Safe Speed Forums

I can accept zip merging if the cars in lane two/three find they have to merge because of a sudden obstruction, but for drivers to continue to drive along those lanes to gain advantage, THEN expect to merge when forced to by the closure of the outside lanes, is akin to walking into the Post Office, making your way to the front of the queue, barging in and saying "I'm helping reduce the chance of people queuing out into the street!"
How does pushing in at the FRONT of the queue prevent the queue from getting longer? If you arrive late, you join the end of the queue, NOT the beginning!

It's not the same as when one counter decides to close, and the two queues have to become one! THAT is zip merging in my book. The last person in either queue gets served at the same time as they would have been, had they been forced to rejoin the remaining queue.

When a sign tells you this lane closes in 600 yards, 400 yards, and 200 yards, then you should be politely looking for an opportunity to merge, not drive on up to the pinch point where vehicles have slowed and clogged bumper to bumper, THEN stick your bonnet in until somebody is obliged to STOP and let you in.

What you are advocating would work if the vehicles in lanes 1 (& 2) spread out into the gaps in lane 3, and then re-merged. THAT would fill up the spacees on the available road, and allow those furthest ahead to maintain their position which leads THEM through the obstruction first - not some selfish oik who arrives late and wants to be first through the gap.

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

Not sure how to put this tactfully, Ernest but I'll have a go:

Bollocks!




Note that nothing is stopping them from doing so!

Sorry, but when you stop and think about it the whole "get in lane early" thing just doesn't make sense! If you take it to it's logical extreme then every time I detect traffic is heavier in the other lane I should immediately merge into it and leave the emptier lanes to be emptier still!

No, in the general case the most logical lane to head for to make most efficient use of the motorway must surely be the emptiest one, so that all 3 lanes get equally populated to their capacity. And when there is extreme pressure on this capacity that's the time you should do this most, not all head for one lane and leave the other two to the tumbleweed!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

See page 24, section 149 of this pdf: zip merge. It'll never catch on here though, the Brits just love to queue.

johnsher,please don't class all Brits as one as this jovial bit will demonstrate -

Take two irishmen - result a fight
Take two welsh men, result a rugby match
Take two Scots - result a drunken session
Take two English men - result - a QUEUE( A BIG UN)

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

At point A traffic is slowing as it nears the obstruction ahead - all gaps are closing up, and drivers in lane three know the lane is closing.

At point B, traffic is slowing even further, and getting bunched up.
Drivers in lane three have less and less space to merge into....

until at point C the traffic in lanes one and two is often little more than a slow crawl at 15 - 20 mph if you are lucky. Drivers in lane three now have NO OTHER CHOICE but to merge, or park up in lane three.

Consequently, there is usually NO politeness, they simply barge in, causing lane two to slow dramatically, and allowing lane one to progress quicker than lane two.
This leads to frustration on the part of drivers in lane two, who have seen drivers who KNEW there was a requirement to merge, but who decided to get as far ahead as possible before they did so, thus slowing the lane even more than it was already.

At the back of the queue which builds up, lane two gets longer quicker - tempting more cars to bypass it using lane three - one usually being the first to fill up, and merely adding to the angst of the lane two drivers.

If you dont see a sign, it is understandable to use lane three, but once it becomes clear that lane three is closing, then you should merge as soon as it is safe to do so, and before the lane two drivers start to obstruct drivers in three through frustration.
It's no use quoting how it should be done - lane two drivers merely see those who continue on as selfish vermin, who deserve to spend the afternoon parked in front of the cones at point C!!

PLANNED obstructions such as contraflows usually allow for the use of the hard shoulder, and speeds generally remain higher than when the obstruction is a barrier repair, or an accident - however this problem is often seen at the M6 / M55 interchange during Blackpool lights season - where lane one is shown as filtering off to Preston and Blackpool, and the outside lanes continuing south. When an accident occurs, traffic merging becomes a necessity, and one which is handled badly IMHO, due to lack of forethought.

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

Ernest, I'm with you.

If you rush up an empty lane and pass a hundred cars or so then 'merge' in at the last minute, you are being exceptionally selfish.

So what if there's a few 100 meters of tarmac not being used, what makes you more entitled to merge at the last minute than anyone else.

This website is supposed to be about considerate and appropriate driving. Those that rush up the empty lane are doing neither. They are simply looking out for themselves and themselves only.

But under the zip-merging scenario, both lanes are used until the merge point, and people then merge considerately, one-by-one. The selfish, jumping the queue attitude simply cannot apply. It is the fairest and most efficient way of doing things.

See this press release from the IAM:

http://www.iam.org.uk/Pressroom/News_Re ... r0115.html

_________________
"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

if EVERYONE did it then the lane wouldn't be empty, would it?
As has been said, it works well in other countries so it's amusing to see the "can't have people jumping the queue old chap" arguments. Good show, what?


edited to add: SNAP!

So, until the correct signage is in place, just carry on rushing to the front of the queue?

As I recall, the warning signs go up 600 yards before the pinch.
Those 600 yards are to allow the vehicles in lane three time to merge safely.
If they have not taken the opportunity and leave it until the last minute, it is selfishness which keeps them in the lane. It SHOULD be empty once the cars in lane two are bunched up to make merging more difficult - but oh no, they have to try and gain as much advantage as possible!

You DONT form a second queue to merge with the first in the Post Office, then push in at the fron and say "we're making better use of the limited space" so why do it on the motorway?

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

When you go to the supermarket, which checkout do you choose???

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

The one with the LEAST NUMBER of items to scan, NOT the least number of trolleys!
And you dont start a second queue along side the first, then barge in!

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

You cannot compare them.

You cannot compare them unless you would consider queuing in the supermarket for a till that is not there.

So you don't pick the one you expect to take the longest then?

Just checking...


Where did this "barge in" bit come from anyway?

When I <cough> maximise efficient use of the available roadspace I don't barge anywhere. I use the emptiest lane until a sensible distance to the lane closure then merge back into a natural gap, or wait for someone to politely let me in. It's very rare you wait more than 5 or 10 cars, so it seems most folk aren't so territorial as you might think.

Unless you complete all your journeys in L1 regardless of the length of queue, it strikes me that the only difference in our approach is our judgement of where the most logical merge point is...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Accepted - but if you read my post, the behaviour I decry is that of the driver who only merges because the cones force it upon them.

Out of desperation (I suppose) they nearly ALWAYS barge in - forcing their bonnet into a barely existant gap, forcing a lane two driver to let them in!
There are usually signs, and I presume you dont venture much beyond the 200 yards sign - and if you are polite about waiting to merge, then I would let you in without any concern - but I cannot say this about every driver!

I must also say the circumstances vary according to the speed of the traffic at the pinch point. The slower it is, the less you want cars trying to pass and re-enter lane two after deliberately cruising up the outside for position.

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

Anything that results in you purposely getting as close as possible to the car in front is a bad idea. What if your foot slips off the clutch? It happens all the time.

The only time I don't let one person in front of me at a merge is when it is a vehicle I absolutely don't want to be sitting behind, such as one kicking out excessive exhaust smoke.

I drive 20,000 miles a year and I can't remember when letting one person in front of me at a merge point has noticably affected my journey time. Worst case scenario is having to wait for one extra cycle of some traffic lights, and I soon make that time up the next time someone lets ME in.

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

(emphasis added)

And why is there a "barely existent gap" if you're driving safely?

I'm afraid you have it completely upside down. The slower the traffic movement, the closer the optimum merge point will be to the obstruction.

Think about it another way (taking a 2 into 1 merge). The only reason a queue builds up in one lane and not the other is because people merge too soon. Imagine an ideal world where all traffic is approaching the obstruction at the same speed and leaving (as we know is good practice) a lateral gap to traffic in the other lane (i.e. a "stagger"). So L1#1 vehicle reaches the obstruction first and goes though first, then L2#1, then L1#2, then L2#2 and so on. That is the perfect zip merge. But it can only happen efficiently if all vehicles use all the available space as appropriate for traffic speed (the faster the speed, the further back the optimum merge point), leave decent sized following gaps and allow the vehicle ahead and in the other lane to enter the narrowed section ahead.

Vehicles that merge early are creating a problem that need not exist (and adding to congestion and frustration).

Excellent posts, Observer & JT (and loads of others too, actually).

Ok, I've identified the nub of the problem.

In the signed-zip-merge/"foreign"/proven-painless-and-I-can-vouch-for-that scenario, the lanes are all used until a "anonymous-signpost"-declared merge point, which is invariably only a short distance before the actual obstruction. No great consideration needed, just rule-following.

In the free-for-all/UK/easy-to-unintentionally-irritate scenario, some drivers (who consider themselves good forward planners) merge as soon as possible after warning signs placed a LARGE distance from the actual obstruction. They then get miffed when other drivers make use of the lane they have just chosen to vacate.

The way I see it, nobody compelled the miffed driver to join the "open" lane a long distance before the obstacle.
My advice: Use all the road, and accept that merging is acceptable and necessary. It should be compulsory IMO.

Because:

Drivers who are being funnelled into a restricted space after driving freely on a motorway bunch up as they slow down. I am describing events as I see them, not how I drive. JT explained more fully his own approach...

Nobody has addressed the question:
Would you enter the post office, walk to the head of the queue, and merge simply because there was a space along side the queue?
Would it help make space inside the post office and prevent the queue extending out the door?
No. The existing queue would simply back up by the addition of the person pushing in, and he would be served before all the others who had waited patiently.
What is being advocated is a free for all, where anyone who feels like bypassing those who arrived in the queue first can simply walk up the outside and "merge" in at the front.

Of course there will be some who merge early and politely, but the total number of vehicles able to pass through the restriction in a given time is finite and those who choose to join at the front instead of the back only further their OWN ends.

Why do the signs get put out so far in advance telling you the lane is closing? If the intention was to simply allow all the vehicles in lane three to join lane two at the pinch, why not just put a single sign saying lane closing, and dispense with all the keep left arrows and the 600/400/200 yard warnings?

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

The supermarket analogy treats each lane in isolation.
You join the END of the queue, and you do not walk to the head of that queue and rejoin it. If you choose a different queue, and the chap in front produces a credit card that wont swipe,, you dont simply bypass the people in front and rejoin.

When all the checkouts are full, pushing to the front would not reduce the numbers queueing - that would only be acheived if they opened another checkout - which would be akin to allowing the use of the hard shoulder if the road was blocked. This might alleviate the problem, but set up another if the cause if the hold up required emergency services access. For that reason, we are not allowed to routinely take over the hard shoulder, it remains empty.

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