at the higher limit, AND we'll be really popular for easing congestion!
(p.s. Another vote here for "Merge in Turn" - far less stressful if everyone plays the same game!)
I'm a "use all tarmac" man - it's expensive to lay, there isn't enough of it so make the most of what you have.
However, a bit of discretion is called for - if all the queue lovers have got themselves stationary and are sitting there waiting to be rear-ended, don't blast past at 80mph - stick to a 20mph or so differential, and allow anyone who wants to to pull out. Some may see the light and help get the whole lot moving again.
Merge in turn should be law.
AdrianR
However, a bit of discretion is called for - if all the queue lovers have got themselves stationary and are sitting there waiting to be rear-ended, don't blast past at 80mph - stick to a 20mph or so differential, and allow anyone who wants to to pull out. Some may see the light and help get the whole lot moving again.
Merge in turn should be law.
AdrianR
I'm not saying that the way I merge is either correct or even legal (although I assume it is), but I don't 'bomb' down the outside lane and then push in to the queue. I'm not worried about pissing people off as I have more important things to worry about than other people's feelings.
When I arrive at the 400/200m mark I am already starting to slow down enough to keep pace with the traffic in the inside lane. Then I will start indicating as well. If someone wants to let me in then great, if they don't, I don't get pissed off and force the gap.
I believe that these people who get pissed off are just jealous as they have been waiting 30 minutes only to see that the other two lanes didn't merge as quickly as they thought and they could have saved 20 minutes. Also I don't become one of those selfish buggers who drive 12 inches from the guy in front to stop other people getting in.
BTW this road was like this for over a year and I too started out queing up at the 3 mile mark. Some days it added over an hour to the travel time. After a few weeks of this I started staying in the middle/outside lane until the 2 mile mark, and then the 1 mile mark and finally the 800m mark.
After all if I can save up to an hour travelling without breaking the law (and following IAM guidelines I might add) then which of you would not do the same.
When I arrive at the 400/200m mark I am already starting to slow down enough to keep pace with the traffic in the inside lane. Then I will start indicating as well. If someone wants to let me in then great, if they don't, I don't get pissed off and force the gap.
I believe that these people who get pissed off are just jealous as they have been waiting 30 minutes only to see that the other two lanes didn't merge as quickly as they thought and they could have saved 20 minutes. Also I don't become one of those selfish buggers who drive 12 inches from the guy in front to stop other people getting in.
BTW this road was like this for over a year and I too started out queing up at the 3 mile mark. Some days it added over an hour to the travel time. After a few weeks of this I started staying in the middle/outside lane until the 2 mile mark, and then the 1 mile mark and finally the 800m mark.
After all if I can save up to an hour travelling without breaking the law (and following IAM guidelines I might add) then which of you would not do the same.
Hi Mel,
What I was trying to allude to was the fact that if the traffic can be managed such that it is slowed down well before it has to merge, then encouraged to accelerate through the merge point, it should be the case that the extra space created by the acceleration will provide the gaps to allow for the traffic to merge from two lanes into one, without causing everything to keep stopping and starting.
This would then mean there would be no reason to queue jump as the traffic would always be moving at a respectable rate. Also, by PROGRESSIVELY reducing the number of lanes over (say) 2 miles then there will be no inclination to have somebody try to cut in over the last 200 meters or so (thereby stopping the traffic behind and adding to the jam). It works all ways up as people could then be positively encouraged to merge in turn. The secret is the slowing and acceleration profile that is adopted. Just slowing the traffic (a la M25) will not work at all!
Andy
What I was trying to allude to was the fact that if the traffic can be managed such that it is slowed down well before it has to merge, then encouraged to accelerate through the merge point, it should be the case that the extra space created by the acceleration will provide the gaps to allow for the traffic to merge from two lanes into one, without causing everything to keep stopping and starting.
This would then mean there would be no reason to queue jump as the traffic would always be moving at a respectable rate. Also, by PROGRESSIVELY reducing the number of lanes over (say) 2 miles then there will be no inclination to have somebody try to cut in over the last 200 meters or so (thereby stopping the traffic behind and adding to the jam). It works all ways up as people could then be positively encouraged to merge in turn. The secret is the slowing and acceleration profile that is adopted. Just slowing the traffic (a la M25) will not work at all!
Andy
Hey Marv,
My theory assumes that drivers will behave in a similar fashion to the chicken nuggets I have to put down various narrowing conveyor belts.
Of course, if the drivers are even more stupid than the chicken nuggets then my whole intricate theory of traffic management theory breaks down!
I need a lie down in a dark room now....
Andy
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 4th December 17:03
My theory assumes that drivers will behave in a similar fashion to the chicken nuggets I have to put down various narrowing conveyor belts.
Of course, if the drivers are even more stupid than the chicken nuggets then my whole intricate theory of traffic management theory breaks down!
I need a lie down in a dark room now....
Andy
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 4th December 17:03
Bugger I must be having a thick day you product movers have got me I read that one half a dozen times and still don't get it
Oh well I think I'll just stick to phoning the lorry numbers that block lanes and filtering in turn nearer the cones in exactly the way M-Five put I understood that one.
Oh well I think I'll just stick to phoning the lorry numbers that block lanes and filtering in turn nearer the cones in exactly the way M-Five put I understood that one.
quote:
Hey Marv,
My theory assumes that drivers will behave in a similar fashion to the chicken nuggets I have to put down various narrowing conveyor belts.
Of course, if the drivers are even more stupid than the chicken nuggets then my whole intricate theory of traffic management theory breaks down!
I need a lie down in a dark room now....
Andy
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 4th December 17:03
I guess the difference is that chicken nuggets don't get the choice, while a driver does, and will always try and optimise his time. Unless he's a numpty queue-joiner of course.... :-)
-Manek-
quote:
Never underestimate the intelligence of the average chicken nugget.
Proberbly twice the inteligence of the people that serve them! but saying that twice nothin is still nothin...
Hmmm..
all this talk of chicken nugget's is making me peckish. Time to check JonRB's mates thory me thinks!Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff