One single thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 4
Discussion
djc206 said:
PF62 said:
yellowjack said:
Same with merge in turn.
People queuing in other lanes leaving one unused, and then you driving along in that lonely, unloved lane is NOT queue jumping.
Clearly it is queue jumping unless you park up at the merge point of the empty lane and wait until the car the queue of cars you passed has gone through and then you merge in behind them.People queuing in other lanes leaving one unused, and then you driving along in that lonely, unloved lane is NOT queue jumping.
Merge in turn just doesn't work.
If you have two lanes equally full, then unless you create a new lane rather than merge one into the other, then those in the continuing lane have to cooperate and allow the disappearing lane to merge. They don't. Result is traffic slowing down as people try to merge and people won't let them.
Hence people move into the continuing lane earlier than necessary, so creating the empty lane.
But this empty lane then brings out the self-righteous 'merge in turn' brigade, who tear down the empty lane and then try to merge at that speed, so causing people in the continuing lane to brake, creating a ripple down the line and making the delay worse.
So whatever you do, merge in turn makes traffic jams worse.
The fact that PF62 seems to think that being in the non closing confers ownership of that lane? Priceless. This is a road we're talking about, not the f
king Post Office. If a road is empty, then it is there to be driven on. And no-one mentioned "tearing down the empty lane" or "slamming on" to squeeze into a gap. The art of merging in turn is a VERY simple one. Cars continue in both lanes past the various boards warning of the closure in 800, 600, 400 yards, etc. Because at this point both lanes are STILL OPEN. As the numbers on the boards get lower, so should the speed of traffic in BOTH lanes. Past 400 yards (not a rule, just makes sense to me) no-one should be swapping places with the car alongside. Instead, at this point on the road, drivers should be looking to make eye contact with the driver alongside, and it makes sense for whoever is slightly ahead (front edge of car further forward) to be the car to go into the single lane section first. To achieve this smoothly, cars in BOTH lanes should open up gaps between them and the car ahead in their lane. Gaps big enough for the car in the other lane to fit into. This then means that by the time the lane closure does become active, every car has a space alongside it into which it can smoothly move left or right as appropriate.
The effect on the length of the queue is twofold. Using both lanes up to the merge point instead of merging half a mile back reduces the overall length of the queue. And smooth merging should mean that no-one has to come to a complete stop at the merge point to have a pointless squabble over 'ownership' of a piece of road space.
A further benefit, of course, is that if both lanes are occupied by people driving at similar speeds and cooperating with one another to achieve a smooth transition down to fewer lanes, then there will obviously be no opportunity for anyone to "tear down the empty lane" and "push in at the last moment".
Perhaps those who can't understand the basics might prefer a system where we all stop at a booth further back in the queue where we take a ticket, then we all park up at the merge point and wait until our ticket number shows on an overhead gantry. Like a PROPER BRITISH QUEUE should damned well work, what!
The fundamental problem, as I see it, with merging two lanes into one, is that as soon as one car in the 'closing' lane decides to merge early, people start to regard anyone who drives further in the closing lane as a queue jumper. So it's the early mergers that cause a lot of problems. More of the issues seem to be caused by lack of cooperation, and failure to get yourself squared away alongside a gap sufficiently early. In short, if everyone let one car from the queue in the closing lane into the queue in the lane that continues, then all the problems would go away. Drivers would stop trying to squeeze two cars into a gap meant for one if they could see that there was a suitable gap already alongside them. It's the close-up at all costs "tailgating" mentality that causes yet more aggro. This is where the "concertina braking" starts and we end up with lots of minor collisions which serve to help no-one and which just exacerbate the tailbacks.
"Merge in turn just doesn't work." That'd mainly be down to the fact that it isn't allowed to work by drivers who wilfully obstruct any hint of cooperation with others.
Me? If I can see idiots behind me obstructing sensible drivers using both lanes to the merge point, I'll open up a larger gap and let an extra few of those from the closing lane get in ahead of me, while still rolling slowly forward to avoid bringing the entire queue to a complete stop.
A Thought
On motorway lane closures from three lanes to one ( where L3 is the 'open lane' through the roadworks i think it is normal to cone off
L3 then L2 to get all traffic into L1 once done say the cones then move all the traffic to L3 This makes it easier for HGVs to stay in L1 rather than merge from 1 to 2 to 3
The main problem, as it has been mentioned many times, is those in the 'open lane' think, quite wrongly, that that have ownership and anyone in the other lane is being selfish,bad driving etc etc etc.
How about the HA doing an experiment whereby BOTH lanes merge into a virtual centre lane with half of each carriageeay coned off. ( a bottleneck shape)
Once this single lane is established then it can be directed to the 'open lane'
That way nobody feels that people are pushing in as both have to move over Make it a law covering DWDCA and install a temp camera and with copious signs, fine transgressors 100/200 pounds.and 6points Word will get around pretty quickly!
On motorway lane closures from three lanes to one ( where L3 is the 'open lane' through the roadworks i think it is normal to cone off
L3 then L2 to get all traffic into L1 once done say the cones then move all the traffic to L3 This makes it easier for HGVs to stay in L1 rather than merge from 1 to 2 to 3
The main problem, as it has been mentioned many times, is those in the 'open lane' think, quite wrongly, that that have ownership and anyone in the other lane is being selfish,bad driving etc etc etc.
How about the HA doing an experiment whereby BOTH lanes merge into a virtual centre lane with half of each carriageeay coned off. ( a bottleneck shape)
Once this single lane is established then it can be directed to the 'open lane'
That way nobody feels that people are pushing in as both have to move over Make it a law covering DWDCA and install a temp camera and with copious signs, fine transgressors 100/200 pounds.and 6points Word will get around pretty quickly!
Not really sure why it annoyed me today, but seeing EV cars parked in EV bays with chargers at my local supermarket, but not plugged in.
Surely the charging point owners make money from people charging and if someone who just dumps their EV there without utilising the charger is doing two things, preventing another EV owner from charging and losing the charger owner revenue?
Surely the charging point owners make money from people charging and if someone who just dumps their EV there without utilising the charger is doing two things, preventing another EV owner from charging and losing the charger owner revenue?
Edited by Stridey on Thursday 19th December 16:01
Stridey said:
Not really sure why it annoyed me today, but seeing EV cars parked in EV bays with chargers at my local supermarket, but not plugged in.
Surely the charging point owners make money from people charging and if someone who just dumps their EV their without utilising the charger is doing two things, preventing another EV owner from charging and losing the charger owner revenue?
This is just basic inconsiderate behaviour.Surely the charging point owners make money from people charging and if someone who just dumps their EV their without utilising the charger is doing two things, preventing another EV owner from charging and losing the charger owner revenue?
They will point to the wording on the bay and say "I have an EV, so I can park here" despite them knowing full well that the reason for EV parking bays is to charge EVs. They need no special parking considerations as they are otherwise normal cars when they are sufficiently charged.
I think it's the same as when a disabled driver parks in a disabled parking bay, only to set down and wait for an able-bodied passenger while they sit in the car. They, too will point to the sign, and to their blue badge, and say "I am a disabled badge holder, so I can park here". Which is all well and good, but when that causes solo disabled drivers to miss out on a space that they need, it's mightily inconsiderate even if it's perfectly legal. We wouldn't need so many damned signs everywhere if people could be trusted to play nicely with one another, but it seems that we are, as a society, not very good on the cooperating with strangers bit of belonging to a civilised society. If you need evidence of that, just re-read some of the post opposed to 'merge in turn' above. Or dip into any of the "I got a parking invoice..." threads on SP&L, where parking on what is obviously private land "must be OK if the signs aren't worded a specific way, right?"
Selfishness and a disturbing lack of consideration for others is, sadly, endemic in the modern world. I also suspect it has been so for a lot longer than the rose-tinted nostalgists among us would have us believe.
Edited by yellowjack on Thursday 19th December 15:58
Gromm said:
Roof boxes. In most cases it's a good indicator that you should give the owner a plenty of space and time to decide what they actually want to do.
I always wonder what they put in them. Their boots never seem to be full of camping gear whenever I see them about. then again, I don't live in a camping area, so I guess it's more likely to be people who have just left them on.I don't know if it makes me think 'knob' or makes me really envious, but it's those people who drive around in the appalling rainy weather with their rear windscreen wipers completely unused and with their rear windows completely steamed up.
I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
Deranged Rover said:
I don't know if it makes me think 'knob' or makes me really envious, but it's those people who drive around in the appalling rainy weather with their rear windscreen wipers completely unused and with their rear windows completely steamed up.
I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
I wonder how van drivers manage.I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
The Tesco delivery driver who destroyed one of my gate posts last night. I don't think he'd have mentioned it if I hadn't asked if I'd really heard a crash.
Now presumably lots of hassle finding someone who can repair an iron gate post, getting quotes and waiting for the insurance company to pay out.
Now presumably lots of hassle finding someone who can repair an iron gate post, getting quotes and waiting for the insurance company to pay out.
Deranged Rover said:
I don't know if it makes me think 'knob' or makes me really envious, but it's those people who drive around in the appalling rainy weather with their rear windscreen wipers completely unused and with their rear windows completely steamed up.
I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
Agree about the rear wipers, but not sure what you expect people to do about rear windows steaming up when they're driving around.I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
Happened to me today. I drive an old car, so it tends to mist up a bit more than newer cars in this sort of weather. The heater/demister was on full and as hot as I could take it, but it did nothing for the rear windows. Seeing as I was unable to wipe them clean with a cloth while driving, not quite sure what I could have done!!
yellowjack said:
The fact that PF62 seems to think that being in the non closing confers ownership of that lane? Priceless.
No - I don't believe that, I am just commenting on observed behaviour.yellowjack said:
This is a road we're talking about, not the fking Post Office. If a road is empty, then it is there to be driven on. And no-one mentioned "tearing down the empty lane" or "slamming on" to squeeze into a gap.
You don't see people driving rapidly along the empty lane and then trying to merge at that speed with the far slower moving queue? Do you drive with your head in a bucket? king Post Office. If a road is empty, then it is there to be driven on. And no-one mentioned "tearing down the empty lane" or "slamming on" to squeeze into a gap. And do you not see the ripple of braking that occurs as a result of that last minute merge? Perhaps you need to cut some eye-holes in that bucket.
yellowjack said:
The art of merging in turn is a VERY simple one. Cars continue in both lanes past the various boards warning of the closure in 800, 600, 400 yards, etc. Because at this point both lanes are STILL OPEN. As the numbers on the boards get lower, so should the speed of traffic in BOTH lanes. Past 400 yards (not a rule, just makes sense to me) no-one should be swapping places with the car alongside. Instead, at this point on the road, drivers should be looking to make eye contact with the driver alongside, and it makes sense for whoever is slightly ahead (front edge of car further forward) to be the car to go into the single lane section first. To achieve this smoothly, cars in BOTH lanes should open up gaps between them and the car ahead in their lane. Gaps big enough for the car in the other lane to fit into. This then means that by the time the lane closure does become active, every car has a space alongside it into which it can smoothly move left or right as appropriate.
The effect on the length of the queue is twofold. Using both lanes up to the merge point instead of merging half a mile back reduces the overall length of the queue. And smooth merging should mean that no-one has to come to a complete stop at the merge point to have a pointless squabble over 'ownership' of a piece of road space.
A further benefit, of course, is that if both lanes are occupied by people driving at similar speeds and cooperating with one another to achieve a smooth transition down to fewer lanes, then there will obviously be no opportunity for anyone to "tear down the empty lane" and "push in at the last moment".
Great, and now back to the real world where that has never happened and never will.The effect on the length of the queue is twofold. Using both lanes up to the merge point instead of merging half a mile back reduces the overall length of the queue. And smooth merging should mean that no-one has to come to a complete stop at the merge point to have a pointless squabble over 'ownership' of a piece of road space.
A further benefit, of course, is that if both lanes are occupied by people driving at similar speeds and cooperating with one another to achieve a smooth transition down to fewer lanes, then there will obviously be no opportunity for anyone to "tear down the empty lane" and "push in at the last moment".
yellowjack said:
The fundamental problem, as I see it, with merging two lanes into one, is that as soon as one car in the 'closing' lane decides to merge early, people start to regard anyone who drives further in the closing lane as a queue jumper. So it's the early mergers that cause a lot of problems. More of the issues seem to be caused by lack of cooperation, and failure to get yourself squared away alongside a gap sufficiently early. In short, if everyone let one car from the queue in the closing lane into the queue in the lane that continues, then all the problems would go away. Drivers would stop trying to squeeze two cars into a gap meant for one if they could see that there was a suitable gap already alongside them. It's the close-up at all costs "tailgating" mentality that causes yet more aggro. This is where the "concertina braking" starts and we end up with lots of minor collisions which serve to help no-one and which just exacerbate the tailbacks.
"Merge in turn just doesn't work." That'd mainly be down to the fact that it isn't allowed to work by drivers who wilfully obstruct any hint of cooperation with others.
Exactly the point I was making; merge in turn doesn't work and will never work."Merge in turn just doesn't work." That'd mainly be down to the fact that it isn't allowed to work by drivers who wilfully obstruct any hint of cooperation with others.
Deranged Rover said:
I don't know if it makes me think 'knob' or makes me really envious, but it's those people who drive around in the appalling rainy weather with their rear windscreen wipers completely unused and with their rear windows completely steamed up.
I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
The lack of rear wiper is the one thing that annoys me with my XE...I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
Since my previous three motors were Vauxhall hatchbacks, I'd got used to having a wiper at the back.
It is reasonable at speed on the motorway, but I'm not sure "I need to be doing 70 to keep the rear screen clear, Officer!" would have gone down well on the Worcestershire B-roads I was blatting round in the rain this afternoon
Deranged Rover said:
I don't know if it makes me think 'knob' or makes me really envious, but it's those people who drive around in the appalling rainy weather with their rear windscreen wipers completely unused and with their rear windows completely steamed up.
I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
Never driven a van obviously I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
Toaster Pilot said:
Never driven a van obviously
I have driven a van on many occasions but, just because one of these doesn't have a rear window, didn't mean i decided I never ever needed to look in my rear view mirror ever again. 
greenarrow said:
Agree about the rear wipers, but not sure what you expect people to do about rear windows steaming up when they're driving around.
Press the heated rear window button to clear it?Cantaloupe said:
I'm thinking drivers wearing dark glasses when it's no sunny, they cant all be photophobic, but most will be knobs.
Sunglasses are often advantageous, even when the weather isn't sunny. I find sunglasses are particularly useful on wet motorways, they help cut out glare associated with spray and compared to no sunglasses, allow me to see traffic further ahead within the spray. The same goes for foggy conditions during daylight hours, sunglasses give an extra bit of visibility. On a slight tangent, I once had a friend years ago ask me why I was wearing sunglasses on a winters day. I explained that it was a bright blue day, somehow though in her head she couldn't process "sunglasses" which she associated with summer, and "winter" which was the season that we were in at the time.
However, people who wear sunglasses indoors or at night... Yes, knobs.
Pica-Pica said:
Deranged Rover said:
I don't know if it makes me think 'knob' or makes me really envious, but it's those people who drive around in the appalling rainy weather with their rear windscreen wipers completely unused and with their rear windows completely steamed up.
I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
I wonder how van drivers manage.I wish I was that good a driver that I never needed to look out of the rear window, but sadly, I'm not.
Probably covered in this thread, but people keen to show off their cabriolets in the dead of winter, roof down, sunshine but only 7 degrees shouts "knob" IMHO...
The Li-ion King said:
You do get used to no rear view mirror, and use the split mirrors at the side...
Probably covered in this thread, but people keen to show off their cabriolets in the dead of winter, roof down, sunshine but only 7 degrees shouts "knob" IMHO...
What’s the point of a convertible if you drive it with the roof up? I virtually never have the roof up on my MR2 unless its raining hard...Probably covered in this thread, but people keen to show off their cabriolets in the dead of winter, roof down, sunshine but only 7 degrees shouts "knob" IMHO...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff