UKC

Why is it people just can't. ...?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Don't know but I once sat in a 4 hour tailback outside Phoenix, Arizona because the yanks suck at it worse than we do.

You'd be better of having a man with a flag wave one lane ahead for ten minutes and then the other.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Works perfectly well in Germany...

JW

In reply to John Ww:

Do German drivers gawp at a caravan driver who's been stopped by the police, causing a 10-mile tailback on the autobahn?

In reply to John Ww:


The clue in how it works for them is in the instruction on the signs: "reißverschluss". For those of a non-German speak bent, this is 'zip' (as in a zipper on a coat). Very much one from each side alternating. None of this 'charge down the outside lane as it'll be quicker but actually pisses everybody off and makes things slower' behaviour.

In reply to John Ww:



Why does that not surprise me...?

In reply to wintertree:

Yes... I reckon there is a PhD thesis in psychology to be done on behaviour in these situations. ..

In reply to James Jackson:

Yep, perfectly simple, well signposted, and (generally) well accepted.

JW

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Doesnt need a PhD to realise that merge in turn is a simple prisoners dilemma. You can never force cooperation in the prisoners dilemma unless the same people play eachother an almost infinite number of times.

No matter what anyone else does, it's always the best choice to skip the queue.

In reply to John Ww:



No it doesn't, German drivers are appalling lane hogs, worse than the UK in my experience.

The lorries are quick to move over though but they're international.

In reply to neuromancer:



Yes. That was my thinking. But why do so many just join the slow lane queue? That's the bit I don't get. All the other madness that ensues comes from the apparent unwillingness of most drivers just to balance out the two lanes with equal queues. ...

In reply to winhill:


Interesting that, as having lived in Germany for three years I can't stand how people in the UK drive on the motorway. In Germany (or at least the north where I was living), if you were driving up behind somebody they would almost always move over to let you past, and the same was expected of you.

In reply to neuromancer:


So why do so few people do it then? Presumably because they don't want the disapproval of the majority who don't, who are then reluctant to let them merge. I once even had a lorry move out and block me off from going up the empty lane. It is frustrating because all it would take to make the system work is for enough people to be prepared to go up the other lane so that their would be no queue to "jump".

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes; then the 'jumpers' don't risk going to the front of the queue, in case they are blocked out, instead cutting back in at variable points- so increasing the flow through the 'fast' lane, increasing the advantage of using it, further slowing the 'slow' lane, increasing their resentment and making them more likely to block the 'jumpers'- setting up a vicious circle. ..

In reply to Robert Durran:

Brits do like a good bit of queueing. Even if the journey takes 20 minutes longer it's worth it for the sense of moral superiority, and if they can block off the evil queue jumpers from using the unused outside lane at the same time their righteous indignation goes off the scale. Ah, the joys of British motorways.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Over here the slow lane merges into the fast lane. That caused some laxative moments for me when I first moved out here.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

What always amuses me is that they're too polite to use the open lane, but often see nothing wrong with gesticulating fairly crudely at you as you sail past. Odd.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Never understood this behaviour either but happy as it saves me a few minutes every time. HGV drivers do tend to assume some misguided moral policing by blocking the outer lane but usually fairly easy to pass them on the outside. Ironically if both lanes were used, queues would be shorter and there'd be less congestion. But that's the British for you.

In reply to all:

So everyone posting here is in the fast lane with me... any slow lane sitters care to share their perspective?

In reply to winhill:

What experience exactly as it runs counter to the experience of eveyone I know who uses German autobahns on a regular basis (all say the same as James). When the road is blocked nothing moves even in Germany, but moving queues work better and outside lane hoggers are much rarer.

In reply to Toccata:

It's not just morals it's good game theory for the lorry drivers to do that.... just think it through. What's good for the goose.....

In reply to James Jackson:



Indeed - try doing a respectable 130kph ( about 75mph) for more than about 20 seconds in the outside lane and see how long it takes to get an Audi / BMW / Porsche / Lexus 30cm from your rear bumper, lights ablaze. Believe me, you soon shift!

JW

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Elland bypass by any chance?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm a fast lane and people block all 5 the time.
Queen in both lanes you idiots!

In reply to Offwidth:


Why, that would be driving in Germany, of course.

The middle lane hogs far, far worse than the UK, which means that the third lane, if there is one, gets blocked. Sure it's like Italy, if you drive ten feet off their bumper they soon move over, but that's a different issue (again far more macho than the UK).

In Southern Germany there are fewer three lane motorways and people dislike the 'lorry lane', just like the UK.

It's one of those myths that the Germans will somehow be better than the UK, the reality somewhat different from the myth.

In reply to Toccata:


Well, clearly the queues will be shorter in distance but time is a different matter. Merging in turn only works when the traffic is still moving and people can adjust their speed to merge, once the traffic stops moving the outside lane slows down the queue. Similarly if people in the outside lane are moving too fast, forcing the inside to brake, it just delays the queue.

Merging too soon lengthens the queue but keeps it moving, merging too late shortens it but increases the time it takes to get through the road works. If you leave it till you hit the cones you've left it too late.

In reply to BnB:


No, down in Cornwall at the minute- the A30 fluctuates back and forth from single to dual carriageway, throw in holiday traffic and it's an experience best avoided. ...

In reply to Robert Durran:


Because life isn't just about me getting where I'm going fractionally quicker, gaining and taking every little advantage over others. Everyone else is going somewhere too.


That double queue exists, just set back somewhat from the pinch point with an empty buffer space into which those unwilling to queue or who've misunderstood the situation can stray. It's a little less efficient than using both lanes right up to the pinch but not by much.
jk

In reply to John Ww:

You wish. At least in the East they start squeezing right as soon as an obstacle on the left becomes detectable (e.g. because a sign says the lane ends in 800 m....).


CB

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Because we are a nation who put huge emphasis on "fair play" and queueing. Queue jumping is one of the worst sins anyone can commit. Because of this Brits will politely join a lane queue that is 10 miles long and immediately get inwardly seething if they perceive anyone continuing along the empty outer lane. It's just not done old boy, and such sinners are treated with contempt and inward anger. The greater the feeling of self righteousness the greater the feeling of anger at the sinner, until finally you get your chance to take revenge and not allow the sinners in even to the extent that they will risk their own car being scratched rather than let the sinner in. Another essential is that on no account should you look at the sinner or make eye contact. You must just pretend he/she isn't there.

Those are the rules, which like most such rules are not written anywhere, but all self righteous people know them, even if the sinners don't.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

This is another problem that will be fixed with driverless cars

In reply to Trangia:

Well put, got it spot on!

JW

In reply to jkarran:

I've wondered whether that this is the only effect of people failing to understand "merge in turn" - just effectively moving the pinch point back. I imagine the dynamics of the situation is actually quite complicated. People do serious research into this sort of stuff and I don't imagine that that there would be instructions to "merge in turn" if it hadn't been established to be the most efficient way to keep the traffic flowing.


You mean "empty buffer space caused by people who've misunderstood the situation but available to those who do".

In reply to Robert Durran:

if we're all travelling 50mph and it goes from 2 lanes to one, the average speed should drop to 25mph?

In reply to Phil Lyon:

Wouldn't it have to increase to 100mph to get the same thoughput (assuming the same space between cars)?

In reply to Phil Lyon:
It should but people don't react as a whole, a delays by inderviduals all add up.

In the same way that when a traffic light goes green all cars could start moving together so more cars get through, they don't.
In aircraft we could almost all get our stuff ready and out of lockers etc, we don't.
I hope I'm never in a plane when it catches fire.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I think the simple expedient of sticking a sign up with "use both lanes, merge in turn" would help. At least those trying to merge 800m from the pinch wouldn't be feeling guilty about continuing to use the outside lane and it might prompt someone in the inside lane to leave room for one vehicle to merge.

Audi drivers will probably still behave like dicks though.

In reply to GrahamD:


Exactly

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The chaos on the M4 -> M25 junction never ceases to amaze me (yeah I know it's not a two lanes into one situation, but similar).

So you've got drivers queuing in the slip lane, and some drivers moving slowly in the leftmost lane of the rest of the motorway, looking for somewhere to pull into. Sure, some of them are trying to jump the queue, but most probably just missed the back of the queue cos it comes up on you quite suddenly, before the lane markings suggest it's a true slip lane (I've done this a couple of times).

Anyway, you've moving slowly, signalling to get in and looking for a gap. Half the time you see a gap, the driver behind moves to close the gap and block you.

Not only is it dangerous, selfish, and causes congestion on the rest of the motorway... but it's utterly self-defeating, because I'm only going to end up slotting in ahead of you anyway, further down the road!!!

There's something about cars that turns people of a certain mentality into witless, selfish and dangerous idiots.

In reply to jkarran:


When I do go down the empty lane (and I by no means always do) it is not out of a desire to get somewhere a bit quicker, but rather in an exasperated (and admittedly probably futile) attempt to demonstrate how the system should work to get everyone where they are going a little quicker.

In reply to GrahamD:


But even when there is such a notice, most people seem to ignore it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It does feel like that sometimes. If I end up in the left lane I'm quite happy to sit and queue, and when I get to where the lanes merge, I leave a space in front for a car to merge into. Even if leaving the motorway and someone is trying to join the slip road at the last moment, I'll still let them in. I don't know why they've left it so late - they could be queue-jumping, but similarly they may have been caught unawares and simply made a mistake, or they could be in a hurry because of a serious emergency. Either way, it makes difference-zero to my commute, apart from de-stressing it by removing a totally pointless (and frankly embarrassingly petty) conrontation by trying to not let them 'win'.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Beside the British attitude towards 'queue jumping' the major problems are ones of people driving too close to the vehicle in front, driving too fast and poor throttle control.
This gives drivers little or no room to adjust to changing road conditions. So traffic lights change and the vehicle in front is slow to move off and the vehicle behind almost runs into it, brakes and everyone behind has to stop. A car pulls into a small gap on the motorway causing cars behind to brake and stop. Cars can't merge onto a motorway because drivers can't/won't slow down and leave a large enough gap for other cars to filter into.
Sometimes though the volume of traffic is just too great to allow a constant flow of traffic and jams are almost inevitable.

In reply to baron:

This book contains (amongst much else) a fascinating section on the curious dynamics of traffic flow (such as why you get sections congestion on motorways which form and disperse with no apparent cause): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Mass-Thing-Leads-Another/dp/0099457865

In reply to Trevers:

I think the trick with that one is to join at the last moment at the junction where the traffic is (usually) free flowing again (although there is a small risk you'll end up doing an unintended visit to Chiswick).

In reply to John Ww:


Works perfectly well in Lebanon too, admittedly there is never a sign, and there is a period when a 2 lane road has 4,5 or even 6 cars running parallel and its swimming with the fish time... but then again its often merging to go through a road-block where some troops/militia are pointing machine guns at the oncoming cars. Still, it does seem to work better...

As a different perspective it makes one realise how unimportant getting through a merge in turn really is.

In reply to winhill:



Ha! You've just highlighted why it doesn't work in the UK!! "Merge in turn" means "stay in 2 lanes until the last possible moment, the go one-by-one from each lane". NOT "dive left as soon as possible making one huge long queue of grumpy looking holier than though sneering sheep, leaving a open lane ripe for "queue jumpers".

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

Yes, with roadworks use both lanes to queue and then merge in turn like the sign says. It does need a sign though or it will never work.

Personally I love a good merge in turn junction where everybody's doing it right. It's almost balletic, the finely timed flow of traffic, never stopping but slotting perfectly into place behind the preceding car. It also shows that humans can cooperate for the common good methinks.

In reply to Siward:


In France they have a diagram on the sign showing how it works... which I think we need. Or maybe something in the driving theory test?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Some do, most don't. When it's lane 1 (slower usually) merging with lane 2 it is often noticed that at the first sign of roadworks, a slower driver moves over and slows the 70 mph traffic down to their speed for the many hundreds of metres before the roadworks, then frequently slow down much more during the say 50 mph roadworks restriction. Seen then you end up with lane 1 on the motorway empty for miles before roadworks and traffic at an near standstill.

One road I use regularly goes from three lanes to one (no merge in turn signs just lane closure signs) and I'm amazed that whether busy or quiet some driver (lane hogs?) sit out in lanes 2 and 3 for as long as they can, even when there are plenty of gaps. Most of those wait till they nearly hit the cones before often forcing their way across which usually means lots of braking in lane 1 making progress slower than if they had just merged when opportunities arise earlier.

I've seen this phenomenon many times esp noticeable when road deserted and it amuses me that they had up to 800m to get across from lane 3 with no traffic in lanes 1 or 2 at all, but still wait to be be forced by the cones. When it's busy with this particular road it is often just three to two lanes and so the best lane to be in is lane 1 as most drivers are fighting over lanes 2 and 3 as to who gets in front such that most of the busy times lane 1 moves smoothly and much faster overall.

BTW I'm usually the one that moves across early, partly as I'm not usually in a rush when others may well be but mostly I can't be bothered with those that will do all they can to block your way. Worst was an HGV that on seeing me in the empty lane 2 moved across to crawl along straddling the central white line for 2.5 miles so no one could get past.

In reply to winhill:


Actually I suspect that there are two possible "phases" depending on the traffic density. At lower density, the traffic should be able to merge much earlier without stopping. At higher densities where the traffic will inevitably have to stop, merging should happen in turn at the constriction.

