Two lanes merging to one after roundabout

robinwales

Laz123 wrote: »

You have to question the level of competence of the Volvo driver. Why accelerate on an undertaking manoeuvre when undertaking is illegal? Added to which it is blatantly obvious you are going to be forced into their lane ahead of them by the arrows. I would say it is a case of careless driving on their part because instead of accelerating they should have reduced speed to accommodate your manoeuvre thus showing they failed to anticipate and look ahead at the problem.

How do I give someone a big tick and a gold star on this forum?

robinwales

tho wrote: »

I don't consider this a lane end, I consider it a lane merge, and it should go in turn. My comments were because in the situation you described (swiftly move your car in front of them with no indication), you were putting yourself in more danger, and doing a pretty good job of trying to kill the guy driving like a moron on the inside.

Yes, that's right. It is not a lane change, it is a merge. I am posting the closeup shot again, and you can see that at the final arrow it is a very open area, with no lane markings. It is a merge. No one was in danger as I didn't move my car across. I eventually braked and slowed to let him through. But I did that move BEFORE I got to that arrow and I was still in the right lane. Had I continued (thinking that as I was in front I had priority) we would have collided.

tho_2

robinwales wrote: »

Yes, that's right. It is not a lane change, it is a merge. I am posting the closeup shot again, and you can see that at the final arrow it is a very open area, with no lane markings. It is a merge. No one was in danger as I didn't move my car across. I eventually braked and slowed to let him through. But I did that move BEFORE I got to that arrow and I was still in the right lane. Had I continued (thinking that as I was in front I had priority) we would have collided.

My comments were towards Strider, sorry I didn't quote which has added to the confusion. I think you're in the right here.

robinwales

Strider590 wrote: »

Unbeliveable, a driver not only disobeys the highway code regarding accelerating when being overtaken (verging on "racing", which carries a possible prison sentance), but also dangerously blocks a merging vehicle and half of you are defending that driver, even to the point of practically calling the OP a queue jumper, all because of this stupid British queuing mentality, which has NO place on the roads.
I would remind you that it's a road, not a post office and that your driving 2 tonne of metal, but then we don't try to kill people who use a different queue at the post office do we???

And yes, when someone does this across you, leaving you nowhere to go but the oncoming lane, then they are trying to kill you and it's not an accident, drivers have done this to motorcyclist and ended up spending time behind bars.

Utterly ridiculous...............

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/zip-merging/


I'm saying nothing more on this matter, i'm sure you'll now go down the route of personal attacks instead of facts (ad-hominen), but you can argue all you like, your still wrong in the eyes of the law.

Thank you, Strider, that was a very good post. The RAC link is very good. I did try searching for info on this matter yesterday, but in the true British style everything is very vague and fluffy. Why are we like that in the UK? In other countries, such as Germany they seem to be much more precise and definite about these things. Vagueness leads to accidents. The Australian video I posted earlier is a good example of laying things out clearly so everyone understands it. https://youtu.be/E1_ewHvFCTE

facade

robinwales wrote: »

Had I continued (thinking that as I was in front I had priority) we would have collided.

Exactly, it doesn't matter about the legality of the other person's driving, if simply backing off resolves the situation.

If you simply carry on and hit him regardless, then you are as much to blame, in fact in this situation more so, as you are merging into his lane, and the onus is on you to do it safely.


Just buy yourself a dashcam, and then you can amuse your mates by showing some of the driving skills that it witnesses on a daily basis

robinwales

tho wrote: »

My comments were towards Strider, sorry I didn't quote which has added to the confusion. I think you're in the right here.

That's OK, I knew you were replying to Strider. I'm a little confused about how this works on MSE. When you said you didn't quote did you mean you didn't hit the quote button which copies their entry into your reply? There is also a 'quick reply' option, which on other fora seems to quote the source of the reply (their username) but not their text, which is a different option.

AnotherJoe

In a situation like that I would either speed up to be clearly ahead of the other car, or foot off accelerator / brake to let him get ahead, if he was someone whose macho tendencies needed that to happen.

I would NOT (as OP appears to have done) have kept at the same speed as the other car expecting him to allow me to merge, because then he'd be In my blind spot and it would be difficult to see him speeding up. So, whilst it might technically not be OPs fault, he should have allowedfor the vagaries of other drivers reasonably anticipated behaviour.

NBLondon

robinwales wrote: »

No one was in danger as I didn't move my car across. I eventually braked and slowed to let him through. But I did that move BEFORE I got to that arrow and I was still in the right lane

And hence you avoided an accident by recognising the presence of an idiot in the next lane.

Had I continued (thinking that as I was in front I had priority) we would have collided.

And you would have been held to blame as it was your lane ending, so you were responsible for merging safely. Being in front does not give you priority. Were you actually travelling faster than the Volvo? If he had held his speed would you have reached the merge point far enough ahead of him to indicate and merge with a safe gap? You may well have judged it absolutely right except for his reaction.

Many hot-hatch drivers would have just floored it to reach the merge point ahead of the Volvo

iolanthe07

You find the same attitude when approaching lane closures on motorways. Many drivers seem to resent other more resourcful drivers who use the empty lane to merge further up the queue. It is called 'zipping' and works perfectly well in other countries and actually is a more sensible use of the space available.

molerat

The white paint man has been out and cross hatched many of those around here. The delays caused by the crunches in them outweighs the benefit of improved traffic flow.