Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:25

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Dual carriageway into single carriageway with traffic backed up on lane 1. Do you :-
Join L1 and wait passively. 18%  18%  [ 8 ]
Join L1 but suffer annoyance if someone goes past in L2 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Join L1 but attempt to 'block' L2 11%  11%  [ 5 ]
Use L2 with some feeling of guilt 16%  16%  [ 7 ]
Use L2 without hesitation 52%  52%  [ 23 ]
Total votes : 44
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:18 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Graeme wrote:
I'll quite happily block L2 on the basis that if I have to queue (and I'm happy to wait my turn) then no other git is getting past me! :lol:


Do you also block motor cyclists attempting to filter?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:24 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:35
Posts: 643
Location: South Wales
Ernest Marsh wrote:
I am sure most would agree zip merging does not work well if the merging car has a far greater or lesser speed, and the merge becomes hurried. :oops:


I agree entirely the whole process requires responsibility from both parties something few are willing to take and therefore something that, it appears, needs to be dictated, but hopefully never in law.

One day perhaps education will be enough, it works elsewhere without law or issue.

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:30 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
Roger wrote:
Do you also block motor cyclists attempting to filter?


That's a good question!

Somehow I think we may have a few more unwritten 'privileges' than other modes of transport enjoy.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:36 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 09:13
Posts: 771
Roger wrote:
Graeme wrote:
I'll quite happily block L2 on the basis that if I have to queue (and I'm happy to wait my turn) then no other git is getting past me! :lol:


Do you also block motor cyclists attempting to filter?


No


They get rammed ... :twisted:

Lol nope quite happy for them to get ahead

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:39 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
Ernest Marsh wrote:
I am sure most would agree zip merging does not work well if the merging car has a far greater or lesser speed, and the merge becomes hurried. :oops:


I think zip merging can only work really well when it's two single lanes merging at ~ right angles. Merging two parallel lanes can never be as clean.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
I do either option 1 or 5 depending on my mood.
All the other options seem like a waste of effort to me, for instance, whats the point of blocking L2? or feeling annoyed that someone else used the available space?
Pointless to worry about it so i just chill out and do either of the two already mentioned. Thats why im always so relaxed and amenable.... :P :lol:

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 23:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 13:16
Posts: 76
Location: Fife, Scotland.
Ernest Marsh wrote:
The merging should be carried out as soon as is safely possible, rather than wait until the merge is FORCED IMHO.


Absolutely spot on IMO Ernest, well said!!

_________________
If I have to explain you won't understand.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 23:31 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Big Rod wrote:
Ernest Marsh wrote:
The merging should be carried out as soon as is safely possible, rather than wait until the merge is FORCED IMHO.


Absolutely spot on IMO Ernest, well said!!

So to take that to it's logical conclusion, if there is a restriction to one lane in force somewhere on the M6, then the entire motorway preceding it should also therefore be restricted to a single lane of traffic too, even if this involves several hundred miles...?

Or should we perhaps substitute "late" for "soon" in Ernest's original post?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 00:59 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
JT wrote:
Big Rod wrote:
Ernest Marsh wrote:
The merging should be carried out as soon as is safely possible, rather than wait until the merge is FORCED IMHO.


Absolutely spot on IMO Ernest, well said!!

So to take that to it's logical conclusion, if there is a restriction to one lane in force somewhere on the M6, then the entire motorway preceding it should also therefore be restricted to a single lane of traffic too, even if this involves several hundred miles...?

Or should we perhaps substitute "late" for "soon" in Ernest's original post?

:clap:

Absolutely. There can only be one sensible "latest merge point", and that must be where the lanes actually merge.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 01:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JT wrote:
Big Rod wrote:
Ernest Marsh wrote:
The merging should be carried out as soon as is safely possible, rather than wait until the merge is FORCED IMHO.


Absolutely spot on IMO Ernest, well said!!

So to take that to it's logical conclusion, if there is a restriction to one lane in force somewhere on the M6, then the entire motorway preceding it should also therefore be restricted to a single lane of traffic too, even if this involves several hundred miles...?

Or should we perhaps substitute "late" for "soon" in Ernest's original post?


Yeah, except for one little thing...


















'it's' shouldn't have an apostrophe. :hehe:


Seriously, however, what is the fundamental reason for this dichotomy of opinion? Apart from the obvious fact that some of us are wrong, of course.

I'm a definite member of the L2 set. I believe:

- Road space is valuable and we must use it as effectively as possible.
- Merging is easy. We can do it anywhere.
- Since we can merge anywhere, and since road space is valuable, we should merge as late as safely possible.
- I can think of nothing simpler, nor more elegant or effective than queuing in both lanes and merging in turn at the obstruction.

