seriously?! Lets extend the distances to make it clearer. In your scenario a 100 mile motorway with a 99 mile lane restriction will flow just as fast as a 100 mile motorway with a 100 yard restriction. The longer the restriction the more the traffic is slowed. You are extending the restriction.No, it doesn't IMHO
Be sure and tell me if I've misunderstood.
You're using the any information for your own end and rejecting anything else. It's the Highway Code and I'm doing nothing wrong, it's the same Highway Code and I choose to ignore because it doesn't suit my argument.
Pondo - Just out of interest, what are you views on overtaking long lines of traffic?
Relevant supermarket analogy is a large queueing area in front of a single till.
Because people are people, and end up making individual decisions because they're being polite, and wondering what other people might think, rather than what's most practical for the group as a whole, you end up with the ridiculous situation where the queue ends up tailing away from a largely empty queuing area and winding though the aisles and stopping other people getting where they want to be.
What will usually happen is that someone who works for the store will come along and get everyone moved and queuing in the right place, minimising disruption and cloggage in other areas (i.e. roundabouts further away from the closed lane, if you're struggling with the stretching analogy).
seriously?! Lets extend the distances to make it clearer. In your scenario a 100 mile motorway with a 99 mile lane restriction will flow just as fast as a 100 mile motorway with a 100 yard restriction. The longer the restriction the more the traffic is slowed. You are extending the restriction.
Seriously. I'm not sure I agree that that's a correct analogy either (although again I'm prepared - maybe resigned is the right word... - to be corrected) - now, I'm not very good at maths but I'll try and do a number thing. Imagine a 3 lane motorway running at an arbitrary maximum volume of traffic of 36 cars a minute. There's an accident and the outside lane is blocked - all of a sudden the throughput is reduced to 24 cars a minute on the two open lanes but the input is still 36, so traffic is going to back up. All three lanes can opt to share completely fairly and all other things being equal the average speed of incoming traffic will be 8 cars a minute, but if the outside lane takes advantage of people merging early to improve the input speed to, say, 10 cars a minute, the unavoidable conclusion is that the input speed of the other two lanes is throttled to 7 cars a minute. A massive oversimplification, I know.
You're using the any information for your own end and rejecting anything else. It's the Highway Code and I'm doing nothing wrong, it's the same Highway Code and I choose to ignore because it doesn't suit my argument.
I can have a discussion with Nick because he says "I think you're wrong because..." then I can say "I think you're wrong because...". There's a difference between you and him.
Pondo - Just out of interest, what are you views on overtaking long lines of traffic?
In free-flowing traffic? Like on a motorway with no restriction where I'm doing 70 and the inside and middle lanes are doing sixty? Got no problem with that. 🙂
I can have a discussion with Nick because he says "I think you're wrong because..." then I can say "I think you're wrong because...". There's a difference between you and him.
That probably sounded good in your head.
I'm oot as I think you're a simple troll.
Relevant supermarket analogy is a large queueing area in front of a single till.Because people are people, and end up making individual decisions because they're being polite, and wondering what other people might think, rather than what's most practical for the group as a whole, you end up with the ridiculous situation where the queue ends up tailing away from a largely empty queuing area and winding though the aisles and stopping other people getting where they want to be.
What will usually happen is that someone who works for the store will come along and get everyone moved and queuing in the right place, minimising disruption and cloggage in other areas (i.e. roundabouts further away from the closed lane, if you're struggling with the stretching analogy).
Yeah, that's accurate if we're talking about the effect of tailbacks on preceding junctions/roundabouts/traffic lights or what have you. I'd been reasonably hopeful that I'd stated plain enough that I consider that to be a different set of circumstances but hey ho.
You haven't been particularly clear all the way through to be honest. Almost like you're deliberately choosing different things to be clear about in order to prolongue the argument.
What's best is to be consistently clear about the best way to approach things, that covers as many eventualities as possible, and is objectively verifiable at the time to anyone approaching the point of contention.
Rather than having different opinions about what's best in what circumstances, which rely on thousands of massively variable, utterly subjective views to miraculously coincide in order to prevent some people throwing a strop (and their weight around) because they feel hard done by.
Your fundamental misunderstanding is that there isn't "a queue and an open lane," there's a queue comprising of two lanes.
Think it through. One lane has stopped, the only merging is those pushing in meaning the queue won't move any quicker. Irrespective of whether the queue should have generated, pushing in doesn't fix it and anyone claiming they're just merging is talking bollocks, they're just rude and not helping at all, in fact making it worse as the queue that formed gets slower and slower as they keep having to let the impatient in.
You haven't been particularly clear all the way through to be honest. Almost like you're deliberately choosing different things to be clear about in order to prolongue the argument.
Seriously? I don't know if I could have been more explicit about the very exact nature of the circumstances of my outside lane blocking.
Pondo- I don't think one more voice will convince you, but just in case- you are wrong.
The cones indicate the merge point.
Like I say, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise,
No, you aren't.
Think it through. One lane has stopped, the only merging is those pushing in meaning the queue won't move any quicker.
No-one is "pushing in." It's not possible. There are two lanes of traffic comprising a single queue, whether they're on the left or the right is irrelevant. It's the same queue.
The only time UK motorists exercise a bit of courtesy and restraint by merging as soon as possible - and it gets this response?
Wow.
If it does an ounce to control impatience then it's the better decision.
Besides the time taken to merge is dictated not by where you merge surely but the rate at which merges takes place. Using two lanes won't necessarily be quicker as this doesn't determine the rate of the merge?
That is a interesting point rone. A lot of motorists are impolite but in this instance they are doing what they consider to be a polite thing and queueing. The problem is that they are wrong. The traffic would move better if more people used both lanes and merged smoothly at the end. So do we encourage the bad driving because they are doing it out of a misguided belief that it is right?
Pondo- I don't think one more voice will convince you, but just in case- you are wrong.
The cones indicate the merge point.
I merge at the merge point, but thanks.
No, you aren't
I am, you just haven't convinced me yet.
No-one is "pushing in." It's not possible. There are two lanes of traffic comprising a single queue, whether they're on the left or the right is irrelevant. It's the same queue.
Ok, two lanes queueing - 200 yards from the merge point, car A merges from the blocked lane into the unblocked lane. Car B drives forward 200 yards, overtaking 6 cars in the unblocked lane and merges AT the merge point. From the point of view of car A and those 6 cars, has car B not queue-jumped and pushed in?
3 of the 6 cars B 'overtook' should have been in the right hand lane. The tailback would then be half as long and they can all merge like a zip at the merge point. The traffic as a whole would flow better. Those people merging early are doing it wrong, albeit for what they feel is a good reason. No one is pushing in, there are 2 queues.
^^^
When I'm Transport Minister, I'll be screening Public Information Films in which Mr Cholmondely-Warner instructs the drivers of Britain in sensible & courteous driving such as zip merging. Motorists - know your code!
The tailback would be 200 yards shorter and the difference in time taken to get to the blockage would be negligible.
is that a break through? Are you admitting that in one way two lane queueing is better and in the other it is no worse? Hooray! I would go further and say the time taken to get to the blockage is reduced as cars spend less time in the queue as it is shorter. But even if you don't accept that surely you are now pro 2 lane queueingThe tailback would be 200 yards shorter and the difference in time taken to get to the blockage would be negligible.
In my home town, Stafford, a new extended filter lane has just been opened. The big roundabout used to lead off into a 50 metre stretch of two lane before going down to a single lane by the Sainsburys crossing. The work led to massive delays for weeks as they re-profiled the roundabout, putting a 3rd lane in and widened the road for 200m.
Net result: bugger all. People still queue on the roundabout and behave as if using the new lanes will give them ebola.
Cuts about 5 minutes off your journey if you use it right though, and you can enjoy watching other drivers' heads turning beetroot-coloured.
From the point of view of car A and those 6 cars, has car B not queue-jumped and pushed in?
That's probably their perception, yes. But their "point of view" is erroneous (and irrelevant). Car A is sitting in an avoidably long queue of their own volition.
I've seen this effect at gigs with multiple entry points (Manchester Arena is a good example). Most people choose to queue for the nearest doors, joining a massive queue when a short walk down to a farther door has a queue with just a couple of people waiting. Do you join the shortest queue, or do you join the longest queue and then stand there complaining about all the "queue jumpers" going to the other doors? Happens at bars sometimes too, massive scrum at the nearside of the bar, whilst there's a barman at the far end stood there going "can I help anyone?"
Baa.
Rule 133 - make sure you don't cause another vehicle to change course or speed when you change lane - no, not applicable here...
You're wilfully obstructing an entire lane of traffic, causing them all to slow / stop. How is it not applicable? Are you suggesting you aren't changing lanes? To be honest, it's not exactly clear; over the course of this discussion you've variously asserted that you straddle both lanes, that you are alongside another vehicle, that you merge early and that you somehow still manage to merge in turn. I can only conclude that you're somehow driving three vehicles at once.
Rule 138 - keep left when not overtaking - well, I'm alongside another vehicle, so not applicable here...
Are you overtaking? Yes? Overtake then. No? Keep left. How can this not be applicable on a multi-lane highway, you're either overtaking or you aren't.
Rule 167 - don't overtake if this brings you into conflict others - like oncoming or right-turning traffic? Nowt to do with this scenario....
Agreed. You are deliberately causing conflict, but I don't think that's the thrust of this rule.
Rule 169 - don't hold up a long queue of traffic. I'll grant you a smidge of relevance to this point but the way it's worded to me (I don't need to ask you to tell me if you think I'm wrong) suggests it's aimed more at single carriageway and vehicles that are unable to make decent progress. I would also say that, as mentioned many times before, as far as I'm concerned I make no change to the average speed of all traffic through the blockage - the outside lane is slowed to the benefit of the middle and inner lanes.
You've just reworded that to suit your own ends. "Don't hold up a long queue of traffic" is pretty unambiguous. If you're driving deliberately slowly, there's nothing in front of you and a load of vehicles behind you, what are you doing exactly?
Do you join the shortest queue, or do you join the longest queue and then stand there complaining about all the "queue jumpers" going to the other doors?
I join the shortest queue. But if I'm in a queue, and for some reason one of the doors has to be closed and the organisers ask two queues to merge, I merge when I'm asked, from where I am in the queue. I don't wait for everybody else to merge and then try to merge from the front of the empty queue.
To clarify my case, I'm not supporting Pondo's claim to be entitled to block the lane. I'm just frustrated by the lack of clarity in the code and the signage, that means that people like me, who have been brought up to avoid aggravating other people, end up being aggravated. Posters here say "merge at the cones" but that's only their opinion; it's not obvious to me, because merging in flowing traffic works better. A single line of merged traffic at 50mph could go through the roadworks at that speed, but it never happens. Opinions will always differ, we need official clarity.
[img] 
[/img]
Ambiguous signage, yesterday.
This is an interesting read. It's a US site so THC rules don't apply, but it explains why the "best" way of merging is to merge early in light traffic and at the pinch point when there's congestion.
[url= http://www.modot.org/workzones/ZipperMerge.htm ]Clicky[/url].
This is an interesting read.
It will be an interesting misread shortly, once pondo has decided to rewrite it to suit what he wants it to say, as he did earlier with THC rule 169 and others.
Ambiguous signage, yesterday.This is an interesting read.
Agreed. A few signs like those US ones would avoid a lot of conflict; use both lanes [u]here[/u], then merge [u]here[/u].
Agreed. But really, it needs fixing with education rather than signage, if only because whilst signage is useful for installations such as roadworks it's less practical when emergency lane closures occur.
Another argument for having a 'motorway' portion of the driving test I suppose.
Right, I was going to suggest I sometimes do what pondo does, but given all the confusion over what he is actually doing, I won't say that.
What I have done approaching a merge is been in the right hand lane (almost always the case, because I'm overtaking people who are slowing down in the left lane before it becomes a proper "queue"). Then when I get to the point where the left lane is solid I'll slow down to the same speed it is moving rather than whiz straight to the front. Then I will merge in turn at the point I am supposed to.
So let's address some of the points on the other side:
I'm not doing this because I'm seething with rage over people "jumping the queue" - I'm doing it because I know the correct way to merge and want to do that, but feel uncomfortable about gaining an advantage from doing so - the people in the left lane might be idiots, but they're also still people, and I'd rather not leave them seething with rage when I don't have to. What's more, doing this encourages the correct behaviour as it creates a merge at the front of the queue between two lines moving at the same speed - if you whizz past in the right lane then there is a speed differential approaching the merge point and the merge doesn't quite work in the way it should - not only that but when you do this the people in the left lane are also happy for you to merge rather than seething with rage, so you get a gap to merge into and it all happens smoothly rather than being a mess of people closing up the gaps. Because whatever the theory is of how it is supposed to work, people will be arses if you whizz up the right and it won't work properly.
Just in case it isn't clear (as some people seem confused over this point) I'm not choosing my own merge location, quite the opposite.
Regarding the HC:
rule 134 - completely complying with that
rule 133 - only changing lanes at the merge point, so completely complying with that rule
rule 138 - so I should return to the left lane because I'm not overtaking? You're suggesting I should merge early? 😯
rule 167 - I'm not forcing another road user to swerve or slow down, that rule clearly isn't intended to apply here
rule 169 - see comment on rule 138, so in order to comply with that if you're taking it literally to apply to this situation then I should merge early? 😯
In case it's not clear from the start of my description, I'm also talking about the vast majority of such situations I encounter, roadworks or similar on a motorway or DC, where there are no junctions between the point traffic starts queuing and the obstruction. So let's address this one:
[quote=nickjb ]Lets extend the distances to make it clearer. In your scenario a 100 mile motorway with a 99 mile lane restriction will flow just as fast as a 100 mile motorway with a 100 yard restriction.
Yep, both motorways will flow the same, as the limit is the speed at which traffic moves through the obstruction. How quickly you get to the back of the queue doesn't make any difference at all to how quickly you get to the end of the motorway - if you get there faster you'll just queue for longer.
If we're talking about the completely different situation where traffic is backing across junctions and roundabouts because of incorrect queueing then I will always do everything I can to improve the throughput of those junctions by using all available lanes at the highest appropriate speed (I can think of a couple of locations where I'll use the right hand lane to improve the throughput of a bottleneck junction despite that not being the correct lane for the direction I'm going because it is always possible to move into the correct lane later without obstructing or inconveniencing anybody else).
he left lane because I'm not overtaking? You're suggesting I should merge
No. You should travel at a speed relevant to the lane you are in, not try and match the speed of another (irrelevant) lane
rule 169 - see comment on rule 138, so in order to comply with that if you're taking it literally to apply to this situation then I should merge early?
Same as above.
Use the (unobstructed) lane you are in to gauge your speed.
You are holding up a lane of traffic by driving slower than you need to (that's why there are loads of cars behind you wanting to get past)
How you can claim you aren't is really quite strange.
Slower than I need to? So you know what speed I need to drive? If I'm doing 40 on a NSL single carriageway should I also speed up because I don't need to drive that slowly?
sounds like you've just negated the need for three lane highways. You will save the road builders a fortune.Yep, both motorways will flow the same
If there were sections of roadworks immediately before every junction on every motorway (it only seems like that is the case) then you might have a point.
It's got nothing to do with junctions. You have a length of unrestricted motorway, a length of queue and a length of restriction. You make the restricted bit longer and consequently the unrestricted bit shorter. That is slower on average.
yes. Rule 137 and 138 are pretty clear on this. Nothing to do with merging early, just using the lanes as they are designed.so I should return to the left lane because I'm not overtaking
Just in case we have different copies this is my reference:
137
On a two-lane dual carriageway you should stay in the left-hand lane. Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right. After overtaking, move back to the left-hand lane when it is safe to do so.
138
On a three-lane dual carriageway, you may use the middle lane or the right-hand lane to overtake but return to the middle and then the left-hand lane when it is safe
should I also speed up because I don't need to drive that slowly?
Yes,if conditions permit and you're slowing traffic down, I don't see you having the self awareness to pull over and let other traffic pass. But I'm sure you'll have some bizarre justification for doing so.
Are people really trying to defend poor driving.
This is an incredibly eye opening thread and it's interesting to see how blind people are at their poor driving and the selfishness when interpreting the Highway Code.
Tartan rug sales must be doing well.
To both the defenders of this selfish act, I ask your views on middle lane hoggers.
[quote=nickjb ]so I should return to the left lane because I'm not overtakingyes. Rule 137 and 138 are pretty clear on this. Nothing to do with merging early, just using the lanes as they are designed.
So you're now suggesting that if I moved left I wouldn't be merging? By definition we don't have the normal free flowing conditions for which those rules are clearly intended (other rules mention things changing in congested conditions).
[quote=captainsasquatch ]
should I also speed up because I don't need to drive that slowly?
Yes,if conditions permit and you're slowing traffic down, I don't see you having the self awareness to pull over and let other traffic pass.
What if there is nowhere to pull over and let other traffic past? I should speed up?
I'm loving the ad-homs from one side of this BTW. Maybe you can explain why it is selfish to attempt to help it to work as it is supposed to, is everybody just ignoring that driving like this helps with that far more than whizzing past?
It isn't. You aren't doing that though. Helping it to work as it should would be driving as you should in this scenario: Use both lanes up to the merge point then merge in turn. Stopping the people that are trying to do this while helping the people that aren't isn't really helping.Maybe you can explain why it is selfish to attempt to help it to work as it is supposed to
No I'm not. Moving back into the left lane is always merging. It is just irrelevant in this case. Either use the right lane and overtake or pull into the left lane.So you're now suggesting that if I moved left I wouldn't be merging?
Blocking free flowing traffic to satisfy your own interperation of the Highway Code and agenda is incredibly selfish, to then try and justify it by ignoring other codes is plain ridiculous.
Follow the Highway Code and encourage the people who don't merge correctly at the pinch point to do so. Don't take things into your own hands and try and justify it.
The number of people who drive nose to tail refusing to allow someone to merge as the Highweay Code dictates, these are the ones whjo need your holier than thou lectures, not the people who are being penalised by poor driving and drivers.
If these people allowed others to merge correctly, you wouldn't have to become your own little police force.
Ad hom? Where's the ad hom? Drivers who drive inconsiderately are selfish. If you put yourself into this category of driver...
What if there is nowhere to pull over and let other traffic past? I should speed up?
Short answer, yes. Or reconsider your ability to drive safely.
sharkbait - Member
Why do people do that?
😆 Just started to read this thread so miss all comments apart from OP's.
Why? Because they are pissed that you have over taken them by jumping queue. They cannot comprehend that the filter start nearer to the location ...
I would do the same as you but then I know the local driving norm so I tend to join them in the queue... enter Rome all that ...
edit: need to read all the comments tonight for entertainment ... 😆
What I always find amusing are the merges where it's the inside lane that actually closed. All those who have waited in the inside lane now found themselves having to merge right...what would Pongo do here?
[quote=nickjb ]Helping it to work as it should would be driving as you should in this scenario: Use both lanes up to the merge point then merge in turn. Stopping the people that are trying to do this while helping the people that aren't isn't really helping.
Which is exactly what I am doing - I'm still not sure why people are so confused by this. Neither am I stopping anybody else from doing so - they can also drive up to the correct merge point and merge in turn. Have you really never experienced people in the left lane attempting to block you from merging by closing up the gaps? IME if you do as I suggest this is never a problem, so yes I am making it work better by getting rid of some of the aggravation. You really aren't going to educate anybody by whizzing up the right lane - at least doing this a few drivers get to see it working properly in a calm environment.
Moving back into the left lane is always merging. It is just irrelevant in this case.
Oh, so I would be merging early - I'm not going to do that because I know how it is supposed to work and I'm going to merge at the correct point. Why is it irrelevant?
[quote=captainsasquatch ]Blocking free flowing traffic to satisfy your own interperation of the Highway Code and agenda is incredibly selfish, to then try and justify it by ignoring other codes is plain ridiculous.
Which bit of the HC am I misinterpreting or ignoring? More to the point, given I get no personal advantage, how can I possibly be being selfish? There seems to be a certain amount of confusion over what my options are here, given I started off in the right lane and want to merge at the right point.
Follow the Highway Code and encourage the people who don't merge correctly at the pinch point to do so.
Is exactly what I'm trying to do - what are you doing to encourage people to merge correctly?
The number of people who drive nose to tail refusing to allow someone to merge as the Highweay Code dictates, these are the ones whjo need your holier than thou lectures, not the people who are being penalised by poor driving and drivers. If these people allowed others to merge correctly, you wouldn't have to become your own little police force.
Not lecturing anybody here. Though strangely enough, as I've just pointed out it does seem to stop people driving nose to tail preventing merging - what are you doing which changes people's behaviour like that?