Two lanes merging to one after roundabout

Mercdriver

It's the same reason many roundabouts have become 'signal controlled junctions'. few people know how to use them properly.

Mercdriver

iolanthe07 wrote: »

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.

People also resent it when there is a merge point 3-400m further on and you don't use it - even if it is around the corner and you don't see it until you round the corner. I remember driving in Newcastle-under-Lyme a few years ago, and there was on the main road 3 lanes two had traffic in them one was clear all with forward arrows. I followed to clear lane until I saw the the merge arrow, then slowed down and indicated left. Got lots of honks.

A queue had formed, but no one was using the full capacity of the road. People did what they often do when walking - they see a queue and get into it - Even when there is a perfectly clear lane that is marked with the same direction. It took a while for anyone to let me in. I had used the road properly. You won't find universal approval on this on the net.

People should be taught how to merge as part of the test. It increases the efficiency of the roads and also prevents shunts.

almillar

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.?

I think you're in the right, but unfortunately everything from the HC relating to this has already been quoted. There's nothing to tell us what that arrow means, and as is often the case, drivers are left to use their common sense. What was common sense to you that day clearly wasn't to the Volvo. You can't do much about it, other than making sure you have a bigger margin next time.

You might believe that, but you were changing lanes into the left lane, the arrow denotes that, it's not indicating a merge in turn, it's indicating an end to your lane and to move to the left lane.

I can't find any reference to that arrow in the HC - can you?

Yes, the Volvo driver was a jackass, but unfortunately he had priority.

A car behind has priority? First I heard of it.

FWIW I actually think the OP was in the right. I don't consider this a lane end, I consider it a lane merge, and it should go in turn.

Me too, but OP wants to know the rules, not just our opinion. I don't think there are any specifically. OP did plan, Volvo shafted his plan.

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

...In heavy traffic only.

NBLondon

almillar wrote: »

I can't find any reference to that arrow in the HC - can you?

You're right al - there isn't an explicit one. Nearest I can find is in 128 - "White direction arrows on the road indicate that you need to get back onto your side of the road" which is because the broken on your side double line is about to become an unbroken double. Rule 139 on crawler lanes says "Be aware of the signs and road markings which indicate the lane is about to end" and similar arrows are used there. Clearly this isn't a crawler! So perhaps we should conclude that the arrow is advisory and not mandatory. Still indicates that it was the OP's lane that was ending.

Teapot55

The white arrows indicate that the two lanes are merging into one.

unholyangel

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.

The volvo driver wasn't overtaking - he didn't enter that lane for the purpose of bypassing traffic. Traffic moving faster in the left lane than the right is not overtaking (illegal or otherwise). Even if he had been overtaking, overtaking on the left is not illegal (although it may help demonstrate careless/dangerous driving).

That aside, I'm not disputing the volvo driver acted like a !!!!!. They should have let traffic merge. However, the fact there are directions telling you to move over to the left lane does not give you priority over traffic already in that lane. While they should have given way to traffic wanting to merge, merging traffic also needs to give way to traffic already in the lane/road they want to join. IMO it seems very likely it would have been 5050 in the circumstances OP describes.

robinwales

unholyangel wrote: »

While they should have given way to traffic wanting to merge, merging traffic also needs to give way to traffic already in the lane/road they want to join. IMO it seems very likely it would have been 5050 in the circumstances OP describes.

merge
verb
combine or cause to combine to form a single entity.

That isn't the same as one thing becoming part of another as in the right lane joining the left. It's a merge! Both lanes are going into one. Have you seen the video from Australia that perfectly explains the logic of the car behind in the primary lane giving way to the other when there are no markings left in the road? See scenario 2 in the video https://youtu.be/WiSXxbmTbz0 The logic is that the car in front has a poor rear view as the car behind is on the opposite rear quarter, AND, the car in front is already ahead to start with and it is normally safer for them to go ahead and merge first. You are falling into the trap of several others here and just bagging lane rights instead of thinking about what might be sensible and safe.

Car_54

It would be interesting to see the Streetview from the actual roundabout exit. There is probably a 'Road Narrows on Right' sign which would settle the argument.

tho_2

The thing is it's not lane "ends". It is lane merge. A lot of people here are suggesting the Op should give way. If it was lane end with give way the road would be marked with a dashed line. The arrows show move left not give way. It's a bit of common sense all round and the volvo failed that.

robinwales

Car_54 wrote: »

It would be interesting to see the Streetview from the actual roundabout exit. There is probably a 'Road Narrows on Right' sign which would settle the argument.

There are no signs relating to the road mergings, apart from the arrows in the road. Those signs at the entrance are just place-name directions. At the bottom of the shot are the two lanes that are to go ahead to the two lanes at the start of the exit in the background.



Another point that hasn't been mentioned is that the roundabout can get very busy, and if people don't use that right lane very much for fear of being accused of 'cutting in' then the traffic can soon stack up back to the main roundabout which is not far away. I have seen that happen.