Would someone (or all of you I don't mind) who belongs to the L1 set please set out your most basic reasons for your opinions?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 07:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:35
Posts: 643
Location: South Wales
SafeSpeed wrote:
Would someone (or all of you I don't mind) who belongs to the L1 set please set out your most basic reasons for your opinions?


Sure

Your point 2 (- Merging is easy. We can do it anywhere. )is IME simply not true.

I had nearly a year of lane reductions on the M4 whilst widening was done, and L1 drivers (myself and a very few others aside) would bunch up so as to make merging in turn impossible, this occurred daily of the whole period of the road works.

On a few occasions it caused road rage incidents, and one woman was left in the outside lane with no one letting her in for 10-15 mins (which is how long it took for me to reach her position).

I've seen this repeated (deliberate bunching) at numerous other locations since driving in the UK.

I have no issues with late merging in France, Holland or Germany, however they have been advised to zip merge for some time.

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 09:39 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
As far as I can tell, a lot of people's argument against late merging is that it's hard to merge in at the last moment.

It's only hard if people won't let you in.

Pschology: The people who won't let you in are often (a) ones who merged from L2 themselves but earlier, or (b) people who were always in L1 and have let people merge from L2 for the last 800 yards, and have 'had enough'.

So if everyone in L2 waited until the last 200 yards to merge then did so in turn, the people in L1 would neither (a) feel like they'd been queue-jumped or (b) feel like they'd already let in their 'fair share'.

Also if it all happened in the last 200 yards or so, there would be very little impetus to go right to the end, as the potential gain would be minimal, whereas by beginning to merge half a mile back is only encouraging the more progress-minded driver to take it down to the wire.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 09:47 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
Would someone (or all of you I don't mind) who belongs to the L1 set please set out your most basic reasons for your opinions?


Any poll, such as this, can only ever be a crude guide to people’s likely behaviour. Every situation must be judged at the time and our actions may differ depending on the circumstances.

I firmly believe we are let down by the authorities, who should always erect signs - “Use both lanes. Merge in turn”

In a car, I’m usually in the L1 camp (after a small bit of L2 use). Trying to reason why, I convince myself it’s because (in this situation) I look beyond the fact that everyone is simply a hazard, but a person with emotions.

If I have queued for 30mins, I don’t want a bunch of freeloaders belting down L2 and forcing me to wait even longer. And I expect most to feel the same – so that’s why I tend not to do it.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 09:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
gopher wrote:
Your point 2 (- Merging is easy. We can do it anywhere. )is IME simply not true.

... L1 drivers (myself and a very few others aside) would bunch up so as to make merging in turn impossible...


Firstly that's not a problem that I have. I always seem to be able to merge with a cheery wave of thanks. But...

Secondly, if that's true, it's the bloody minded queue mentality causing the problem in the first place.

It seems to me, that if Gopher is right, it's every aware driver's duty to try to gradually shift this bloody-mindedness by using both lanes.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 09:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
I firmly believe we are let down by the authorities, who should always erect signs - “Use both lanes. Merge in turn”


That'd be good for the signmakers and bad for the tax payers. (=£expensive)

How about a bit in the Highway Code instead?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:00 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
...... it's every aware driver's duty to try to gradually shift this bloody-mindedness by using both lanes.


Eh? If 'every' driver exhibits bloody-mindedness, how can 'every' driver try and shift it?

Edited to add - Sorry, missed the 'aware'. :oops:

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Last edited by Grumpy Old Biker on Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:05, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
That'd be good for the signmakers and bad for the tax payers. (=£expensive)


The signs are there - they've just got the wording wrong.

SafeSpeed wrote:
How about a bit in the Highway Code instead?


Who reads that?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
...... it's every aware driver's duty to try to gradually shift this bloody-mindedness by using both lanes.


Eh? If 'every' driver exhibits bloody-mindedness, how can 'every' driver try and shift it?


I don't believe that 'aware' drivers are bloody minded.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:06 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
...... it's every aware driver's duty to try to gradually shift this bloody-mindedness by using both lanes.


Eh? If 'every' driver exhibits bloody-mindedness, how can 'every' driver try and shift it?


I don't believe that 'aware' drivers are bloody minded.


Sorry - see edit above :oops:

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
That'd be good for the signmakers and bad for the tax payers. (=£expensive)


The signs are there - they've just got the wording wrong.


In some large scale works, yes they are. But in most of the day to day situations they aren't.

Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
How about a bit in the Highway Code instead?


Who reads that?


Jeremy Vine? The Highway Code is an important tool for setting cultural norms - even amongst those who haven't read it personally for decades.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.222s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]