+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 120 of 120

Thread: Merge in turn? No way pal!

  1. #101

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shitpeas View Post
    I think dml has missed the point a bit. I don't think anyone on this thread has ever advocated or suggested tearing up the empty lane and swerving in at the last minute! It's all about drivers in BOTH lanes keeping a reasonable distance apart and reducing their speed as the lane closed ahead markers reduce from 800, 600 etc allowing people to merge, hopefully keeping the traffic flowing and avoiding unnecessarily blocking up junctions and roundabouts for hundreds of yards or even miles behind. I prefer using common sense rather than some misguided sense of righteousness.
    You beat me to it, Baz. Sense at last! Well said, that man.

  2. #102

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by El Horno View Post
    There are a lot of holes in your rationale. The lane is not blocked until it becomes blocked - if there are say 100 meters to go until the lane is blocked then it is to be used. People are not always racing along, sometimes they are travelling at the appropriate speed. In the example Barry and myself use above, the traffic is bumper to bumper and moves at walking pace causing a tailback onto a very busy roundabout. I drive along the empty lane, signal appropriately near the end of the lane and if no one lets me in, I stop and wait patiently. I am not causing anyone to slow down or stop and am not contributing to the tailback - quite the opposite. I don't do it for my own means but because as an advanced driver it is the correct thing to do. Much the same as joining a motorway, you are supposed to use all the road not cut across the chevrons when other drivers are not expecting it or before they have a chance to see you signalling that you are joining. We do have an odd sense of fairness in this country.
    There you go, I've got no problem at all with that as long as you understand that you come in to MY lane if I allow it

    Here's a tip too, just passively indicate is your best bet. Just trying to push in whilst indicating just ain't going to work I'm afraid even if you are an "advanced" driver.

    Unfortunately the passive indication isn't going to help if you drive a BMW or a taxi I'm afraid but then you wouldn't be doing that if you drove either would you!

  3. #103

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by El Horno View Post
    There are a lot of holes in your rationale. The lane is not blocked until it becomes blocked - if there are say 100 meters to go until the lane is blocked then it is to be used. People are not always racing along, sometimes they are travelling at the appropriate speed. In the example Barry and myself use above, the traffic is bumper to bumper and moves at walking pace causing a tailback onto a very busy roundabout. I drive along the empty lane, signal appropriately near the end of the lane and if no one lets me in, I stop and wait patiently. I am not causing anyone to slow down or stop and am not contributing to the tailback - quite the opposite. I don't do it for my own means but because as an advanced driver it is the correct thing to do. Much the same as joining a motorway, you are supposed to use all the road not cut across the chevrons when other drivers are not expecting it or before they have a chance to see you signalling that you are joining. We do have an odd sense of fairness in this country.
    If the above scenario was common practice I would have no problem in agreeing with you. You are obviously a considerate 'merger' and for this I applaud you. However my considerable driving experience indicates that common practice is for people in the blocked off lane to totally ignore the warning signs and accelerate like maniacs towards the bollards at breakneck speed, with a view to cutting in at the last possible second into as small a gap as possible left by someone slowish in pulling off, not caring about any carnage they leave behind them. All this done with a jaunty wave and cocky smile because they have 'put one over' on the old codgers in the other lane. You also have to agree that anyone merging in to the open lane is bound to cause traffic in that lane to slow down/stop and back up, even if the merge is done courteously. If everyone pulled over from when the warning signs are pkaced, then traffic in that lane would be able to move freely and would not be continually stop/start which is what causes the problems. The traffic would also all be moving at the same spped. Why should I have to queue in the open lane for ages whilst other people sail by even though they have arfived on the scene ages after I did - how is that fair/correct.

  4. #104

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by dml1954 View Post
    If the above scenario was common practice I would have no problem in agreeing with you. You are obviously a considerate 'merger' and for this I applaud you. However my considerable driving experience indicates that common practice is for people in the blocked off lane to totally ignore the warning signs and accelerate like maniacs towards the bollards at breakneck speed, with a view to cutting in at the last possible second into as small a gap as possible left by someone slowish in pulling off, not caring about any carnage they leave behind them. All this done with a jaunty wave and cocky smile because they have 'put one over' on the old codgers in the other lane. You also have to agree that anyone merging in to the open lane is bound to cause traffic in that lane to slow down/stop and back up, even if the merge is done courteously. If everyone pulled over from when the warning signs are pkaced, then traffic in that lane would be able to move freely and would not be continually stop/start which is what causes the problems. The traffic would also all be moving at the same spped. Why should I have to queue in the open lane for ages whilst other people sail by even though they have arfived on the scene ages after I did - how is that fair/correct.
    The queue in the open lane is only longer because of all of the people merging too early. If everyone merged at one point at the end, and you didn't get people deciding that 600m from the merging point is quite close enough thank you very much, then imposing their will on everyone else then the traffic would flow more efficiently

  5. #105

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shitpeas View Post
    I think dml has missed the point a bit. I don't think anyone on this thread has ever advocated or suggested tearing up the empty lane and swerving in at the last minute! It's all about drivers in BOTH lanes keeping a reasonable distance apart and reducing their speed as the lane closed ahead markers reduce from 800, 600 etc allowing people to merge, hopefully keeping the traffic flowing and avoiding unnecessarily blocking up junctions and roundabouts for hundreds of yards or even miles behind. I prefer using common sense rather than some misguided sense of righteousness.

    But by doing this you are actually causing the blockage in the first place, which cant be right. By merging at the last second, no matter how slowly or courteously, you are causing traffic in the open lane to slow down and back up. I applaud the way that you act and would like everyone to approach this but it is never going to happen because there us always going to be those who act like a lunatic.

  6. #106

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rjk View Post
    The queue in the open lane is only longer because of all of the people merging too early. If everyone merged at one point at the end, and you didn't get people deciding that 600m from the merging point is quite close enough thank you very much, then imposing their will on everyone else then the traffic would flow more efficiently

    Sorry but I don't agree and dont think I ever will. The queue in the open lane is longer because of the people in the closed lane generally leave merging until the last second and some do it at speed. If everyone merged at the first sign or shortly after then the problem wouldnt exist. This is clearly illustrated when a vehicle blocks off the lane that is shut some distance before the blockage and the traffic clears much quicker as a result.

  7. #107

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by dml1954 View Post
    Sorry but I don't agree and dont think I ever will. The queue in the open lane is longer because of the people in the closed lane generally leave merging until the last second and some do it at speed. If everyone merged at the first sign or shortly after then the problem wouldnt exist. This is clearly illustrated when a vehicle blocks off the lane that is shut some distance before the blockage and the traffic clears much quicker as a result.
    If everyone kept to their lane until the appropriate time to merge, you wouldn't be able to bomb along the empty lane, because there wouldn't be one!

  8. #108

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by dml1954 View Post
    Sorry but I don't agree and dont think I ever will. The queue in the open lane is longer because of the people in the closed lane generally leave merging until the last second and some do it at speed. If everyone merged at the first sign or shortly after then the problem wouldnt exist. This is clearly illustrated when a vehicle blocks off the lane that is shut some distance before the blockage and the traffic clears much quicker as a result.
    No, it's longer because there's more cars in it.

    You say people should merge at the first sign. That's EXACTLY what others in this thread are saying should happen, but at the cones instead.

  9. #109

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Ah a decent old fashioned CCMB debate including the use of "short cuts".

    This debate will roll on until the zipper method that's law & enforced in Germany is introduced.

    Anyway, with the advent of 4 lane motorways, why the feck have middle lane drivers decided to use the 3rd lane to drive at 60 and WTF 3 lanes of artics doing 69.5 mph, far more dangrous than 3 lanes!

  10. #110

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    For the most efficient merging, I think the first sign they should put up, at 800m should day "do not change lanes".
    Next at 600m it should say to match the speed in the adjacent lane, then at 200m it should say prepare to merge, then merge.

    I don't think we will see anything close to that until all cars are self driving, due to misguided early mergers, who then don't allow merging.

  11. #111

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    They should have a lane coned off 3 miles away, so it's easier to get into the cordoned off coned lanes later on.

  12. #112

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rjk View Post
    If everyone kept to their lane until the appropriate time to merge, you wouldn't be able to bomb along the empty lane, because there wouldn't be one!
    Exactly! Most people are doing it wrong. There's a reason for the countdown indicators - that it is to say, we are supposed to merge at the point of merger not 600/400/200 or whatever yards before then! The clues are all there.

  13. #113

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rjk View Post
    For the most efficient merging, I think the first sign they should put up, at 800m should day "do not change lanes".
    Next at 600m it should say to match the speed in the adjacent lane, then at 200m it should say prepare to merge, then merge.

    I don't think we will see anything close to that until all cars are self driving, due to misguided early mergers, who then don't allow merging.
    Good idea.

  14. #114

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Even if drivers used both lanes until the very end, the same w@nkers who currently drive right to the end of the closing lane, will be in the open lane and wont follow the merge in turn pattern.

  15. #115

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    You got to laugh at this utopia that we all merge in turn and everyone drove happily ever after bollocks.

    Even if the two lanes are used up until the point of merger, the chances of people abiding by the after you claude, no after you cecil, one for one merger are zero to none.

    Youd get the same w@nkers who dont give a f*ck about anyone but themsleves and currently cutting in at the very end wold be the same drivers who wont let the closed lane driver into the open lane when its their turn.

    Switching lanes at 800 yard is stupid but so is everyone trying to cut in at the end. You need a flow of people cutting in a 800, 600, 400 and 200 but you wont get that with the selfish human beings on the road, usually SUV drivers. I try and get in lane around the 400-200 mark.

  16. #116

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by J R Hartley View Post
    You got to laugh at this utopia that we all merge in turn and everyone drove happily ever after bollocks.

    Even if the two lanes are used up until the point of merger, the chances of people abiding by the after you claude, no after you cecil, one for one merger are zero to none.

    Youd get the same w@nkers who dont give a f*ck about anyone but themsleves and currently cutting in at the very end wold be the same drivers who wont let the closed lane driver into the open lane when its their turn.

    Switching lanes at 800 yard is stupid but so is everyone trying to cut in at the end. You need a flow of people cutting in a 800, 600, 400 and 200 but you wont get that with the selfish human beings on the road, usually SUV drivers. I try and get in lane around the 400-200 mark.
    Then you're part of the problem knobend, learn how to drive.

  17. #117

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi View Post
    Then you're part of the problem knobend, learn how to drive.
    Grass him up Gareth.

  18. #118

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi View Post
    Then you're part of the problem knobend, learn how to drive.
    Ark at Bertie Smalls.

  19. #119

    Re: Merge in turn? No way pal!

    Quote Originally Posted by J R Hartley View Post
    Ark at Bertie Smalls.
    Don't you know who he is? He's Ronnie Pickering.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •