Prasius

iTrader: (1)

You should merge in turn. If you were all meant to sit in one lane they would have closed the lane 3 miles back.

The problem comes because people don't merge in turn, then bring the outside lane to a standstill, which makes the open lane stop because they then have to let the closed lane merge. IF both lanes have queues the same length, and the open lane allows cars to merge one at a time, the problem is removed- BECAUSE thats the way its meant to work.

Butty

iTrader: (2)

You really don't get it and you are one of the reasons why the queue gets going in the first place.
Haven't you noticed more and more signs having to be put up at roadworks that are saying "merge in turn" to spell it out to numpties, or are you too anxious looking in your mirror at someone who is using other lane correctly and thereby insulting your manhood?

Simon 69

Roadworks with 'merge in turn' signs are not what we are talking about. We are talking about roadworks where one or two lanes are lost and where people have formed an orderly queue, where a bell-end (champoined by many idiots here) thinks that it is acceptable to drive to the front (whilst "using all available lanes") and push in.

Butty, do you expect to push in at the supermarket too? People like you are the reason that the traffic stops and starts greatly lengthening everyones wait. Apart from the people like you who push in, of course.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

You shouldn't need a merge in turn as that is what you should be doing anyhow.

If you come to a junction without a give way sign you don't just pull out do you???

Simon 69

I dont disagree with that at all; but people dont. In absence of MiT the traffic runs far more smoothly if people get in the available lanes in good time and it is where most people do that, but others deliberately drive to the front to gain an advantage at others expense, that we are discussing in this thread.

mwilliams

But ''roadworks where one or two lanes are lost'' are exactly the situation they have started placing merge in turn signs all over to spell it out for numpties and exactly whats being talked about.

I hate people pushing in and would never do it on the road, in the supermarket or anywhere else. But people making queues unnecessarily long through a lack of common sense, because they don't understand that merge in turn means use two lanes until there are no longer two lanes two use then form in one for one behind each other, is a very different thing.

RJMS

iTrader: (2)

How do you define "in good time"? Unless you join the queue in the "queuing" lane as soon as it's apparent that it's queuing, then you will inevitably be considered to be pushing in by someone who has already joined the queue and you have therefore overtaken.

There's one particular piece of road near me where the "must queue as soon as possible" brigade clearly hold up people who want to tun off before the lane restriction is reached, that would not be the case if people merged in turn. Where's the sense in that?

Merge in turn is the ONLY fair way, and the sooner people realise this the sooner the traffic flow in this country will speed up and driving stress levels be much reduced.

ricardo

But there shouldn't ever be a queue in one lane ! Merge when you get to the restriction and then there is no opportunity for anyone to be perceived as selfish by those that formed a pointless queue.

I give up.

Beemer_Deano

As far as I'm concerned, merge in turn is the correct way to merge two lanes. It's logical and makes the best use of the available road space. It's the pig-headed "no-one cuts in front of ME!" lot, with their decades of ingrained desire to queue in an orderly British fashion that cause the congestion. "MiT" should have gone into the Highway Code book when it was supposed to years ago.

There's a very simple way to solve it though, instead of merging one lane into the other (ie lane two into lane one), why don't they just merge both into a "new" middle lane between them? That way the sheep suffering "My lane" syndrome wont feel like they've got to defend their territory

Oh, and while I'm on. Lorry drivers: If you're a gnat's hair apart, drafting each other in a quarter-mile long, twenty truck convoy, don't act all suprised and indignant when some poor sod has to cut in between you to exit the motorway

Deano

PS - excellent post Ricardo, very well explained!

bartmanuk

surely the traffic congestion is caused by the highways authourity who shut the lanes down

BM

bartmanuk

shouldnt this thread be in non scooby related?

BM

SPEN555

It's the **** who merge too early that cause the congestion, especially those who just stop indicating until someone lets them in

It does not help that this country never signposts this properly and so people have different opinions.

There should be one merge in point and EVERYONE should give way to ONE vehicle and the ones merging should not try and tuck into a vehicle merging in front it it. That way it flows constantly and at least keeps moving.

Chris L

I remember this question came up some time ago and there was a reply from a chap who was responsible for planning the layout of road works. His answer was if they wanted you to merge 600 yards or so before road works then that is where they would start the cones. In other words, use all the lanes and merge in turn at the end. The idea is to try and stop huge queues in the inside lane. I think all the problems would be solved by putting in 'Merge in turn' at the end which is what they do in most European countries. It would solve a huge number of problems. This British mentality of all joining a long queue and then having a go at other road users who they deem to have 'jumped' the queue by using the empty road is ridiculous.

mwilliams

^^^^^ Well put fella

Hol

iTrader: (1)

I have to back Chris up on this, I remember that same thread.

Although im sure it is under a noble purpose that people get in early, they are actually creating a queue far longer and slower than it needs be.

The highways agency spent lots of research working out when the best point is for cars to move from the outer lanes. Its normally where the lanes are closing. Not 200, 400, or even 800 yards before.

This is not to say that some people who drive around the outside, are not aware that they are moving quicker that the people who have 'chosen' to move in early.

bartmanuk

at last someone makes some sense of it all

DaveD

iTrader: (2)

While I agree with the 'merge in turn', I don't agree that meging at the point of the lane closure makes the queue half as long - it would just shift the same length queue a bit further down the road.

The reason for the advanced warning, as I see it, is to give people time to create space and organise themselves into one lane. This should allow traffic to merge in turn smoothly, without anyone needing to suddenly brake. Wating until the cones at the end of the lane leaves you with few options. You would probably be travelling at a different speed to the traffic that had already merged, and so there would be no option, but to brake and fit into a gap that someone probably wasn't expecting you to get into. This causes that person to brake, causing the well-known ripple effect, and the traffic eventually stops.

If everyone has naturally merged a bit futher up the road from the cones, then, as far as I can see, that is where where you should merge. Ok, so the queue may be a bit further up the road than it could be, but passing 400yds of near-stationary traffic at 40mph naturally puts people's backs up, and the bunching / stop-start effect creates further delays.

jasonius

iTrader: (1)

It was last year, same argument and same lame brained idiots who think they're kings of the road and that everyone should queue in one lane 5 miles before restriction. However they went suspiciously quiet when the guy Chris L has mentioned pi55ed all over their chips and said that 'Merge in turn' was the way it should be done.

These bleaters are the same one's that close the gap/flash/shake fist when you overtake them in a perfectly safe and lawful manner..!

I just wish they'd read the Highway code for once instead of thinking they have..!

breath and 1 and 2 and 3 and 4...........

vindaloo

Let us assume that traffic is moving in lane 1, say for a slip road exit.

As cars approach the slip road, in any lane, the drivers make a decision as to when they move to lane 1 to take the exit. As a bunch of cars do this, the cars/lorries behind them tend to slow or bunch and slow, causing a ripple of slowness back down the road.

Others, seeing the traffic slowing or stopping do the conscientious thing and try to join the queue at the earliest moment, causing more of a slow blob on lane 1.

Meanwhile, a little ahead of this, everyone has sorted themselves out and are back up to speed. As these vehicles move back up to speed, the drivers accelerate at different rates causing gaps to appear in lane 1. If it's uphill and a laden lorry is in lane 1, a substantial gap will appear.

Personally, I'll try not to take the p*ss with late motorway leaving manouevres (sp). However, joining right at the back of a queue on the motorway is a rather inefficient method of making reasonable and safe progress.

J.

mwilliams

Not sure how you work that out old chap. If a number if cars queue in a line that ends up say a mile long, then you arrange the same number of cars in two lines it would become half a mile long. Pretty basic stuff.
I appreciate that traffic queues aren't quite as black and white as that but surely the basic premise applies.

I think what some other guys have mentioned about putting the roadworks lane in the middle so nobody feels upset by who was right is a great idea. Takes away the 'self righteous knights of the road' vs the 'pushy arrogant ones' completely.

DaveD

iTrader: (2)

But, where's the restriction that's causing the traffic to slow? The merging point. If all the traffic is merged to a single lane a mile before the other lane is closed off, there won't be any reason for that single lane to be stopped. The merging point and queue would just be a mile further up the road.

The more smoothly traffic merges, the faster it should flow. Merging in the 600yds-or-so before the lane is closed off has surely got to be better than trying to zip everything together in the last 5yds?

As above, it's a bit analogous to taking the slip road off a motorway - I doubt many people think it's sensible to wait until the 100yd marker before trying to make a dash for the nearside lane?

There's got to be a happy medium somewhere, but since everyone has different views when driving, this will never be found!!

mwilliams

DaveD, agree with some of what you say there mate. Problem with the 'merging in 600yards or so before the lane is closed' theory is that there is no fixed point or right/wrong moment for that. So some people will manage to pull into a convenient ready made gap, some will see an iffy tight gap and jump on the brakes to nip in there, some in lane one will decide someone in lane two is pushing on for 50 yards or so more than is polite so they'll get the rats and block the lane etc etc........chaos ensues which by it's very nature is not smooth!. At least the cones give a fixed point for people to converge calmly and orderly. As others have said, the cones are placed there because road planners have deemed that is the optimum point for traffic to merge for the safety of the road workers and to minimize the queues. We shouldn't decide they are wrong and pile into single file in a chaotic manner half a mileish before that point and, as you say, move the queue half a mileish back down the road.
Not sure the motorway slip road analogy is really relevant as ordinarily that is undertaken at rolling motorway speeds so of course you can manouvre into the inside lane safely, early, and often without making anyone else have alter their speed at all, let alone causing or lengthening queues. To carve in at the last minute would of course be dangerous and inconsiderate, but also pointless as everyone is doing 60 odd mph upwards anyway so why bother.

Simon 69

This thread isnt about 'merge in turn' instructed roadworks: its about roadworks where one or more lanes are closed and people are queung and a small minority attempt to avoid the queue and push in at the very front.

It isnt subjective: it does increase the congestion. This doesnt change no matter what your opinion is. Speaking of opinions, some of those aired here make their holders look like f*cking idiots.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

It does not increase congestion, it does however displace someone in the inside lane from moving forward.ANY BENEFIT IN THE EASE OF CONGESTION THROUGH CUTTING IN, ON THE OUTSIDE LANE IS CANCELLED OUT THROUGH THE DISPLACEMENT IN THE INSIDE LANE, THUS SLOWING DOWN THE TRAFFIC IN THE INSIDE LANE

Simon 69

KoT, that you are no genius is obvious but surely you can see that anything that causes the head of the queue to stop and start rather than to flow (relatively) slowly and smoothly increases 'congestion' (if you doubt this then you only need consider congestion caused by weight of traffic and poor driving, where there is a hold up for no apparent reason)?

If people would mege in turn then there would probably be even less disruotion than if people got into the correct lanes in good time, but that isnt what the thread was about.

mwilliams

Evenin fella.
The confusion here I think is that all 'roadworks where one or more lanes are closed and people are queueing' are effectively merge in turn roadworks. They are not always signed as such - the merge in turn signs are an idea road planners have introduced and are applying more and more, specifically to stop people lining up for miles in single file unnecessarily.

The one exception to this is motorway situations where there is an accident, no cones for a long way off, but the overhead gantrys are showing the lane closed with a red cross. Then you should move over, through courtesy for others and the safety of the accident recovery guys, but also because the police will pull if you drive under a red cross - it happened to a friend of mine who hadn't noticed it.

Also...
.....

A very arrogant statement given the opinions of some experts on this thread. Also, no need to get abusive mate. Its a healthy debate and I don't think anybody else has resorted to that.

bartmanuk

as already been said on more than one occasion, the planners put the cones out where they plan to be the safest for all, so the right place to merge is where the cones are, seems pretty simple to me, therefore the people who wont let others in because they say they are trying to push in are in the wrong and are the main cause of the congestion

BM