Safe Speed Forums

Zip merge, using all available road space, is obviously more efficient, as I think nearly all agree. The only additional points I'd mention are:

(i) the optimum 'merge point' varies according to the speed of traffic. At crawling pace it is only just before the actual obstruction, but moves back as speed increases (that's a limitation of "merge now" signs);

(ii) to make the zip merge work, all that's needed is for every driver to allow ONE vehicle in the adjacent lane to merge ahead. If everybody did it, merging two lanes into one would be as easy as .... zipping up a jacket.

Zip merging is definately the correct way, though I'm very cautious to avoid an agressive confrontation. I don't like doing it for that reason.

It's the same with 2 lanes at the lights and a merge after, if everyone allowed a zipper effect the throughput of the lights would be double. But few people do. Shame.

I'm with Paul on this one.

I come across the same situation every single day at the M40 (southbound) exit for the M25. The queue in lane 1 backs up for up to 2 MILES while lane 2 remains clear all the way.

I stay in lane 2 right up until the countdown markers, then indicate and look for rarefactions in the braking wave or someone "letting me in". I consider myself to be right and the obsessive queuers to be wrong. If everyone did the same as me, the queue would be (at worst) 1 mile long rather than 2 and would move more quickly due to a lessened braking wave effect.

Its the signing & road markings that are at fault here. The M40 is actually a 5-lane carriageway in the run up to the junction, yet only lane 1 is signed as the "correct" lane for the M25. They could designate two lanes here, and there would still be plenty of space for all the straight-on traffic.

That doesn't explain the people that start queuing in lane 1 before the signs though. They just see others queueing and assume that they have to do the same.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

I know this would be more difficult to set up with a permanent 2 into 1, but in the case of two lanes coned into one, would it make sense to cone from both sides into a central lane? (Which would then run to the left or right as required, of course)

This would have the effect of a funnel, with no clear 'right of way' to either side. Combined with 'merge in turn' and 'merge in xx metres/yards' signs it could encourage full use of the tarmac and keep the queue length down. (And increase average speed?)

Workable?

Wow!! A consensus!!

I'm for 'zip merging' too, for all the reasons above, the main one being wasted road space leading to longer and potentially more hazardous queues.

When a section of the M74 south of Glasgow was being resurfaced a couple of years back, the northbound lanes were controlled using 'stay in lane' and 'merge-in-turn' signs while the soutbound lanes weren't. An interesting experiment - invariably traffic kept flowing northbound while the southbound route would be queued for miles. I would often see self appointed 'lane police' truck drivers swerving into anyone who dared use the empty roadspace to meet the queue further up - IMO murderous behaviour from ignoramuses thinking they know better.

I have no issue when the HGVs travel in Lane 2 at the same speed as Lane 1. This creates a zip merge, but a bit further along the road.

The trouble with an empty Lane 2 is that every car joining Lane 1 at the lane merge slows down Lane 1 cars by one car length. There is no reason why any driver should artificially make any better progress than any other, purely because if the politeness of the others. I tend to poodle so slowly in Lane 2 that there is the same effect as merge at the lane merge, except there is a gap in front of me...

It highly depends on how said driver merges though.

As it seems for me in most cases they fly up the 'empty' lane at a stupid speed till they can get no further (bypassing perfectly plausible spaces to pull in) and then just force their way into the next lane.

If thye do it sensibly I have no problem but when I come across these impatient people I take great delight in making them wait and watching their reaction.

Sorry, Im only human.

I'm with common sense. Like I said in my previous post, the zip merge is the obvious best solution if people actually do it properly (which they rarely do). I take great pleasure in hindering folks who drive right up to the closure at stupid speed and then expect everyone else to move out of their way.

The thing you have to remember about the HGV 'lane police' is that they can see MUCH further ahead than you can. I'm not saying that this is always the case, but by blocking one lane they might actually be doing you a favour.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

In this particular example zip merging would be the ideal but it is never or very rarely carried out efficiently in this country, IMO because to the lack of good signs. There always seems to be a long queue in one lane and the empty blocked off lane encourages people to race down the queue then hope for someone to politely let them in.

I think we British as a nation (sorry is that racist) hate queue jumpers and you wouldn't stand for it if you were standing in a queue so is it different in a car?

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

Most of the time what I saw was an HGV driver trying to intimidate drivers in the merging lane, squeezing them against barriers and physically preventing them from getting in front.

What would REALLY be great is if we could teach people to adopt a staggered formation ready for zipping.

I'd love to see signs that said - 'Zip Merge 800 yards - adopt stagger'.

Anyone got any better wording?

'Prepare for zip merge ahead' perhaps?

Or a three stage:

1) Zip ahead - no overtaking
2) Zip ahead - stagger now
3) Zip now

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

An interesting debate!

Certainly the "Zip Merge" signage would help dramatically - if not cure the problem completely - but in all honesty, can you see such a thing being introduced? I think it would be as likely as a Minimum speed limit through roadworks!

Until (if?) it is, then I am with the truck drivers who generously help all others in Lane 1 maintain progress by stopping the queue jumpers forcing their way in at the pinch point. As has been said, in a crawling queue where vehicles are already close together, a car forcing in causes drivers behind to brake, thus delaying the whole queue.

Incidentally, why is it always BMWs??

And why are they close together in the first place - often so close that slow-speed rear end shunts ensue??

Because they do not want to even give an inch to another vehicle. It is a primal, territorial issue. Common sense goes out if the window thanks to a petty attitude.

In several locations in Bournemouth they have had "Merge in Turn" signs for years (with a helpful diagram for the driving impaired).

This seems to work.

Have you noticed how weekend drivers seem to be the worst offenders at lane-merging behaviour? Take the same merge on a Wednesday and a Saturday with (for argument's sake) the same traffic density, and I'd bet the farm that you'll get more of a tailback on the Saturday.

Less regular drivers just don't seem to get it.

To be fair, we've (national we've) never told them. It's not surprising that people who are less exposed to practical driving are less likely to have worked it out for themselves.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

It sounds as if you're part of the problem. We have to shake off the instinctive 'he's not entitled to do that' rubbish and instead concentrate on efficiency and co-operation. The fact is that it is efficient to use both lanes, and to do so requires co-operation. So let's co-operate. No one should ever need to force their way in.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

So long as both lanes are moving freely - there isn't a problem. Everyone zips together easily. However, when the traffic becomes a bit heavier, 2 into 1 doesn't go so easily, and the L1 traffic starts to slow and become stop/start. People in L2 can see that they need to get into L1, and so do they go all the way in L2 and force in at the last moment, or do they merge earlier when the traffic is still moving? If they go in early, why should someone else carry on and force their way in further down? And yes, it is forcing!

Now think of it from a truck driver's point - he's in L1 and was making steady progress until L2 had to come into L1. As the traffic is stop/start every vehicle that passes him, and forces in, is effectively slowing him even further - and so rather than get held up he moves to block L2, now his speed increases to that of one lane only.

Life's not perfect, and in the ideal world the arrogant driver wouldn't get up to some of the tricks I have seen - such as zooming off down a slip road, whizzing around the roundabout at the junction, then up the slip road to rejoin the main road further on - and thus "overtaking" 1/4 mile of stationary traffic. Nor would he drive in L2 to go round a roundabout to effectively turn left, so baulking everyone else on the roundabout.

Or perhaps you think dirty driving is a good thing?

Incidentally, the idea of using an empty roundabout (responsibly, not 'whizzing' round as it was so emotively put) is again perfectly acceptable if it eases traffic flow. I suspect the only reason people object is because they have neither the guts nor wherewithall to do it themselves because they perceive it as 'wrong' or 'not cricket'.

The instinct to 'do the right thing' is actually the wrong thing - a bit like the belief that slower=safer because 'it makes sense'.

To be honest, I can’t see a problem with anyone else doing it as long as what they do is safe. If drivers want to carry out these sort manoeuvres then surely it’s up to them, they may be ¼ of a mile ahead of you but they still end up back in the queue. It’s not as though everyone does it at the same time, so it’s a case of shrug your shoulders. I certainly wouldn’t call it "dirty driving".

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

At whatever speed, the optimum merge point in a zip merging scenario is going to be within a couple of hundred yards of the point where the second lane ends, so to make the system work, the traffic in L2 needs to go up to the end and merge there, not at some indeterminate point further back.

If I drive near to the end of L2 and slow down with my left indicator on, I am asking politely to be allowed to zip merge, NOT trying to force my way in. If the dimwits in L1 don't realise that, it's their problem.

If zip-merging was generally accepted, the question of "forcing your way in" simply would not arise.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed