We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
A rant about roadwork lane closures and those who "police" them!
Comments
-
It is cos that is how they are designed. The signage tells you when to move. Not too much to do with the highway code more road traffic signage act. How the drivers merge is down to them, same for those already in a queue. It's not pushing in, it's following the directions from the signs.Highway Code rule 134 states merging is recommended not compulsory so not simple as.0 -
It is cos that is how they are designed. The signage tells you when to move. Not too much to do with the highway code more road traffic signage act. How the drivers merge is down to them, same for those already in a queue. It's not pushing in, it's following the directions from the signs.
Correct when we are talking about a permanent road layout, but with temporary lane closures which I'm guessing we are largely talking about here it is very rare to see 'merge in turn' signs put in place at the side of the road.0 -
-
Supersonos wrote: »But it means the length of the queue is half what it would be if it was a single lane and, therefore, the queuing traffic is less likely to impact on other junctions/roundabouts etc. and, in turn, surrounding roads.
I did say this in post #13
"merge in turn" is a great idea, problem is, like most great ideas that rely on people rather than machinery, it doesn't work properly, yet the people paid (far more than I am ) to generate & implement these ideas think it does.
I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....
(except air quality and Medical Science)0 -
Yes, we should all simply 'join the shortest lane, and merge in turn at the merge point.' Unfortunately we have two perceived extremes of idiots queuing with an empty lane beside them, or impatient racing idiots bunking the queue.
All I can say is that I join the shortest queue lane, and I drive SLOWLY up it, not indicating until I get SLOWER at the end, and the aim for everyone is to not stop. If everyone followed this, each lane would be roughly the same length. Try it! Join me!The "use both lanes & merge in turn" idea if carried out properly, simply makes the queue in each lane half as long, but moving forwards half as fast, it doesn't solve the problem of the restriction, and as most people can't drive anyway, it actually slows things down more than just having a single lane would, whilst they dither and create larger gaps than is needed.
No. You're saying it doesn't solve a problem - it does. If the queue is half as long, it doesn't stretch to the junction behind, and block it.OP: so you think it is alright to push-in instead of waiting your turn like the other sensible and courteous drivers? Obviously only one lane of cars can get through and merging will not be any quicker or allow more cars through than queuing. Stop being impatient and get in line.
Wrong. See above. Join us! The queue is 2 wide, join the shortest one. You're contributing to the problem if you always join the longest queue.Highway Code rule 134 states merging is recommended not compulsory so not simple as.
Excellent. So you're going to go against a HC recommendation. What's YOUR recommendation?0 -
<cough> HC134, p'raps?
The OP's not the one in the wrong.Excellent. So you're going to go against a HC recommendation. What's YOUR recommendation?
Are you two forgetting HC133?Rule 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.People are paid to plan this and know what generally works best. They run years and year worth of computer simulations. Merge in turn is an efficent way of reducing the number of lanes.
Common mistake that people make is in assuming that because someone is being paid to do a job, they know how to do that job well.
We have a genius in our local planning office who doesn't drive and as a result, any changes they've been responsible for have been utter carnage. There was a two lane roundabout that was wider to accommodate the huge number of HGVs that use it, they made it 3 lanes mostly (4 in parts) and it normally ends up with HGVs blocking large parts of it. Coupled with a poor lane layout means people are forever going into the wrong lane, don't have enough room or time to move over when needed etc.
FWIW, my driving instructor said it depends on the layout/markings. If the left lane continues and the right merges into that lane (with arrows showing they should move over) then they need to give way to traffic already in that lane, as it is only their lane that is ending. If however two lanes suddenly just stop to become one, then they're both merging and those in the right lane dont need to give way to those in the left lane.
Its only ever on roads marked the second way that I've seen traffic get backed up as a result and I see accidents on a weekly basis. The strangest thing is that there was room for them to continue the 2 lanes right up to the roundabout but someone in their infinite wisdom thought it was wise to bottleneck traffic from 3 major routes within a quarter mile of them joining.
Should we all merge in turn? Yes. Will everyone merge in turn? No.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
No, not at all. I don't see how it's relevant to the situation as described.unholyangel wrote: »Are you two forgetting HC133?0 -
i would always try and merge at the merge point - if they want people to merge at 800 yards before the merge point then they should close off an extra 800 yards of lane and move the merge point0
-
No, not at all. I don't see how it's relevant to the situation as described.If the left lane continues and the right merges into that lane (with arrows showing they should move over) then they need to give way to traffic already in that lane, as it is only their lane that is ending. If however two lanes suddenly just stop to become one, then they're both merging and those in the right lane dont need to give way to those in the left lane.
The first situation in those examples is how its relevant.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards