Use both lanes and merge
Discussion
Blackpuddin said:
Mandat said:
Drivers should be asking themselves, do I want to join a longer queue or join a shorter queue?
All it needs is for the stupid people to start thinking.
Have you ever considered the possibility that there wouldn't be any queues, short or long, if drivers didn't choose to 'make a nice bit of progress' by jumping past those who have moved over in good time? All it needs is for the stupid people to start thinking.
Blackpuddin said:
Clearly you lot are perfectly happy with the status quo of wholly unnecessary tailbacks caused by selfish driving so I'll leave you to it. 'Designated merge points'. 
You haven't thought it through at all. No matter whether you all get into one lane two miles from an obstruction, or wait until the last possible moment, the fact remains that two lanes full of traffic must merge to use one lane. Keeping that point further from the obstruction raises the likelihood that the inevitable delay will stretch back to the point where it now impacts other roads feeding in at junctions, slip roads, roundabouts, etc. By using both lanes up to the merge point, you keep the absolute length of the queue down. The delay will be the same as "doing it your way" so long as morons in the "open" lane don't deliberately block those in the "closing" lane. And it's the fairest way too, if everyone just maintained their position in lane until the cones or signs declared it time to merge, because done properly, neither lane should have a longer queue than the other. See also the mentalists who simply have to join a motorway at the very point the slip road line becomes broken. Or they (illegally) join while it's still a solid line. This despite some slip roads having a quarter of a mile of dotted line over which they can legally join.
I guess Highways England are feeling pretty stupid now, having spent a fortune installing signs instructing drivers to "Use Both Lanes When Queuing" on trunk roads like the A303. They should have saved their cash and asked for your advise, as you seem to have all the answers...
Read what the RAC have to say about it in this Bristol Post article... https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/rac-tells-drive... ...but I rather suspect you know what it will say, and will ignore it anyway "because queuing etiquette" and some pseudo-science you invented inside your own head.
yellowjack said:
Blackpuddin said:
Clearly you lot are perfectly happy with the status quo of wholly unnecessary tailbacks caused by selfish driving so I'll leave you to it. 'Designated merge points'.
Good stuffEven with reference to authoritative advice and with visual aids, the likes of Blackpuddin can't or doesn't want to learn or understand.
That or he is deliberately trolling.
One last go then I'm out. Your plan and illustrations, for those like me whom you consider to be intellectually beneath you, make perfect sense, but only in a Utopian world where everybody does the right thing. Unfortunately this is the real world, where 'merging in turn' simply does not happen. You surely know this to be true but seem to be in a state of denial about it. Your idealistic dream takes no account of human nature. Some sort of technology-enabled forced merging would undoubtedly work – how could it not – but as long as it's down to human choice and selfish people behind the wheel who see a blocked lane as an opportunity rather than a chance to show some consideration to others (and to themselves, if they would only think about the time-wasting consequences of their actions for more than a millisecond), we will continue to have tailbacks.
Blackpuddin said:
One last go then I'm out. Your plan and illustrations, for those like me whom you consider to be intellectually beneath you, make perfect sense, but only in a Utopian world where everybody does the right thing. Unfortunately this is the real world, where 'merging in turn' simply does not happen. You surely know this to be true but seem to be in a state of denial about it. Your idealistic dream takes no account of human nature. Some sort of technology-enabled forced merging would undoubtedly work – how could it not – but as long as it's down to human choice and selfish people behind the wheel who see a blocked lane as an opportunity rather than a chance to show some consideration to others (and to themselves, if they would only think about the time-wasting consequences of their actions for more than a millisecond), we will continue to have tailbacks.
I'd guess you are alluding to the way that the merging car will normally cause the car behind to slow which then has a knock on effect slowing the traffic behind?Well if the people in the full lane were paying attention and left gaps allowing for merging that would not happen would it?
It is what I and many other drivers do when two lanes at a junction drop to one so it isn't that hard at 10 - 20 mph so it shouldn't be hard at 50mph.
Then again there are plenty of drivers using the clearer lane that don't plan their merge point properly and just bully their way in.
It is just planning really, like crossing a dense stream of traffic in the left lane to use an exit that most of them are not taking and the ones that are will be caught behind lorries so your space/time envelope on the road never intersects theirs. Just because some people cannot handle it doesn't mean we need to drop to their level, if we did that there would be more congestion and collisions.
Blackpuddin said:
One last go then I'm out. Your plan and illustrations, for those like me whom you consider to be intellectually beneath you, make perfect sense, but only in a Utopian world where everybody does the right thing. Unfortunately this is the real world, where 'merging in turn' simply does not happen. You surely know this to be true but seem to be in a state of denial about it. Your idealistic dream takes no account of human nature. Some sort of technology-enabled forced merging would undoubtedly work – how could it not – but as long as it's down to human choice and selfish people behind the wheel who see a blocked lane as an opportunity rather than a chance to show some consideration to others (and to themselves, if they would only think about the time-wasting consequences of their actions for more than a millisecond), we will continue to have tailbacks.
So what you are saying is that because some people are idiots and can't/won't merge in turn than that's what we should all do? From now on we should all aim to be idiots rather than trying to stick to the highway code, use both lanes and merge in turn - in case the idiots get offended because of their own lack of knowledge. FFS!
yellowjack said:
I guess Highways England are feeling pretty stupid now, having spent a fortune installing signs instructing drivers to "Use Both Lanes When Queuing" on trunk roads like the A303. They should have saved their cash and asked for your advise, as you seem to have all the answers...
.
Not a great example as:.
1) Since they have signs here, if it's always appropriate why have signs at all. It follows where they haven't installed signs then you shouldn't merge in turn??
2) Highways England, the TRSGD and their precursors, along with guidance as to where merge in turn is appropriate, have clarified when it doesn't apply: e.g not on three lanes to 2 or 1, not where there are lane ending arrows on the road etc. According to them, it is only appropriate on the approach to a temporarily closed lane, subject to a temporary speed limit of 50 or lower and where there is a substantial risk of regular tailbacks causing problems.
People have been successfully prosecuted for inconsiderate driving on the A3 Londonbound for doing what many think is the correct thing.
I wish the highway code wasn't as vague and contradictory and we actually had legislation like Australia. Otherwise we can have dozens of pages of debate, every time, where no one is really wrong.
Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 8th September 12:02
ArnageWRC said:
It could and should work; the theory is fine. However, there is one slight problem - the UK motorist using some common sense - and following the instruction of signs.
I have seen it in practice. It works, but only with a long enough approach.I think the thinking with it is this, (with regards to the initial RH lane only first, then funnel into the LH lane):-
Those in the right hand lane, will let those in from the left hand lane (then you can funnel them all from a single RH lane back over to the intended LH lane).
Whereas, people are not keen on letting people in from the RH lane into a single LH lane only - they think they are boy-racers ‘pushing in and queue-jumping’.
Anyone ever been to a new drive through McDonalds? they manage the zip merge perfectly (and everyone still get the correct order)
This happens a lot in my city where people sit in a long line of traffic when there is a completely empty lane, which if used could half the queue of traffic snaking back blocking junctions and roundabouts and causing the city to grind to a halt,
This happens a lot in my city where people sit in a long line of traffic when there is a completely empty lane, which if used could half the queue of traffic snaking back blocking junctions and roundabouts and causing the city to grind to a halt,
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff