I don't think that works, even in theory. You (or your wife!) are suggesting that the lanes should merge, at speed, at precisely the point where one of the lanes is blocked. This is more likely to cause queues than people merging in good time, because other vehicles are more likely to have to brake sharply. This causes "shock waves" to ripple back down the flow of traffic, gaining in amplitude until everyone grinds to a halt.
No, not right at the point where they should merge (maybe I didn't put it that well) but if two lanes continue until near the merge point then everyone slows down and merges into one, the job's done. I know it relies upon everyone being polite and sensible though, so it probably aint going to happen
No, not right at the point where they should merge (maybe I didn't put it that well) but if two lanes continue until near the merge point then everyone slows down and merges into one, the job's done. I know it relies upon everyone being polite and sensible though, so it probably aint going to happen
Yes. Merge in turn from two lanes is supposed to be the most effective way. I saw that instruction at some roadworks lately. It clearly said to use both lanes and merge in turn, but did people take any notice - no! They queued in the left lane, and gave daggers to the people (i.e. me!) following the rules.
One of my biggest gripes is when there's a sign on a motorway telling you that there's a lane blocked off. Anyone who has a modicum of intelligence and who was motoring on the lane that's going to be unavailable would move accordingly. Sadly, it doesn't happen, and as the flow of traffic slows up you still get the clever dicks who fly past you only to make the situation even worse because the thoughtful drivers have to slow down to let the impatient barstewards through lest they should be stuck there. Me? I'd let them sit there for hours on end if only to teach them a lesson. These morons are the most inconsiderate drivers imaginable after the rest of us, who know what manners are, patiently wait in a queue when a queue wouldn't have even formed if it wasn't for THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, but I join the others who have said you're wrong on this issue.
The reality is that if everyone stayed in their own lane and merged further up the road at a slow speed, waiting times would be kept to a minimum.
If everyone did as you did and immediately moved over into the middle/inside lane, all that would happen is that a longer queue would form even quicker in the inside two lanes, while several hundred yards of useful roadway (in the outside lane) goes to waste.
You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as directed. In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily. Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended at high speed.
I had a good one a few months ago whilst I was at work. I went out to a set of roadworks that were causing massive tailbacks (I'm talking miles), and as per usual there was not a soul working on them. The actual hole in the road was about 18 inches square, on a roundabout, yet there were two lanes completely closed in one direction, with single lanes closed on the exit roads, and a set of three way lights all causing utter chaos.
After a while trying to speak to or see a contractor, a colleague joined me, and we decided to take matters into our own hands - we shoved the barriers right up against the hole, then turned all the traffic lights round so they were facing the walls and hedges, and re-opened the road barring one small area coned off around the hole, letting traffic return to normal. As we did it, there was loads of locals standing on the pavements clapping and cheering - I must admit it felt great.
Thankfully, we didn't get caught, as we could have got a load of grief for it.
I do confess to getting a nice warm feeling inside when someone pulls a dangerous manoeuvre to get past me, only for me to catch up with them a few minutes later at lights or something else that's required them to stop. Especially warming during rush hour. It's almost as if they have no concept of what that is and assume I'm the only car on the road.
I did something similar this morning, I had a car almost tail-gaiting me. He went flying past me when I moved over a few minutes later, I went past him as he sat behind 5 cars in one of the lanes at the traffic lights and ended up 6 cars in front of him.:D
I don't think that works, even in theory. You (or your wife!) are suggesting that the lanes should merge, at speed, at precisely the point where one of the lanes is blocked. This is more likely to cause queues than people merging in good time, because other vehicles are more likely to have to brake sharply. This causes "shock waves" to ripple back down the flow of traffic, gaining in amplitude until everyone grinds to a halt.
It does work as long as your merge-point is commensurate with your speed. i.e. for stop and go traffic you drive right up to the cones, and for motorway speed traffic you merge say 100-200 yards in advance. Anything else just wastes roadspace, and the considerate souls who straddle both lanes just to "educate" everyone else deserve a special place in hell.
The Germans call it "zipper-merging" and for the most part it works very well.
Sorry, but I join the others who have said you're wrong on this issue.
The reality is that if everyone stayed in their own lane and merged further up the road at a slow speed, waiting times would be kept to a minimum.
Here's the rub, in the bit of the highway code you quoted:
"Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended at high speed."
I think we have two different cases.
If a motorway lane closure is planned, it's likely to be signalled well ahead, and the aim would be be to maintain as normal a traffic flow as possible, given the reduced lane capacity. So that would not involve "merging in turn". I submit that if the traffic slows to the point where "merging in turn" is appropriate, that's probably because some drivers' failure to merge in good time has caused it to do so!
. Anything else just wastes roadspace, and the considerate souls who straddle both lanes just to "educate" everyone else deserve a special place in hell.
They don't seem to realise that it's them who are (probably) breaking some kind of law for obstructing the highway, which the people coming on the outside have a right to use freely.
