Overtaking courtesy
Discussion
I am not clear at all as to the logic employed by JonRB in disagreeing with andymadmak.
Clearly, for a given speed and inter-car separation, the number of cars passing through a constriction will be the same regardless of how many lanes are being used prior to the constriction.
If drivers behave in the manner suggested by andymadmak and merge into two lanes well before a constriction, it is more likely that cars will flow through smoothly.
If drivers behave as JonRB suggest, it is far more likely that the "stop-start" flow of traffic will be exaggerated.
Okay, in practice it is unlikely that there will be any actual difference in the rate of flow of cars for either scenario but I can see no argument supporting an increase in flow with the JonRB technique which is clearly unfair to patient, courteous drivers who merge early.
Clearly, for a given speed and inter-car separation, the number of cars passing through a constriction will be the same regardless of how many lanes are being used prior to the constriction.
If drivers behave in the manner suggested by andymadmak and merge into two lanes well before a constriction, it is more likely that cars will flow through smoothly.
If drivers behave as JonRB suggest, it is far more likely that the "stop-start" flow of traffic will be exaggerated.
Okay, in practice it is unlikely that there will be any actual difference in the rate of flow of cars for either scenario but I can see no argument supporting an increase in flow with the JonRB technique which is clearly unfair to patient, courteous drivers who merge early.
quote:
Okay, in practice it is unlikely that there will be any actual difference in the rate of flow of cars for either scenario but I can see no argument supporting an increase in flow with the JonRB technique which is clearly unfair to patient, courteous drivers who merge early.
Well I would say the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) would be a pretty strong arguement supporting JonRB !!!!
Try this earlier thread
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=2062&f=57&h=0
The IAM geezer who says having an empty lane alongside a queue is "absurd" is overstating the case. If you've got three lanes going into one, then the major constraint on how delaying the queue will be, is how much traffic the single lane can take.
Lets say the average speed down the single lane section is 30 mph. If we all approached it using all three lanes, then our average speed just before we entered the single lane section would be a maximum of 10 mph. If we were in two lanes then we could approach it at 15mph but the queue would be half again as long. If we all decided to approach in one lane, then we'd approach at 30mph and the queue would be three times as long. And in each case we spend exactly the same amount of time in the queue.
The only reason joining the queue "earlier" slows you down is because of people doing an M-Five and cutting in up the queue. M-Five says:
I'm not worried about pissing people off as I have more important things to worry about than other people's feelings
So I'm sure he won't mind me calling him a typical BMW driver with all the usual connotations.
Lets say the average speed down the single lane section is 30 mph. If we all approached it using all three lanes, then our average speed just before we entered the single lane section would be a maximum of 10 mph. If we were in two lanes then we could approach it at 15mph but the queue would be half again as long. If we all decided to approach in one lane, then we'd approach at 30mph and the queue would be three times as long. And in each case we spend exactly the same amount of time in the queue.
The only reason joining the queue "earlier" slows you down is because of people doing an M-Five and cutting in up the queue. M-Five says:
I'm not worried about pissing people off as I have more important things to worry about than other people's feelings
So I'm sure he won't mind me calling him a typical BMW driver with all the usual connotations.
I don't mind being called a 'typical BMW driver' at all as I don't think that infers anything at all.
If no-one was worried about getting to work/home quicker then why is everyone moaning about 70mph limits on motorways and speed cameras in temporary 50mph zones?
It's not people rushing up to join the front of the queue that bothers me - it's the potentially lethal d!ckhe@ds who maneouvre a vehicle into your path to deliberately obstruct you.
I'm just following the merging late and in turn guidelines for the road - as I follow the queue one behind the other for 2 hours at the bank, post office, check-in desk, etc.
How about we try a role reversal and you can move to the front of the queue as quickly as you like, but I am allowed to pull out in front of you and slam on anytime I like?
Edited by M-Five on Tuesday 4th December 21:26
If no-one was worried about getting to work/home quicker then why is everyone moaning about 70mph limits on motorways and speed cameras in temporary 50mph zones?
