Safe Speed Forums

If the post office had two narrow corridors leading to a single counter it would be sensible and appropriate for folk to queue in both corridors and for the twin queues to be served in turn.

Or perhaps you think one of the corridors is a cheat's corridor and should be closed?

Assuming that both corridors were open, would you join the one with more people or the one with less?

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

The only time I have seen a GET IN LANE sign is where different lanes go to different destinations. Such as where using a contaflow lane would mean missing a junction.

The lane closure warning signs give people in all 3 lanes fair warning of the merge so you have no excuse for not making space for other traffic to merge in.

As fro the forcing issue, I never have to force my way in, I find that if I slow as I approach the merge I will find a like minded individual in the last 200 yards who will create a gap. And in return I do the same for other "late mergers".

The only people I will forcibly prevent joining a queue are the idiots who cross the chevrons to leave a sliproad early.

We aren't waiting for a counter anyway...there's not anything at the very front of the queue that we're waiting for apart from the end of the queue. Most people are just wanting to MOVE somewhere rather than get served. Surely a better analogy would be when a path narrows or a group of people walking side-by side (2 lanes of "traffic") on a footpath face a push/wheelchair coming the other way and then merge in considerately to get past? You don't think the people who saw it first and moved over should elbow barge the others so they walk into the oncoming pedestrians do you?

And as for "forcing their way in", if we followed and taught that "A driver in a line of traffic that is merging with one or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as the driver must give way to a vehicle in another line of traffic if any part of the vehicle is ahead of the driver’s vehicle." I think it would solve a lot of problems (road rage and stress and accidents). How often do you see petty squabbles over a few feet that lead to angry words or horns being used because someone has refused to let someone in and driven front-bumper to passenger's door trying to stop them? It's because they think they are right to be in that lane and no-one can get in front of them, when in reality as soon as the traffic moves again the distance lost / gained will be negated in seconds at 70-80 MPH. How long does it take to travel a car length at this speed? And is that worth fighting over?

Your post has made me aware of something here.
We are in danger of mixing up the polite merging, in good time, and in a safe manner - as described by JT, with the arrogant dash for the front merchant, whose only objective is to pass as many vehicles as possible, before being FORCED to merge because they are running out of space.
A parallel would be someone overtaking a line of cars, when a vehicle is heading towards them, and ONLY merging when they are in danger of collision - a course I am sure those posting in favour of driving up the outside would NOT contemplate.

When the traffic in lane two is being forced to slow, and is reducing the separation between vehicles, it cannot be helpful to have a vehicle pass numerous opprotunities to merge, and then attempt to join when the traffic in lane two is more tightly packed. If the approaching obstruction WERE a vehicle coming the other way, we would not be discussing whether it was right to merge, or continue to the front of the queue would we?

Each morning, as I travel to work, I negotiate a steep hill, with two narrow lanes going my way, which merge on the brow of a hill, and as they do, bend sharply to the right. Double whites separate us from oncoming traffic on the hill and beyond the bend.
There is also a bend halfway up the hill which blocks off any view of the pinch point, despite which vehicles continue to pass slower traffic in lane one, only to find they are forced to merge. As they do so, traffic in lane one is forced to slow even further, exposing the vehicles which have just exited the earlier bend to being rear-ended by vehicles travelling a little too fast around the first bend.
In this instance, the two lanes are clearly an unecessary hazard despite the obvious good intent of allowing heavy vehicles to be passed, as at best, cars passing other cars hope to make 1 - 3 vehicle lengths, before rejoining the traffic they have passed. They then sit there for some considerable time before another opportunity presents it's self. Today, two cars which performed this risky manouvre passed the turning into Staveley 10 seconds before I made the turn, yet risked a collision, and caused inconvenience to following drivers who had to slow to allow the two cars back into lane, and prevent them having a head on over the double white line.

It is merely selfish behaviour, and I am sure is NOT what Paul, JT and the rest of you are advocating. If we had an opportunity to watch you perform, I feel certain I for one would NOT be unduly concerned. However I cannot speak for others who might be waiting and view your actions in a different light, because of a minority of selfish drivers who push too far.

Late last year, at Bannerigg (the location I was describing) a car ran off the road on the left, and demolished the bend warning sign. This is by no means an isolated event! I know Ian H has concerns of this behaviour at this location.

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

So - take the scenario where the number of vehicles coming up in the outside lane is EXACTLY the capacity of the single lane after the merge. The inside lane will slow to a stop and by definition a vehicle in the outside lane will always be in front of the vehicles in the inside lane.

Thus the inside lane will never move.

The problem is people merging too early. People arriving at the party late and grabbing all the road space is not the solution, it compounds the problem.

The only distinction here seems to be that the one sensible user of all the road space has singled themselves out as being smarter than everyone else. Somehow smart is perceived as arrogant. If there were a queue of cars at the merge point then 'safety in numbers' takes over and all of a sudden the person at the head of the merging queue becomes an OK guy/gal.

The problem here is simple territory. The selfish people are the ones who cannot see what their 'good intentions' cause and then blame the person who is trying to ease the problem for everyone by preventing a long queue getting longer.

Pure and simple.







Nor are they the problem - they are simply reacting to the problem and minimising its impact on them. It is a sensible course of action, and I suspect a hint of jealousy in the holier than thous who watch somebody doing it and then attempt to take revenge. What exactly does motivate lorry drivers take to murderous swerves to try and prevent it??

Yes - minimising the problem on them and them alone, whilst at the same time making it worse for everyone else.

In slightly different words, behaving selfishly.

NO NO NO. They are shortening the queue for those people who will join it later behind them. The problem is the people already in the queue fail to see or think beyond what is immediately around them. Even if the perceived queue jumper is selfishly motivated, their actions are in fact doing more to help more people than the person who tries to stop them.

Who's selfish now??

How about this:

The further back the merge point, the longer the single file section effectively becomes.

Assuming that the single file section has less capacity than the normal road, then surely it's everyone's duty to minimise the effective length of the single file section?

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

This just seems so obvious that I am aghast that it needs explaining. Perhaps some real world examples are needed to prove it.

At Junction 22 of the M8 Motorway heading eastbound, at a point where the main carriageway passes under a flyover carrying the merging M77, the road narrows from three lanes to two briefly to allow the M77 traffic to join. The place where the lane now closes used to be at the end of about 100 yards of hard shoulder. This was opened up to ease queueing - previously the traffic was forced to merge MUCH earlier as what is now a fork in a lane giving you the choice of continuing on the main carriageway into the lane that closes or sweep off down a long slip road to junction 21 previously forced you down the long slip or into the hard shoulder if you continued. In other words the merge point used to be LONG before the slip lane started, causing long tailbacks that more often than not went back beyond junctions 23 and 24.

When the hard shoulder was removed it took a while for drivers to start using the extended lane. In fact many still do not use it despite it being deliberately opened and still behave like self appointed 'lane police', but now queues backing to junction 24, although not completely eliminated and still sometimes occur at peak times, are much less frequent and prolonged.

...even to the extent of making the inside lane stop completely? Is this argument for real?

I have absolutely no idea why you think either lane should stop. We need merge in turn.

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

I can think of a better analogy than the post office or supermarket ...

Disneyland are experts at queue management. On the Runaway train in Disneyland Paris, when you enter the themed area there are two lanes, and a big sign saying 'use both lanes'. Whilst they follow different routes they are exactly the same length, so if both are full it doesn't matter if you choose left or right. When there are a lot of Brits there, it's often better to wait and see if they are predominently choosing left or right lane (as they follow each other like sheep?!) and choose the other one. When you trot past the queue you can hear little Englanders tutting ... and the French, not known for their ability to queue (even if it is a French word?) are not bothered in the slightest.

Anyway, before the analogy police put a stop to my rambling, perhaps what is missing is the Use both lanes signage and mentality?

Another point in my ramble. Where the A570 Rainford Bypass joins the A580 East Lancs road there are 2 lanes, signed several hundred yards in front to say that lane 1 is for straight on (St. Helens) and left (Manchester) and the right lane is right (Liverpool). Every morning a few cars shoot down lane 2 then force their way back into lane 1 to go straight ahead. This is the zip merge problem in reverse, as the late merging vehicles actually cause a delay in the right turners lane - this morning it was a coach (David Ogden Coaches, based in St. Helens, I would advise anyone considering using a coach company to avoid them as they obviously do not employ considerate drivers). The sad fact is that they only gain a matter of seconds as the light on the junction are green for a long time, enough to allow most of the backed up traffic to go through. The longest they would be kept back is one cycle of the lights.

[/ramble]

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

It is obvious but I'm afraid many people (and I have to include Ernest and B cyclist) don't overcome the emotional barrier - the aversion to 'queue jumping' - to see it.

The drivers who use all the space (and I am one of them, but as somebody suggested above, try to do so at a modest speed differential) are securing an advantage and there probably is an element of selfishness. But there is also a strong element of setting the right example. If I merge earlier than necessary, I make it more likely that vehicles behind will do so and that's how the unnecssary queue forms, while the adjacent lane remains unused.

Another situation where this muddled thinking manifests itself is on the approach to a motorway exit. Many vehicles will merge into L1 too early and end up sitting behind a slower moving vehicle (e.g. a truck speed limited to 56mph) which itself has a completely empty lane ahead, because it is the slowest vehicle in that lane. This has a concertina effect on traffic behind and can end up causing serious congestion further back, erratic lane changing and even a smash. If there is plenty of room ahead of the slower vehicle (which a driver should know) and a decent reserve of power, it is much better, imo, to zip ahead of the slow mover, even if it means rejoining L1, or the slip road itself, later than 'normal good practice' would suggest.

???? how can that be? A car has length you know. If car A in lane 2 is ahead of car B in Lane 1 then car C in lane 2 MUST be behind car B at the merge point. If they merge in turn without trying to block each other then there is no holdup. It's once the blocking/tailgating starts that problems arise.

So long as the traffic in L2 isn't kissing each others bums in a big chain then everyone will be let in (merged) in turn and the traffic will flow.

As for not understanding how this shortens the overall queue:

1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

And if everyone refuses to use L2 it continues

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

see?

I must admit I was slightly anti-people using L2 before I read this but I've had my opinion changed to accept the sense of using all the road and zip-merging. Perhaps more need to understand it too?

PS - I've driven in Australia where the rule above was quoted from and the traffic doesn't just sit in L1 whilst L2 "cheats" make progress. And the Aussies are stooopid!

oh really.

i have to confess i often sit in the queue & try and crawl along at the average speed (rather than always accelerating & braking).... controlling my space whilst also allowing plenty of room for the mergers to come & join the party... i just like to avoid conflict.

this morning however i didn't and pootled down L2 (on DC) at maybe 30mph, i passed a few rarefactions before looking for the next at about 200yds and sure enough found one to nip into. this still required a fair bit of braking to match speeds and left me with virtually no gap in front which i didn't like a great deal.

i found the former less stressful, of course the latter would be less so if everyone played the game i guess.


this particular stretch may be ideal for an enforced zip merge.
there is maybe 1000m of single lane roadworks followed by a few hundred metres of DC including an on-slip where the 800m countdown back to one lane starts (so actually it makes some sense to go L2 past the junction and let everyone on). they could cone the traffic into L2 and let the slip straight onto L1 removing the cones a couple of hundred metres from the merge point, that way no one is 'pushing in' just doing what they're told.

i wonder if we couldnt do this normally anyway, for half a mile before the merge point cone the lanes to prevent changing of lanes (lets face it 'stay in lane' signs never work) forcing a zip merge at the end. i also like the idea of making the single lane start between the two merging lanes so both sides have to actively move across and consider those around them.

Here is another example of where the road has been engineered to avoid a queueing problem, yet the 'do the right thing and merge early' mentality, refusing to use the given solution properly, actually creates danger.

Junction 26 of the M8 - shortly after the nearby Braehead Shopping Centre was opened the westbound on-ramp was extended to nearly a 1/4mile length '4th lane' as it was anticipated that traffic joining the motorway might start to back down the slip and onto the traffic light controlled roundabout there.

The lights allow enough traffic to get up onto the slip and reach a speed to merge with the main carriageway, but many people insist on slowing and trying to merge as soon as possible, often grinding to a halt with the full length of the slip in front of them or pulling into too small a gap causing bunching on the motorway or even the main flow of traffic to stop.

I have even encounted people waiting at the start of the slip attempt to prevent others 'undertaking' them and using the slip road correctly.

Madness, but they think they are right.

I have no issue with zip merging at the point of lane merge.

What I have an issue with is the defence of queue jumping and the inability of people to read my posts properly.

I will repeat one of my points just to save you scrolling back...

If the traffic in the outside lane is exactly the same amount of traffic as the single merged lane can take, now taking into account the queue jumping apologists, these people have a right to cut in to the inside lane. They fill up the capacity of the merged lane and therefore the inside lane behind them is stationary. Is that too hard to understand?

Now - lets say the outside lane is 3/4 of the capacity of the merged lane, the outside lane drivers take up 3/4 of the capacity of the merged lane. It's the reason people can move faster in the outside lane, at the expense of the polite (but maybe misguided) people who merged early.

Now - to the point that the queue is longer - well, so what? Unless it tails back so far that it impacts on a previous junction, what's the problem? Most times this is seen on a two or three lane dual carriageway, which by it's very nature has most hazards removed. With the volume of traffic on our roads at present you are in a queue most of the time anyway - any driven Brum to Manc recently...?

By all means campaign for zip merging at the point of merging of the lanes, but trying to justify queue jumping with cod arguments is not on really.