Self righteous truckers!

[popeyewhite]

blueg33 said:

My brother was until a few years ago a highways and railways flow modeller, he is absolutely certain that using both lanes up to the merge point works.

And I can assure a single file of traffic moves faster through a merge point than two lanes zipping at the merge. As I have said in a previous post it is a matter of moving the merge signs and educating drivers.

[Mandat]

popeyewhite said:

Like I've said, people feel the need to queue and there's little anyone can do about it.

Agreed. The early mergers are indeed the problem, and the reason why both queues are not fully utilised up to the merge point.

[Mandat]

popeyewhite said:

And I can assure a single file of traffic moves faster through a merge point than two lanes zipping at the merge. As I have said in a previous post it is a matter of moving the merge signs and educating drivers.

If you move the merge point further back, I can assure you that the ignorant early mergers, will choose to merge even earlier before the new merge point, somewhat defeating the point.

If they currently don't understand that they should should merge at the merge point, what makes you think they will understand any better if the merge point is moved elsewhere?

I support educating drivers on all sorts of topics, but what hope is there, if even supposedly professional drivers, like the OP's truck driver, do not understant basic concepts like merge in turn.

[blueg33]

popeyewhite said:

blueg33 said:

My brother was until a few years ago a highways and railways flow modeller, he is absolutely certain that using both lanes up to the merge point works.

And I can assure a single file of traffic moves faster through a merge point than two lanes zipping at the merge. As I have said in a previous post it is a matter of moving the merge signs and educating drivers.

I disagree, if people merge properly rather than being self appointed policemen, it works fine. You have to have a merge point somewhere.

[Hackney]

popeyewhite said:

Hackney said:

But if the trucker wasn't such a dick then there'd be two lines.

Unlikely. Probably there would be one long line of people queuing, and an adjacent, shorter line at the zip point where people viewed as queue jumpers try to merge but end up slowing everybody down. Like I've said, people feel the need to queue and there's little anyone can do about it.

And if everyone could get their heads around a very simple concept there would not be a long queue of grumpy ignoramuses and a short queue of people thinking, "why don't they use both lanes?" there would be two lanes of traffic merging at the merge point.
But hey, common sense is apparently anything but.

[Johnnytheboy]

Has anyone else noticed how much more painless merges are when it's L1 closing, not L2?

I have my theories about why, but I just wondered if I was alone in noting it.

[blueg33]

Johnnytheboy said:

Has anyone else noticed how much more painless merges are when it's L1 closing, not L2?

I have my theories about why, but I just wondered if I was alone in noting it.

Yes.

Its partially why I think that they should merge both lanes into one central lane, so no one thinks they have an inalienable right of way

[Old Tyke]

grumpy52 said:

The problem is merging should be smooth and even .It rarely is and ends up as a stop start farce .
Trying to do stop start on large trucks is a right pitta .
Some truckers do get fed up with this and also all the twunts trying to squeeze up the blind spots .
I don't condone it and it's not big or clever .but I do understand have some sympathy trying to guide alarge artic through the reduced lanes of roadworks..

The truckers getting "fed up with it" only have themselves to blame and I drive one myself. I have no such problems at lane closures when the traffic is crawling because as soon as I see the signs telling me that a lane is closed ahead, that is the lane that I move to and I will stay in that lane until the cones. I'm sure people like Rick101 would be apoplectic with rage to see me going sailing past them in my 44 tonner whilst they sit queueing like a good little boy in lane 1 with all the other lemmings but the fact of the matter is that the lane isn't closed until the cones start and that's where you should merge if the traffic is crawling, not at some arbitrary point several miles back up the road mouthed by the Self-Appointed Road Police brigade. If they wanted you to get into one lane several miles back up the road, that's where they would've put the fking cones!

So long as you drive courteously and don't try to barge your way in to a non-existent gap it's never been a problem merging whether I'm in the truck or my own car, presumably because there are still enough people left that understand how merge-in-turn works.

The only reason it's become socially unacceptable to stay in the soon-to-be-closed lane is because of sheep mentality and no-one wants to be the black sheep seen to be "queue jumping" and so they dive into the open lane asap. If more people stayed in the soon-to-be-closed lane until the cones and merged there (assuming traffic is at a crawl) then it would become more accepted. I'm regularly up the M621 from Leeds to Gildersome in the evening peak and it's often backed up to get on to the M62. Lane 3 ends at the top of the hill but nearly everyone who was in it further back stays in it until it ends and then seamlessly merges with the traffic in lane 2. There's no dummies-out-of-prams and because it happens there every evening people are used to it and just get on with it. That's how it SHOULD work.

[Rick101]

I think you have gotten the wrong person.
I'd be right behind you in making use of the open lane.

It's that popeye chap that can't follow simple instructions and wants all roads to be single lane as it must be quicker than a motorway.

[blueg33]

I find it incredible that 50 years ago we could send people to the moon, we can look at stars billions of miles away, we can build amazing pocket sized devices that allow you to communicate and send pictures and video around the world in seconds, yet some people are totally incapable of understanding and operating "merge in turn".

I really think that the driving test needs to have an IQ and Common Sense test built in

[popeyewhite]

blueg33 said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Has anyone else noticed how much more painless merges are when it's L1 closing, not L2?

I have my theories about why, but I just wondered if I was alone in noting it.

Yes.

Its partially why I think that they should merge both lanes into one central lane, so no one thinks they have an inalienable right of way

No, that will double the chaos with your everyday roaduser. Just too much to compute. Also there's a speed differential between the lanes - you need to merge into the slowest lane. Education and different signage is the answer and persuading people to merge much more gradually and earlier than the choke point.

[popeyewhite]

Rick101 said:

It's that popeye chap that can't follow simple instructions and wants all roads to be single lane as it must be quicker than a motorway.

Is that how you interpreted my posts or is this just your internet persona? I imagine in real life you can read and don't make things up. Well, maybe.

[Rick101]

popeyewhite said:

Andy20vt said:

No not just me, plenty of others also prevented from using lane 2 as highway code and roadworks signs intended!

Well I suppose you'll just have to queue then. Like everyone else.

I do t need to interpret anything. You've clearly stated you expect everyone to queue in an single line and not use the multiple lanes available.

[CoolHands]

blueg33 said:

I find it incredible that 50 years ago we could send people to the moon, we can look at stars billions of miles away, we can build amazing pocket sized devices that allow you to communicate and send pictures and video around the world in seconds, yet some people are totally incapable of understanding and operating "merge in turn".

I really think that the driving test needs to have an IQ and Common Sense test built in

I think 10% of humans are smart and make stuff like that happen. The rest are mouth breathers queueing in lane 1 of life.

[Old Tyke]

Rick101 said:

I think you have gotten the wrong person.
I'd be right behind you in making use of the open lane.

It's that popeye chap that can't follow simple instructions and wants all roads to be single lane as it must be quicker than a motorway.

Apologies, Rick. Indeed, popeye looks like the person I should've referred to.

[CubanPete]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/183746

[Johnnytheboy]

popeyewhite said:

No, that will double the chaos with your everyday roaduser. Just too much to compute. Also there's a speed differential between the lanes - you need to merge into the slowest lane. Education and different signage is the answer and persuading people to merge much more gradually and earlier than the choke point.

And yet in my experience L1 into L2 merges seem to work better. Perhaps because we are more conditioned to traffic merging from the left (sliproads), or because the drivers who like to be obstructive to merges aren't usually in L2.

And why should people be trained to merge earlier than the place the signage tells them to merge? And what do you mean by "gradually": a few cars at a time, or each car taking longer to change lane? Because neither makes sense.

[Countdown]

Johnnytheboy said:

And yet in my experience L1 into L2 merges seem to work better. Perhaps because we are more conditioned to traffic merging from the left (sliproads), or because the drivers who like to be obstructive to merges aren't usually in L2.

It might be because you don't get the wker brigade who think Merge In Turn = "overtake as many cars as possible and then swerve in at the last minute" in L1

[blueg33]

popeyewhite said:

blueg33 said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Has anyone else noticed how much more painless merges are when it's L1 closing, not L2?

I have my theories about why, but I just wondered if I was alone in noting it.

Yes.

Its partially why I think that they should merge both lanes into one central lane, so no one thinks they have an inalienable right of way

No, that will double the chaos with your everyday roaduser. Just too much to compute. Also there's a speed differential between the lanes - you need to merge into the slowest lane. Education and different signage is the answer and persuading people to merge much more gradually and earlier than the choke point.

I've seen it implemented a few times, mainly in Europe, it works fine

[popeyewhite]

blueg33 said:

I've seen it implemented a few times, mainly in Europe, it works fine

We have an entirely different motoring culture to Europe.