Forum menu
My mate had just one of these self-rightous upholders of the the queue twunts a few cars in front of him in an HGV straddling 2 lanes to prevent overtakers. The HGV had obviously pissed off the car directly behind him who eventually got past him by overtaking on the grass. Said driver then pulled in front of HGV and HGV driver started getting out of his cab. 6ft++ driver of car got out of vehicle and 'helped' HGV driver out of his cab, accompanied by a smack in the teeth. HGV driver then proceeded to run back along the queue to ask for witnesses, funny enough my mate hadn't seen a thing.
You see. It's all about trying to drive in accordance with the Highway Code.
Oh God no, seven pages about bad driving. FFS.
Good innit? Now, just so I'm clear, where am I supposed to merge?
In other news, I watched one of those funny Juke things merge with itself on the way north this afternoon - they were bimbling along in the middle lane, then all of a sudden aimed for the armco. Not quite sure what to make of it really.
Yeah, because smacking someone in the mouth is better than stopping people merge in turn.
I got told by patriotpro I would get a smack in the mouth for using the empty lane a couple of pages back.
So guess that's all square in the "bellends being violent" competition.
Err, right at the point the lanes merge, it's not rocket science - see Highway Code.
Could you highlight the point that states this please ? It keeps getting said and I keep quoting the guidance.
Would you consider following the Highway Code to be against the grain?
Flashing lights means I am here it does not mean no please you go first. Would it be against the grain for me to start flashing my lights and then drive into gaps or not?
for people who don't know how to do it properly already, because they haven't educated themselves (or been educated) on the right way to do it.
The quoted highway code is still ambiguous and does not , say to do as you advocate. At best its unclear what it says and it only offers best practice of zippping for and i quote
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.
Its clearly optional as well rather than a rule and the rule is advisory. you chose to both do this and insist the HC says to do it.
It does not say drive to the end then merge only at the last available point /merge point in a zip fashion. Its one of many options.
Take an advanced driving course and see what you get told.
Ask a traffic officer and see what you get told.
Or just use the logic that you already agree with?
Alternatively, wait in a massive long line and get angry with people driving past.
The choice is yours.
Well, I suppose I do reserve the right to get cross with people who ignore LANE CLOSING signs two miles down the road and race past (can't actually remember if this has anything to do with the op).
If I see a LANE CLOSING or ROAD NARROWING sign, I'll generally shift over to the left lane. S'just polite innit? But I really don't want to see this go to page eight 🙁
I think we have reached our own traffic jam here and an appeal to authority does not explain where the HC says what you have claimed it says.
Reverses away from pinch point and leaves thread.
Although I know merging in turn is correct, in reality I sometimes choose not to do it to avoid the aggro.
It all depends on my mood.
Shame to have to join the other idiots but sometimes it's easier for a stress free journey.
I would rather listen to [b]actual[/b] experts rather than the [i]"experts"[/i] of STW
http://www.roadsafe.com/magazine/2008spring/road.htm
IAM are not the voice of authority though, Junkyards point still stands in that the actual highway code is ambiguous. The key point that seems to be missed is "when appropriate". Waiting till the lanes merge is stupid if theres a decent gap to merge into at a reasonable distance from this point (not everyone is an arse who drives nose to tail).
Just one thing, for all those going on about being right, I hope you all drive at a safe and appropriate speed when overtaking stationary traffic.
Junkyards point still stands in that the actual highway code is ambiguous.
If for the sake of argument it's ambiguous (and it's not, it's the recommended course of action), why do people feel justified in getting angry about it?
Well, I suppose I do reserve the right to get cross with people who ignore LANE CLOSING signs two miles down the road and race past
I see the problem now. You've confused LANE CLOSING with LANE CLOSED.
The key point that seems to be missed is "when appropriate".
It's appropriate when vehicles are moving at very low speed, just like it says in the other half of that sentence.
IAM are not the voice of authority though, Junkyards point still stands in that the actual highway code is ambiguous.
If there is any ambiguity, I would go with AIM or Roadsafe's interpretation before the advice of a Mountainbike forum.