In reply to Climbing Pieman: But going across "early" is the root of all these problems. If everyone just merged one after another at the merge point, nobody would need to get "defensive", nobody would "jump the queue"...it would just work!

Amusingly American video showing how it should be done: youtube.com/watch?v=zggmyaFJpv8&

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Why is it people can't just wait their turn?

I have absolutely no idea why most of the posters here think it would speed everything up to merge further along the road, utter nonsense, makes absolutely zero difference, what the hell is your reasoning? You're just queue-jumping self-centred megalomaniacs trying to justify it to yourself by congratulating each other and that's why everyone is very angry with you when you try and merge much later than the back of the queue

In reply to trouserburp:



By your reasoning there isn't any need for dual carriageway at all; just merge into a single lane from the outset.

In reply to GrahamD:
the outer lane is for overtaking slower vehicles. Do you think the people queuing patiently are driving at 5mph out of choice?

The capacity of the lanes is a separate issue related to maintaining safe stopping distance when the road is busy which I am sure most of you also think doesn't apply to you because you are knobheads. It is irrelevant as soon as the catchpoint is effectively you have reached your destination until the next section of dual carriageway

In reply to trouserburp:

If you're driving at 5mph I would exercise my right to overtake you then and use that lane.

In reply to trouserburp:
What slows things down isn't being further up the road, it's people blocking each other out of spite.
If everyone split evenly into 2 lanes and merged like the zip idea the traffic would move instead of stopping.

In reply to trouserburp:


That's what merge in turn is trying to get people to do!

In reply to marsbar:

and what difference does it make if they zip further back in the order they arrive rather than at the very front which can't happen because of the slowing down during merging to maintain stopping distance. The difference is first scenario is fair, second scenario you get to where you're going to faster and everyone else who has consideration for other human beings gets to where they're going to slower

In reply to marsbar:


how does that slow things down? it slows you down, the other guy was there before you

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Incidentally if you did have 3 lanes truly merging 'in turn' at the cones like you think would be quicker for everyone for some unknown reason, the right lane would have to merge twice compared to the slow lane once, so you would get there slower and the patient drivers faster, so maybe on a 3 lane road that would be ok

In reply to trouserburp:

I really don#t see your problem with just getting people to merge in turn at the pinch point. If everyone drove to the pinch point, the outer lane wouldn't be moving any faster than the inside lane in any case. But cutting in early just slows down the inside lane and leaves an inevitable free road on the outside which people will innevitably use. So by cutting in early you cause the double problem of slowing up the inside lane and speeding up the outside lane.

In reply to trouserburp:
If the traffic splits fairly into 2 lanes and everyone merges in turn, the traffic will slow, but not stop. What happens a lot is that everyone gets into 1 lane far too soon, then someone uses the other lane, then someone stops and gets annoyed then everyone stops. I'm not advocating queue jumping, I'm advocating people queuing in both lanes and merging. It works better.


https://www.workzonesafety.org/training-resources/fhwa_wz_grant/atssa_dynam...

In reply to marsbar:


Even if it didn't work better, which I agree it does, it halves the length of the queue which stops it interfering with junctions, other roadworks etc. That in itself should be good enough reason to do it.

In reply to GrahamD:

Yes if you drove the same speed as the inner lane that has been artificially slowed down due to the fact You're all going into one lane! Double capacity going into one lane means everyone has to slow down including in the lead up to the catchpoint, unless you think your trip is more important than everybody else's and queuejump in which case the patient people who do not think they are more important than everybody else will be rightfully very angry with the queue jumpers who have queuejumped ahead of all the people that got there before them and joined the queue in more or less the order they got there

In reply to trouserburp:

You really don't get this.

If people use both lanes and merge in turn, traffic moves better, everyone queues for less time, if at all.

If people insist on making a queue where there doesn't need to be one, all they are doing is restricting traffic flow.

People have researched this, and as people have said it works well in other countries.

In reply to trouserburp:

I'm pretty sure that the notices wouldn't instruct people to merge in turn if that actually slowed the flow of traffic.

You are simply advocating effectively moving the constriction back down the road to effectively produce a longer stretch of single lane.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If you want the numbers, early merging is only useful below approx 1500 vehicles per hour. Above this merge in turn flows better.

In reply to trouserburp:

It isn't irrelevant for the people who wanted to get off at the junction a mile back up the road from the obstruction who now have to sit in traffic because of the self-centred megalomaniacs who insist on merging as soon as the very idea of a lane closure is mentioned (often long before if they have driven that way previously); seemingly unable to comprehend the fact that not everyone is going where they are. Worse still are the lane blockers who actively prevent people from using the whole road to queue... Grrr.

In reply to trouserburp:

Queuing as you've described is unnecessary, potentially very dangerous for people at the back of the queue (see the point made by Lemony above), and is disobeying the instructions issued (i.e., merge in turn). Traffic flow is not easily intuited as it is often dominated by 'emergent' behaviour -- exactly why we need traffic management systems particularly to counteract the accumulation of short-sighted driver behaviours such that cause phantom traffic jams.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2...

With respect, many drivers need to re-think their approach to driving on motorways and see the bigger picture. It's not always obvious from behind the steering wheel.

In reply to marsbar:



How? Give a logical explanation of how that can possibly be the case (assuming by merge in turn you dont in fact mean merge in turn of getting there but queuejump and merge in turn at the front of the queue).

How on earth do they all go through quicker if a few people drive ahead of everyone that got there before them and shove in front? The order of the cars changes, that is all that changes

In reply to trouserburp:

Did you read the link I posted? Various people have looked into it, run tests and simulations and measured actual road traffic flows and come to the conclusion that for a volume of over 1500 vehicles per hour, late merging as described works better and the traffic flows faster.

Traffic flow isn't like water flow. If it was then your understanding would be correct. There is too much individual movement for it to be the same as liquid flowing.

Every time a car pulls into the left lane it slows the left lane down. Above 1500 cars, this slows things down more than merging 2 seperate queues into 1.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Why would that work better? If the traffic is merging into, say, one lane, then how can it matter for the overall traffic flow rate, if not for fairness, whether the cars come to that lane in an orderly procession or after a multi-lane bun fight? At the sharp end, they will squeeze out at the same rate, surely?

In reply to mbh:

Research and testing shows otherwise.

In reply to trouserburp:


Because in a system where drivers are driving properly, its not "a few", its an equal number of people merging. At the point of merging the outside lane is moving exactly the same speed as the inside lane so no-one is 'pushing in'. Unfortunately ift doesn't take many idiots to push into the inside lane too early to imbalance the evn flow.

In reply to marsbar:

I've always thought these constrictions are like a field effect transistor, the lane where the constriction exists acting like the control gate that pinches off the main current flow in the unconstructed lane(s)

In reply to marsbar:

The reason people don't like late merging into a very slow moving queue, is that it generates the worst possible result.
The best possible result, is late zipper merging while still travelling at a decent speed. The next best outcome is early merging into a single lane while still travelling at speed. The worst outcome is someone forcing their way into an already slow moving queue of traffic, exacerbated by queuing cars closing the gaps, causing it to stop completely.

As Graham said upstream, instructing drivers to stay in lane before the obstruction, then instructing them to zip merge is the best solution, but this does work better on freeways etc. where lane rules are different so traffic volumes in the various lanes should be more consistent.

In reply to stevieb:

I think better signs, and variable signs as used in America would help.

In reply to GrahamD:

Every time someone merges into the left lane the left lane slows down to allow a little stopping distance before accelerating. This does not affect the right lane, so the 1:1 zipping theory doesn't work unless you allow the zipping point to evolve backwards, which is probably why you will never have your idealistic situation when you arrive at a single lane constriction

The only explanation in that 'research' link is lorries accelerate slowly. So presumably it is saying 2 or 3 queuejumpers will merge ahead of the lorry increasing throughflow, as opposed to a 10 metre gap resulting going through the single lane section. I don't think this justifies queuejumping

In reply to mbh:

It's not a multi lane bun fight. It is two lanes of traffic merging in turn (ie alternately) at the constriction in an orderly way. What did you think "merge in turn" means? The problem seems to be that you and others don't know what it means!

In reply to trouserburp:


It really isn't complicated. There is a defined point at which you merge, and a defined order (1:1). If the left lane slows, then the right lane slows by definition!

In reply to jkarran:


It is less efficient because a queue in 1 lane is 2 x as long as the same number of vehicles spread over two lanes which means it is far more likely to tail back past an earlier junction at which point that junction locks up and people who don't even want to use the road with the queue get affected.

Case in point: some idiot in a Range Rover on the A71 out to Ratho yesterday who was so determined not to get an advantage by going past queuing traffic in the outside lane he stopped and waited immediately after a roundabout and as a result locked up the whole junction.

In reply to trouserburp:


If people like you did as the signs say there would be nothing which could be perceived as "queue jumping". There would be two lanes of equal status merging alternately "IN TURN" at the constriction and being topped up at the back by arriving traffic so that they remain of more or less equal length (ie arriving cars joining whichever queue is slightly shorter). It is beyond me why this seems so difficult for some people to understand!

In reply to marsbar:

In your 'research and testing' they don't consider a model of people queueing in the order they get there, it's more of a free for all on the way up to the constriction or a stop at the constriction and merge. If everybody took their turn in a fair queue the lorries would only have to accelerate once, creating one gap and delay rather than several

In reply to trouserburp:

You are determined not to believe this can work despite the evidence.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Yes, it's particularly exasperating when these morons mess with one's training schedule.

In reply to Robert Durran:

See above and try and understand. Cars merging at cones, one car joins left delays left queue who have to allow a new stopping distance, right hand lane car no delay car either pushes forward, not a 1:1 ratio, maybe 2:3, or car waits alongside left hand lane equivalent = merging point gradually moves backwards

In reply to marsbar:

What evidence! they report on two scenarios which aren't a fair queuea and they give absolutely zero consideration to fairness to the individual drivers who all have places to go to

In reply to trouserburp:


Alternatively, do what you are supposed to do: Car moves forward to merge point and waits for their turn to merge! People manage it perfectly well at merges where the lanes are segregated prior to the merge point (e.g. at junctions). Absolutely no reason why people couldn't learn to do it on multi-lane roads.

In reply to MarkJH:

They won't wait for the car behind them to pass by to maintain 1:1 ratio they will drive up and start pushing in

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

So do you all think it is for the common good to undertake a queue in the fast lane waiting their turn behind a slow overtaker?

In reply to trouserburp:


There's a good case for that. In some countries you just use whatever lane you like. People are used to it and it works fine. It's not advisable in this country because people don't expect it so it can be dangerous.

In reply to trouserburp:

This thread reminds me of a time i used to live outside trent bridge cricket ground. Once during a big match the police were forced to disperse a large crowd that had gathered outside a gate with a megaphone proclaiming "this is not a que please do not que there is nothing at the end"
Only the English!

In reply to trouserburp:


Why don't you get this? Two lanes take turns to go into constriction. One from left queue, one from right queue, one from left, one from right....... and so on.

In reply to Robert Durran:


http://trafficwaves.org/fasmerg1.gif

In reply to ebdon:

"this is not a que please do not que there is nothing at the end"

What?

In reply to trouserburp:

As others are very patiently explaining, it's nothing to do with queue jumping; if people actually followed the instructions given on the road signs and 'merged in turn', then no one would gain any advantage- actually that's not true, everyone would get there sooner. ...

In fact this is one of the most irritating aspects of the UKs inability to follow instructions; I loathe queue jumpers, but because so many of my fellow drivers won't do what they are told and instead insist in parking on the slow lane miles ahead of the obstruction, Im made to looklike a queue jjumper because I actually do 'merge in turn' like the sign says. ...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

A line of drivers are waiting to enter the single lane section. This is a queue. If you don't think it is then let's give up

So you come up and drive past the queue to the front to get ahead of them all. To me and everyone in the queue this is queue jumping.

If you can accept this and that you don't care about other people enough to wait your turn, or that some miniscule possible benefit to throughout from overtaking a slow accelerating lorry justifies delaying the people already in the queue then i think we can agree to disagree as it is a simple issue of moral standards. If you think going ahead of me and cutting in ahead is somehow speeding me up to my destination you are wrong

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

My patience has run out I have to say.

In reply to trouserburp:

It's not about moral standards, it's about following the instructions to the benefit of everyone. If the sign says merge in turn, queue in both lanes and merge in turn.

In reply to FactorXXX:
There was a crowd, the people at the back thought it was a que and duely got in line, the police were forced to break it up by explaining it was in fact not a que.

Doesn't sound so funny now

In reply to trouserburp:

Save that in a merge in turn situation it won't be 'a line of drivers', it will be TWO lines of drivers- one line in each lane. If everybody unaccountably decides to shift into one lane well, there's no understanding some folk.

In reply to ebdon:
People queueing without knowing what for does seem terribly British. Will try to find a link to my favourite British queue photo.

http://m.imgur.com/DH0Wcc6

In reply to ebdon:
There was a crowd, the people at the back thought it was a que and duely got in line, the police were forced to break it up by explaining it was in fact not a que.

Que is Spanish for 'what'.
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn165/candletears/manuel-que_zps87465835...


Doesn't sound so funny now

Know what you mean, I had to explain my joke!


P.S. I actually thought your post was funny

In reply to trouserburp:



If you go to the post office and see 2 queues, one with 2 people on it and one with 300 people in it, both queues being serviced at the same rate, which queue do you join? It seems that an absurd number of British drivers would stand in the longer queue.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Dogam my dyslexia

In reply to trouserburp:

Oh FFS.........

In reply to marsbar:

Why do you keep asserting 'merge in turn' means drive ahead of the queue and then merge at the front anyway? That's not what the words mean

In reply to trouserburp:


FTFY

In reply to trouserburp:


So the answer to the OP's question is that people are just too dim to understand the instruction. Thanks for enlightening us.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

To save queuing at all, the leftmost lane (the one delineated with the continuous painted line that vibrates when you drive over it), is nearly always empty. I think because people are worried about getting punctures (certainly you often see people with punctures in it), but it's worth the risk. Oh, and put your hazards on. Just like parking on double-yellows, this makes it ok.

Scenario : You are approaching an inside lane of traffic that is moving slowly towards a closed outside lane (their is no need for it to be completely stationary as there is nothing completely obstructing it's flow). The outside lane is currently free of traffic. You decide to take the outside lane and cut in in-front of the slow moving lane of traffic, merging closer to the constriction. The inside lane is then slowed further, eventually brought to a halt if more cars do the same.
This is the initial cause of the lane being slowed to a halt in the first place, are you not exacerbating the situation purely to arrive at your destination quicker than everyone else.
If you are really telling me you are doing it to follow the rules because you know them better than all the other drivers on the road then I don't believe this is the motivation of the majority and it exemplifies the type of behaviour most people don't like.
If you are the only driver not in the queue then you are in the minority, and thus regardless of what the rule book says what you are doing is quite obviously not to the agreed consensus of most drivers standards, moral or otherwise.

In reply to gritrash0:

There is truth in what you say, but that does not change the fact that your scenario only exists in the first place because people do not follow the instruction.

In reply to gritrash0:
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you and those of higher moral fibre for continuing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Please do keep queuing in one long line, it leaves those of us with lower moral standards to get where we're going faster.

In reply to gritrash0:

It's well known in mathematics that if you start off with an incorrect assumption you are likely to be able to 'prove' pretty much any kind of nonsense. There are two lanes, therefore two queues, but you seem to acknowledge only one of them in order to 'prove'your point.

In reply to john arran:

Their were not two queues in my scenario. It was just that, a scenario (you know what this word means right?), which I clearly stated had an outside lane devoid of vehicles. What mathematical assumption have I made?

Whatever the mathematical models say we are dealing with people, not machines.

In reply to gritrash0:

Your call, but if there's a cashier free that's the queue for me. Feel free to wait for the other one though if it makes you feel better.

In reply to gritrash0:


So completely irrelevant!

In reply to trouserburp:




Interesting post, and sheds light on the otherwise inexplicable behaviour of the early queuers- getting into the slow lane as soon as possible is a matter of morality, of 'right and wrong', of following the 'rules'.

Except that it at the same time breaks the rules, as set out by the highways agency in the signs posted on how to approach the obstruction. And ends up halving the capacity of the road, and causing a queue which can be miles in length.

But sadly, if that's the case, and the early queuers misplaced sense of 'right and wrong' overrides evidence, and the explicit rules of the road, it looks like we're stuck with this irritating pantomime. The self righteous will continue to behave in a self defeating way, and the rest will reluctantly decline to join them and continue to do what the road signs tell us, 'merge in turn'...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I've got a feeling this one could edge its way in to the best threads of all time thread.

In reply to trouserburp:
You sir, are a turdmuffin of the highest order. I was going to jump in on this, as it's a pet hate of mine when people do what you say, or endanger others by pulling out and stopping us doing it correctly, but all the facts have been covered far more gracefully than I could ever articlulate. It's not que jumping, it's merging in turn. The clue is in the name for Pete's sake.

and the fact you use fast and slow lanes shows a bit too.

It's a normal lane of traffic, and an overtaking lane/lanes.

I bet your the type of person to sit in the outside lane, at the speed limit, with no traffic on the inside, just because you're "going fast in the fast lane" forcing people to slow behind you or undertake.

In reply to XXXX:
But you don't, in light to medium traffic, delays are mostly caused by late filtering and hard braking. The aim is to filter at the highest safe speed, this happens when there is still road space.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Most early queuers do merge in turn, they just merge when they are aware of the obstruction, not at the last minute. Merge in turn works pretty well at red lights, it works pretty well in motorways at a standstill, it does not work well when 95% of motorists merge in turn at the first sign of trouble, and 5% wait for the last minute. Partly it's the prisoner's dilemma at work

In reply to trouserburp:

'In turn' means that lane then the other lane, that lane then the other lane, and so on. What you're referring to are those big "Ignore This Lane" signs you see everywhere. People have questioned why Highways have gone to the trouble of constructing a whole lane that's absolutely not to be used, but *we* know the answer, eh? *winks*

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I can't see an argument on here that convincingly shows that two lanes gets you there faster than one, if used in proper 'merge in turn' fashion. Unless cars go through the pinch point faster, or closer together, how could this be, and if that were the case, how does it come about? one way or the other, it must be a subtle thing, not an obvious one.

If you get your proper merge in turn behaviour, then yes you get two shorter queues rather than one longer one, and that might well be useful in many places if it prevents the queues backing up past a junction further back, but they must also be two queues that move half as fast as the one long one if that was all that was possible, so people getting into one queue rather than two, despite instruction, doesn't seem to me to be something to be annoyed about, or something that would necessarily improve traffic flow rate.

In busy places with several service points, I prefer the system where they put all people in one long queue and call each person in turn as a service point becomes free. it is obvious to all that it is the fairest way to do things, and achieves the same flow rate, overall, as several queues in parallel.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

This thread is a triumph of 'what you reckon' over established facts, keep going guys!

In reply to stevieb:


I think it's far more than 5%, but the variable merging points taken by the 'vacant lane' users exacerbate the situation for the 'early mergers', increasing the 'throughput' of the 'vacant lane' and further delaying progess of the by now 'very slow' lane.

It does seem clear there are two conflicting 'paradigms' at work, with irreconcilably different views of how to approach the situation. I'd argue that the 'early adopters' are wrong, the highway code explicitly states that we should merge in turn; but it's clearly a source of discontent and irritation for most.

A case for clearer instructions on road signs- either 'use both lanes until merge point', or 'merge immediately' (with enforcement cameras, don't want any queue jumpers. ... ), but i agree we should all be playing by the same explicit rules

In reply to Aztec Bar:

>In the same way that when a traffic light goes green all cars could start moving together so more cars get through, they don't

Oh that really pisses me off. I'm at the back of a six car queue, the lights change and I'm ready to go. Apparently no-one else is and they finally move after the car in front of them has decided to move after.. 3 cars go and the lights are at Red again... Is it because everyone is watching the car in front rather than the traffic lights?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Ah, you're a rule 134er rather than a rule 288er, that explains it
As I said, and supported by marsbar's link, while traffic speeds are still relatively high, then early merging works best.
But yes, where traffic is near standstill then road signs should instruct late merging

In reply to mbh:


Yes, so apply that system in reverse for what we're discussing, i.e. more than one lane merging into one.

