Traffic lights - 2 lanes to 3 to 2
Traffic lights - 2 lanes to 3 to 2
Author
Discussion

RRS_Staffs

Original Poster:

648 posts

202 months

Monday 1st November 2010
quotequote all

What is the point of those junctions at dual carriageways where you get 3 lanes for 100m leading up to the lights then 3 lanes for 100m after them?

I am not talking about ones where you turn right from the outside lane
These purely widen for the lights then go back to a dual carriageway
Nottingham, the North Circ and the East Lancs seem particularly big on them

When approaching a red light there is often a few cars in lanes 1 and 2 with less in the short lane 3
All cars off the front get a fair crack at pulling away smartly or not
The cars in lane 3 though need to pull back to lane 2 after a short time
The cars in lane 2 usually get the hump at people jumping the traffic and so dont leave gaps leading to much aggro
Even though lane 3 get a jump of a few cars at the lights folk often cant resist taking the shot

Whats the point and how does this help traffic flow?

If your a yoof with a fast car then fair play - stick it on the front and race any bugger daft enough

But how does it help traffic flow in having 3 lanes for such a short distance??

Especially as I have said there is often a lot of aggro and tooting as lane 3 shoves its way into lane 2

Or am just getting old smile ??


Mars

9,913 posts

237 months

Monday 1st November 2010
quotequote all
I really wish the decisions the road planners make could be put online for some critique.

The Moose

23,562 posts

232 months

Monday 1st November 2010
quotequote all
I really don't know!

If they have regular traffic lights and at each set they expand to 3 and then 2, do they store more traffic between each set of lights?

I tend to agree tbh.

Maybe using 'old' tarmac - once upon a time had 2 right turn lanes. Now only the one so what to do with the extra??

To repeat what I said at the beginning:

I really don't know!

Cheers

The Moose

flemke

23,393 posts

260 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
Different vehicles will leave the lights (from a standing start) at different speeds.
Widening to 3 lanes is, in effect, creating a safe overtaking opportunity.

The Moose

23,562 posts

232 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
flemke said:
Different vehicles will leave the lights (from a standing start) at different speeds.
Widening to 3 lanes is, in effect, creating a safe overtaking opportunity.
It does ultimately end up with at least 2 people trying to race each other though.

Cheers

The Moose

OwenK

3,472 posts

218 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
My pet theory is that it's done in the hope of creating shorter queues. If 6 vehicles are stuck at some lights, with two lanes the line is 3 cars long - with three lanes, the line is 2 cars long. Obviously the total amount of vehicles is the same, and it won't make anybody's journey quicker, BUT if the place in question is near a roundabout, junction, etc; it could be just enough to keep traffic from piling up and blocking them up.

busta

4,504 posts

256 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
OwenK said:
My pet theory is that it's done in the hope of creating shorter queues. If 6 vehicles are stuck at some lights, with two lanes the line is 3 cars long - with three lanes, the line is 2 cars long. Obviously the total amount of vehicles is the same, and it won't make anybody's journey quicker, BUT if the place in question is near a roundabout, junction, etc; it could be just enough to keep traffic from piling up and blocking them up.
This. Merging issues aside, using all 3 lanes would reduce the queue length by a 3rd, which may improve flow somewhere back up the road.

pthelazyjourno

1,868 posts

192 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
OwenK said:
My pet theory is that it's done in the hope of creating shorter queues. If 6 vehicles are stuck at some lights, with two lanes the line is 3 cars long - with three lanes, the line is 2 cars long. Obviously the total amount of vehicles is the same, and it won't make anybody's journey quicker, BUT if the place in question is near a roundabout, junction, etc; it could be just enough to keep traffic from piling up and blocking them up.
+1, Yup.

I went on a date with a transport planner a year or so back, and she claimed it was pretty much for the above reason.

Oddly enough it didn't get to a second date, perhaps it was my rant about poor transport planning that did it...


matt0677

509 posts

213 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
In Northants, people tend to build up in the right hand land (faster you see) so those of us who aren't in such a rush go in the left lane and often pass at least 6 cars per junction. They seem really angry for some reason...

Motorrad

6,811 posts

210 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
The Moose said:
It does ultimately end up with at least 2 people trying to race each other though.
The key in these 'races' is to ensure you and the other party leave the slow moving traffic in lane one for dead. Then it's a case of either slotting behind or in front of the 'competition' depending on how quickly they move off.

The aim isn't to view it as a 'do or die- get-in-front-of-the-other-person' situation. Rather your opportunity to control the traffic around you, which sat in a single lane queue you don't have the chance to do.

Morons who think they've 'won' are welcome to their 'victory' IMO. My personal triumph comes some time later after I've had yet another incident free journey and made better time than most......

edit to fix faulty quote

Edited by Motorrad on Tuesday 2nd November 02:08

Colin 1985

1,935 posts

193 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
pthelazyjourno said:
OwenK said:
My pet theory is that it's done in the hope of creating shorter queues. If 6 vehicles are stuck at some lights, with two lanes the line is 3 cars long - with three lanes, the line is 2 cars long. Obviously the total amount of vehicles is the same, and it won't make anybody's journey quicker, BUT if the place in question is near a roundabout, junction, etc; it could be just enough to keep traffic from piling up and blocking them up.
+1, Yup.

I went on a date with a transport planner a year or so back, and she claimed it was pretty much for the above reason.

Oddly enough it didn't get to a second date, perhaps it was my rant about poor transport planning that did it...
But you made your point, and that's what is important.smile

MikeDH

2,402 posts

239 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
matt0677 said:
In Northants, people tend to build up in the right hand land (faster you see) so those of us who aren't in such a rush go in the left lane and often pass at least 6 cars per junction. They seem really angry for some reason...
Not just me that's noticed this then.

useyourdellusion

5,648 posts

213 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
MikeDH said:
matt0677 said:
In Northants, people tend to build up in the right hand land (faster you see) so those of us who aren't in such a rush go in the left lane and often pass at least 6 cars per junction. They seem really angry for some reason...
Not just me that's noticed this then.
Happens on the motorway too.

For instance - the M6 southbound just south of the M42 junc. at ohh...07.30 every morning. Four lanes merging into three. Angry types always battle it out in lanes three and four, resulting in flickering brake lights and frantic lane swaps at 40mph.

I like to watch all this as I glide through in lane 1 at 55-60mph. wink

busta

4,504 posts

256 months

Tuesday 2nd November 2010
quotequote all
Motorrad said:
Morons who think they've 'won' are welcome to their 'victory' IMO. My personal triumph comes some time later after I've had yet another incident free journey and made better time than most......

edit to fix faulty quote

Edited by Motorrad on Tuesday 2nd November 02:08
Ooh you smug bd you. smile Do you give yourself a high5 every time you don't crash?