Firmly in the merge at the merge point camp here. What gets me is the people who think that's pushing in. It isn't. We're almost certainly not going to the same place so what difference does it make overall?! York outer ring road is a complete nightmare for this petty nonsense.
I think part of the issue here is that people are talking about different things and confusing the issue.
People are talking about lane discipline at roundabouts, and two lanes that ultimately go in different directions etc.
The advice for merging in turn at the pinch point, is meant for when two lanes turn into one lane (or 3 into 2) all heading in the same direction, such as a motorway when a lane is closed for roadworks.
[quote=Ashy ]We're almost certainly not going to the same place so what difference does it make overall?!
That's a fallacious argument - you're in front of them going through the restriction, so slowing them down even if you're going a different way afterwards. Going into the nearest town from where I live I often have to queue for a while to get there despite the fact most people in the queue in front of me aren't going the same way as me (their direction is queued, mine is clear) - does it make no difference to me because they're going a different way?
One fundamental issue here is that whilst it is correct and recommended behaviour to merge in turn at the point one lane ends, and that this should happen with two equal queues, if you insist on doing this even in situations (as in the majority of cases) where a longer queue leading up to the obstruction has no impact on any other junctions, then you are getting in front of drivers who might be incorrect, but were still waiting before you, have been waiting longer, and will have to wait longer because you've got in front of them.
where a longer queue leading up to the obstruction has no impact on any other junctions,
How do you determine this? Whilst you're sitting in your self-imposed queue of doom like the rest of the sheep, how do you know what's happened half a mile behind you? It might've been clear when you arrived, but by the time you're halfway down, the tail of the queue might've just gridlocked the M1. By using the available road you could be helping alleviate a problem for hundreds of other drivers behind you.
But no, it's all right, bollocks to them because you were here [i]first.
[/i] Me me me me.
you are getting in front of drivers who might be incorrect
And?
Why should I be penalised for others' ignorance, and potentially cause major problems for those behind me? If they learned how to drive they'd have a shorter wait, more fool them.
[quote=Cougar ]How do you determine this?
When it happens on a motorway or DC, you join the queue where the signs say 1/2 a mile or a mile to losing the lane and the last junction is 5 miles back, it's a fair bet.
By using the available road you could be helping alleviate a problem for hundreds of other drivers behind you.
Which you can do without whizzing past everybody who's been waiting longer than you.
Me me me me.
Yes, that is exactly how those drivers whizzing past in the right lane come across to everybody queued in the left. Just pointing out how others perceive it - I've already suggested what it is I'm inclined to do.
Why should I be penalised for others' ignorance, and potentially cause major problems for those behind me?
Penalised? I'm not sure why having to wait just as long (but no longer) as if everybody was merging in turn correctly is penalising you, nor in the situation I've suggested - which is the case in the majority of such loss of a lane I see - how doing it either way has any impact on those behind.
One fundamental issue here is that whilst it is correct and recommended behaviour to merge in turn at the point one lane ends, and that this should happen with two equal queues,
Cool. That is what I will do then.
Thanks.
... if you insist on doing this even in situations (as in the majority of cases) where a longer queue leading up to the obstruction has no impact on any other junctions, then you are getting in front of drivers who might be incorrect, but were still waiting before you, have been waiting longer, and will have to wait longer because you've got in front of them.
No.
They will have to wait longer because they don't know (or chose to ignore) the correct way of doing it.
This is not my fault in any way whatsoever.
When it happens on a motorway or DC, you join the queue where the signs say 1/2a mile or a mile to losing the lane and the last junction is 5 miles back, it's a fair bet.
What about everywhere else bar the best case scenario you've just cherry-picked?
Just pointing out how others perceive it.
I'm well aware how others perceive it. This however does not instil in me an obligation to pander to their ignorance.
I'm not sure why having to wait just as long (but no longer) as if everybody was merging in turn correctly is penalising you
But they aren't doing that, are they. But yes, poor choice of words on my part there.
how doing it either way has any impact on those behind.
Did you miss this post on page 2?
[quote=Cougar ]Did you miss this post on page 2?
No, but that's cherry picking the worst case scenario. In such a situation I wouldn't hesitate to use the right lane and whizz past everybody because it would be the best thing to do for the population as a whole. Maybe other people's experiences are different, but I wasn't cherry picking with my example - such queues having no impact on other junctions is the norm IME. In such situations there is no advantage for the population in using both lanes up to the obstruction - just an advantage for the person whizzing past in the right lane. I'm still fairly sure that my suggestion is best for the population as a whole, but presume most people won't do that because they like getting an advantage whilst feeling happy that they are in the right.
that's cherry picking the worst case scenario.
Touché. (-:
Is it not better to have [b]one[/b] method, that everyone can stick to without needing to second guess the local road layout and potential knock on effects ?
Ah, we already do have that.
It's just that some people choose not to use it, and won't admit they are wrong.
Think back as to how long its taken to begin the change of perception making drink driving less acceptable in the public eye, or smoking if you want another example.
You might as well debate how many angels can be balanced on the head of a pin....
Changing filtering / zipping in traffic from combative or punitive to sensible.... We might as well have a productive debate on wheel size.
Everyone knows what should happen or makes sense, but still screws it up.
[quote=rickmeister ]Changing filtering / zipping in traffic from combative or punitive to sensible.... We might as well have a productive debate on wheel size.
[img] 
[/img]
Interestingly the [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/222621/dg_191955.pdf ]big book of signs[/url] provided by .Gov doesn't have mention of the sign in [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/oooo-am-i-going-to-get-a-visit-from-the-police/page/3#post-6713459 ]this post[/url].
Unless I missed it as I will admit to scrolling through the booklet looking for it. I'm also interested in which section of the Code we're all arguing about the merging bit is covered in. The search function on the Gov site is not particularly good, I had 2 hits for my search that gave two quite large bits of HC to look through.
[img] 
[/img]
I would rather listen to actual experts rather than the "experts" of STW
I understand you would rather do an appeal to authority as you had already done it nonetheless the question remainds as to whether you can highlight the exact part of the HC that says what you [ or they]claim it says FWIW they highlight the exact same bit and it clearly does not say to use both lanes till the last possible point and then merge in turn. And what it says is a recomendation
We both know you cannot use the HC to show your view hence we have this entire debate. lets at least accept its unclear and ambiguous
If for the sake of argument it's ambiguous (and it's not, it's the recommended course of action), why do people feel justified in getting angry about it?
Are you saying its neither of these things?
Can you highlight the exact bit that supports your view then ?
The advice for merging in turn
I do agree its advice but it still does not say to merge in turn. Why are we still debating what it actually says
Why dont we accept we are discussing what it may mean ?
But no, it's all right, bollocks to them because you were here first.Me me me me.
This is what i find most strange about this debate. Those who do not join the queue but continue to the front past everyone else seem to think everyone else is being selfish and they are being the excellent drivers and they are helping everyone else. Given your way is best for you and their way is not best for them I am not sure how you can argue that point convincingly.
Oh and what aracer says
I understand you would rather do an appeal to authority
You make it sound like a bad thing to find out what an expert thinks.
Not sure how it's a bad thing.
lets at least accept its unclear and ambiguous
As I said above, if people don't understand it, then find out.
Take an advanced driving course.
Or (if it's not considered a bad thing to do) consult experts for their opinion.
I asked you to explain where the HC said what you claimed and you cannot.
Using an appeal to authority [ rather than a quote form the HC] is bad for the reasons stated below but you should not even need to as you could just quote the bot of the HC.
As for ambiguity if you cannot see its ambiguous [and for fear of repetition could you highlight the clear HC bit that shows your view to be true?] then it is not me who needs to understand it a bit more.
Either quote the HC bit or lets just both agree to move on, this is pointless.
Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.[1]
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[3]
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][4][5][6] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[7]
To quote again from HC:
"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 don't see any ambiguity in the recommendation.
It isn't a rule to be followed just a recommendation.
If people follow that recommendation why is that a problem?
JY, if there is the ambiguity you want there to be (even though you have agreed my interpretation is correct, and people should merge in turn)
Then how should people go about it.
If they aren't allowed to seek and expert opinion (because the Internet arguing police have decided that's no longer allowed) then that's made all advanced training pointless surely.
I asked you to explain where the HC said what you claimed and you cannot.
See the link Neal posted.
Those who do not join the queue but continue to the front past everyone else seem to think everyone else is being selfish and they are being the excellent drivers and they are helping everyone else
No, you've misunderstood. a) they're selfish because, as repeatedly mentioned, it can cause problems behind which they're oblivious to and b) they're selfish if they who feel that the arbitrary point they've chosen is the perfect place to do so and get angry at / wilfully block everyone else.
Either quote the HC bit or lets just both agree to move on, this is pointless.
Lane discipline: 134
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....
Road Works: 288
Where lanes are restricted due to road works, merge in turn (see Rule 134)
But let's say, for the sake of argument, it's "just" a recommendation. Why would you not follow the recommended course of action and do something else?
And the question I keep asking and no-one seems to be able to answer, why would you get angry at those who are following recommended procedure, even if you yourself choose not to because of some "unwritten rule" you've just made up?
You want to sit there like a plum, fine, fill your boots, but why would you then feel justified in ranting about all those folk "whizzing" and "zooming" and other melodramatic words to describe those following the recommendations of The Highway Code?
Why would you feel justified in illegally blocking the other lane? Who died and made you the Highways Police?
"the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts" because "authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink."
Are you suggesting that you're right and the IAM, ROSPA, THC and every other "authority" on motoring known to man are all in error / biased / dishonest?
Really?
Is there some sort of logical fallacy which covers a pathological inability to admit when you're wrong?
I asked you to explain where the HC said what you claimed and you cannot.
Well no, I can. But you seem determined to say it's not right (even though you agree with it) because you've decided it's ambiguous, even though you know what it means and agree with it.
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.
I honestly don't see the ambiguity, and AIM, ROSPA and every other expert opinion agree.
even you agree, as you've already said.
cor blimey...
Don't motorcars just bring out the worst in people!!
It's not just cars. It's a vicious cycle.
The key word in rule 134 would appear to be "appropriate" and it's interpretation. Thus there is a case to be made for both arguments but it would appear to be a little like the 20mph zones that have sprung up without regulatory backing (TRO and other requirements to make them enforceable missing). The sign not being in the highways sign booklet would seem to back this up along with the recommendation being buried within a clause. If it was regarded as more important there would be a separate rule for this and the sign would be in the booklet.
(Given that cyclists dismount is in the booklet, I would take that with a pinch of salt too as that's an advisory sign not a mandatory one).
Drafted to keep lawyers in expensive cars and internet fora arguing the toss.
it would appear
No, it wouldn't. Good try though.
Care to field any of my questions?
they just did but you rejected it in a TJ you have not answered the question stylee 😉
Are you suggesting that you're right
I have said the wording is ambiguous.
The fact we are debating what it means and various folk are offering differing interpretations, and not agreeing, would tend to suggest that I have a point and there is another one between us for example. Clearly the recommendation is a vague
The HC should say stay in lane and merge in a zip fashion. Simple , clear and concise [ as does the other rule I had not seen FWIW] and we would not have so many "confused" driver.
FWIW I checked with rospa briefly and this document
argues it should be an offence to push into an orderly queue though i skimmed so may be out of context i then read this
http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=102
that is them debating the same topic and the first page has the range of views expressed here...its really is like deja vu but i did not read further and skimmed 😯 and 😳
So yes I think the rule is ambiguous and unclear.
Its pretty obvious we dont zip just like we dont use flashing headlights to show we are here.
I went up the same road last night and took a quick pic in each direction whilst stopped in ygevnormal queue of polite people, all the sheeple were in line as usual and the arrows saying get the **** over now were pretty clear to see. I still don't know how to post pics btw
I have said the wording is ambiguous.
The fact we are debating what it means and various folk are offering differing interpretations, and not agreeing, would tend to suggest that I have a point...
The only thing that means is that STW locals are capable of arguing against expert opinion till the cows come home.
Let's face it, you've already said you agree.
You just love arguing.
Why are the advanced driving forum having the same debate then and making the same points ?