In reply to mbh:

http://www.ergonomics.org.uk/when-kindness-causes-chaos-the-politeness-prob...

From institute of ergonomics, loss of capacity up to 55% due to driver behaviourffactors related to early merging. ...

But like i said, there is clearly enough disagreement to warrant much clearer signage and education

Edit:

This is an interesting one, from the US Dept of transport:

https://www.workzonesafety.org/training-resources/fhwa_wz_grant/atssa_dynam...

recognises that the best strategy for efficient traffic flow changes from early to 'zipper'/late merging as traffic congestion increases- and recommends dynamic switching in instructions to drivers depending on road state.

In reply to gritrash0:

JTFC! I bet you say "statistics can prove anything" as well?
Presumably your allergic reaction to mathematics being useful in predicting behaviour would mean you don't believe in 'herd immunity' and vaccination for the common good?

In reply to stevieb:





Would seem so I guess. ... !

It's turned out to be an interesting thread- and may change what I do, since the case for early merging when traffic speeds are high is persuasive.

Hope some of the eternal early mergers are persuaded by the opposite for slow merges....

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

That's what I posted this afternoon!

In reply to marsbar:

Sorry missed it, was out for a walk along the SW coast path near st ives- stunning, just stunning. ..!

And when I came back, I couldn't believe the number of replies - this is my most 'successful' thread ever! - missed your link- very interesting one it was too, worth posting twice. ...

In reply to Jon Read:



As you've made an assumption about me I will go ahead and assume that you are a bit of a know-it-all in real life too. Do you think a mathematical model could have predicted you'd grow up to have that attitude?
Allergic reaction to mathematics being useful in predicting behaviour? We're talking about a model of how things should work vs the fact it obviously isn't working, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist!
JTFC!

In reply to gritrash0:

It does work when people follow the actual rules instead of making up their own and getting all outraged. The French can manage it ffs.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Interesting link, but it doesn't say how that comes about. I'd like to read that.

Can what happens at a bottleneck can be influenced by what happens before it, or is all about the bottleneck? A bottleneck will arise whenever capacity falls below current flow rate, so could happen on a road, for example, if lanes are restricted or if extra flow comes in from a tributary.

Heading north, I am often in a queue on the remaining single carriage way part of the A30, up to the point where traffic feeds in from a minor side road. Umpteen cars that would go at 50ish go at 20ish for a few miles because a few cars want to come in from the side. Would we still go at 20ish if those many fewer (surely!) cars from the side joined in at the back with the rest of us?

In reply to mbh:

The variable speed limits on some motorways are because what happens beforehand makes a massive difference. Slowing people down to 50 can smooth out the traffic flow and prevent stop start traffic jams.

In reply to mbh:

>in busy places with several service points, I prefer the system where they put all people in one long queue and call each person in turn as a service point becomes free. it is obvious to all that it is the fairest way to do things, and achieves the same flow rate, overall, as several queues in parallel.

most people prefer this because it seems fairer, however it does not achieve the same flow rate. Time is wasted as people must observe which service point is free, then walk to it, rather than just being there. Sometimes there is even a member of staff just to direct people to service points. For service points where turnover is slow, the time wasted might be low, but with high turnover it could easily be 5-15% less efficient. We are moving away from this model as people prefer the idea that the queue is fair, instead of maximizing the productivity of the service points.

It is similar with merge in turn, you are right that it isn't a huge advantage, but the advantage is there both in theory, modeling and in trials.

Would people like to know the views of the Police, AA, RAC, IAM and roadworks commissioners?
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/157095/stay-left-or-merge-in-turn-how-do-...

What is clearly needed, is better advice and signage. 'Use both lanes' and 'merge in turn' signs would make much better use of our road space.

In reply to Dan Arkle:
Thanks for that interesting reply. As a reliable chooser of the slowest queue, I would be willing to put up with a 5-15% loss of turnover for the sure knowledge that I would not be in the queue for people who want to argue about the train fare.

Although, hang on, how does that 5-15% figure arise? Time is not lost just because people have to look out for when it is their turn - they just have to look out while waiting instead of just waiting and it takes seconds, maybe 5, tops, and in many places, for many people, much less, to walk to your service point when one becomes free. So you could only get to the 5-15% ball park of delay if the transaction once you got there took two minutes at most.


>It is similar with merge in turn, you are right that it isn't a huge advantage, but the advantage is there both in theory, modeling and in trials.

Do you have links for that? I would be interested to read them.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Because 'merge in turn' wasn't added to the Highway Code until 2007. In this thread many people are referring to 'signs', there are no signs, it's written in the Highway Code.

Why don't people merge in turn?

Mainly because once people pass the test they never pick up a copy of the Highway Code ever again. Some people don't even bother reading it when a new version is released.

So the majority of drivers over the age of 27 probably have no idea the rule even exsists let alone have been taught how to apply it.

In reply to Dan Arkle:


I wonder whether using cones so that the start of the single lane straddled the two lanes so that the situation was symmetrical with neither lane being seen as the one which is closing would encourage drivers to use both lanes and then merge in turn a directed.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Shouldn't drivers just read the Highway Code?

Usually the accident has closed one or two complete lanes.

In reply to mbh:

Exactly right, its why I mentioned service point turnover time being important, I agree 15% (18s delay in a 2min transaction) is possibly overstating it, sorry. Although I have been in queues where it is not possible to walk to the relevant service point in under 10 seconds. I actually agree with you that in many cases, the loss of efficiency is worth it for increased sense of fairness, which will also make staff have a better day.
Back on topic..



No more scotch egg's links above are useful for applied traffic theory.

I wish I had good links for the UK. In my link above Dr Guy Walker suggests traffic jams are 20% worse than they have to be. I've not read the paper but I hope he doesn't assume we can ever get to optimum driver behaviour!

In reply to Robert Durran:

possibly, but it could cause problems at high speed.

In reply to trouserburp:


Yes, it is. But the point is its a queue in two lanes. If you chose to join the longer leg of the queue, more fool you - you don't deliberately choose the longest queue at a supermarket or swap into the longest queue do you ? so as you approach the queuing traffic, pick the lane that is shortest and stick to it.

In reply to GrahamD:

It depends on the speed of the queue.

The supermarket queue analogy is completely wrong. There are not two queues for one till.

The merge in turn is only applicable at low speeds or stationary queueing traffic.

At all other times the cars should get out of the closing lane at the earliest possible opportunity to reduce the concertina effect.

The problems start when the traffic is moving freely and someone drives down the outside just to get there a bit quicker. When they pull in, this invariably causes people in the slower lane to brake.

Looks, from an earlier post, like the traffic will stop flowing freely when the density hits 1500 cars an hour. Which is quite low.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


1 car every 2 and a half seconds sounds very plausible to result in congestion to me.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

The supermarket analogy is really about what is the rational choice of queue to get into / out of. Once a queue is starting to form the gaps are closing and it makes sense to join the shorter of the two queues.

The queue has already formed once people are worried about queue jumping / pushing in so in the case people get worried about, pulling in early is irrelevent. In fact all it does is to speed up the formation of a queue in the inside lane.

In reply to GrahamD:
Yes. But as you approach that 1500 car point, it quickly goes from free flowing to stationary. While it is below that 1500 point people need to be getting into the correct lane rather than leaving it until the last moment when everyone has to suddenly brake because they've all run out of room. It should be a smooth transition.

Once everything is stopped then use whichever lane is the shortest.

It's all in the latest Highway Code.

.

In reply to DancingOnRock: > It should be a smooth transition.

There is little chance of a smooth transition between the two methods as the traffic level rises (or falls) unless signage indicates which way to go - even then I'm sure that individual human behaviour will ensure less than optimal situations.

I have been greatly amused by this thread and even looked at some paragraphs in the Highway Code - a publication I've not looked at since my kids passed their driving tests several years ago.

I now find that for all these years I have been doing a public service by sometimes (but not always) going down the empty lane.

In reply to Phil Lyon:

It depends on the density of the traffic. If there's enough space for cars to "zip" together then there's no reason why the speed should slow. Cars will just be closer together.

Queues are generally caused by slowing faster than they move away. I.e. If everyone slows when approaching a spot where two lanes merge. And then they don't speed up before the next cars catch up, it's like a domino effect and you get a massive queue

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I have quite a simple solution. Few hours with a paintbrush.

Change 'merge in turn' to 'merge AT THE turn'.

Genuinely most people i speak to just don't understand the English.

In reply to neuromancer:



I've never seen one of these signs.

Seriously. It's written in the Highway Code and you're supposed to merge as you approach the lane obstruction.

In reply to neuromancer:

The sign should simply say "Use both lanes . End of.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Separate but related issue:
Has anybody noticed the disturbing trend of people forming a single line at right angles to the bar in drinking establishments? Grips my sh*t because it takes up half the pub floor and increases wait times because instead of everybody choosing their drinks and getting their dithering done ahead of time, they can only do it once they reach the front of the queue. Recently observed at Glasgow Airport, Oban Wetherspoons and Harrogate Crime Festival. The first two times I was a good Brit, joined the queue and tutted inwardly at the foolishness. The third I was hot, hungover and exasperated so I just marched up to the bar to much harrumphing from the queuers. One gentleman confronted me and tried to tell me to get to the back of the queue. I wish I could have persented some reasoned analysis as seen here but I'm afraid that shouting 'It's a f*cking bar!' was all I could manage. Seemed to work though.

Where has this nonsense come from?

In reply to neuromancer:

Maybe we get some new signs that say "Just don't be a dick. Let people in FFS"

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Rubbish. this causes the line to extend and cause a knock on effect at previous junction.


again rubbish, peeps need to take blinkers off and then they will be more aware of whats going on outside of their cocoon.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

in Germany its called "zipping" (translated) and works like clockwork. the problem in this country is peeps think that the use of the empty lane is queue jumping, NO, its just using the highway to its maximum, now if someone was to drive down the pavement thats just being a kn0b.

In reply to Paul Hy:
It's not rubbish. As pointed out several times above. There is a point at which the cars in the outside lane will seriously affect the flow of traffic.

They can't do anything about it. It's a function of the volume of traffic. It happens automatically whatever anyone does when the density approaches 1500 cars an hour.

Up to that point there is nothing wrong with moving into the open lane as early as possible. Once it reaches that volume, all bets are off. The traffic will grind to a halt and merge in turn becomes operational.

In between those two points is the interesting part. It doesn't matter which way you dress it up, the cars in the closing lane cause the traffic to slow. Actually both lanes are causing the traffic to slow and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It just appears that the cars in the outside lane are having the most effect.

However. The cars that try to overtake just one last car before the merge in fast free flowing traffic cause major problems. They should be merging in turn as soon as practical. There's no point in just trying to gain four or five places.

.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
i'll agree with you on some points. i.e. when there is a high volume of traffic say moving at 50mph into the single lane and one kn0bhead leaves it to the last moment to dive in will cause a prob, but if its at a crawl then the use of both (all) lanes will make the flow through much quicker. see my other post about the "zipping" as used in Germany. Problems are also caused by the peeps in the first lane bunching up to stop perceived "queue jumpers" from merging in.

In reply to Paul Hy:

That is exactly what I am saying.

And it's exactly what the Highway Code says.

Merge in turn only in slow moving traffic.

At all other times it should work as normal, get into the appropriate lane in plenty of time. The same as you would for exiting the dual carriageway. That way no one slows down.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

now this is where i disagree, getting into the lane as soon as you see the sign say 800mtrs out is bollocks, you shoulduse both lanes and gradually slow down and at about the 200 mtrs out merge in.

In reply to Paul Hy:

Well. That's bollox as well. It depends completely on the speed and volume of the traffic when you should merge in.

Bear in mind by the time you reach the 800m sign, everything will be travelling at 50mph anyway so you won't be overtaking anything so there's no advantage of not changing lane.

The Highway Code uses the term "In good time."

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-works-level-crossings-and...
.

In reply to James Jackson:


Bit of a north-south thing going on there by some accounts. I always found northerners excellent in their road behaviour. Maybe a bit different further south but if the Stuttgarters were doing something badly wrong, they'd all be dead by now at the speed they drive.

Horrifying how easily the thread slipped into bashing the Germans who do so many things better than the Brits.

In reply to James Jackson:


Same experience. Lane discipline was awesome. Probably because cars were doing 200 kph.. but if you didnt move over promptly you were told to..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

There's a certain mentality in the U.K. that if you are doing 70mph then anyone overtaking you would be breaking the law.

And in the UK people are quite fond of rules and telling other people how they should drive.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Which is in fact true. Though whether you should police the law by not moving over is another matter.

In reply to Robert Durran:

And for most cars when the dial's showing 70 they're most likely only doing about 65.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Doesn't matter.

If your driving in the overtaking lane, thinking it's the "fast lane" and your doing 70, with no traffic in the normal lane of traffic, then that to me is driving without due care and attention. You should move into the normal lane of traffic when the over taking manoeuvre has been completed. If other people want to speed it's there prerogative.

Forcing other drivers to slow and/or undertake, is not the correct action. Just because you are "going fast in the fast lane, at the speed limit" You as a road user aren't there to police other users. You can report other users by all means.

If I need to break the speed limit to over take safely, then so be it, as Long as I do it safely and don't endanger life, adhere to the road conditions and return to the normal speed limit once I am back in the correct lane.

Edit: misread your post, so don't take this as aimed at you.

In reply to Bootrock:
How is that different to forcing people to slow down and get into the middle lane so that you can pass? Which is what effectively has to happen in Germany when it's busy.

In the UK we tend to have three speeds of queueing traffic. Rightly or wrongly. Observationally these tend to be 50-60, 60-70, 70+

Quite often that means to pull over to let someone pass you have to slow and slot into a gap rather than continue at the speed you're going until the middle lane is clear enough to accommodate you at your current speed.

Lane hogging is different.

In reply to James Jackson:


It was really interesting driving the back roads in California - I'd come up behind a car and sit well back to make it clear I wasn't fussed about passing, and they'd pull over at the next opportunity to let us past. This wasn't single track roads - just ones generally without good overtaking opportunities. It rapidly becomes infectious and you find yourself doing the same thing.

In reply to wintertree:

I remember there was a law passed in California in the 80s that said something to the effect that if there were 3 or more cars behind you on a mountain road you were legally obliged to pull over and let them pass. I presume that something similar is still in place and it may well have changed drivers' behaviour more generally.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I fear we are agreeing on the same thing! I am not the best at articulating myself.

If there's no traffic on the Normal Lane of travel, then you should move into that lane. Then move back into the over taking lane (fast lane) to over take an obstacle. Then Proceed back into the normal lane of travel.

If you can't move into the normal lane of travel, then proceed in the Overtaking lane at the speed limit. No one can force you to speed. Pull back into the Normal lane of travel when it's safe to do so. But if you have a huge que behind you, might be best to nip in when you can, instead of holding up the flow of traffic.

It's when people sit in the OT lane, at less than 70 barely over taking the traffic. Holding everyone up, Or the sit in the OT lane at bang on 70, with no traffic in the Normal Lane of travel. That's infuriating!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Because certain drivers want to rush up to the last possible position and push their way in rather than take their turn like everyone else. This pises off others who have otherwise merged, and then they move back out and push in at the last possible place.

In reply to Paul Hy:

Problems are also caused by the peeps in the first lane bunching up to stop perceived "queue jumpers" from merging in.

I am one of those .

When I am in the merging area that they are expected to merge in turn I will leave space for at least two cars to do so (as do others) .

Once I get close the the front then I bunch up to prevent those who have decided to ignore that space , and try their luck by pushing in at the front gaining an advantage from doing so.

Thats fair.

In reply to Jim C:

Find a waterproof jacket and do the zip up owing careful attention to where the two halves merge.

They don't come together half a jacket away from where they become one.

In the absence of signs indicating otherwise or guidance in the Highway Code the merge point is where two lanes become one, not half a mile before.

In reply to wintertree:


I had the same experience. It was fantastic and as you said, you get into the spirit and happily let others through!
As John said, I believe there is a law that stipulates you do so when a certain amount of traffic is accumulated (i had assumed this was aimed at RVs and HGVs), there were signs telling you how many cars was too many, although i think this was not in california, rather one of the gulf states.

In reply to Jim C:

But that just creates the worst of all possible scenarios for the early mergers, Jim.

If everyone formed two lanes, and there was one 'merge point', in the last 200m before the obstruction, it would be entirely fair- with a 'zipper merge', and no advantage to either lane.

But because people do as you do, and block out the last 200m, to guard against 'queue jumpers', it means that people merge at multiple points over the previous 1+ km. So instead of there being 'one from the slow lane, one from the fast lane, one from the slow lane, one from the fast lane', and so on, it means that there are several people from the 'fast lane' get through for each 'slow lane' early merger- as 'fast lane' users are merging in all the time at various points.

This results in the 'slow lane' queue propagating backwards much faster and being even longer than it would otherwise be; and means the 'early mergers' get hammered with people arriving well after them getting through before them.

If you are worried about 'queue jumpers', exactly the opposite strategy is best- *don't* let anyone in before the last 200m, then let in one person. That way, if everyone in the 'slow lane' did that, a queue would form in the 'fast lane', which would balance out and strip any advantage away from the 'fast lane', and stop queue jumping.

The think is, it needs all your fellow 'early mergers' to take the same approach, but if they did, the whole thing would actually work as it should...

In reply to Jim C:



No it's not. It's people like you who f*** up the entire system for everyone.
It ought be legal to barge you into the ditch at the merging point and take one's rightful merging turn.

In reply to Bootrock:


What about people who quite happily do 70-ish in lane 1, but when they pull out to overtake a slower vehicle they actually slow down. Seems to happen a lot in this part of the world (ie Scotland, where the vast majority of motorways only have two lanes each way). The result is that from being happy to remain at a constant, safe distance behind them, you suddenly find that they are holding you up.

These are quite often the same people who will take an entire geological era to complete an overtake, and then unaccountably speed up after pulling back in to lane 1.

The crispy baked good is really taken by those who slow down when actually passing a vehicle in lane 1 and then speed up when lane 1 is clear - but without ever moving out of lane 2.

In reply to Martin W:
Agreed!

And Jim C have you read any of the previous posts. You are incredibly wrong. you haven't even brought a new argument or comment, you have just said exactly what other people have been proved wrong on.

And bunching up doesn't prove anything except that you are a turd waffle of the highest order. It's not about what you perceive as fair, it's what is efficient and works, with as little knock on effect to the flow of traffic.

Life isn't fair. You choose to do it incorrectly. You aren't clever for stopping the rest of us doing it properly, and by bunching up, or pulling out and stopping road users past, you are in effect driving without due care and attention and are endangering yourself and other road users.

In reply to Bootrock:

I think it's actually driving without consideration.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosec...

In reply to Martin W:

My most hated-thing-that-other-drivers-do is continually overtake and then slow down over a considerable distance, while i know for a fact that i'm going a constant speed as i'm on cruise control. it makes you look like a silly bugger as you have to overtake them constantly too.
I think a lot of snags and congestion would be avoided by people picking one speed and sticking to it. I cant bloody wait for autonomous cars, all cruising inches away from each other at exactly the speed limit. Bliss

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Could be either.

Bunching up - driving without reasonable consideration

Pulling into a lane to obstruct a road user -careless driving


Depends entirely on the situation but yea agreed.

In reply to La benya:


I find it's mostly road users that are texting/calling while driving.

I have seen the same where a car shoots pat, then over a distance, all of a sudden I am sailing past, and a glance in shows the glow of the phone, then suddenly they shoot past again.