It's not people rushing up to join the front of the queue that bothers me - it's the potentially lethal d!ckhe@ds who maneouvre a vehicle into your path to deliberately obstruct you.
I'm just following the merging late and in turn guidelines for the road - as I follow the queue one behind the other for 2 hours at the bank, post office, check-in desk, etc.
How about we try a role reversal and you can move to the front of the queue as quickly as you like, but I am allowed to pull out in front of you and slam on anytime I like?
Edited by M-Five on Tuesday 4th December 21:26
I thought for a number of years that merge in turn was the preferred highway code method of filtering from three into two lanes (don't they do this in Japan or somewhere ?). I realised I was wrong when some proposal to support merge in turn got pulled at the last minute.
In any case, I never merge from the outside lane any more. If you're going through a contraflow, all the nasty accidents are going to happen in the far right lane. Much better to humm away in the left lane.....
In any case, I never merge from the outside lane any more. If you're going through a contraflow, all the nasty accidents are going to happen in the far right lane. Much better to humm away in the left lane.....
quote:
I can see no argument supporting an increase in flow with the JonRB technique which is clearly unfair to patient, courteous drivers who merge early.
Clearly the patient drivers you talk about are lacking the sense that by merging a mile early they are achieve a number of things:
1. Wasting 1 mile of perfectly good tarmac.
2. Causing the traffic queue to be 1 mile furtther back and possible blocking other junctions etc.
3. Making technically correct drives feel guilty or 'wrong' for driving by the rules and also putting them in a postion to have to merge with a standing queue...
Marv
Edited by Marv on Tuesday 4th December 23:02
Edited by Marv on Tuesday 4th December 23:03
Woah back there old fruit!
I NEVER said I was right, I just have my own view on how queue jumpers can sometimes slow it all down for the rest of the population. I DID say that nobody has a monopoly on being right, and if you really think that neither the Highway Code nor the IAM is beyond improvement or reasobale debate then thats YOUR opinion and good luck to you.
Personally I see no probelm in challenging the status quo. History is littered with "accepted best practice" that has subsequently been altered in the light of more recent thinking.
If you stop and think a bit about the mechanics of what I am saying - that is that queue jumpers will often SLOW DOWN the flow of traffic rather than enhance it by dint of the "interupter effect" (see earlier posts) - you might see (or you might not) that its worth thinking about this.
Of course, I could just be talking BOLLOCKS!
Cheers
Andy
I NEVER said I was right, I just have my own view on how queue jumpers can sometimes slow it all down for the rest of the population. I DID say that nobody has a monopoly on being right, and if you really think that neither the Highway Code nor the IAM is beyond improvement or reasobale debate then thats YOUR opinion and good luck to you.
Personally I see no probelm in challenging the status quo. History is littered with "accepted best practice" that has subsequently been altered in the light of more recent thinking.
If you stop and think a bit about the mechanics of what I am saying - that is that queue jumpers will often SLOW DOWN the flow of traffic rather than enhance it by dint of the "interupter effect" (see earlier posts) - you might see (or you might not) that its worth thinking about this.
Of course, I could just be talking BOLLOCKS!
Cheers
Andy
Andy,
My post was not intended as a :flame:
I agree that the Highway Code will need to be updated as conditions change, however currently it is the main 'rulebook' giving guidelines to road users.
The problem is that however many correct opinions road users have, unless everyone follows the same guidelines then traffic will never flow smoothly and some people will get pi55ed off.
In my opinion the continent is a much better place to drive - alternate filtering and lane disipline are vastly improved over the UK.
But then I'm no expert... just a user.
My post was not intended as a :flame:
I agree that the Highway Code will need to be updated as conditions change, however currently it is the main 'rulebook' giving guidelines to road users.
The problem is that however many correct opinions road users have, unless everyone follows the same guidelines then traffic will never flow smoothly and some people will get pi55ed off.
In my opinion the continent is a much better place to drive - alternate filtering and lane disipline are vastly improved over the UK.
But then I'm no expert... just a user.
No offence taken.
There is no doubt that "continental" driving discipline is MUCH better in many countries.
I suspect this might have something to do with the fear of having a Porsche ram you up the chuff at 160mph if you just wander about all over the road without looking in your mirrors as too many people do here in blighty!
Also the fact is that where speed limits are put in place over there they are generally observed because people recognise that the limit must be on that stretch of road for a reason. I do believe that the fatuous "speed kills" arguements deployed in the UK have bred a nation of drivers who on the one hand have no respect for the traffic laws (because for example they see the stupidity of a 70mph limit on a dry, traffic free motorway) whilst on the other hand other drivers do not have the sense they were born with but feel they are great drivers because they think they are following the highway code (the people who do 70mph on a fog bound motorway because its the speed limit!)
The whole UK driving standards debate is doomed to degenerate into pointless arguements between these two camps as long as Government adopts it's oversimplistic apprach to traffic legislation/enforcement.
Merge in turn IS the perfect solution, BUT it doesn't work by and large cos of all the reasons shown clearly in this thread - one lot feels hard done by and the other lot feels justified to do what it does.
In truth neither side is right. If we recognise that merge in turn is the preserve of an enlightened motoring public (which we don't have in the UK)then we have to come up with something practical to make the system work. Staying in our respective camps is not an option! My suggestion of a long merge/slow down/accelerate scheme (see earlier posts) might be rubbish in reality.(although it should work technically) I don't know! I am just trying to be part of the solution to the problem rather than prolong it.
Now I have grown a third eyebrow and its only 10.30.
Back to my nuggets...........
Andy
There is no doubt that "continental" driving discipline is MUCH better in many countries.
I suspect this might have something to do with the fear of having a Porsche ram you up the chuff at 160mph if you just wander about all over the road without looking in your mirrors as too many people do here in blighty!
Also the fact is that where speed limits are put in place over there they are generally observed because people recognise that the limit must be on that stretch of road for a reason. I do believe that the fatuous "speed kills" arguements deployed in the UK have bred a nation of drivers who on the one hand have no respect for the traffic laws (because for example they see the stupidity of a 70mph limit on a dry, traffic free motorway) whilst on the other hand other drivers do not have the sense they were born with but feel they are great drivers because they think they are following the highway code (the people who do 70mph on a fog bound motorway because its the speed limit!)
The whole UK driving standards debate is doomed to degenerate into pointless arguements between these two camps as long as Government adopts it's oversimplistic apprach to traffic legislation/enforcement.
Merge in turn IS the perfect solution, BUT it doesn't work by and large cos of all the reasons shown clearly in this thread - one lot feels hard done by and the other lot feels justified to do what it does.
In truth neither side is right. If we recognise that merge in turn is the preserve of an enlightened motoring public (which we don't have in the UK)then we have to come up with something practical to make the system work. Staying in our respective camps is not an option! My suggestion of a long merge/slow down/accelerate scheme (see earlier posts) might be rubbish in reality.(although it should work technically) I don't know! I am just trying to be part of the solution to the problem rather than prolong it.
Now I have grown a third eyebrow and its only 10.30.
Back to my nuggets...........
Andy
NUggets aside, just picking up one point about mirror usage. It does seem to vary a lot. I've often been pleasantly surprised by the way that the sight of my Chimaera coming up behind them causes micro-car drivers to lurch towards the verge, sometimes dangerously near the limit of adhesion of their two-inch wide tyres. Which shows that some at least are awake and paying attention.
-Manek-
-Manek-
The highway code once suggested that in the event of break failure on a hill the driver should descend bouncing off parked vehicles to effect stopping. So things move on and no one has a monopoly on what is right or wrong. If the question at the beginning of this post is anything to go by then answer c which according to the highway code is correct is proof enough that it is in some respects out of date. Answer a) is what all overtakers would like to see because it leaves them in control of the decision to pass or not. If the vehicle to be overtaken is to brake then that then commits the overtaker. 20 years ago this would have not been the case as speed differentials were somewhat less.
As for the merge in debate, well most drivers seem to prefer to be stationery than moving so they like to join queues. They often look for an oportunity to stop even when the traffic is flowing. My theory is that most people do not like to travel at all, why go anywhere if you dont have to?
As for the merge in debate, well most drivers seem to prefer to be stationery than moving so they like to join queues. They often look for an oportunity to stop even when the traffic is flowing. My theory is that most people do not like to travel at all, why go anywhere if you dont have to?
Perhaps a sign that says "merge in turn" might be useful, as well as instructions at the start of the cones to say, merge in turn is being used ahead please use all lanes, or some other stuff, which will of course be compliant with the Highway Code. We are generally a nation that works to rules, and will do something as instructed, if the instructions make sense - we also don't like taking responsibility, or going against the flow, so seeing signs giving instructions tends to make us all behave in a more uniform way. I think this queue jumping thing is a lot better than it used to be. I find people are less rather than more pushy, d more people sem to be observing speed limits in roadworks, if not elsewhere...
Edited by nubbin on Wednesday 5th December 10:53
Edited by nubbin on Wednesday 5th December 10:53
Well chaps, since they made it law in Germany to merge in turn, i.e. drive to the front of the narrowing using ALL lanes and then merge, it's shown NO improvement as the idiots can't read and don't want to let that "pushy pratt" into "MY lane"............
same thing mind you was made law in Switzerland over 5 years ago and there are no probs there........ Possibly the diffference between pushy hun mentality and alpine nonchalance?!?
same thing mind you was made law in Switzerland over 5 years ago and there are no probs there........ Possibly the diffference between pushy hun mentality and alpine nonchalance?!?
The IAM are a good bunch, but if you've got the choice of asking a pressure group or a company with a commerical interest in feeding things through a constriction, then I'd go with an expert in the field of chicken nugget packing every time.
And I'm not arguing with the in turn merging idea. It would be good because it would be fair, would probably lower everyone's blood pressure and probably help make the flow fairly smooth. However it won't fundamentally alter the average time stuck in the queue.
And I'm not arguing with the in turn merging idea. It would be good because it would be fair, would probably lower everyone's blood pressure and probably help make the flow fairly smooth. However it won't fundamentally alter the average time stuck in the queue.
So 2 things are becoming clear from all of this:
General driver training needs to be improved
Better signage where 2 lanes go to 1 etc
I dont think anything helps the throughput of traffic but it would reduce the queue and maybee even the stress/rage levels of the drivers by the end of it..
General driver training needs to be improved
Better signage where 2 lanes go to 1 etc
I dont think anything helps the throughput of traffic but it would reduce the queue and maybee even the stress/rage levels of the drivers by the end of it..
I tend to drive in the UK as I would when I'm working in Frankfurt.
There you can cruise (conditions permitting - otherwise the police stop you in their Opel Vectras!) at 250kph (155mph) and when you come up to roadworks you get from 3 to 6 lanes of queing traffic. I have never been stuck for more than about 15 minutes and that was for a 2 mile queue.
You also have people who are faster than you come up behind and flash you - not out of impatience, but to let you know they are coming. You just move over, let them past, and carry on - you don't get pissed off becuase they are going faster than you.
There you can cruise (conditions permitting - otherwise the police stop you in their Opel Vectras!) at 250kph (155mph) and when you come up to roadworks you get from 3 to 6 lanes of queing traffic. I have never been stuck for more than about 15 minutes and that was for a 2 mile queue.
You also have people who are faster than you come up behind and flash you - not out of impatience, but to let you know they are coming. You just move over, let them past, and carry on - you don't get pissed off becuase they are going faster than you.
A general comment on merging 'early'. If you merge into one lane at the three mile sign you are effectively increasing the length of restricted road by another 3 miles. The length of the queue will increase in proportion to the number of cars being slowed down by the length of the restriction therefore the queue will become even longer. Merge in turn is the sensible solution, keeping the length of the restriction as short as possible thus minimising the queue
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff