Safe Speed Forums

This picture shows the view of Bannerigg from the start point.
You can see the vehicles ahead before they become hidden by the bends - it is not a question of drivers being taken unaware by a slow queue in lane 1.
Vehicles turning right into the farms and guesthouse have to wait in lane two for a gap, which seems to escape many drivers, who set off up the far hill, and pull out to pass seemingly without knowing there is an obstacle in the outside lane

It's a wonder there have not been more fatalities here than there have!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

With all due respect Ernest the scenarios are ENTIRELY different. We are talking about a fixed, signposted, utterly predictable therefor easily manageable constriction in the road, you are talking about an overtaking maneouvre which may lead you into the path of oncoming traffic. In this case you have to think of the closing speed to the constriction as being much higher as the constriction itself could potentially be moving towards you, in which case Observer has made this point already. I personally cannot remember the last time I saw a line of cones moving towards me at great speed so I see nothing wrong in driving almost right up to them as they are not likely to surprise me.

This is emotive stuff to try and justify criticism of an effective solution to a traffic problem - one that is recognised and roads get built or modified to permit. Capri 2.8i and Observer have between them described perfectly how it will work in maintaining traffic flow provided everyone plays the game. The stuttering progress occurs because someone in the lane that is not closing decides to impede and disturb the flow by tailgating the person in front of them and blocking traffic on the closing lane because they believe they should have priority into the constriction simply because they 'got there (into the open lane) first' by merging into a long queue much earlier - a queue they help to make longer!!! Slower in but quicker through for two lanes merging into one will make sure traffic never stops. It's simple, it's factual, and it is uncontestable. I have seen it and it works.

The approaching cones take away the element of CHOICE. The driver who leaves the merge so late has no option but to merge. They cannot, until they are in between two vehicles who are alongside in Lane 1/2.
At this point the whole manouvre becomes "what if" because driver behaviour is fickle, and yes, some drivers tailgate, refuse to cooperate, or simply dont make adequate allowance.
To leave it so late in the manner I described, is foolish.
I am sure JT was not advocating it when he illustrated HIS approach early in this thread.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

r11co wrote:

Those words apply equally to both arguments.

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

By adding these examples you seem to be trying to justify your argument by changing the situation entirely and making people think that using L2 is inherently dangerous and foolish. It isn't anything like the situations you have described as there is unlikely to be any traffic in L2 wanting to turn right into farms for a start! Nor will anyone have to barge in to avoid an accident with an on-coming Zafira (you would hope). Don't try and prove your argument by giving false examples that don't apply to the actual discussion.

That doesn't seem a severe bend, or does it tighten up at the brow, where there are two signs visible against the skyline?

As to where to merge - it depends. There are infinite combinations of traffic and other conditions that would influence my judgement, so it's difficult to make generalisations. However, in general, the principle of using the available space applies.

If (as shown in your photo) the road is clear ahead, there's nothing wrong in continuing an overtake in lane 2 up to the point where the hatched section starts. In fact the line marking the hatched area is broken so it is permitted to use that space as well, although it is better avoided. I would agree that it is wrong and aggressive to race up the hill in L2 then brake heavily just before the hatched area, then barge into a small gap (although the gap should not be small).

However, if there was a slow vehicle in L1 (say a bus or caravan) and the road ahead was clear, it would be reasonable to use the hatched space if it can be done non-aggressively (i.e. without cutting in on the last overtakee and without terrifying oncoming traffic).

If there is a steady flow of traffic at the 30-40 mph you describe, it is necessary to plan the return to L1. So I would be looking ahead for a reasonable gap to return to as soon as I became aware of the restriction. This is where space becomes important in both lanes. I want adequate space to the car ahead of me in L2 in case he does something unexpected or runs into difficulty with his own merge. I also need space to merge into. Hopefully, traffic in L1 is not so badly spaced that I cannot merge easily. At some point, I have to adjust my speed to the flow of traffic in L1 so the speed differential should not be so great as to make that difficult to achieve, ideally without braking (the incline helps here).



I'm not sure if you're saying that drivers should not use L2 at all. Sorry, but I disagree. There is nothing wrong with overtaking a slower vehicle if it is safe to do so. You may feel there is no point because there is little to be gained and choose to stay in L1 but you can't expect everyone else to share your opinion. You may have local knowledge which an overtaker doesn't have. If a second lane is provided, it's wasted if not used. It's like saying there is no point overtaking a slower vehicle on a s/c road because there will be another slower vehicle somewhere ahead.

As for the barging in, it wouldn't be barging in if traffic in L1 was well spaced as it should be; although it's also true that the overtaker should not be trying to merge into a gap that doesn't exist and should have a fallback plan in case a gap which he had identified closes up. However, if a driver in L1 deliberately closes up a gap to stop someone who's overtaking from merging back in, what's the difference between that and doing the same on a s/c when someone's overtaking. It's dangerous driving.

I can see that there may often be traffic conditions that mean the advantage from overtaking is limited, but I would not choose to stop someone else from trying nor make it harder for them to do so. If I had chosen to stay in L1, I would be leaving a generous gap ahead so that someone else who is trying to press on can do so more easily.

Finally, if the volume of traffic is such that speed at the constriction has reduced to walking pace, it is absolutely necessary to use all the space in L2 up to the hatched area - merging early exacerbates the problem behind, with unknowable side effects.

If the Authorities really want us to zip merge at the last minute then the cones should guide people to straddle the white line between the lanes and then direct the traffic to one side or the other. I could live with that and would have no difficulty using either lane and merging politely at the last minute. That would remove the “I’m in the right lane” and the “I’m in a hurry let me in” mentality.

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

Not so. The fact is that if every second driver in the queue merges late and is allowed to merge smoothly and then progress through the constriction at pace, this provides a benefit to everyone approaching the constriction behind them. Joining the queue early is entirely a selfish action motivated by 'getting there early so as no one will stop me doing it later', but in doing so lengthens the queue for everyone behind you - regardless of the motivation one is beneficial to everyone while the other serves the individual only.

Baulking and blocking people who then try to use the road correctly because you believe you got there first and therefor have the right to be in front of them and prevent them using available roadspace, or even feeling indignant that someone has passed you is merely a reaction to your poor dealing with the situation. This sort of reaction is childish sabotaging of someone else's attempt to alleviate a problem using a better solution than yours, pure and simple. The system breaks down as a result of this.

There really is no discussion here as the system of merge in turn works in practice when applied.

Sorry don't agree. Merging is ideal as we have all agreed. Smoothly is ideal as I am sure we will all agree. Smoothly is easier if it is earlier. When both lanes are travelling at similar speeds.

I don't join a queue early for selfish reasons I join when there is a suitable gap, when my speed matches the other traffic, after I have indicated and given everybody sufficient notice of my intentions. If that happens to be at 200yds or 100yds depends on the traffic density. After 100yds the pressure to get into the other lane gets more intense particularly if the speeds have dropped and everybody has closed up as they tend to do.

What I don't do is drive right to the end stop, indicate and then try to join moving traffic at a steep angle.

If I am joining at a slip road then I would be quite happy to use the whole length of the slip road because I shorten the queue back up the slip road.

As for baulking and blocking that is plainly ridiculus and I have never deliberately done that as I don't believe in it. Anybody who arrives at the end of the lane accidentally because they couldn't get in earlier has my sympathy and I will always let them in.

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

And why do they tend to do this? That's the nub of the issue. There is no requirement to slow and close up if entrance to the constriction is properly managed. Some people close up to actively 'defend' their position in the queue, others simply don't think about it and are driving too close.

Both groups then find themselves progressing stutteringly for reasons obvious - either trying to maintain an artificially small gap by accelarating and then braking thus causing a ripple back, or by not paying attention and having to brake to stop themselves rear ending the car in front.

Both activites cause the slowing.

The separate issue of queue lengthening is as a result of the majority of people having the 'bird in the hand' mentality of getting into the lane that is still open early, and the 'queue jumping' mentality stems from their ill-considered desire to defend their 'wise choice' from people who, for reasons and motives that are entirely irrelevant, are actually managing the situation better.

As I keep repeating and I am starting to get utterly exasperated as to why the message is not getting through - zip merging is used with great success, has been tested and proven to work (M74) and is an effective solution to the problem. There is no debate, merely a beligerent mindset.

r11co wrote:

The two second rule perhaps.

But I would hate to be accused of causing exasperation in anybody so I will retire to my shell and continue to drive as safely and considerately as I can IMO.

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

The post van turns into the farm EVERY morning - at commute time! The driver does his best to reduce his exposure to danger, while the powers that be allow two lanes over a stretch of road which should only be one. His experience is NOT shared by guests on their way to the guesthouse!!

I just re-read my post, and I dont see where I expressed any concern that there was any potential conflict with the Zafira. I merely mentioned it to indicate the position on the road ahead of the first merge arrow - the only thing missing when a temporary closure occurs on a motorway.

I cannot see what the problem is with the comprehension here.
I used the illustration here because the two lanes merging into one mimics the situation on a motorway where for one reason or another, the one lane closes, and drivers HAVE to merge.
If you can wait awhile I will track down a m'way closure and photograph it for you!!
Many are implying that it is right to drive right up to the obstruction, and THEN merge into a line of traffic where the gaps between vehicles are rapidly closing, and speed falling due to a constriction in the road.
In my illustration there is the further complication of a blind summit, a bend, and oncoming traffic, but the approach still shares the same problem - how do you merge with the traffic to your left, when as it slows, the spaces get smaller and smaller, their speed is falling, and you need to watch the oncoming hazard you are approaching, AND try to find a gap or somebody prepared to brake/pause to let you onto the adjacent lane.

All too often the drivers I am complaining of, have no desire to merge, but merely to proceed as far forward as they can and pass as many of the slower moving cars to their left as possible, before finally accepting they HAVE to merge, and finding it very hard to do so safely, and relying on the right hand lane drivers to adjust their driving and compromise their planned strategy to accomodate them. In the example I have shown, where there are no cones, they often continue around the bend - often with two wheels over the double white lines!
Is that right? Is it safe? Is it acceptable? Or should THOSE drivers in the outside lane merge in good time - which I believe from his description JT does, despite his arguments against the points I raised!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I am not saying drivers should not use lane two/three. As there are three lanes on a motorway leading up to a constriction, some drivers will already be in the outside lane, and while they remain unaware of the reason for the lane to their left to be slowing, one cannot expect them to join it. However, they should be aware of a potential hazard ahead - indeed when you get close enough it is usually signed. Once you encounter the 600/400/200 yard countdown, it would be wise to look towards making a planned merge, while there are still longer gaps betwen vehicles in the lane to the left, and while you are not forced to keep one eye so closely on the approaching obstruction.
I believe JT alludes to this - and knows that while they have a "cushion" of space in front and behind, most drivers will (even if somewhat begrudgingly) make a space for you to merge into.
However as they approach the restriction, the more cars merging with the left (free running) lane, the more the left lane slows, and the smaller the gaps become between vehicles; drivers are no longer quite so confident in being able to ease off enough to leave a gap for the outside driver to merge into, AND the more the outside drivers attention is divided by the decreasing lane ahead of him, and adjusting speed and position to merge with the left lane.

Your other points regarding different traffic conditions are quite correct. A particularly slow moving vehicle such as a bus or caravan usually has a bigger space in front to pull into, AND is easier to pass quickly.

The drawback with the road I illustrated is that at commuting times, there is more traffic, more busses, (the National Express passes through at this time) AND commercial vehicles and lorries which have been delivering to shops etc. so they form rolling road blocks, with long queues of cars behind. They also use their momentum from driving as quickly as possible down the hill to "attack" the up-hill stretch, so in the lower slope, it is often impossible to pass, and by the time they have slowed near the top, the following drivers have left it too late.

The walls on Bannerigg bear testament to the accident history of this road. So far the only improvements have been a Slippery Road lollipop sign. The HA take months to put signs back up when they get knocked down, and the speeds are not in excess of the NSL - it is clearly inappropriate speed, not excess speed which is the problem.
The road should be hatched in the centre to provide a refuge for vehicles turning right, and the kink at the bottom which forces traffic heading TO Windermere to bend tightly around the point at which the Kendal bound two lane section starts should be straightened.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Of course you are quite right. They DO close up, and they DO actively defend their position, even though they should not.

So is it right to "take them on" and assert your right to merge at the last possible point before you end up camped in front of the cones, or should you take steps to merge while it is easier and safer to do so?


Would that be at point A, point B or point C - taking into account the density of traffic in the adjoining lane is not such a problem at quieter times

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

doesnt it say somewhere that if you overtake a vehicle you shouldnt cause that vehicle to brake as you complete the overtake (cant find it in the highway code but i am certain it was on one of those police driving programs).........since lane 2 is an overtaking lane if you have to force vehicles in lane 1 to slow down for you (either voluntarily or under duress) are you completing a legitimate manoeuvre?

We agree that active defending of a position is wrong and the origin of the problem of a stuttering queue. Therefor is the solution that 'two wrongs make a right' - the wrong thing to do being to merge early simply because other people aren't going to let you in?

There is still the entirely separate issue of an artificially extended, almost static queue which is only dealt with by using all the available road space - joining the queue while there is still 200 yards or more of open road in front of you is simply adding to this problem, especially if the queue is stopped at that point because of some overzealous tailgater but still moving at the constriction point.

At least then you have the hope that someone further up doesn't have the 'you are not getting in in front of me' mentality and decide to race you to close up the gap in front of them to prevent you getting in, as so many people do. I have seen many a rear end shunt caused by someone paying more attention to the car next to them than the car in front of them, so keen are they to block the path.

Can you see now where the problem begins and ends? If the 'you're not getting in front of me' mindset didn't exist then neither would the stuttering queues and the queue jumping.

Does this all apply to "undertaking" on a DC as well. Take the A1 (southbound through North Yorkshire) which on many occasions has virtually all the cars travelling in L2 with L1 empty, save a few lorries spaced around 1/4 to 1/2 a miles apart if not more. What happens is everyone moves into L2 (presumably thinking, well if they are then I should be) which moves along at 50-60 with variations in speed as people brake and send waves backwards. In the meantime L1 is free. When you can see a long way in front of you the scene looks bizzare. Why not use L1 too? Because there's a lorry somewhere up ahead and you're not letting the car behind you steal your space by moving into L1? I admit my past guilt in this area, joining the back of a queue...

Anyway, after finding the site and reading various posts on here (including this one) I have since changed my driving and now move over to L1 where possible and put it to good use. I have noticed that other drivers now seem to follow suit. Not sure if this is frowned on or not but I also maintain a sensible speed, which sometimes leads to me "queue jumping" by moving in front of others but I don't then aggressively cut back in, only moving out when it is safe to do so. The upshot is 2-fold:

1) I make safer progress as I am not having to watch for the wave of red lights coming towards me quite as intently and the stop-start speeds of L2. This leads to a calmer me and a more fuel-efficient ride

2) I no-longer have any bad feeling towards people who come up on the inside, or "queue-jump" in 2 lanes down to 1 situations (providing it's done sensibly which is something Ernest and Co. seem to be missing by talking about the aggressive examples they have mentioned).

All-in-all, thank you to the posters. I feel I am now safer, and calmer but haven't lost anything in terms of being able to get to where I want to be in time.

Notwithstanding the rest of your argument, this point doesn't really make sense.
Let's assume for a moment that nobody is in the other lane trying to merge. There is then effectively one lane of traffic right up to the constriction, and one lane of traffic through the constriction, so there is effectively one unconstricted lane of traffic both before and through the constriction. So there is no earthly reason why it should slow down at all because of the constriction.
The only reason for the traffic to slow down through the constriction is a reduced speed limit - a coned-off lane hardly constitutes an increased hazard level - and, even so, the gaps in the traffic only close commensurate with the reduced speed, although some drivers will close the gaps and some will leave relatively large gaps.
It follows that the only slowing of traffic as a result of merging can only occur behind the merge point - wherever that point happens to be.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I think I addressed this point...

As cars in the left lane allow in cars from lane 2/3 , they slow the traffic behind them, and if the merge is left until the last minute and becomes an unplanned rushed affair, the more likely the chance of a slowing down more than should be necessary.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

..

_________________
Q. Are you a stupid fascist with limited reading skills or are you just a retard?