was i unduly aggressive
Discussion
Came down a DC towards roadworks. Plenty of signs saying to use both lanes when queuing so I stayed to right which was plainly clearer. After passing about 1/4 mile of traffic we get to front where signs are to merge in turn.
My passage naturally brings me to pull to left behind caravan, but some bloke in a little Toyota (who to be fair has presumably had people overtaking him for 1/4 mile) objects to this and pulls up to left with intent of closing gap.
I stick to plan and eventually he drops back (and flashes lights to indicate his displeasure).
Wife told me off for being aggressive in forcing him to let me in as per signs.
Was I?
My passage naturally brings me to pull to left behind caravan, but some bloke in a little Toyota (who to be fair has presumably had people overtaking him for 1/4 mile) objects to this and pulls up to left with intent of closing gap.
I stick to plan and eventually he drops back (and flashes lights to indicate his displeasure).
Wife told me off for being aggressive in forcing him to let me in as per signs.
Was I?
TooMany2cvs said:
How aggressive were you in going for THAT gap?
What was wrong with the gap behind the Toyota?
The OP says it was a merge in turn, and that his turn was after the caravan and before the Toyota. What was wrong with the gap behind the Toyota?
It sounds like the Toyota driver is one of those many numpties that doesn't know how to merge in turn.
Mandat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
How aggressive were you in going for THAT gap?
What was wrong with the gap behind the Toyota?
The OP says it was a merge in turn, and that his turn was after the caravan and before the Toyota. What was wrong with the gap behind the Toyota?
Mandat said:
It sounds like the Toyota driver is one of those many numpties that doesn't know how to merge in turn.
So how aggressive was the OP in "enforcing his rights", and what was wrong with just letting the eejit get on with it?He tried for about 45s or 50m to squeeze me out. But I could see he was getting onto the dirt and gravel that is by the side of the road so I knew he would lose as he would have to turn in whereas I was going straight
What was wrong with letting him go in front? Nothing much of course which is why my wife may have a point.
What was wrong with letting him go in front? Nothing much of course which is why my wife may have a point.
Dave_lotus said:
He tried for about 45s or 50m to squeeze me out. But I could see he was getting onto the dirt and gravel that is by the side of the road so I knew he would lose as he would have to turn in whereas I was going straight
<blinks>So you BOTH got so pushy-shovey that you pushed him off the tarmac...?
Takes two to tangle...
Some people do it just to be a
holes-that is, preventing a merge. Unfortunately once you 'lose' with the first one then the cars behind tend to gang up on you!
It does annoy me because I always merge in plenty of time, matching the speed of a suitable gap, but half the time find that said gap has magically closed...
It was faintly satisfying a while back though when I wanted to merge really early on in a motorway lane closure- clearly clearly wasn't being a dick but a woman and her chav husband in a Berlingo found it extremely funny to actively block me. Sadly, whilst she and he were paying lots of attention to looking sideways at me doing the Nelson-style 'ha ha!' they failed to notice the now decent gap in front of them which 2nd gear and a good application of right foot got me into easily.
holes-that is, preventing a merge. Unfortunately once you 'lose' with the first one then the cars behind tend to gang up on you!It does annoy me because I always merge in plenty of time, matching the speed of a suitable gap, but half the time find that said gap has magically closed...
It was faintly satisfying a while back though when I wanted to merge really early on in a motorway lane closure- clearly clearly wasn't being a dick but a woman and her chav husband in a Berlingo found it extremely funny to actively block me. Sadly, whilst she and he were paying lots of attention to looking sideways at me doing the Nelson-style 'ha ha!' they failed to notice the now decent gap in front of them which 2nd gear and a good application of right foot got me into easily.
There's a really horrible chunk of road on my commute which involves a merge in turn. A couple of days ago, I was happily trundling along in L1, when up in L2 came a small hatchback. I had left a gap to the car in front, so I squeezed on ever so slightly to make life easier to the merger.
The van behind me had other ideas and, upon seeing the merger, squeezed right up on me.
Since there was still a little room in front of us before L2 closed, I stopped, buzzed down the window and waved the merger past the both of us.
The lady driver had clearly twigged and was not only jolly appreciative, but killing herself laughing at the sight of a ranting and raving van man.
Childish, but harmless.
The van behind me had other ideas and, upon seeing the merger, squeezed right up on me.
Since there was still a little room in front of us before L2 closed, I stopped, buzzed down the window and waved the merger past the both of us.
The lady driver had clearly twigged and was not only jolly appreciative, but killing herself laughing at the sight of a ranting and raving van man.
Childish, but harmless.
I think waiting right until the zip point can be difficult if you have drivers that maybe aren't as understanding of how a MIT works.
I tend to go keep speed fairly low anyway just in case someone decides to swing out and try and block my lane, but as I approach, maybe 100yrs out I try and equate my speed and look for my gap. I'll do it at point MIT if I can but sometimes it's better to manage your speed and join smoothly 50yds out.
What I'l really like to see is an offset start of cones which force both lanes to divert into the centre, I imagine that would take away the idea of an owned space or lane. Cones could change direction fairly quickly and direct traffic as need be.
---------------
----
----------------
------
Feck, well that didn't work!
I tend to go keep speed fairly low anyway just in case someone decides to swing out and try and block my lane, but as I approach, maybe 100yrs out I try and equate my speed and look for my gap. I'll do it at point MIT if I can but sometimes it's better to manage your speed and join smoothly 50yds out.
What I'l really like to see is an offset start of cones which force both lanes to divert into the centre, I imagine that would take away the idea of an owned space or lane. Cones could change direction fairly quickly and direct traffic as need be.
---------------
----
----------------
------
Feck, well that didn't work!
ferrariF50lover said:
There's a really horrible chunk of road on my commute which involves a merge in turn. A couple of days ago, I was happily trundling along in L1, when up in L2 came a small hatchback. I had left a gap to the car in front, so I squeezed on ever so slightly to make life easier to the merger.
The van behind me had other ideas and, upon seeing the merger, squeezed right up on me.
Since there was still a little room in front of us before L2 closed, I stopped, buzzed down the window and waved the merger past the both of us.
The lady driver had clearly twigged and was not only jolly appreciative, but killing herself laughing at the sight of a ranting and raving van man.
Childish, but harmless.
I've done this quite a number of times when I see a sensible Right Hand Lane driver looking for a sensible gap into which they can merge sensibly behind me, only for traffic behind me in Lane 1 to squeeze up and block them. Sometimes I wave two or three cars into the gap in front of me, as it opens up when the lights up ahead (which cause the concertina) change to green. I'd hope to find someone who'd do the same for me if I were in Lane 2 and looking to merge SENSIBLY!The van behind me had other ideas and, upon seeing the merger, squeezed right up on me.
Since there was still a little room in front of us before L2 closed, I stopped, buzzed down the window and waved the merger past the both of us.
The lady driver had clearly twigged and was not only jolly appreciative, but killing herself laughing at the sight of a ranting and raving van man.
Childish, but harmless.
All that said, I truly despise the halfwits who barrel up to, and beyond, the merge point without even pretending to look for a suitable gap into which they can merge, and bully their way in further along than they ought to. I witnessed one such idiot drive straight into the side of the car in lane 1, causing no end of chaos, especially when they flat refused to move their car off the carriageway to do the details exchange, insisting that the Police must attend and investigated. I gave a statement to back the innocent driver in the end, but it was funny when a passing police car did attend, but only to warn the aggressive doofus to shift his car off the carriageway or face a charge of obstruction.
Its an old debate. Traffic flowing, using both lanes, merging with hardly a delay for anyone, its fine.
Coming across a line of stationary traffic and cruising past them and expecting them to just give way is not reading the road ahead. Don't be in a lane where you can see its ending but you can't see any landing zone.
also
Highway code Section 288
"do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic"
I think using the free lane could be classified as doing this.
But then if everyone queued to the merge point we'd not have the issues of jumping the queue. Closing the left lane rather than the right seems to work better in my experience.
Coming across a line of stationary traffic and cruising past them and expecting them to just give way is not reading the road ahead. Don't be in a lane where you can see its ending but you can't see any landing zone.
also
Highway code Section 288
"do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic"
I think using the free lane could be classified as doing this.
But then if everyone queued to the merge point we'd not have the issues of jumping the queue. Closing the left lane rather than the right seems to work better in my experience.
Edited by JonV8V on Friday 17th July 08:10
JonV8V said:
Highway code Section 288
"do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic"
I think using the free lane could be classified as doing this.
No it can't. That is quite a leap to get there from a directive which is written to discourage excessive lane changing."do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic"
I think using the free lane could be classified as doing this.
Use both lanes to the merge point then merge in turn. It's really not any harder than that.
I know the PH convention for this situation is to use both lanes and then merge at the end but that never really happens. And being the only person to do so singles you out as a .
Recently I was sat in L1 in a long line of traffic on the A449. L2 was completely clear for the entire 1/2 mile of the queue before the merge in turn. I took roughly 20min to reach the bottleneck and in that time only 1 person was of the opinion they should use L2. A man in an old RR with a pink shirt.
I could have pulled into L2 and skipped 20min of waiting. But I felt that doing so would make me "that w@nker in a BMW" and decided to relax and wait my time.
What the highway code allows and what people find to be morally correct are two very different things.
.Recently I was sat in L1 in a long line of traffic on the A449. L2 was completely clear for the entire 1/2 mile of the queue before the merge in turn. I took roughly 20min to reach the bottleneck and in that time only 1 person was of the opinion they should use L2. A man in an old RR with a pink shirt.
I could have pulled into L2 and skipped 20min of waiting. But I felt that doing so would make me "that w@nker in a BMW" and decided to relax and wait my time.
What the highway code allows and what people find to be morally correct are two very different things.
CarAbuser said:
What the highway code allows and what people find to be morally correct are two very different things.
There's no morals involved! You're following the rules by using both lanes.Morally dubious is when I see a huge queue for the left turn at a roundabout and choose to sail down the empty straight ahead / right turn, do a 360 of the roundabout and be on my merry way.
That's only morally dubious because there's an argument that people at the entrances to the roundabout may not expect you to go right round so is it fair on them. But the people I skip past don't come into that equation so it's neither here nor there.
0000 said:
JonV8V said:
Coming across a line of stationary traffic and cruising past them and expecting them to just give way is not reading the road ahead.
Yes it is, use all the available road, don't artificially lengthen a queue by moving the merge point backwards.The length of a queue is the number of cars in it, not the number of meters long. The queue is the same length , you've just waved two fingers at everyone as you drive past stationary traffic.
I'm playing devils advocate though - If everyone merged at the merge point then fine. People don't. I think closing the inner lane reduces the problem a lot as people tend to use both lands more. A simple change in the way they lay these things out might be quite beneficial and easier to implement than re-educate the public who generally take the view that once in orderly and virtually stationary queue, you're in a queue. You wouldn't do it in a super market or at the post office or at a cash point. Why do it on the road?
Edited by JonV8V on Friday 17th July 17:46
JonV8V said:
Your maths is somewhat flawed
The length of a queue is the number of cars in it, not the number of meter long. The queue is the same length , you'e just waved two fingers at everyone as you drive past stationary traffic. If there was spave to walk past you in a supermarket queue would that be queue jumping?
I'm playing devils advocate though - If everyone merged at the merge point then fine. People don't. I think closing the inner lane reduces the problem a lot as people tend to use both lands more. A simple change in the way they lay these things out might be quite beneficial and easier to implement than re-educate the public that generally take the view that once in orderly and virtually stationary queue, you're in a queue. You wouldn't do it in a super market or at the postoffice or at a cash point. Why do it on the road?
When two lanes on a road lead to a merge point, there are 2 possible queues (depending on the traffic levels), therefore I don't begrudge anyone choosing to join the shorter queue of the two, particularly as this is what the highway code and common sense both dictate. The length of a queue is the number of cars in it, not the number of meter long. The queue is the same length , you'e just waved two fingers at everyone as you drive past stationary traffic. If there was spave to walk past you in a supermarket queue would that be queue jumping?
I'm playing devils advocate though - If everyone merged at the merge point then fine. People don't. I think closing the inner lane reduces the problem a lot as people tend to use both lands more. A simple change in the way they lay these things out might be quite beneficial and easier to implement than re-educate the public that generally take the view that once in orderly and virtually stationary queue, you're in a queue. You wouldn't do it in a super market or at the postoffice or at a cash point. Why do it on the road?
I would do the same in a supermarket, post office or cash point if there were two separate queues available that lead to the same facility.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff