Oooo am I going to get a visit from the police?

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.

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 first.

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.

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?

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/oooo-am-i-going-to-get-a-visit-from-the-police/page/2#post-6713264

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 one 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.

Interestingly the big book of signs provided by .Gov doesn’t have mention of the sign in this post.

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.

http://www.infsq.co.uk/2011/02/merge-in-turn/

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

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/consultations/2012/careless-driving.pdf
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 ?

Why are the advanced driving forum having the same debate then and making the same points ?

Presumably there are other people who share your comprehension problems that happen to post on advanced driving forums.

I’ve lost track with all your jibba jabba, but lets assume that people are merging in turn, just not necessarily at the point where two lanes go into one:

1) This merging is happening miles back. 5 miles from the where the two lanes converge. Someone has decided that this in the point where the “que” starts and everyone must merge in turn from this point.

2) Someone else has decided that traffic in the left hand lane is just going slower and they aren’t in a que at all, just overtaking slower moving traffic. This happens 3 miles from the point where the two lanes merge.

3) Someone else is 10 miles away, hears the traffic report on the news and decides thats the point that traffic has to merge, drives down, stradling 2 lanes like some sort of hero and post about his exploits on some obscure message board somewhere, sparking a massive debate.

4) Another chap, decides that the point that the 2 lanes merge, is a good point to merge.

Now, which one of those points is an actual point that we can all agree exists? Which point is objective and which subjective? Is it all the random ones that people have just decided based on **** knows what? Or is it the point where the two lanes become one?

Well, I’ll give you a clue. We can all agree that there is a point where two lanes become one. And because we can all agree this point exist, it makes the most sense to all agree to merge at this point. That way we don’t all have to try and second guess each other as to which arbitrary point in the last 10 miles was the correct point to merge.

And low and behold, this very simple piece of logical thinking is supported (if not explicitly stated, because most people are capable of critical thought it is assumed) by the Highway Code.

Why are the advanced driving forum having the same debate then and making the same points ?

Because. As I’m sure you are aware….

There are always people who will argue the far end of a fart, even when they know they are wrong.

As you are currently doing.

Hats off for persistance, but you admitted the right way to do it multiple pages ago.

This topic was done very recently – there was a thread about this exact scenario just a couple days ago. I remember reading it, it was two or three pages worth. A chap was late for a film because of it, and didn’t get any popcorn.

advanced driving forum

I bet there is a good bit of sport to be had on there 🙂

Alternate merging – should be used every time two lanes become one.
I regularly use a 4>1 alternate merge.. it’s simple brilliance.
If someone decides to merge early, they’re a fool, i’m going to carry on till the merge point and merge there followed by the rest of the drivers behind me.
It works on the road like it does in a ski lift queue North America… unlike the unpleasant European queues where you’re probably going to get into an argument with a German.
And this works in a country where the majority of drivers don’t even realise their rear view mirror isn’t just for applying makeup, can’t fathom a roundabout, pootle along in the outside lane and steer with their knee while drinking coffee and eating doughnuts. are appallingly bad!

Here’s a nice vid

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.

No the people queuing on the left and merging early have chosen to slow themselves down.

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.

No, again by merging too early and not in accordance with the HC, these drivers have taken it upon themselves to delay their own journeys. If they are at all concerned about not waiting longer then they have the option to use the right hand lane and merge at the obstruction.

Mostly this debate shows that people are basically unsuited to driving cars. Bring on driverless ones.

All the stuff about traffic seamlessly ‘zipping together’ at the point where the lanes merge is hilariously unrealistic, not because it couldn’t happen if everyone agreed to do it and had a modicum of driving ability, but because, guess what, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN THE UK.

It takes only one or two people to be oblivious, stupid, ignorant etc, for the whole thing to fall to pieces. Arguing about theoretical, Kantian driving scenarios based on ‘what would a reasonable driver do’ is a waste of time and energy because drivers are not reasonable.

Even if there were a clear an unambiguous law demanding that people merge where the lanes disappear, there would still be no seamless zipping together of traffic because people are simply stupid and selfish and no more so than when driving cars where, in their heads, they have some sort of free will within the constraints of the possible and, in some people’s heads, are exempt from the normal rules of society.

Like I said, bring on driverless cars and this thread will mercifully be a thing of the past. Better still, get rid of cars, encourage people to use bikes, trains and other public transport. 🙂

I will look forward to towing 500kg of cement behind my bike 😯

I will look forward to towing 500kg of cement behind my bike

It’ll serve you right, you started all this 😉

Logic tells us to merge in turn, as fourbanger eloquently explained.

Common sense tells us to merge in turn. Why would we not use the available road? What do you think it’s there for, to act as decoration and use up the EU Tarmac Mountain? What causes more delays, a road works ten yards long, or one a mile long? Because in merging too early and reducing everything to one lane that’s the situation you’ve created.

Merging too early can cause problems further down the road as demonstrated with the M1 example on page 2.

The IAM teach you to merge in turn.

ROSPA recommends we merge in turn.

Roadcraft tells us to merge in turn.

At least two of the “merge at an arbitrary point anywhere so long as it’s behind me” people on this thread have admitted that merging in turn is the right thing to do, even if they’ve then caveated this by saying they’re going to carry on doing it their way anyway because Reasons.

Many people here have explained, over and over, that they believe you should merge in turn and explained why.

And if you reject all of this, The Highway Code, the manual that dictates to the entire country how to drive, the standard by which you’re judged on when sitting a driving test, recommends we merge in turn when appropriate (where appropriate is “not at high speeds”) and tells us to do it at road works.

It’s really, really simple. The only reasons I can see why anyone would still be contesting this is:

1) a lack of critical thinking. Which, you know, is fine, it’s a skill not everyone has.

2) trolling or a stubborn determination to argue.

3) their ego won’t allow them to admit that they’re wrong. It’s difficult to come to terms with the realisation that a belief you’ve held for two decades is fallacious (see also religion) so first we see denial, then anger, before a finally either a begrudging acceptance or a flat out rejection that despite everything they’re going to carry on claiming that their way is better. Doubly so where driving is concerned, no-one wants to be told that they could be a better driver.

Still not seeing any answers to my earlier questions, incidentally:

Why would you not follow the recommended course of action and do something else?

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?

Why would you feel justified in illegally blocking the other lane?

Here’s a fourth one. What do you gain by merging in chaos rather than merging in turn?