Penalty Notice from Council

Edwood_Woodwood

d123 wrote: »

You haven't actually, taking part of a rule and selectively quoting it doesn't really show much.

Can you not even recognise that it is the same amount of traffic attempting to proceed, whether that is by merging right to the maximum merge point or by queuing in single file?

The only reason you prefer your method is to not queue up, or to reduce queuing time, c'mon, admit it?

sheramber

When there was a long term lane restriction on our local motorway there was a sign at the side of the lanes saying 'use both lanes' and at the point where the two lanes merged there was a sign saying ' merge in turn'.

For few days a police car was stationed at the merging point. After a few days it worked well without police supervision.

Rover_Driver

rich13348 wrote: »

This is only a problem and is only perceived as forcing in because the ignorant or unaware drivers do not allow the other drivers to merge in and stay glued to the rear bumper of the car in front.

It is not 'merging' when forcing the stop-start at the pinch point, the merging should be on the approach to the pinch point, then the traffic would flow as smoothly on the approach to that point, as it does after.

Edwood_Woodwood

sheramber wrote: »

When there was a long term lane restriction on our local motorway there was a sign at the side of the lanes saying 'use both lanes' and at the point where the two lanes merged there was a sign saying ' merge in turn'.

.

That's a slightly different circumstance because there is the additional sign where vehicles are directed to use both lanes and then to merge at the merge point in turn, due to a lane restriction.

On a carriageway where a merging lane is inherent due to the design or to the natural width of the road then there will be signs placed well in advance to signify the road will merge ahead in addition to arrows on the road.

There may or may not be a "use both lanes" sign too, however, if there is not then the correct procedure is to move to the lane as directed by the signs and one should do so as soon as it is safe to do so.

Absolutely nowhere is the advice or law stated to do this only at the merge point.

Rover_Driver

That is part of the problem, claiming the 'Use Both Lanes' and 'Merge In Turn', at lane drops where it doesn't apply.

Kalamazoo

Is Edward still stamping her feet like a petulant child because she's wrong and can't admit it? Pathetic tbh

rich13348

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

No it isn't.

You're simply advocating widening the traffic build up, by making use of a soon redundant lane, as opposed to lengthening the traffic build up in a single file.

It's the same amount of traffic filtering.

Creating a pinch point, as your method does, simply creates havoc, we all see it every day.

With single file traffic then you just await your turn and it runs smoothly, albeit it takes time, as it does even with your method.

Again, show me any authority that states one should merge only at the maximum point of merge possible?

My god you are right (sarcasm) lets just get rid of all the second and third lanes as they all eventually come to an end anyway.

And to save making another post. I am blaming the drivers who do not drive to the rules. Just because they think they are right doesn't actually make them right.
If everyone did the right thing there wouldn't be a few people driving 100 yards ahead of everyone else they would stay just about the same level as their counterparts in the other lane. You are taking the example of what happens now and putting it on what I am saying instead of actually paying attention to what I have written.

Try imaging all traffic coming to a halt where they were without moving both lanes would be about the same level this is my suggestion. There would a single pinch point but where the traffic is always moving as one from lane 1 goes and one from lane 2 goes. Its better than idiots like you and roverdriver who don't let people merge who have dared to drive down a lane that will soon merge not end. This does cause multiple pinch points.

DoaM

If the OP is still reading ........ as suggested much earlier, the best advice you'll get is at Pepipoo. (Don't try to register using a Hotmail email address). In many cases the notices issued by councils are not legally correct, so they can be challenged.

An initial appeal is likely to fail, but the final appeal to PATAS often succeeds. Pepipoo will let you know your chances of success.

Edwood_Woodwood

rich13348 wrote: »

My god you are right (sarcasm) lets just get rid of all the second and third lanes as they all eventually come to an end anyway............

.

What a load of rubbish.

You are essentially advocating that spreading out the traffic is better than a single file of traffic.

Why is it?

It's the same amount of traffic.

If a road can accommodate single file traffic then you should join the queue by merging into it at various opportunities, but no, you won't do that because you want to jump that queue and go right to the bitter end until you run out of road and thus force yourself onto competent drivers who have to accommodate your lack of driving skill.

I'm done with this thread as arguing with an idiot just brings me down to their level.

I'll encounter your sort on the road tomorrow, no doubt, and the ensuing chaos and you will continue on your merry little ignorant way.

Rover_Driver

rich13348 wrote: »

I am blaming the drivers who do not drive to the rules.

That is the problem, drivers that don't follow the rules.

Where the signs are 'Use Both Lanes' and 'Merge In Turn, that is what you should do, but only where there are those signs.

It doesn't apply to other lane drops where the signs and markings are that drivers should merge before reaching the pinch point, which is what is annoying about the drivers who ignore those signs and drive to the pinch point and then force themselves in.