|
In road works situations where a lane is closed and everyone has to merge into one, I get really annoyed by people racing up the 'empty' lane and muscling in at the head of the queue. But zip merging where both lanes are kept fully occupied and vehicles alternately access the open lane left-right-left at the head of the queue seems a more efficient and fairer solution. Assuming drivers could be educated to oprate such a system of course. Any comments?
|
Absolutely agree with you. Where I've seen it signed, the A??? past Bracknell for example, it seems to work well.
Completely logical as it makes best use of the road space available and avoids a tailback ocurring as cars slow suddenly because "some idiot" has barged in infront of them from the RH lane.
Don't know why it is not used more widely
Andy
|
|
There was an extensive thread on this a few months ago. Haven't got time to look for it at the moment.
|
>> There was an extensive thread on this a few months ago.Haven't got time to look for it at the moment.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=i&t=11...#
You're right, there was!
|
I'm sure you're right that would be more efficient, but wouldn't be able to educate people to stop the me first mentality so wouldn't work.
I have hopes that as satellite navigation takes a hold it will help reduce traffic jams when linked to road updates too. And stop all the lost drivers too. Not that I have satnav though, but when it gets to 200quid maybe...or even 400
|
|
|
|
There have been several occasions on both the M6 and M56 when the lane closure signs have been put out, yet the cones are not yet in place. This causes lanes 2 & 3 to be empty while a 3 mile tailback forms, for no reason whatsoever.
Having been stung by this just once, I am not one of those ignorant people who keeps in the outer lanes until I can actually see the cones.
So what is wrong with that?
|
"I am not one of those ignorant people who keeps in the outer lanes until I can actually see the cones."
I thought that zip merging is favoured by the police and the Highways Authority as the most efficient method of joining lanes, the least dangerous and the least disruptive to traffic flow. I even thought that the advice of remaining in your current lane until you can zip merge at the point where the lanes reduce, was going to be incorporated in the latest version of the highway code. But it was concluded that so few existing drivers would read this, let alone understand it, that the whole issue was dropped.
So who are the ignorant ones?
|
|
|
|
when the Guildford by-pass (or rather thru' pass) was down to one lane they had signs up saying to use both lanes and then to "zip merge".
Also heard once from some traffic planning bod that it is much more efficient to use both lanes and "zip merge" rather than leave it empty for 600 yards.
|
I adopt this approach: I believe zip-merging is the most efficient approach, therefore I always drive to the end of the clear lane on the right, ignoring horn honking and so on. I then slip in near the end when I see a space or get to the end and wait to be let in. If someone does not let me in, I simply drive in anyway, which they would see as 'pushing in'. If there is a lorry or another car obligingly stuck in the outside lane stopping cars going past, I simply overtake wherever possible.
I never get mad, frustrated, upset or self-righteous. I never hurl insults out of my window, make rude gestures or indulge in any form of road-rage. This I leave for the 'polite' people politely queuing in the inside lane. :)
|
>If someone does not let me in, I simply drive in anyway
If someone makes an effort to merge a little before the cones, i will leave a space and allow them to zip. Someone who drives right to the end then barges in will end up driving a banana. I have done it before and will do it again, so watch out for a laguna before you barge Mr LP. Company car and medical insurance on board!
|
|
Don't believe you. Simple as that. Would you do that with your family in the car or does your supposed recklessness not extend to them?
|
Don't believe you. Simple as that. Would you do that with your family in the car or does your supposed recklessness not extend to them?
>>
whatever, just bear it in mind
|
|
|
|
£32,889was £34,195Details
£22,474was £22,699Details
£8,225was £9,386Details
£21,693was £21,998Details
