Safe Speed Forums

This is certainly the way it is in our favourite land of reference (from a speed limit POV ) Germany. There is no highway code, it is all LAW, and pretty darned nailed down it is too. If a tractor, a car, a horse and cart and a bloke on a bicycle all collide at a junction, the arriving Polizei will swiftly be able to ascertain who was at fault (and don't bother arguing the toss with him either unless you want to see your fine rocket ). Thats whats needed, a bit of bloody respect for the law..harumphhh

I am uncomfortable with the SS viewpoint that 'wooly' (for want of a better word) wording of the highway code permits the 'savvy' drivers to make progress at the expense of the more cautious. This, IMHO, is the catalyst for road rage, e.g. one drivers uses the dotted-hatched area to peform an overtake and pisses off someone else in the process. And we can't pretend ot doesn't happen, because it does. And if the pissoffee catches up with the pissoffer at the lights and plants one on his nose, it doesn't matter how 'right' he was, he's still got a sore conk!
Much better to have the rules/codes/whatever, clearly defined so taht everyone is singing from the same songsheet.

Agreed..

There's far too much scope for people to intepret the rules to accommodate their own situation or viewpoint...

_________________
Dave

I see what's happened, someone has posted elsewhere and we've had an influx of one-thread wonders who have not taken the time to read round the site before wading in with both feet.

For the record it's not just truckers who have the attitude that joining traffic should have to wait to join a busy motorway, there are just as many, if not more moronic car drivers with the same attitude. To an extent I can accept that trucks have a harder time making space for people to join, although they seem to be able to make that extra bit of effort for another truck driver (or even a van driver as I recall from my past).

The fact remains, it's a selfish attitude which does nothing for overall road safety. It would be much better if everyone took a step back and looked at the wider picture, had a little consideration. Remember what goes around comes around.

If all we have is retaliation, one car driver upsets one truck driver so that truck driver does something to upset a different car driver who then decides he won't show any courtesy for the next truck, etc. etc. etc. Then it's all going to end in a very nasty mess.

Now I don't know who decided they needed to call in support but the fact is our resident HGV drivers do a very good job of putting across the truckers point of view.

So what you saying Homer, the membership quota is full???..

I have taken time to trawl the forum, and i haven't come here to back-up Bobthedog, i've been a non registered visitor to this forum since august lastyear..

Regarding your other points, I agree to a certain extent, 2 wrongs dont make a right, and there is a certain amount of revenge acts on motorist's that had nothing to do with the original mishap.

To communicate is to educate, and the more we do it the better off we'll be..
When i go to work, i just want to get from point A to point B, and back again, I also want to do it as safely as possible as i have a family back home whom i love very much.

_________________
Dave

Oh dear Homer. Do you actually have a licence to drive a motorised vehicle? It does make me wonder.

How can you say that truckers are selfish for not moving over? How about you look a little bit closer to home and question why a car driver with half a mile of slip road cannot manage to merge at an appropriate speed without causing drivers on the main carriageway to brake / swerve / speed up / move out of the way? It's not rocket science is it? In all the time I've been driving I've never once had any problems merging off a slip road. You adjust your speed to whatever's needed to merge without causing any disruption and Bob's your uncle, job done. I really don't grasp what's so hard about it that wagons and other drivers should move over a lane to accommodate.

The main reason I won't move over or ease off is because the vast majority of other drivers cannot think quickly and make a decision what they're going to do. I could reel you off plenty of examples but I'll limit myself to a small handful :

1. Car coming down slip road in front doing same speed as me with indicator flashing. I flash car out. Car remains on slip road still indicating. I flash car out again as there's loads of room in front. Car remains on slip road. Slip road runs out. Car slams on. Happens regular as clockwork.

2. As above, but car pulls out and then eases off to 50mph. I pull out to overtake, get half way past, car floors it and hangs me out to dry. Happens regular as clockwork.

3. As no.1 but you move over into L2. Car sits at the side of you doing the same speed as you, refusing to ease off or accelerate. Happens regular as clockwork.

4. As no.1 but you ease off and give the car LOADS of space to merge. Car sits there on slip road still indicating. You ease off more and flash some more. Car starts braking as slip road runs out. You brake a bit more and flash them some more. Car comes to a stop and I am now at risk of causing a huge pile because I'm doing 10mph in L1.

We just can't win, hence why I maintain a constant speed and leave it up to the indecisive numpties to sort themselves out. If they run out of slip road then tough $h!t. You need to try driving a wagon to understand it.

[quote="Homer

So you think it is a good idea to force traffic to a standstill on a motorway slip road? Don't you think that could be just a little bit dangerous?

[/quote]

No I don't.I think people who close gaps on purpose and force drivers into compromising positions should be prosecuted and made to have serious driving tests forced upon them.
However, it's surely better to stop on a slip than to force 3 lanes of motorway traffic to stop by forcing your way through.

_________________
Once a Cornishman, always a Cornishman

There is, however, every point in protecting your samaritan from the numpties behind you who might hang him out to dry. By holding back in such circumstances you're letting him regain L1 as quickly as possible.

However, if there's nobody behind you likely to hang him out to dry, then you're right - the best thing would be to "say thanks", stay on the power, and clear the area.

_________________
Will

I can't picture the circumstances you are describing. Are you imagining a stream of undertakers? And if you are, I don't think I want to back them up and participate in the affray. I would want to be gone from there.

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

I emailed that guy that made the driving test site. Got a fairly interesting reply back.

I had made the argument that the line at the end of the slip road isn't a give way line, contrary to what he said in his site. He replied saying I was in error, so I'll try and fight my corner on this one because I do not believe I am in error, I believe he is the one in error in this case.

Now I guess it's not the best idea to nit pick with a driving examiner, as he *should* know his stuff, but I don't think in this case he is right.

On his site he says


Okay, I agree he has the first bit right, if we do it right we shouldn't have to stop, but that depends on our ability to judge a gap correctly, and also a certain level of cooperation from the car in lane 1. I think what we've established so far is if lane 2 is free, it is useful for the car to move into lane 2, leaving lane 1 for us to merge into, if lane 2 isn't available perhaps slowing slightly, to leave a gap in front for the car in the slip road to merge into.

Where his argument starts to go wrong (in my eyes) is the fact he takes this line to be a 'stop and give way', whereas it is actually a 'give priority' line.

I made the point that stopping on a slip road could be extremely dangerous, and is also illegal, highway code section 244 says this. I guess I should have given him a real life situation to apply my points to, he assumed that I was talking about heavy traffic, so I shall include that in my reply.

The line at the edge of the motorway isn't a prescribed give way line, it's just marking the edge of the carriageway.

Was just looking for a few pointers as to what I should bring up in the reply, would be nice to be able to form a proper reply for him.

Thanks

_________________
Mike

ah well.... i moved from L1 to L2 on the M6 earlier today to allow a truck to merge.

guess i did wrong then?
being a pro, the guy in the truck would have understood perfectly if i'd have held my lane & speed to block him out and make him brake.

Where are these glorious half-mile slip roads of which you speak? The ones near me on the M4/M25 give you, at best, maybe 1/4 mile from the point at which you first obtain a visual on the main carriageway traffic to the point at which you either have to join L1 or end up on the hard shoulder, and many of them are give you 1/5th or less of a mile to do the same.




You've never once been faced with nose to tail traffic in L1, with the gaps between vehicles too small to physically fit anything larger than a Smart car, and been forced to rely on the goodwill of one of their drivers to drop back enough and open up a gap for you? Lucky you if that really is the case. But let's say you are faced with such a scenario. How will simply adjusting your speed help you out there if none of those drivers feel like giving you a hand?




In some circumstances they shouldn't need to, but due to the lack of ability/judgment of the merging driver it may end up increasing the risk of an accident if they don't move. In other circumstances the most competent driver would be entirely unable to merge without the assistance of someone already in L1. Basically we're not saying L1 drivers MUST budge out of the way, merely that if the circumstances of each individual merge scenario mean it would make more sense for the L1 driver to give the merger some space instead of relying on them to be able to do the right thing, it's irresponsible of the L1 driver to THEN say f*** 'em and stay firmly rooted to their lane.

Look at it from the perspective of the person trying to do the merge, having perhaps been given just a few seconds in which to size up the situation and try to accelerate up to a safe merge speed in a vehicle which is more akin to a roadroller than a F1 car in the acceleration stakes - they're thinking "what's so hard about it that the traffic in L1 can't just move over/slow down/accelerate in order to open up a gap at the point where I'm going to have to commit to the merge or run off onto the hard shoulder (if there is one at this point)".


I drive a car which is blessed with enough spare horses under the bonnet to make it easy for me to accelerate up to 70 on all but the shortest of slip roads, and I'd like to think I give myself an acceptable level of awareness by observing the traffic on the main carriageway. I've never had to take to the hard shoulder, stop on a slip road, or bully my way into L1, but there have still been occasions where I've had to rely on the actions of someone already in L1 to help me make the merge because there genuinely was no way for me to otherwise make the merge safely. Does that make me a crap driver, or does it simply mean that given the vast numbers of vehicles, drivers and junctions in the UK road network there WILL occur scenarios like this where even the best driver on the planet wouldn't be able to make the merge without assistance.

Should I not bother making room for others when I'm the one in L1 approaching an on-slip, because they ought to be able to merge without my help and, in giving them a bit of a hand I may be seen to be condoning less than perfect driving in others? Why shouldn't we co-operate to reduce the risk when we can clearly see another driver in our vicinity isn't as skilled and may benefit from being given a bit more space, instead of adopting a "f*** 'em, I'm looking after number one" policy and leaving them hanging out to dry, possibly with disastrous consequences?

_________________
Chris

i should think that most cars can reach 60 within 1/4 of a mile. if not, they can always pull in behind. i still do not see why we are expected to alter our speed to accommodate someone who can change speed far easier than we can. i will pull over IF its safe to do so but if not, tough. its up to them to join the carriageway, not up to me to do it for them.

lets also take into account the fact that we cannot always see them. the blindspots only allow a small portion of road at that angle so if they have accelerated to our speed and are next to us then we simply will not see them. again, its still up to them to join the carriageway, not up to the carriageway to accommodate them!

if its that much of a problem, they shouldnt be on the road in the first place

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Yeah, but you're still answering the wrong question!

Whatever anyone does there will always be idiots. We can talk and talk and there will still be idiots. We can pass laws and Police the roads properly and there will still be idiots. Idiots on the roads are a fact of life and always will be.

So the question becomes: "How are we going to accomodate the behaviour of idiots?"

Complaining about idiots doesn't have any effect at all.

I'll tell you what I do. I treat all other road users as hazards to be negotiated in the same way that I treat a bend as a hazard to be negotiated. They are NOT out to get me. The bend isn't out to get me. It's my job to neutralise hazards. That's what drivers do, irrespective of the size of their equipment.

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

There is a slip-road near me that defines the problem perfectly, and that is the northbound slip road at M6 J34 (Lancaster). The motorway is above the road feeding it, so the slip road comes up to it, giving little or no prior view of the motorway to joining traffic. Then the actual merge point is no more than a couple of hundred yards long, after which it stops abruptly, without even a hard shoulder for emergency use, because at this point the motorway crosses the river Lune, and the bridge isn't wide enough to accomodate a hard shoulder.

Even in a fairly powerful car you have to accelerate like mad up the "blind" part of the slip road and coner fairly hard to arrive at the merge point at anything like the speed of the motorway traffic, a problem which is further exarcerbated by the fact that the junction is in the bottom of a dip, so all the traffic tends to have gained speed as they came down the hill to the junction.

You are now faced with just a few seconds to find a gap, make a gap, or do a full emergency stop before you hit the bridge parapet! And that's in a car - lorries have little option but to arrive at the merge point at about 40mph and barge their way in.

This must be about the most extreme case I can think of, but like many extreme cases it helps to illustrate the logic that ought to be applied generally. In this instance all the options lie with the vehicles already on the carriageway, thus:

1. They know there is a junction there - it's been signposted for the last two miles or more!
2. They can clearly see the length of the sliproad, and the "lie of the land".
3. If any joining traffic is going to come into conflict with them they will see it before it can see them.
4. Motorway traffic is at cruising speed (and in this instance travelling downhill), so upward and downward speed adjustments can easily be made. Joining traffic should really only sensibly be accelerating, and not be put in a position of having to slow, for the good of everyone.
5. There are three lanes available for motorway traffic to manoeuvre into.

Taking all of this into account, it seems ridiculous to me that it is the joining traffic that has to give way. The odds are already stacked against them, the least we can do is give them priority in such a difficult situation.

It seems to me that the concept of joining traffic having to give way is really a carry-through from the traditional concept of major roads having priority, but has little use in terms of safety or traffic throughput.

The obvious counter argument is that if the motorway is busy we should restrict other vehicles from joining, but again is that logical? If the motorway is busy why should the resulting queue gridlock all the local roads near the joining ramp? That affects other motorists who have no intention of joining the busy motorway. If the on-ramp had priority at least the only road affected by the congestion would be the motorway itself???

(Sorry if the last point has drifted into a brainstorming one...)

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

failing that, cut it down to 2 lanes at the exit and the onslip could then resume lane 3 on joining

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

I couldn't agree more!

These type of junctions have the added bonus that they are great for "numpty spotting". Look for the joining car who comes up the new L1, looks over his shoulder and moves out into L2, then sheepishly drifts back to L1 500 yards later.

It's almost as good as giving them a decal on the bootlid saying "Caution, unobservant pillock. Please keep clear!"

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

Hmm. That is extreme. I'd simply shade out L1 between the off ramp and the on ramp if slip road traffic levels were sufficient. i.e. traffic in L1 must go via the junction. Rejoining traffic does not have to merge at all. L1 is theirs.

If on ramp traffic is light, we need a different method to encourage merge assistance - perhaps move right 'advice' arrows in L1? Not sure.

I always like junctions where the space between off ramp and on ramp has one less lane. There's far less risk at the on ramp.

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

Me too - although they can become bottlenecks. Perhaps this thread and the one about ramp metering are indicative of the real problem - that years of neglect mean that our road system has insufficient capacity to cope?

_________________
Will

The problem of light traffic on the on-ramp and heavy traffic on the motorway is clearly an issue. Dropping the main carriageway down to 2 lanes is fine if approximately one third of the traffic leaves and joins the carriageway at that junction, but if not then it would just become a bottleneck.

I still think the only really sensible long term solution is to make the motorway give priority to joining traffic. I guess this could be done either...

1. By re-marking all junctions with the priority the other way
2. By removing the priority lines all together
3. By leaving as is but re-wording the highway code and running a media / signage campaign to educate road users to give priority to joining traffic.

All things considered, I'd go with option 2, with suitable signs warning of the change and saying "please allow joining traffic to merge" or whatever.

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

This is a bit of a culture shock for me, I'll have to think about it.

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