 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / November 2009Lorry drivers not moving forward in a queue of traffic
I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into one, while a crashed car was being recovered from the nearside lane, with cones and (I presume) "Police Slow" signs. For about a hundred yards before the cones, there was a queue of traffic in Lane 2, and nothing in Lane 1 - everyone had moved over. Before that there was a large gap of about a hundred yards, then there were two artics side-by-side which were stationary, blocking both lanes with very long queues building up behind them. I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them. I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from rest and it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move slowly, with frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely remaining stationary while such a large gap exists ahead is taking the piss. > I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I was > going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into one, while [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely remaining stationary > while such a large gap exists ahead is taking the piss. Probably on his mobile > I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I was going > in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into one, while a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely remaining stationary > while such a large gap exists ahead is taking the piss. Why, where are you going? He can see a lot more ahead than you can. I do this a lot, low gear tickover, slowly catch the queue ahead, stop, wait for a sizeable space, low gear tickover again. Can't see what the problem is, seems to me a lot better than constant stop start every 10 meters or so. >Why, where are you going? He can see a lot more ahead than you can. I >do this a lot, low gear tickover, slowly catch the queue ahead, stop, >wait for a sizeable space, low gear tickover again. Can't see what the >problem is, seems to me a lot better than constant stop start every 10 >meters or so. Problem is if everyone did that the queues length would grow far longer that it would otherwise have been and start blocking up junctions that it wouldn't have done otherwise. The shorter a queue is the less problems it causes for surrounding routes. B2003 On 3 Nov, 16:17, boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:45:51 -0800 (PST) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > B2003 not really. a slow moving queue is easier to handle than a stop start one and there is no evidence that the time to pass a given point is either longer or shorter by either method. >> Problem is if everyone did that the queues length would grow far longer >> that it would otherwise have been and start blocking up junctions that it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >one and there is no evidence that the time to pass a given point is >either longer or shorter by either method. Ok , I'll put this in simple terms for you - if everyone leaves a long gap between the vehicle in front the queue becomes longer. A longer queue can potentially block more junctions or side roads. These in turn start to back up into other roads and cause problems there. Understand? B2003 >>> Problem is if everyone did that the queues length would grow far longer >>> that it would otherwise have been and start blocking up junctions that it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > B2003 I would prefer to be crwaling along at a snails pace rather than keep stop starting every few seconds. Bod > I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I > was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > remaining stationary while such a large gap exists ahead is taking > the piss. I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and then pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2. It's a favourite trick of truck drivers. Kev >> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will >> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, >> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them. > I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers > 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and then > pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2. > It's a favourite trick of truck drivers. Indeed. Often combined with the other trick of closing up very close to the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop bikes travelling down the gap between the miles and miles of stationery traffic David > >> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will > >> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > David Why is this a 'trick', personally I don't agree with it being a biker myself but I can't see any trickery involved, piss poor driving maybe . > >> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will > >> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop bikes travelling > down the gap between the miles and miles of stationery traffic Quite right. Bike shold take their place in queuing traffic like every other vehicle. McKevvy > > >> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will > > >> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > McKevvy Why >>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV >>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Why Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length of road as a car. They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers who have been patiently waiting to get through the bottle neck. In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the outside of a long queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you? Kev > >>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV > >>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Kev No because a bike DOESN'T take up the same amount of space as a car and by filtering won't increase the length of queue until the (usually short) single-carriageway section, after which everyone can be on their way. Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one of the perks of motorcycling... >>>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV >>>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > short) single-carriageway section, after which everyone can be on > their way. You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single lane swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on both sides. When the lights change, only so many vehicles out of the queue can cross the bridge at any one time. A sole bike, allowing for a safe distance in front of him, and a similar distance given by the driver behind him, will indeed take up almost as much length as a car. So every time a biker motors down the outside of the queue and then pushes in at the front he is pushing back a car driver who has been patiently queuing up to the bridge. > Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one of > the perks of motorcycling... It's simply bad manners and lack of consideration. Kev >>>>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV >>>>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Kev As long as the bikes are not impeding other vehicles, where's the problem? Bod >>>>>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV >>>>>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > As long as the bikes are not impeding other > vehicles, where's the problem? But they are! If only so many vehicles can get over the bridge per ATS change, and if a bike takes up as much length of road as a car, then every bike that motors down the outside of the queue, and then takes up a place in the line of cars going over the bridge, prevents one of the cars in the queue from getting on the bridge. I perhaps ought to mention that the layout at the bridge prevents bikes from getting to the front of the queue, they would have to cross the white line by the red traffic light to do that, and so they wait alongside the queue near the front and then 'push' in. Kev >>>>>>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV >>>>>>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Kev Oh, that's different. I was talking in general about normal roads. Bod Ret. submitted this idea : > But they are! If only so many vehicles can get over the bridge per ATS > change, and if a bike takes up as much length of road as a car, then every [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to cross the white line by the red traffic light to do that, and so they wait > alongside the queue near the front and then 'push' in. You are missing one important detail - even a small bike would leave you standing, therefore they are not really holding you up at all.  SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Ret. submitted this idea : >> But they are! If only so many vehicles can get over the bridge per [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You are missing one important detail - even a small bike would leave > you standing, therefore they are not really holding you up at all. No, I am not missing that important detail. They cannot leave anyone standing because they cannot get in front of the queue and cannot overtake on the bridge because it's too narrow. They can only slot in near the head of the queue and go over the bridge in single file with the other cars - so each bike that goes over the bridge prevents a queuing car from getting over the bridge when the lights change. Kev > You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single lane > swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on both sides. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the outside of the queue and then pushes in at the front he is pushing back > a car driver who has been patiently queuing up to the bridge. It is not the 2 wheeler who is causing the queue. If the car drivers were all on bikes, either powered or pedalled, the traffic lights would not be necessary. >> You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single >> lane swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If the car drivers were all on bikes, either powered or pedalled, the > traffic lights would not be necessary. LOL! Yes, you have a point. Kev In article <f9ec34a2-633c-4598-ac16-b023282f2db9 @g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, paul george says... > If the car drivers were all on bikes, either powered or pedalled, the > traffic lights would not be necessary. Two words: Vietnam, Hanoi. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. Ret. expressed precisely : > You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single lane > swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on both sides. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > outside of the queue and then pushes in at the front he is pushing back a car > driver who has been patiently queuing up to the bridge. A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car. Starting at the front of a queue they should leave all the cars way behind, so in what way do they hold anyone up or take up a space? >> >> Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one of >> the perks of motorcycling... > > It's simply bad manners and lack of consideration. Handling a bike is completely different thing to that of a car. Stop a bike and it falls over, so their riders generally prefer to come to an actual stop as infrequently as possible. They are very hard work in stop/go traffic. Imagine having to put your legs out every time you stop in your car, to prop it up. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Ret. expressed precisely : >> You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Starting at the front of a queue they should leave all the cars way > behind, so in what way do they hold anyone up or take up a space? Because they are *not* at the front of the queue. The only way they could get to the front of the queue would be by crossing the white line against the red traffic light. The nature of the road means that even sitting at the side of the queue, at the front, they would obstruct large vehicles coming over the bridge from the other side. All they can do is get *near* to the front of the queue and then slot in. >>> Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one >>> of the perks of motorcycling... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stop/go traffic. Imagine having to put your legs out every time you > stop in your car, to prop it up. I was biker in my teens. I then grew up and got some sense! Kev Ret. formulated on Wednesday : > Because they are *not* at the front of the queue. The only way they could get > to the front of the queue would be by crossing the white line against the red > traffic light. The nature of the road means that even sitting at the side of > the queue, at the front, they would obstruct large vehicles coming over the > bridge from the other side. All they can do is get *near* to the front of the > queue and then slot in. OK, now I understand. There is a similar bridge near here and what I do (on the bike) is tuck in close to the front, then just before the lights change pull out and up to the front. Usually I hit the far side of the bridge before the first vehicle has started to really move. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk >A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car. Dream on. 5th gear did a drag race between an F1 car and a racing bike a few years back - up to about 100ish they were almost equal , after that the F1 car just left the bike for dead. And that was a *racing* bike, not a road bike, going in a straight line. Through a corner the bike wouldn't have stood a chance at any speed. I'm sure its on youtube somewhere. B2003 On 5 Nov, 10:13, boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:41:02 GMT > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > B2003 Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just about everything else in the mirror. >Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just >about everything else in the mirror. He said: "A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car" Sorry , but thats bollocks. A racing bike might be able to hold its own with an F1 car in certain situations but a road bike wouldn't stand a chance. B2003 >> Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just >> about everything else in the mirror. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > B2003 Have to disagree, several road bikes on the market would compare to an F1 car in accelleration up to about 100mph. Bod >>> Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just >>> about everything else in the mirror. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >would compare to an F1 car in accelleration up to >about 100mph. BS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_cars#Forward_acceleration The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):[citation needed] 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds 0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds 0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds* Show me road bike that can get to 124mph in under 4 seconds. B2003 >>>> Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just >>>> about everything else in the mirror. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > B2003 Ok, but give me a few years though. :-) Bod >>>>> Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just >>>>> about everything else in the mirror. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Bod I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in 5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where). Bod > I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in > 5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where). Drag racers do better than that. In 5.3 seconds, a top fueller will be at >300MPH. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. >> I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in >> 5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where). >> > Drag racers do better than that. In 5.3 seconds, a top fueller will be > at >300MPH. Fair enough, but I was talking about a street legal bike. Bod > In article <7lftc1F3cmhv...@mid.individual.net>, Bod says... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Drag racers do better than that. In 5.3 seconds, a top fueller will be > at >300MPH. I like the fact that if you got a Veyron up to full speed, then let a top fueller go as Veryon came past at 253mph, the top fueller would *still* beat it over the next 1/4 mile from a standing start.. Mike P >> I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in >> 5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where). >> >Drag racers do better than that. In 5.3 seconds, a top fueller will be >at >300MPH. I read somewhere that top fuel dragsters are the fastest accelerating manned vehicle in the world if you don't count some tests with rocket sleds. B2003 >> Ok, but give me a few years though. :-) >> >> Bod > >I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in >5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where). Thrown off a cliff? ;) Actually Fifth gear did test some road bike , might have been the above, that did 0-100 in 6 seconds. Certainly bang for buck you can't beat a high powered road bike. B2003 > Actually Fifth gear did test some road bike , might have been the above, > that did 0-100 in 6 seconds. Certainly bang for buck you can't beat a high > powered road bike. My problem is that I like the security of four wheels. A Caterham 7 can do 0-60 in 3 seconds and an Atom, equally quickly. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. In article <12bbcc02-616f-44c0-8539- d17705c9955c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, NM says... > Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just > about everything else in the mirror. Err, no. The only reason the bike kept up in that Ch5 drag race (Was on Dave last week) was because Jenson said he couldn't put all the power down because it was a race done on a private bit of industrial land, not a proper race track. Once he was able to put the power down, he left the bike for dead. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk used his keyboard to write : > Dream on. 5th gear did a drag race between an F1 car and a racing bike > a few years back - up to about 100ish they were almost equal , Which was pretty much what I said. > after that the > F1 car just left the bike for dead. Which is what you would expect, due to the poor ability of a bike to cut through the air. However 100mph might seem just a bit too quick on Kev's bridge. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk on 04/11/2009, Ret. supposed : > It's simply bad manners and lack of consideration. So how the police trained riders do exactly the same? SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of > vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Kev It's a perk of riding a bike. If I had a bike then I would take advantage of it's smaller size and ability to get into a gap that a car could not. Nobody has to drop back to make space for the bike so they haven't been affected. I prefer a car though which has the perk of protecting me from the weather. If a biker can safely get into some space ahead of me in a queue then he or she is more than welcome. Bob >> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of >> vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Bob Agreed, it's no skin off my nose. Bod >>> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of >>> vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Agreed, it's no skin off my nose. It may be if you are in rush to get home and keep getting pushed farther back from crossing the single lane bridge by bikers pushing in. Kev Ret. was thinking very hard : > It may be if you are in rush to get home and keep getting pushed farther back > from crossing the single lane bridge by bikers pushing in. Oh come on... Its cold, its wet and miserable out there. There are hardly droves of bikers out on your bridge. The poor sods hand are frozen to the handle bars, show some sympthy :-) SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk Ret. used his keyboard to write : > Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of vehicles, a > bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length of road as a car. > They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers who have been patiently > waiting to get through the bottle neck. A bike needn't take up any in line space, if other vehicle's drivers know how to cooperate by keeping to the side. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk >>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV >>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > road as a car. They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers who > have been patiently waiting to get through the bottle neck. Bikes are allowed to filter though. > In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the outside of a > long queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you? Yes, I do it whenever possible! I can't see the sense in merging 800 yards before the obstruction like everyone else seems to and sitting for ages. > > I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I > > was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Kev It's entirely legal so why is it a trick. >>> I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I >>> was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > It's entirely legal so why is it a trick. TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing. When I've been patiently queuing in Lane 1 to get to a point where Lane 2 merges into Lane 1, it ticks me off no end to see drivers whizzing past me and then getting into Lane 1 ahead of me. Having said that, using a truck to deliberately block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is *not* entirely legal! Kev Ret. used his keyboard to write : > TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing. When I've been > patiently queuing in Lane 1 to get to a point where Lane 2 merges into Lane > 1, it ticks me off no end to see drivers whizzing past me and then getting > into Lane 1 ahead of me. Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly. > Having said that, using a truck to deliberately > block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is *not* > entirely legal! Drivers have been 'done' for doing it. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly. Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before roadworks) are *frequently* sabotaged by truckers deliberately blocking lane 2. Peter >> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly. > > Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before roadworks) are > *frequently* sabotaged by truckers deliberately blocking lane 2. That does not stop the traffic using both lanes when queueing. >>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That does not stop the traffic using both lanes when queueing. Really? How does that work with a big truck in the way? Peter >>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly. >>> Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Really? How does that work with a big truck in the way? Some of the traffic uses one lane, and some of it the other. Some of it in front of the big truck, some of it behind. >>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Really? How does that work with a big truck in the way? Provided the people front of the truck don't merge into L1 early, it works fine. >>>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Provided the people front of the truck don't merge into L1 early, it > works fine. How did the people in front of the truck get there? Peter >>>>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > How did the people in front of the truck get there? Drove? It's one of the very basic bits of the driving test - if you can't steer and control your forward speed enough to get out of the test centre car park, you're really not going to get a licence. >>>>>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > can't steer and control your forward speed enough to get out of the > test centre car park, you're really not going to get a licence. Through the truck, or over the top? Peter > Ret. used his keyboard to write : >> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing. When I've been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly. I agree - but is there any such thing as a 'sensible zip merge'? It would work perfectly if all drivers co-operated with each other - but they don't! If, say, it's a lane 2 closure, many drivers will want to get into lane 1 asap because they know if they get near the closure in lane 2, they will have difficulty getting into lane 1 because drivers who have been queueing are reluctant to let them in. This means that the queue in lane 1 gets longer and longer and drivers who *are* prepared to take the chance of getting in, whizz down lane 2, right up to the closure and begin to edge their way in. >> Having said that, using a truck to deliberately >> block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is >> *not* entirely legal! > > Drivers have been 'done' for doing it. Indeed. All it does, really, is move the lane closure further back! Kev >> Ret. used his keyboard to write : >>> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing. When I've [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > *are* prepared to take the chance of getting in, whizz down lane 2, > right up to the closure and begin to edge their way in. Exactly, the problem is caused not by vehicles staying in the 2nd lane, its caused by vehicles moving to the first lane early instead of driving up to the obstruction and then zip merging. >>> Having said that, using a truck to deliberately >>> block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Indeed. All it does, really, is move the lane closure further back! No. That is caused by the vehicles at the front sitting in a single file. If half the vehicles were to move into the empty lane then the queue would then become correspondingly shorter. The traffic flow past the obstruction is usually fairly constant, the approach to the obstruction is a null end game, any vehicle managing to get past the obstruction faster by passing other vehicles means that the rest of the vehicles will take longer to pass the obstruction. -- Geoff >>> Ret. used his keyboard to write : >>>> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing. When I've [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > get past the obstruction faster by passing other vehicles means that the > rest of the vehicles will take longer to pass the obstruction. What is needed is more public education about using both lanes until the lane closure and then zip-merging. There are a lot of people with the misconception that a sign indicating a lane closure in 600m means that people should move out of that lane ASAP. I too was one of those people who thought that at one time but I now realise that it is better if everyone uses both lanes up to the point where the traffic merges into a single lane. <SNIP> > What is needed is more public education about using both lanes until > the lane closure and then zip-merging. There are a lot of people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it is better if everyone uses both lanes up to the point where the > traffic merges into a single lane. Hallelujah brother :-) -- Geoff >>>> Ret. used his keyboard to write : >>>>> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing. When I've [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > it is better if everyone uses both lanes up to the point where the > traffic merges into a single lane. It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in. Many wont and so you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion for you! Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..." Kev >>>>> Ret. used his keyboard to write : >>>>>> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing. When I've [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Kev That does happen but unlike some drivers, I just patiently wait until there is a safe opportunity to merge. I don't drive a BMW you see! > It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 > closure, and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in. Many > wont and so you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have > compassion for you! Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past > me while I was patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let > him in..." So, don't whizz as you go past. Ret. used his keyboard to write : > It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, and > you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in. Many wont and so you > are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion for you! Most > of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was patiently > queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..." That is not the way it happens. Two lanes, with queues in both, your merge (if you have joined the shorter lane) will be in front or behind the vehicle you have been alongside for some while. I always zip and never have any bother getting in, all I do is try to appear not that desperate to get in and leave a gap ahead of me prior to merging. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Ret. used his keyboard to write : >> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > try to appear not that desperate to get in and leave a gap ahead of me > prior to merging. I find it amusing seeing some drivers virtually touching the cones before trying to merge. > > Ret. used his keyboard to write : > >> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I find it amusing seeing some drivers virtually touching the cones before > trying to merge. You must have been behind them as they merged then. On 5 Nov, 10:41, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > "Harry Bloomfield" <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I find it amusing seeing some drivers virtually touching the cones before > trying to merge. You must have been behind them as they merged then. -------- Adjacent lane smartarse. > On 5 Nov, 10:41, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Adjacent lane smartarse. then why were they merging, 3 down to two with you in the slow lane perhaps, then they were still ahead of you. > It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, > and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in. Many wont and so > you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion for you! > Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was > patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..." The more people zip merge, the more they get used to it. Currently it's a no-brainer - you can't lose by going up the empty lane, so do so. It's clueless drivers like you and Bod who create the problems by merging early. While you persist in your behaviour, there will be an opportunity for people to "queue jump" at your expense. If you change your behaviour, you either gain or better yet, create a situation where there aren't inequities between the queues, and we have proper zip merging. Those of us who are already zip merging have discovered your worries are baseless - we can and have merged at the closure many times. (ways to make this work include : Not taking the piss and roaring up and diving at the last minute - roll up to the closure point at a similar speed to the other lane, so your merge is planned. Being prepared to drop back a car if the person you're planning to merge in front of is being a tit - if you plan your merge you can see if they are sufficently early that you can put a backup plan into action). >> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, >> and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in. Many wont and so [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > you plan your merge you can see if they are sufficently early that you can > put a backup plan into action). Back to reality, I've seen on many occasions, the cars in lane 1 not letting lane 2 in because lane 1 drivers (rightly or wrongly) are thinking, sod you trying to push in. That is often what happens in real life. Bod >>> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 >>> closure, and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in. Many [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > thinking, sod you trying to push in. That is often what happens in real > life. I'm reminded of a Phill Nice sketch (remember that rubber-faced impressionist from the 1990s) in which he described the L1 driver staring fixedly ahead and totally ignoring the guy who was trying to push in: "I can neither see you or hear you. You do not exist." ;-) [Default] On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:03:55 -0000, a certain chimpanzee, >I'm reminded of a Phill Nice sketch (remember that rubber-faced >impressionist from the 1990s) in which he described the L1 driver staring >fixedly ahead and totally ignoring the guy who was trying to push in: "I can >neither see you or hear you. You do not exist." ;-) Which sounds very similar to a Jasper Carrott routine of the early 1980s about Spaghetti Junction. SignatureHugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have I strayed"? > [Default] On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:03:55 -0000, a certain chimpanzee, > >> I'm reminded of a Phill Nice sketch (remember that rubber-faced >> impressionist from the 1990s) in which he described the L1 driver staring >> fixedly ahead and totally ignoring the guy who was trying to push in: "I can >> neither see you or hear you. You do not exist." ;-) Phil Cool, I think... "And anyway... I can't let you in... because I haven't seen you... stay out there and rot..." > Which sounds very similar to a Jasper Carrott routine of the early > 1980s about Spaghetti Junction. >> [Default] On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:03:55 -0000, a certain chimpanzee, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Phil Cool, I think... Yup. Theres a man whose TV career nosedived spectacularly. Doing silly faces obviously has a short shelf life in this country though the americans obviously still find it hilarious otherwise I'm at a loss to explain the success of Jim Carrey since the man is about as funny as cancer. B2003 >>> [Default] On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:03:55 -0000, a certain chimpanzee, >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > obviously still find it hilarious otherwise I'm at a loss to explain the > success of Jim Carrey since the man is about as funny as cancer. Really? We love his films and laugh non stop through them. -- MrBitsy >>>> [Default] On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:03:55 -0000, a certain chimpanzee, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Really? We love his films and laugh non stop through them. Which just proves that .. one man's meat is another man's poison. I am backing the poison option :-) Mike P > > Yup. Theres a man whose TV career nosedived spectacularly. Doing silly faces > > obviously has a short shelf life in this country though the americans > > obviously still find it hilarious otherwise I'm at a loss to explain the > > success of Jim Carrey since the man is about as funny as cancer. > > Really? We love his films and laugh non stop through them. Why am I not surprised by that? >> > Yup. Theres a man whose TV career nosedived spectacularly. Doing >> > silly faces obviously has a short shelf life in this country though [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why am I not surprised by that? What makes you laugh Steve? > >> > Yup. Theres a man whose TV career nosedived spectacularly. Doing > >> > silly faces obviously has a short shelf life in this country though [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What makes you laugh Steve? Mostly, retards on Usenet. Some twat pulling faces doesn't. > Back to reality, I've seen on many occasions, the cars in lane 1 not > letting lane 2 in because lane 1 drivers (rightly or wrongly) are > thinking, sod you trying to push in. That is often what happens in real > life. Your reality seems to be somewhat at odds with mine, and various other posters here. It only takes one sane person to let somebody in - there aren't that many nutters about. It's your loss, not mine - you can either join us, and zip merge properly, or sit there grumbling about "queue jumpers". >> Back to reality, I've seen on many occasions, the cars in lane 1 not >> letting lane 2 in because lane 1 drivers (rightly or wrongly) are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's your loss, not mine - you can either join us, and zip merge properly, > or sit there grumbling about "queue jumpers". I said *I've seen*, I actually let drivers in. Bod >>> Back to reality, I've seen on many occasions, the cars in lane 1 not >>> letting lane 2 in because lane 1 drivers (rightly or wrongly) are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> properly, or sit there grumbling about "queue jumpers". > I said *I've seen*, I actually let drivers in. I wasn't claiming you didn't let drivers in. The thing is, the majority of people are like you in that respect, so worrying about being stuck in L2 is baseless. Mr Benn laid this down on his screen : > What is needed is more public education about using both lanes until the lane > closure and then zip-merging. There are a lot of people with the > misconception that a sign indicating a lane closure in 600m means that people > should move out of that lane ASAP. I too was one of those people who thought > that at one time but I now realise that it is better if everyone uses both > lanes up to the point where the traffic merges into a single lane. ..and to be fair, so was I :D Now I join whever lane is the shorter and zip at the obstruction. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk >>> I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I >>> was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > It's entirely legal so why is it a trick. It is not legal to obstruct the highway. >> I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I >> was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2. > It's a favourite illegal trick of truck drivers. I corrected your post for you. > I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will > sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, remaining [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely remaining stationary > while such a large gap exists ahead is taking the piss. It is. And that's from an ex-lorry driver. If the driver wants to block off a lane, he should join the Police and become a traffic officer. Until then, either drive up to the merge point or get out of the way. SignatureConor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. > In article <c5GdnVttKYsy2G3XnZ2dnUVZ8kCdn...@brightview.co.uk>, Martin > says... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. Unless I have the wrong end of the stick nobody is talking about blocking lanes >> In article <c5GdnVttKYsy2G3XnZ2dnUVZ8kCdn...@brightview.co.uk>, >> Martin says... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Unless I have the wrong end of the stick nobody is talking about > blocking lanes Yes they are. What happens is this: There is a lane closure in lane 2 up ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the closure. Other drivers whiz up in lane 2, pass those drivers who are patiently queueing in lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they get to the closure. Truck drivers in lane 1 often straddle the line between lane 1 and 2 to prevent cars passing them in lane 2. They also often work in pairs with a truck blocking lane 2 and then being allowed back into lane 1 by his 'mate' when they reach the closure. Kev > Yes they are. What happens is this: There is a lane closure in lane 2 up > ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the closure. Other > drivers whiz up in lane 2, pass those drivers who are patiently queueing > in lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they get to the closure. you call it "pushing in", some of us would see it as making use of a gap to keep the traffic flowing. james >> Yes they are. What happens is this: There is a lane closure in lane >> 2 up ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you call it "pushing in", some of us would see it as making use of a > gap to keep the traffic flowing. Would you do the same thing in a post office queue? Making use of the empty floor space next the main queue in order to keep the people flowing? Kev >> you call it "pushing in", some of us would see it as making use of a >> gap to keep the traffic flowing. > >Would you do the same thing in a post office queue? Making use of the empty >floor space next the main queue in order to keep the people flowing? If the post office had marked queing lanes on the floor that merged into one further ahead then people would form multiple queues and they wouldn't be so stupid as to all queue in one lane if the other was empty. The fuckwittedness of some drivers who seem to think that because they were stupid enough to queue for 10 mins when they could have driven down an empty lane then get pissed off because someone else does just that never cease to amaze me. B2003 >>> you call it "pushing in", some of us would see it as making use of a >>> gap to keep the traffic flowing. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > B2003 Because it is tantamount to pushing in. Bod Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> If the post office had marked queing lanes on the floor that merged >> into one further ahead then people would form multiple queues and they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> have driven down an empty lane then get pissed off because someone else >> does just that never cease to amaze me. > Because it is tantamount to pushing in. So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/ supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join the short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that till empty until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"? > Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that till empty > until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"? That's a different analogy, that is two exit points, we're talking about 1 exit point merging from 2 queues. Bod Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/ >> supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join the >> short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that till >> empty until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"? > That's a different analogy, that is two exit points, we're talking about > 1 exit point merging from 2 queues. <sigh> It's the same difference. Think of the tills as the point at which the traffic merges, and "being served" as joining the single lane through the roadworks. > Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the traffic merges, and "being served" as joining the single lane through > the roadworks. A better analogy would be two toll booths. There would be two choices at the end of two queues for two toll booths, but when there's 2 queues of traffic trying to get into one lane, there's only one outlet at the end of the two. Bod Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/ >>>> supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join >>>> the short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that >>>> till empty until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"? >>> That's a different analogy, that is two exit points, we're talking >>> about 1 exit point merging from 2 queues. >> <sigh> It's the same difference. Think of the tills as the point at >> which the traffic merges, and "being served" as joining the single lane >> through the roadworks. > A better analogy would be two toll booths. There would be two choices at > the end of two queues for two toll booths, but when there's 2 queues of > traffic trying to get into one lane, there's only one outlet at the end > of the two. Fine. <shrugs, points to "or whatever" above.> So - you join the long queue. You join the long queue. I, later, join the short queue. Unless I wait for your barrier to rise before pulling away, am I "pushing in"? > Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > short queue. Unless I wait for your barrier to rise before pulling away, > am I "pushing in"? No. Bod Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> A better analogy would be two toll booths. There would be two choices >>> at the end of two queues for two toll booths, but when there's 2 >>> queues of traffic trying to get into one lane, there's only one outlet >>> at the end of the two. >> Fine. <shrugs, points to "or whatever" above.> >> >> So - you join the long queue. You join the long queue. I, later, join >> the short queue. Unless I wait for your barrier to rise before pulling >> away, am I "pushing in"? > No. So what's the difference? > Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > So what's the difference? Can't you see that the motorway scenario is 2 separate queues merging into, say> 1 toll booth? So, in effect, a driver in the correct lane for the single booth waits patiently in the booth lane and anyone in other lanes have to push in or be let in to that booth lane. Bod >> So what's the difference? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and anyone in other lanes have to push in or be >let in to that booth lane. There was an M&S in moorgate in london that DID have 2 queues for 1 bank of tills, presumably because it prevented 1 long queue from snaking around the shop. The queueing points were marked and people naturally joined both queues. What they didn't do was queue in one and leave the other free. At least not when I used it. B2003 After serious thinking Bod wrote : > Can't you see that the motorway scenario is 2 separate queues merging into, > say> 1 toll booth? > So, in effect, a driver in the correct lane for the single booth waits > patiently in the booth lane and anyone in other lanes have to push in or be > let in to that booth lane. The alternative is for all fair minded drivers, to queue in your one lane which is the lane which is the only one open at the roadworks. Lets say 95% of them are fair minded. The 5% of unfair ones still go charging down in the closed lane and no doubt someone will let them in - but there will be lots of conflict. Not a very fair system is it, with all this cheating. The fair way is for both lanes to be filled up evenly, which completely prevents any cheating and everyone merges sweetly where it goes down to one lane. Because no one is cheating, the merge happens without any conflict. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > After serious thinking Bod wrote : >> Can't you see that the motorway scenario is 2 separate queues [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > goes down to one lane. Because no one is cheating, the merge happens > without any conflict. I agree 100% - but it's only fair if drivers in the two lanes co-operate at the merge point! Kev > After serious thinking Bod wrote : >> Can't you see that the motorway scenario is 2 separate queues merging [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > one lane. Because no one is cheating, the merge happens without any > conflict. Better still if there is plenty of warning and traffic gets into one lane in plenty of time, nerging while the traffic is still flowing freely. The single lane can then flow freely through the restriction, because there is no need for everyone to slow to a crawl to allow merging to take place at the last minute. Very often you see traffic flowing well, then it becomes almost stationary due to merging, and then once it's a single lane it speed up again to whatever speed limit has been imposed for the single or narrow lane. Merging only works *well* if it does not slow both streams of traffic to a crawl while it takes place. > Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that till > empty until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"? Ah - but there isn't two 'tills' in the road situation - there's only one - ie only one lane open at the closure point. Kev >> Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >> were saying: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Kev If you think about it, whether all cars use lane 1 or all cars use both lanes and merge into one. The flow will always be the same volume in lane 1. The only advantage gained, is by the ones pushing in at the closure point. I would have more sympathy for a driver trying to merge into lane 1 at about 300yds before the closure and would be more prepared to let him in, as opposed to them going as far as they can to the closure point. Bod >If you think about it, whether all cars use lane 1 > or all cars use both lanes and merge into one. >The flow will always be the same volume in lane 1. >The only advantage gained, is by the ones pushing >in at the closure point. And considerably shortening the queue. Perhaps everyone should start queuing in one lane 10 miles before the roadworks? Wouldn't want to push in front now would we? > I would have more sympathy for a driver trying >to merge into lane 1 at about 300yds before the >closure and would be more prepared to let him in, >as opposed to them going as far as they can to the >closure point. What difference does it make to you if he goes in front at 300 yards or 0 yards? B2003 >> If you think about it, whether all cars use lane 1 >> or all cars use both lanes and merge into one. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > B2003 It just seems that they are taking de piss for some reason.You have to remember that plenty of drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into lane 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to cheat, that's the way it feels anyway. Bod Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > It just seems that they are taking de piss for some reason.You have to > remember that plenty of drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into > lane 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to cheat, that's the way it > feels anyway. Yeh, just like all those people who join the queue next to you in the supermarket, even though your queue's longer, so they get served first. Bastards. Cheats. > Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > supermarket, even though your queue's longer, so they get served first. > Bastards. Cheats. Totally different, there is not two queues merging into one till. Bod Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Yeh, just like all those people who join the queue next to you in the >> supermarket, even though your queue's longer, so they get served first. >> Bastards. Cheats. > Totally different, there is not two queues merging into one till. Does it matter? He arrived after you, but will be served and leave first. > Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > He arrived after you, but will be served and leave first. Let's put it this way; if you had waited in a queue for a till for 10 minutes and just before you got served, someone came along beside you and pushed in front of you, would you not care? Bod >> Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >> saying: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >you got served, someone came along beside you and >pushed in front of you, would you not care? FFS. That scenario is the same as someone using the hard shoulder to get to the front of the queue. Its not the same as someone perfectly legally and correctly driving down an empty lane. B2003 Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Totally different, there is not two queues merging into one till. >> Does it matter? >> >> He arrived after you, but will be served and leave first. > Let's put it this way; if you had waited in a queue for a till for 10 > minutes and just before you got served, someone came along beside you > and pushed in front of you, would you not care? An analogy closer to some tit blatting down the shoulder to get past the queue. If there was two clearly marked lines, one of which was empty, then - no - it'd be my own f.cking silly fault. on 04/11/2009, Bod supposed : > Let's put it this way; if you had waited in a queue for a till for 10 minutes > and just before you got served, someone came along beside you and pushed in > front of you, would you not care? Yes of course, but on the road there are two lanes, two queues both waiting to get in one till or lane. Fill both lanes and it all becomes very fair. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > on 04/11/2009, Bod supposed : >> Let's put it this way; if you had waited in a queue for a till for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > waiting to get in one till or lane. Fill both lanes and it all becomes > very fair. So long as the drivers in both lanes co-operate with each other. Often they don't! Kev Ret. used his keyboard to write : > So long as the drivers in both lanes co-operate with each other. Often they > don't! But filling both lanes, so neither has any advantage removes the element of competition. Then you see the co-ordinated and slick merge take place. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk >It just seems that they are taking de piss for >some reason.You have to remember that plenty of >drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into >lane 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to >cheat, that's the way it feels anyway. So? Nothings stopping you doing the same. I could understand your point if you had an alloted lane you had to sit in but you don't. If theres an empty lane then drive down it - it don't see the issue. B2003 >> It just seems that they are taking de piss for >> some reason.You have to remember that plenty of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > B2003 I take your point but somehow it seems like cheating. Bod >> It just seems that they are taking de piss for >> some reason.You have to remember that plenty of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > point if you had an alloted lane you had to sit in but you don't. If > theres an empty lane then drive down it - it don't see the issue. The reason that many drivers don't do this is because they know that when they reach the obstruction, they will be relying on the good will of lane 1 drivers (who have been patiently waiting) to let them in. They know that many will regard them as queue jumpers and just not let them in. Right or wrong, that is their thinking - and that is why they join the lane 1 queue further back. Kev >drivers (who have been patiently waiting) to let them in. They know that >many will regard them as queue jumpers and just not let them in. Right or >wrong, that is their thinking - and that is why they join the lane 1 queue >further back. Yes , you're probably right. Theres a section of the A406 where 3 lanes merge into 2 and even though everyone uses all lanes there are still people in the centre lane who refuse to let people from the outside lane merge in at the end. I was slowly merging in behind another car last year and some bint in a people carrier tried to go around me! When she realised that I didn't give a rats arse if the banger I was driving got an extra few dents from her shiny new bratmobile she backed off. Stupid c**. B2003 After serious thinking Bod wrote : > It just seems that they are taking de piss for some reason.You have to > remember that plenty of drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into lane > 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to cheat, that's the way it feels > anyway. Bod - the sensible and fairest way all round is to fill both lanes to capacity right up to the point of the merge. No one can then gain any advantage or jump the queue - the problem resolves itself. Try it and report back. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > If you think about it, whether all cars use lane 1 or all cars use both > lanes and merge into one. The flow will always be the same volume in > lane 1. Er, No. The only advantage gained, is by the ones pushing in at the > closure point. There is an advantage if the traffic maintains exactly the same order but spreads over two lanes instead of one. > Because it is tantamount to pushing in. Well there's the view of the stupid faction as endorsed by the stupid party and too blind too lok through a windscreen crew. So where, in your opinion, is the back of the queue? Should every driver constantly look for the longest queue of non-moving traffic and join that? What happens when, as often does, the queue is so long that the lane restrictions cannot be seen? If you come across a queue of traffic in (say) lane 1 but lanes 2 and 3 are free flowing do you just join the queue and ignore the empty lanes? And what informs the driver that this is what they must do? It's also mildly amusing that both you and Kevin "God's gift to driving" Lunn have never heard of the term "zip merge." Nor yet it seems have either of you read the large signs that the HA puts up in advance of lane restrictions that read "USE ALL LANES THEN MERGE IN TURN" What do you think that means, eh, dingleberrybrain? >> Because it is tantamount to pushing in. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It's also mildly amusing that both you and Kevin "God's gift to driving" > Lunn have never heard of the term "zip merge." I'm sure that when I was in either Holland (or Germany?) a few years ago, they actually had signs up with what translated as "merge like a zip" on them. Mike P > >> Because it is tantamount to pushing in. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Mike P There were a series of ad's on Dutch TV showing an overhead view of the same junction, one view with push and let in merging and another view with zip merging the difference on throughput was quite considerable, much greater than I had supposed it would be. >> If the post office had marked queing lanes on the floor that merged into >> one further ahead then people would form multiple queues and they wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >Because it is tantamount to pushing in. No it isn't - pushing in is jumping a queue. A 3 lane motorway is 3 queues until it merges. If some drivers want to sit in the long queue instead of one of the shorter ones thats their choice. Do people queuing to get into a football match or exhibition all queue at the same turnstile? No, they wouldn't be that thick. And yes it is the same situation because people who got in first on a shorter queue might get better seats and so have an advantage. B2003 Ret. wrote : >>> Yes they are. What happens is this: There is a lane closure in lane >>> 2 up ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Would you do the same thing in a post office queue? Making use of the empty > floor space next the main queue in order to keep the people flowing? I often do see two parallel queues going up to the PO counter, which zip merge when the queue arrives at the counter. I also see it at Mc D's. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk >> Unless I have the wrong end of the stick nobody is talking about >> blocking lanes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >queueing in lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they get to the >closure. Therefore they are making use of the road available to them. When do you suggest that they stop using L2? 100m, 500m, 1000m before the closure of the lane? Or at the point of closure where they can zip merger into L1. Your description above sounds like the latter which seems to make sense, the only problem with that is all the lemmings in L1 complaining about people using L2 where it is still open to traffic. These same lemmings then steadfastly block those in L2 from zip merging into L1. A bit more courtesy and give and take in this sort of situation would go a long way to keeping traffic moving. Do you have to have BIG signs saying "Please zip merge" or should it be down to common sense? At the end of the day it does not make a lot of difference to journey time but it does make a lot of difference to peoples blood pressure. >Truck drivers in lane 1 often straddle the line between lane 1 and 2 to >prevent cars passing them in lane 2. They also often work in pairs with >a truck blocking lane 2 and then being allowed back into lane 1 by his >'mate' when they reach the closure. I saw 2 trucks on the M6 a while back straddling L1/L2 and L2/L3 to hold up everything behind some 3 or 4 miles before the signed closure of L3. An interesting manoeuvre...... One did have blue LED's on his dash so that probably made it OK?? SignatureBill > In message <rLidnYMAfoL8EW3XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@pipex.net>, Ret. > Do you have to have BIG signs saying "Please zip merge" or should it be > down to common sense? IMO, big signs needed. The sooner the better. "Common sense" doesn't exist when it comes to lane merging. Every day I witness bad tempered aggro caused at two roundabouts near me where two lanes exiting the roundabout merge into one. A few signs reminding folk to merge in turn would ease traffic flow and tempers enormously. Tim > I saw 2 trucks on the M6 a while back straddling L1/L2 and L2/L3 to > hold up everything behind some 3 or 4 miles before the signed closure > of L3. An interesting manoeuvre...... Why, they are following the correct procedure, its the vehicles in front who all stay in one lane who make the whole queue longer, if half of them moved into the empty lane then the queue would get shorter and every body would get past the obstruction quicker. -- Geoff > > In message <rLidnYMAfoL8EW3XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dn...@pipex.net>, Ret. > > <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Geoff But if a truck is straddling both of the available lanes, and moving at the pace of the slowest, then nobody can get into the empty lane! The result is miles of empty, available road being blocked by a self appointed traffic policeman in a truck. Steve. >>> In message <rLidnYMAfoL8EW3XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dn...@pipex.net>, Ret. >>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The result is miles of empty, available road being blocked by a self > appointed traffic policeman in a truck. Try reading my post again, especially the bit about cars in front of the truck using up the empty lane. -- Geoff I followed a little red Nissan for ten miles down tiny little N Yorks back roads this morning. I usually expect these cars and their owners, not to make much if any progress, but this one was not only making good progress, its driver knew how to make full use of the sight lines to maintain speed and safety through the bends. Little use of brakes and all the appropriate signals and positioning. I followed it all the way almost into Ripon centre, where it branched off about a mile out. I got into the centre, to find this red Nissan rejoin me, but behind me and from my left. I was in shock as I took a good look at the driver who's driving I had not faulted for ten miles. I took a quick glance as I passed her on my left - it was a little old lady. She then followed me into local supermarket car park chose herself a spot and reverse parked it with amazing deterity - impressed I certainly was. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > I followed a little red Nissan for ten miles down tiny little N Yorks > back roads this morning. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > into local supermarket car park chose herself a spot and reverse parked > it with amazing deterity - impressed I certainly was. You sure it wasn't Clarkson in drag? :-) Bod >> I followed a little red Nissan for ten miles down tiny little N Yorks >> back roads this morning. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > You sure it wasn't Clarkson in drag? :-) What? You think Clarkson drives according to Roadcraft? Kev It happens that Harry Bloomfield formulated : > I followed a little red Nissan for ten miles down tiny little N Yorks back > roads this morning. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > supermarket car park chose herself a spot and reverse parked it with amazing > deterity - impressed I certainly was. Sorry about that, it was meant to be a fresh thread. New thread started. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk On 4 Nov, 17:29, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > It happens that Harry Bloomfield formulated : > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Sorry about that, it was meant to be a fresh thread. New thread > started. It showed up as a new thread in Pan on my newsreader at home, but not on GG this morning. I replied to the "new" thread I saw.. Mike P >>> In article <c5GdnVttKYsy2G3XnZ2dnUVZ8kCdn...@brightview.co.uk>, >>> Martin says... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > queueing in lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they get to the > closure. ...following the advice "merge in turn" (and keeping the queue shorter rather than longer, thereby reducing the likelihood of tailbacks obstructing junctions farer back which need not be affected)... >>>> In article <c5GdnVttKYsy2G3XnZ2dnUVZ8kCdn...@brightview.co.uk>, >>>> Martin says... [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > tailbacks obstructing junctions farer back which need not be > affected)... I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just stating things as they are, rather than as we would all like them to be! Kev |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.