Two lanes merging to one after roundabout

Don't worry about it, I see that kind of thing half a dozen times a day at least.
If I drove my car like I had "right of way" or "priority" (when I clearly do) I'd write it off before I even got out of the street (when the first driver just reverses straight off their drive virtually under my front wheels)
There are a good many cars still driving around that aren't written off only because of my observation, anticipation, and in a few cases, cat like reflexes.

Sometimes I wonder what "The Planners" are smoking, when it is patently obvious that most drivers cannot cope with merging, or even going around an island, yet we see more and more of these situations daily.
My particular favourite is when you have 4 lanes entering an island that is clearly only wide enough for 2 vehicles to go around, with the most bizarre lines painted over the road that would have you slewing from one lane to the other with 90 degree turns across the front of traffic if you actually tried to follow them.

mcpitman wrote: »

The arrows on the road depict "merge in turn", which means exactly that.

Do they? Can you find an authority for that?

In fact, the HC (rule 134) says "You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as directed. In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily. Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended at high speed."

There is nothing in the OP's account to suggest a very low speed.

It also says (133): "If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over."

The OP's intended manoeuvre would have forced the Volvo driver to change speed, since 10' is an inadequate gap. Also, he makes no mention of signalling.

I agree with Car54. From the picture... the right-hand lane is ending and the arrow instructs drivers to merge to the left-hand lane. So the onus is on the OP to indicate and change lanes safely. The Volvo was wrong to accelerate - but OP should not be causing him to brake. If both are reading the road and being courteous - merge in turn works but as neilmcl said - it doesn't work when knobs are around.

These are typically splits to improve traffic flow, the lane opens out to two lanes to get two cars at a time round the roundabout and then you join back together afterwards - same at traffic lights. They are not overtaking opportunities, they are traffic optimisations.

The onus is on all drivers to cooperate, rather than compete.

My take on this would be "Where was I in relation to the other car?"

If there was a long queue in one lane and few were using the other, then I would take the quieter lane, (staying in turn just reduces the capacity of the roundabout). However, on merging back, I would be conscious that drivers would be miffed that they had been "overtaken" so I would ensure I would merge by dropping back behind a car - also being aware that some drivers may deliberately block a merge.

If I'm moving alongside other cars, I would assess how they are driving - a granny making no progress is fair game to leave behind, but otherwise I would try and take up the same position as I'd arrived at the junction at.

In terms of the meaning of arrows, I always read it as the arrow indicating the lane which has the lesser priority and there is something of an implication of a give way being suggested. After a roundabout, speeds are going to be low, and any reasonable driver would expect a merge in turn to be implied, but in heavy traffic, things can go astray, and in London all bets of civilised behaviour are off.