Sitting in your car with the engine running.

ICBM

Emp_Fab said:

Aaah... so you’re one of those are you?  Who thinks he doesn’t have to queue like the rest of us and can force his way in at the front ?  I see....   

It wouldn’t work perfectly at all either...  having an extra 800 yards of queueing vehicles in the ‘jumpers lane’ isn’t going to make the traffic merge any more efficiently any more than putting another line of people at a stadium entrance turnstile will get people through faster.

In any case, you’ve ignored the fact that in my case, the maintenance lorry was immediately after the roundabout, parked in the off side lane meaning merging at that point was impossible (unless you think they should have been doing it on the roundabout.)

It depends which lane I’m in to start with. If I’m in the left lane I stay there, and if someone comes up on the right and wants to get in in front of me, I let them. If I’m in the right lane I stay there until as close to the blockage as sensible without just racing down to the far end and stopping. Simple.

It’s the morons who both force their way into the open lane much too early and then try to stop anyone else doing it later who are the problem. It does make everything flow less smoothly because they’re constantly stopping and starting trying to keep as close as possible to the car in front in order to block the other drivers, and doubling the length of the queue quite often does have knock-on effects further back.

In the particular case you describe they should still be merging as late as possible, which without knowing the exact road layout would probably be immediately before the roundabout.

TheBigDipper

Emp_Fab said:

ICBM said:

Which are the morons? All the twits who insist on getting into the left lane half a mile too soon simply double the length of the traffic jam by occupying only half the available road space. If everyone stayed in their lane right up to the blockage and then merged alternately in turn, it would work perfectly. But it doesn’t, because everyone in the left lane becomes a self-righteous dick who thinks the right lane are ‘queue jumping’ and won’t let them in.

Aaah... so you’re one of those are you?  Who thinks he doesn’t have to queue like the rest of us and can force his way in at the front ?  I see.... 

It wouldn’t work perfectly at all either...  having an extra 800 yards of queueing vehicles in the ‘jumpers lane’ isn’t going to make the traffic merge any more efficiently any more than putting another line of people at a stadium entrance turnstile will get people through faster.

In any case, you’ve ignored the fact that in my case, the maintenance lorry was immediately after the roundabout, parked in the off side lane meaning merging at that point was impossible (unless you think they should have been doing it on the roundabout.)

Axe_meister said:

People are used to auto stop. But if aircon is on engine may not stop and if the music is loud enough you may not even notice

For a short period a couple of years ago, the Highway Code had advice about "merging in turn" and then took it out again. Why? Because people didn't play nicely and do the obvious thing - which is to use both lanes up to the point where it drops into one lane and the merge in turn, one at a time from each lane. It was advice only, mind, as using all the lanes on approach has always been legal. 

"Merge in turn" is more efficient at managing the length of the traffic queue - which might be important to those poor people wanting to use the previous exit, but unable to because everyone is queuing in lane 1 and fuming at people who use the empty lane 2 (as they are totally entitled to do) because THEY (the lane 1 queuers) don't know the law. 

Haych

ICBM said:

Emp_Fab said:

Aaah... so you’re one of those are you?  Who thinks he doesn’t have to queue like the rest of us and can force his way in at the front ?  I see....   

It wouldn’t work perfectly at all either...  having an extra 800 yards of queueing vehicles in the ‘jumpers lane’ isn’t going to make the traffic merge any more efficiently any more than putting another line of people at a stadium entrance turnstile will get people through faster.

In any case, you’ve ignored the fact that in my case, the maintenance lorry was immediately after the roundabout, parked in the off side lane meaning merging at that point was impossible (unless you think they should have been doing it on the roundabout.)

It depends which lane I’m in to start with. If I’m in the left lane I stay there, and if someone comes up on the right and wants to get in in front of me, I let them. If I’m in the right lane I stay there until as close to the blockage as sensible without just racing down to the far end and stopping. Simple.

It’s the morons who both force their way into the open lane much too early and then try to stop anyone else doing it later who are the problem. It does make everything flow less smoothly because they’re constantly stopping and starting trying to keep as close as possible to the car in front in order to block the other drivers, and doubling the length of the queue quite often does have knock-on effects further back.

In the particular case you describe they should still be merging as late as possible, which without knowing the exact road layout would probably be immediately before the roundabout.

I think if everyone adopted and applied the mantra “don’t be an arsehole” then everything would work much better. But we don’t and for some reason are convinced that the piece of road directly in front of us was purchased with the car. 

The one scenario that boils my blood is the filter lane jumpers. The perfect example is the M4 westbound just before Brynglas tunnels (J24 I think). Because it’s a bottleneck anyway the outer two lanes grind to a halt while the inside lane, which filters to Newport or Cwmbran flows freely. So a lot of drivers fly down the inside lane and try to cut into the middle lane of already very slow moving, stop-start traffic at the last possible moment.

For my own sanity I stay in the “fast” lane so I don’t have to worry about them. Not that the fast lane moves any faster, I just don’t have to get wound up about numpties cutting in front and taking my bumper off. 

ICBM

TheBigDipper said:

For a short period a couple of years ago, the Highway Code had advice about "merging in turn" and then took it out again. Why? Because people didn't play nicely and do the obvious thing - which is to use both lanes up to the point where it drops into one lane and the merge in turn, one at a time from each lane. It was advice only, mind, as using all the lanes on approach has always been legal. 

"Merge in turn" is more efficient at managing the length of the traffic queue - which might be important to those poor people wanting to use the previous exit, but unable to because everyone is queuing in lane 1 and fuming at people who use the empty lane 2 (as they are totally entitled to do) because THEY (the lane 1 queuers) don't know the law. 

Exactly.

What I don't understand about the morons who insist on forcing into left lane half a mile too soon and then blocking others is that they slow things down for everyone *including themselves*.

But drivers are odd like this. Part of my regular commute is a stretch of dual carriageway where at rush hour the inside lane always moves faster... because some drivers - most of who probably travel that way every day - force their way into the outside lane and then constantly have to brake because other people are doing it, and end up actually going more slowly than the ones who stay in the inside lane and leave a sensible gap. It's the same every time, so you would think some of them might have noticed this... but no, the blind insistence on 'being ahead' seems to override it.

The accelerate-brake type of driving unquestionably uses more fuel than driving slightly more slowly but steadily, too.

Garthy

This is especially bad at weekends when people who don't usually drive during the week join in and balls it all up.

Guitar_Slinger

I'm doing a French Highway Code test and found this... "Idling wastes fuel and money. Ten seconds of idling can consume more fuel than turning off your engine and re-starting it again. If you're going to be stopped for more than 10 seconds - except in traffic - turn off your engine. If your vehicle has an eight-cylinder engine, every 10 minutes of idling wastes about 0.4 litres of fuel."

Guitar_Slinger

...although those fuckers will block roads, dump millions of litres of milk and go on strike at the drop of a hat. As you were.

Emp_Fab

I don’t get this talk of “forcing” their way into the left lane @ICBM .  Surely it’s nothing more than a normal manoeuvre, changing lanes ?  You seem to be implying some kind of aggression.

Garthy

Guitar_Slinger said:

I'm doing a French Highway Code test and found this... "Idling wastes fuel and money. Ten seconds of idling can consume more fuel than turning off your engine and re-starting it again. If you're going to be stopped for more than 10 seconds - except in traffic - turn off your engine. If your vehicle has an eight-cylinder engine, every 10 minutes of idling wastes about 0.4 litres of fuel."

You wouldn't use that much in a Corvette at 60mph for ten minutes.

ICBM

Emp_Fab said:

I don’t get this talk of “forcing” their way into the left lane @ICBM .  Surely it’s nothing more than a normal manoeuvre, changing lanes ?  You seem to be implying some kind of aggression.

It often is. If you don't, then good on you. Do you also not try to block other drivers when they're trying to get into the left lane 'too close' to the end of the empty lane, or do you just let them in?

Basically as already said, if everyone simply drove sensibly until very near where the lane is closed and then 'zippered' alternately without anyone having to come to a complete stop, it would be faster for everyone, not least those who get wound up about 'queue jumpers'...

Garthy

chillidoggy

Guitar_Slinger said:

Same as @chillidoggy . My first car (and some dodgy motorbikes I've ridden) wouldn't idle properly and would cut if left in neutral. This meant I developed the relfex action of giving it a bit when the idling speed dropped.

Fifteen years later, a garage lent me a car with auto-stop and even though I knew it was there, couldn't help touching the throttle every time the car "cut out" in traffic.

And if there was a swear box in the car, I'd be broke, because I generally scream "fucking cunt car" every time it happens.

crunchman

Garthy said:

Guitar_Slinger said:

I'm doing a French Highway Code test and found this... "Idling wastes fuel and money. Ten seconds of idling can consume more fuel than turning off your engine and re-starting it again. If you're going to be stopped for more than 10 seconds - except in traffic - turn off your engine. If your vehicle has an eight-cylinder engine, every 10 minutes of idling wastes about 0.4 litres of fuel."

You wouldn't use that much in a Corvette at 60mph for ten minutes.

0.4 litres of fuel is around an 11th of a gallon.  60mph for ten minutes is 10 miles.  Are telling me that a Corvette can do 110mpg?