Two lanes merging to one after roundabout

DoaM

brianposter wrote: »

What is the significance of the X in the left hand lane ?

It's just a Google streetview thing.

n217970

For some clarifaction are we saying the front of the Volvo was 10ft behind the front or rear of your car? Add in a margin of error of say 2 feet and if we are talking 10 ft behind the front of your car then he would have been halfway up alongside you, in which case you should have changed your speed to merge in.

Add into the mix that the guy behind you was close enough to almost crash when you braked and it sounds like people in the outside lane are not giving enough consideration to the inside lane.

EssexExile

What does it matter? Both drivers were aware where the other one was & there was no collision, this sort of thing happens all over the country thousands of times a day. It's a non-event.

facade

The bottom line here is that the OP didn't crash.
It doesn't matter who is "right", someone has to give way or simply crash, and clearly the Volvo wasn't going to, so the OP did.

This about nails it:

IanMSpencer wrote: »

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


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.

As I said earlier, in peak traffic, everybody is going the same way, and simply charges around the island nose to tail in the "best" lane. People trying to pass the line and merge back in cause the line to slow a bit, and most drivers will never let you in.

Oakdene

That roundabout is a nightmare & thats happened to me a few times there!

Usually the left lane does slow down but every now & again you get people who speed up to try & get ahead.

robinwales

n217970 wrote: »

For some clarifaction are we saying the front of the Volvo was 10ft behind the front or rear of your car? Add in a margin of error of say 2 feet and if we are talking 10 ft behind the front of your car then he would have been halfway up alongside you, in which case you should have changed your speed to merge in.

Add into the mix that the guy behind you was close enough to almost crash when you braked and it sounds like people in the outside lane are not giving enough consideration to the inside lane.

The front of the Volvo was just behind my tailgate, so his front was 10ft behind mine (about the length of the car). He knew that a merge was imminent so he should not have accelerated, which was dangerous. The only possible reason for him accelerating like that is out of ego/bravado. The next car behind him was some way behind. It was a personal thing for him and he just couldn't let me go first, even though there was no other gain or any safety risk.

robinwales

Thanks for the replies so far. Can I just clarify a few things for people who think I changed lanes.
1. I did not cross over the white dotted lines at any time, even after the Volvo had pushed through and I carried on. I slowed and let him push through. Had a policeman been behind me who do you think he would have stopped?

2. It was not, in my opinion, a 'lane change situation, it was a lane merge situation. As you can see in the photo the merge area does not have any white lines, dotted or solid. It is an open area into which BOTH lanes must merge. I know it's from Australia, but this link from Queensland shows the difference very well. In scenario one the driver has to cross a line and must therefore give way. But in scenario 2 (which is the same as my case) there is no line crossing and as driver B is BEHIND driver A he must give way. There's a very good reason for that, it's about safety. Driver A has to change his relative position and move across the road, and as driver A is behind he has more control as he has a better view and he does not have to change position.

Link https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/lanes

Hope that clarifies things.

Mercdriver

robinwales wrote: »

Thanks for the replies so far. Can I just clarify a few things for people who think I changed lanes.

1. I did not cross over the white dotted lines at any time, even after the Volvo had pushed through and I carried on.
2. It was not, in my opinion, a 'lane change situation, it was a lane merge situation. As you can see in the photo the merge area does not have any white lines, dotted or solid. It is an open area into which BOTH lanes must merge. I know it's from Australia, but this link from Queensland shows the difference very well. In scenario one the driver has to cross a line and must therefore give way. But in scenario 2 (which is the same as my case) there is no line crossing and as driver B is BEHIND driver A he must give way. There's a very good reason for that, it's about safety. Driver A has to change his relative position and move across the road, and as driver A is behind he has more control as he has a better view and he does not have to change position.

I agree with most of your position but merging in Australia (and New Zealand) is more formally organised.

Also in NZ and Australia, the driver on the right has priority which isn't the case in the UK

robinwales

A closer view of the actual merge area. You can see that this is a genuine merge area, rather than a lane changing scenario.

Another thing is the introduction of a 40 speed limit just as the lanes merge. Surely that should be 30mph to discourage drivers from speeding up just as hey go into a merge.?

robinwales

Mercdriver wrote: »

I agree with most of your position but merging in Australia (and New Zealand) is more formally organised.

Also in NZ and Australia, the driver on the right has priority which isn't the case in the UK

Yes, thank you, I accept that. I was just really pointing out the logic of giving way to someone in front of you who also needs to change position when you don't.