One single thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 4

[RSTurboPaul]

yellowjack said:

...which is about as relevant to the situation described as your Highway Code advise. Especially when Statutory Signs & Road Markings give unequivocal instruction to those joining from said side road to "Give Way" to those already on the major route. And check my bold. I don't block side turns, nor do I occupy box junctions illegally. Unlike many Muppets round these parts whose driving licence appears to have tumbled from a Corn Flakes packet.

If you're happy that one day you might be in the back of an ambulance prevented from getting in to A&E by a succession of Muppets letting rat-runners in from the left, and thereby increasing the length of the queue past the hospital entrance, then you carry on with your misplaced courtesy. I'll carry on taking my driving advise from statutory signs, signals and road markings, though...

What about if one of those 'rat-runners' (which is a term I cannot abide, seeing as the point of the highway network is surely to allow efficient travel between an origin and a destination, so why not take the direct route?) is attempting to urgently get to the hospital to see a relative that is in an imminent end of life situation?

[Graveworm]

yellowjack said:

Graveworm said:

yellowjack said:

...I refused to be bullied (by her creeping forward to barge into traffic) into letting her turn left from a side road....

... I will do all in my power to NOT let traffic out ahead of me unless traffic is stopped and I am compelled by my overriding sense of genuine courtesy to not creep forward to block side turnings for traffic turning right into them across my path.

I am sick and tired of missing a green traffic light phase because some moron with a misplaced courtesy complex is busy letting traffic cross from their right and join from their left while they can see the bloody green light ahead of them. And people I speak to who say stupid things like "well Castle Lane is bad for traffic anyway". Well it might be bad anyway, but that's no reason to go ahead and make it worse by letting these short-cutters and rat-runners in from the left, thereby reducing throughput at the traffic lights. Make them bloody wait. Like I've had to for the last mile. If i had my way I'd have those side turns blocked up and make them go via the roundabout anyway to join the back of the queue. Because that way, traffic on Castle Lane would only need to stop for red traffic lights, and the whole queue would move that much faster. Grrrrr!

highway code said:

In slow-moving traffic. You should.....
allow access into and from side roads

...which is about as relevant to the situation described as your Highway Code advise. Especially when Statutory Signs & Road Markings give unequivocal instruction to those joining from said side road to "Give Way" to those already on the major route. And check my bold. I don't block side turns, nor do I occupy box junctions illegally. Unlike many Muppets round these parts whose driving licence appears to have tumbled from a Corn Flakes packet.

If you're happy that one day you might be in the back of an ambulance prevented from getting in to A&E by a succession of Muppets letting rat-runners in from the left, and thereby increasing the length of the queue past the hospital entrance, then you carry on with your misplaced courtesy. I'll carry on taking my driving advise from statutory signs, signals and road markings, though...

...which is about as relevant to the situation described as your Highway Code advise. Especially when Statutory Signs & Road Markings give unequivocal instruction to those joining from said side road to "Give Way" to those already on the major route. And check my bold. I don't block side turns, nor do I occupy box junctions illegally. Unlike many Muppets round these parts whose driving licence appears to have tumbled from a Corn Flakes packet.

How is anything you say compatible with allow access from side roads, which may or may not be the same as blocking them but pretty sure that your post says that you do.

Also sure the Highway code is driving advice. if I did what you did, with your justification, during a driving test, it could contribute to failing. On many occasions, in my case, it would have meant not being allowed to do my job. I will continue to drive with reasonable consideration as the law does require, and is guided in that determination by the Highway code. The signs that say give way, mean that if you don't let them out then they don't have priority. That doesn't mean that you may not let them out or indeed that you shouldn't the highway code is clear that you should.

It may also be a reason, why almost daily you are in this thread Ironically with "One single thing.. " in the title having been in conflict with "Knobs" whereas most of us come across events like you describe once in a blue moon.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 12th December 18:35

[yellowjack]

RSTurboPaul said:

What about if one of those 'rat-runners' (which is a term I cannot abide, seeing as the point of the highway network is surely to allow efficient travel between an origin and a destination, so why not take the direct route?) is attempting to urgently get to the hospital to see a relative that is in an imminent end of life situation?

Seriously? What if one of them is? It's equally likely (or probably far more likely given the relative volume of traffic on each of the roads) that one (or more) persons queuing up on the 'main' road is also in such a situation, and so, by letting in traffic which has no reasonable expectation to be let in, I could be delaying such a person from getting to the hospital in good time.

And for clarity, for you, for Graveworm, and for anyone else siding with those in the side roads...

Showing misplaced courtesy to people turning out of side roads is simultaneously being ACTIVELY DISCOURTEOUS to those behind you in the queue. Over in the "things that annoy you" thread we have people moaning that drivers who leave too large a gap in traffic are actively reducing the number of cars that can get through each green phase at a set of traffic lights. Yet "letting someone out of a side turn" is, in practise and effect, exactly the same as leaving a large gap in traffic. So which is it to be?

a) It is right to let traffic out of a side turning AND to leave huge gaps in slow traffic

or

b) Leaving large gaps in traffic is anti-social behaviour and increases queue length and duration, therefore letting people out of side turnings when you could otherwise make unimpeded progress toward the traffic light is also, by definition, anti-social behaviour

Because the way I see it, you can't have it both ways.


Oh, and FYI, I don't give a flying fig if someone from the side road is on their way to see their dying mum/dad/brother/sister/child. Because I know for a FACT that ambulances routinely use the 'main' road, and I'd far rather I aided an ambulance in getting a critically ill patient to an ITU than cause it a delay to allow someone who is almost certainly NOT (by statistical probability, and by observation of the occupants of their car) on a mission of mercy. I mean, you may live in an area with a massively high death rate, where every second driver is on the way to their dying mum's bedside. But I do not. I live near a busy A&E department where tens, perhaps scores of ambulances per hour definitely are on missions of mercy, and require/deserve all the help I can give them to avoid delays. Especially when it is busy and traffic is heavy.

[Toaster Pilot]

fk me, I thought Liquid Knight was the Waltiest nutter on here. Not actually convinced you’re two separate people, for the sake of humanity.

Ever considered that you aren’t actually that important and your actions will more than likely have absolutely no effect on anyone, let alone an ambulance / someone in need of one?

The person trying to get out of the side road will think “knob” and then join the traffic a few yards behind you anyway. A few seconds later they’ll have forgotten about it, they won’t go home and write War and Peace on the Internet about how lives were saved or not by the actions.

Edited by Toaster Pilot on Thursday 12th December 18:49

[bluezedd]

This place attracts all the weirdos. Then again it's kinda expected with such classic threads like the bad parking, or number plate ones.

Then again, I'm still here so I guess I'm one of them.

[Graveworm]

yellowjack said:

And for clarity, for you, for Graveworm, and for anyone else siding with those in the side roads... Yet "letting someone out of a side turn" is, in practise and effect, exactly the same as leaving a large gap in traffic. So which is it to be?

a) It is right to let traffic out of a side turning AND to leave huge gaps in slow traffic

or

b) Leaving large gaps in traffic is anti-social behaviour and increases queue length and duration, therefore letting people out of side turnings when you could otherwise make unimpeded progress toward the traffic light is also, by definition, anti-social behaviour

Because the way I see it, you can't have it both ways..

Literally in the same rule in the Highway code it also says.
reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow
never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely
leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past
not change lanes to the left to overtake


So it appears it's possible. Speaking of cornflake packets..

[nonsequitur]

RSTurboPaul said:

What about if one of those 'rat-runners' (which is a term I cannot abide, seeing as the point of the highway network is surely to allow efficient travel between an origin and a destination, so why not take the direct route?) is attempting to urgently get to the hospital to see a relative that is in an imminent end of life situation?

I believe that the term 'rat-run' is meant to describe a short cut that takes traffic from potential heavy traffic and takes it through housing estates, quiet single track country roads or other local highways that were not meant for heavy traffic flow.

[yellowjack]

Toaster Pilot said:

fk me, I thought Liquid Knight was the Waltiest nutter on here. Not actually convinced you’re two separate people, for the sake of humanity.

Ever considered that you aren’t actually that important and your actions will more than likely have absolutely no effect on anyone, let alone an ambulance / someone in need of one?

The person trying to get out of the side road will think “knob” and then join the traffic a few yards behind you anyway. A few seconds later they’ll have forgotten about it, they won’t go home and write War and Peace on the Internet about how lives were saved or not by the actions.

Now it doesn't say on your profile where it is that you pilot toasters, but I'll hazard a guess that it's nowhere near Castle Lane in Bournemouth. Because if you were at all familiar with the road, you would also be VERY familiar with the sight of ambulances struggling to make headway in peak time traffic. You'd also see all kinds of Muppetry from drivers trying to be nice and move aside for the ambulances, only to make themselves into difficult, or sometimes impossible to pass chicanes, when keeping going forward is the only rational course of action available to them. It's a horrible road, with loads of opportunity for careless lane changes (one just tonight caused a collision which closed the road in one direction, right outside the hospital, ffs). There are people trying to get into and out of Tesco Extra's car park, and the Muppets pushing their way out of Holmfield Ave, Cheriton Ave, and Holdenhurst Ave just make the situation so much worse. The queue is regularly back to, and beyond the Iford Bridge roundabout, more than ¾ mile away, with additional idiots who can't read the 3 foot high words "Keep Clear", painted in white on the roundabout, making things even worse. So by NOT letting in one car from a side road, I may well allow one car that is blocking the roundabout to move forward, allowing many cars to benefit. But you keep on thinking small, and consider only those in your immediate bubble. I'll continue to think of the big picture and aim my courtesy where it is statistically most likely to have a measurable benefit beyond "making the Toaster Pilot feel nice about himself for five minutes".

[yellowjack]

And if that answer is too long?

Short version is I KNOW the queue on Castle Lane is likely to be nearly a mile long, containing scores, maybe 100 cars, maybe more. Yet I can SEE that the queues at the side roads trying to join are much shorter, usually a maximum of 5/6 cars. Therefore I direct my courtesy toward the greater number of drivers, and they just so happen to be the ones queuing behind me, who have been waiting far longer than those 5 or 6 drivers at the Give Way lines on the side road. Which makes me sound a bit like a Corbynite. "For the Many, Not the Few. Wolfie Smith for PM! Up the revolution, Brothers and Sisters!"

[RSTurboPaul]

Assuming the solution is not to simply block off all the side roads totally in the manner of a communist dictatorship or similar, when should people seeking to join the larger road be permitted to join?

When all the cars that were in the queue to their right when they reached the junction have passed them?


Seriously, though, if you are suggesting that all the side roads should be 'entrance only' and all feed through to one single egress/exit point at the other. far end of the main road, there is nothing to stop you drawing up such a solution and offering it to the local Highways Authority and/or the local elected representative as a solution to what you see as a problem.

They may even like it. After all, there's nothing a Councillor or MP likes more than to be seen to be 'doing something', whether it is correct or not to actually do something.


Whether you'd get the support of all the residents who live on the roads in question, who would all now need to drive miles out of their way to get where they want to go, is a different matter, of course.

[Dr Murdoch]

Similar scheme (blocking through traffic/rat running) to as described was introduced in Waltham Forest. A 'vocal' bunch of residents and local businesses were apoplectic at the planning stage. But it got pushed through, and a lot of humble pie was consumed.

As this enhanced the residential area and boosted footfall in local shops. Drivers 'rat-running' through residential roads needed to find an alternative route.

Google: Mini-Holland Wathamstow.

[lost in espace]

nonsequitur said:

I believe that the term 'rat-run' is meant to describe a short cut that takes traffic from potential heavy traffic and takes it through housing estates, quiet single track country roads or other local highways that were not meant for heavy traffic flow.

Here in Welwyn the traffic northbound on the A1 frequently grinds to a halt in the evening, and people jump around the queue by coming off at J6 which runs along the A1 for about a mile and back on again. I saw an artic owned by a local company jump the queue in just this fashion today, bullying around the local roads and then getting back on the A1. These roads are busy enough for local traffic as it is, but he did nothing illegal. It will all stop for the next 2 years while we get a smart motorway built and the traffic won't move through the village or the A1.

[yellowjack]

RSTurboPaul said:

Assuming the solution is not to simply block off all the side roads totally in the manner of a communist dictatorship or similar, when should people seeking to join the larger road be permitted to join?

When all the cars that were in the queue to their right when they reached the junction have passed them?...

Well there's a large junction just along the road with a set of traffic lights. Perhaps when these go to red and traffic stops, we could consider that to be a "natural break" in the flow of traffic and one or two cars would be able to turn left into the queue because traffic in the queue wouldn't be petty enough to block traffic wanting to turn right "through" the queue. Job's a good 'un, because the smaller queue from the side road would now move forward in sync with the larger queue, a couple of cars joining at every red phase of the traffic light.

Or we could carry on with this nonsensical "misplaced courtesy" ballcocks, and stop the queue even when the traffic light is green, which inevitably reduces the number of vehicles that can get through the green light with each phase as drivers second guess one-another and play "after you, Claude".

I'm sorry if you can't see what I can see as making sense. If you don't look beyond the "it's mean to make someone wait" idea and see how my suggested system would actually improve traffic flow for everyone, then I can't help you.

[yellowjack]

lost in espace said:

nonsequitur said:

I believe that the term 'rat-run' is meant to describe a short cut that takes traffic from potential heavy traffic and takes it through housing estates, quiet single track country roads or other local highways that were not meant for heavy traffic flow.

Here in Welwyn the traffic northbound on the A1 frequently grinds to a halt in the evening, and people jump around the queue by coming off at J6 which runs along the A1 for about a mile and back on again. I saw an artic owned by a local company jump the queue in just this fashion today, bullying around the local roads and then getting back on the A1. These roads are busy enough for local traffic as it is, but he did nothing illegal. It will all stop for the next 2 years while we get a smart motorway built and the traffic won't move through the village or the A1.

Something i've noticed locally was a lot of traffic off the main road taking a left at the traffic lights, going up to the next roundabout, then back to the main road again, to join on the far side of the lights. Which I thought was a bit weird. But the queue to go straight ahead at the lights outside the hospital is usually very long, and the queue to turn left (it goes to the estate I live on, a no-through-route, and to a leisure centre and bank headquarters) is usually fairly short. It appears that some folk have worked out that they can get around all that pesky queuing nonsense by cutting up to the estate and back, thereby "jumping" the queue. It seems to work, too, and as you say it's nothing illegal. But I've seen a few near misses with cars leaving the leisure centre not expecting traffic to do a full circuit of the roundabout to go back the way they came. I take no issue with the practise itself, but the type of driver to take this route also seems to be the type to drive too fast, and with no regard for other road users.

[RSteve]

The fellow in an X3 parked outside of the Boots entrance on double yellows with his kids in his back, waiting for his partner to pop in to buy something. This is in a retail park with huge amounts of parking, but no, stopping outside the door on double yellows was first choice.

Unfortunately, his positioning resulted in cars being unable to reverse out and pull in to the car park spaces opposite, and having to beep at him to move, however he simply rolled forward or back to allow such manoeuvres.

I was at the customer services desk, it was a busy time with considerable queues. Clearly his partner was waiting in-line as he started beeping his horn multiple times as a 'hurry up' to his Mrs in the shop, with their son hanging out the passenger side window shouting 'MUUUM' too.

The cherry on cake was that it was also a two-way road around the retail park, of which he was blocking one side by parking there, so cars were having to wait to give way to oncoming shoppers before driving around him.

Inconsiderable to say the least!

[Graveworm]

RSteve said:

The fellow in an X3 parked outside of the Boots entrance on double yellows with his kids in his back, waiting for his partner to pop in to buy something. This is in a retail park with huge amounts of parking, but no, stopping outside the door on double yellows was first choice.

Unfortunately, his positioning resulted in cars being unable to reverse out and pull in to the car park spaces opposite, and having to beep at him to move, however he simply rolled forward or back to allow such manoeuvres.

I was at the customer services desk, it was a busy time with considerable queues. Clearly his partner was waiting in-line as he started beeping his horn multiple times as a 'hurry up' to his Mrs in the shop, with their son hanging out the passenger side window shouting 'MUUUM' too.

The cherry on cake was that it was also a two-way road around the retail park, of which he was blocking one side by parking there, so cars were having to wait to give way to oncoming shoppers before driving around him.

Inconsiderable to say the least!

A fitting punishment would be having to drive home in an X3..

[Pan Pan Pan]

Brooksay said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Brooksay said:

Well, took some doing, but I've finally managed to read my way through this entire thread. All 6000+ posts. Christ, people like to argue about ste, don't they?

Oh no they don't!? Err is this the 5 minute or 10 minute argument?
Lets face it ,no matter what the subject, who the poster is, or what their view point happens to be, there will always be someone who has the complete opposite point of view. and that is one of the absolutely best bits about PH.I suspect if anyone of us were put in a sealed room on our own, we could still start an argument!

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 12th December 13:12

I feel I should refute that.. But I have to agree. Also, for what it's worth, there are some very funny people on here. It's why I kept on reading over the last few weeks. And, of course, there be a few strange 'uns, too. "Are you not entertained!?"

That is the best bit about PH the variety of views, from the variety of people, who post here, where none of us will ever be able to entirely agree to every view point, held by others, but as long as such debates / discussions can be carried out with a reasonable level of politeness, then adverse views are fine.
In examining threads here , it seems they often `start' to go downhill., where one side or the other, starts to use names, or bad language toward the poster, rather than the point the other poster is trying to make, He who live s by the sword and all that

[nonsequitur]

Pan Pan Pan said:

That is the best bit about PH the variety of views, from the variety of people, who post here, where none of us will ever be able to entirely agree to every view point, held by others, but as long as such debates / discussions can be carried out with a reasonable level of politeness, then adverse views are fine.
In examining threads here , it seems they often `start' to go downhill., where one side or the other, starts to use names, or bad language toward the poster, rather than the point the other poster is trying to make, He who live s by the sword and all that

When rationality and reason are exhausted, insults soon follow. A familiar situation.

[Ar63]

A406, a car stopped in small hatched area parallel to lane 1, 2 chaps changing a tire with their backs to 50 mph traffic, it's dark and they are hardly visible. Just begging for trouble.

[mhurley]

Driver infront of me:
1) Pulls over without indicating
2) Parks up on pavement
3) Has a dog sitting on parcel shelf