I've not got a lot of time, so I've not researched my point at all, as you can tell, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
One of my biggest gripes is when there's a sign on a motorway telling you that there's a lane blocked off. Anyone who has a modicum of intelligence and who was motoring on the lane that's going to be unavailable would move accordingly. Sadly, it doesn't happen, and as the flow of traffic slows up you still get the clever dicks who fly past you only to make the situation even worse because the thoughtful drivers have to slow down to let the impatient barstewards through lest they should be stuck there. Me? I'd let them sit there for hours on end if only to teach them a lesson. These morons are the most inconsiderate drivers imaginable after the rest of us, who know what manners are, patiently wait in a queue when a queue wouldn't have even formed if it wasn't for THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I once saw a bloke do that, hammered his car past me and couldn't brake in time to avoid the cones...which ended up bouncing everywhere and him to grind to a halt.
Not a victory for me, but i was laughing like a loon for the rest of my journey.
I trust you will now do the decent thing and resign your membership of the YTLTS even though that will cause a charitable organisation, which has done so much sterling work over the years, to fold.:(
Indeed I shall; I feel honour bound to. Though I'll miss the £50,000 I've been paying myself.
This morning, I was heading into the train station, which as usual had a swarm of people around it. As well as the mass of people trying to get in and out, there are always a few muppets who enjoy standing in the middle of this handing out leaflets, no matter how obstructive they are (I get some of them are paid to get in the way, but others are just manipulating the crowd and would be just as well off 10 feet away).
This morning, I squeezed past one trying to get through to my train, and he took offence, and started crowing 'Excuse me! Excuse me!' over and over as if trying to point me out and shame me in front of the crowd. I turned around and said clearly for everyone to hear:
'If you weren't obstinately blocking the exit and getting in everyone's way then there wouldn't be a problem'.
Cue mini round of applause and cheers from all the other people he was in the way of and me skipping into the station with my minor victory.
So what tiny victory have you had lately?
Boy, i wouldn't like to meet you in a dark alleyway.:cool:
Comments
No, not right at the point where they should merge (maybe I didn't put it that well) but if two lanes continue until near the merge point then everyone slows down and merges into one, the job's done. I know it relies upon everyone being polite and sensible though, so it probably aint going to happen
Yes. Merge in turn from two lanes is supposed to be the most effective way. I saw that instruction at some roadworks lately. It clearly said to use both lanes and merge in turn, but did people take any notice - no! They queued in the left lane, and gave daggers to the people (i.e. me!) following the rules.
Sorry, but I join the others who have said you're wrong on this issue.
The reality is that if everyone stayed in their own lane and merged further up the road at a slow speed, waiting times would be kept to a minimum.
If everyone did as you did and immediately moved over into the middle/inside lane, all that would happen is that a longer queue would form even quicker in the inside two lanes, while several hundred yards of useful roadway (in the outside lane) goes to waste.
After a while trying to speak to or see a contractor, a colleague joined me, and we decided to take matters into our own hands - we shoved the barriers right up against the hole, then turned all the traffic lights round so they were facing the walls and hedges, and re-opened the road barring one small area coned off around the hole, letting traffic return to normal. As we did it, there was loads of locals standing on the pavements clapping and cheering - I must admit it felt great.
Thankfully, we didn't get caught, as we could have got a load of grief for it.
I did something similar this morning, I had a car almost tail-gaiting me. He went flying past me when I moved over a few minutes later, I went past him as he sat behind 5 cars in one of the lanes at the traffic lights and ended up 6 cars in front of him.:D
It does work as long as your merge-point is commensurate with your speed. i.e. for stop and go traffic you drive right up to the cones, and for motorway speed traffic you merge say 100-200 yards in advance. Anything else just wastes roadspace, and the considerate souls who straddle both lanes just to "educate" everyone else deserve a special place in hell.
The Germans call it "zipper-merging" and for the most part it works very well.
I think we have two different cases.
If a motorway lane closure is planned, it's likely to be signalled well ahead, and the aim would be be to maintain as normal a traffic flow as possible, given the reduced lane capacity. So that would not involve "merging in turn". I submit that if the traffic slows to the point where "merging in turn" is appropriate, that's probably because some drivers' failure to merge in good time has caused it to do so!
I specifically stated "at a slow speed" in the post you quoted me on. So you haven't provided "a rub" at all.
They don't seem to realise that it's them who are (probably) breaking some kind of law for obstructing the highway, which the people coming on the outside have a right to use freely.
I've not got a lot of time, so I've not researched my point at all, as you can tell, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
To quote a current, annoying advert - I felt epic.
I once saw a bloke do that, hammered his car past me and couldn't brake in time to avoid the cones...which ended up bouncing everywhere and him to grind to a halt.
Not a victory for me, but i was laughing like a loon for the rest of my journey.
You are my new hero
Oops.
Indeed I shall; I feel honour bound to. Though I'll miss the £50,000 I've been paying myself.
Boy, i wouldn't like to meet you in a dark alleyway.:cool: