Going back to the message that started all this off, it is the same in petrol stations (well at my local one) When you go to pay there could be 3 people serving, why do we queue in one queue when there is the possiblity of queuing behind all three cashiers.
I was behind someone the other day then looked to find three cashiers so i went and stood behind one of the other customers and the person behind me started to moan. I just replied with "There are three cashiers not one therefore why should i queue in just the one queue" they didnt say a word but were rather annoyied.
Again it also goes back to people who queue at petrol stations to use the relevant pump depending on which side of the car there petrol cap is. I dont bother, im just straight in at anyone pump as they are designed to reach round the car so why all that extra queuing for nothing no thanks!!
I dont think any of what i do is unpolite or inconciderate, just me using my brain to grab at an opportunity that someone else has missed out on!!
|
why do we queue in one queue when there is the possiblity of queuing behind all three cashiers. I dont think any of what i do is unpolite or inconciderate, just me using my brain to grab at an opportunity that someone else has missed out on!!
The reason that there is one queue is so that the person who's been waiting the longest to get served, gets served next - simple! It's what's known as good manners, or perhaps you think that people are 'simple' for having them?
|
>>Again it also goes back to people who queue at petrol stations to use the relevant pump depending on which side of the car there petrol cap is. I dont bother, im just straight in at anyone pump as they are designed to reach round the car so why all that extra queuing for nothing no thanks!!
I dont think any of what i do is unpolite or inconciderate, just me using my brain to grab at an opportunity that someone else has missed out on!!<<
I love doing that, the look of indignation on some peoples faces that I've jumped the queue, on a pump they weren't actually queueing for.
|
|
Or having the initiative to go round and reverse into the space you can't get to because of a car been on the behind pump.
|
I've often seen people barging in front of others patiently waiting their turn, be it on the road, charging up the outside and pushing in at the front - or in shops/supermarkets/pubs and loads of other places. I've always thought "wouldn't it be nice to know what sort of person they really were, whose own destination is so much more important than anyone elses and who doesn't give a hoot about manners and consideration of other peoples feelings".
And lo and behold, now I have an insight, at first hand, on what goes on in the mind of one of those special, important people whose business is so much more important than mine.
I'm grateful for that.
By the way - what do you do with that extra three and a half minutes that you save every day?
KB.
|
|
I agree with mr Right. I've got a good job and a good car. I got where I am by siezing opportunities, not by waiting for some half-wit in front of me with less initiative. Call me arrogant if you like but the world need movers and shakers to get things done.
|
"Call me arrogant if you like"
You're arrogant!
What a valuable site this is, in giving such an insight to our fellow motorists and human beings.
Keep it up.
KB.
|
\"Thanks for the advice guys. The speedtraps.co.uk website looks useful.
I am a very fast (but safe) driver and have already been caught twice even though I had a \'basic\' detector fitted, so I know they are a waste of money. Spending £500-600 is not a problem so I\'m probably going to go for one of the GPS ones with a subscription. I want to drive the way I like, not the way the safety crew want me to\".
Putting the above post of yours together with your comments earlier in this thread, I think most people can gather that when they see you coming up behind them in your nice new BMW 320, by far the best course of action would be to pull over and let you get as far away as possible. I wouldn\'t want you anywhere near me judging by your comments here.
(As it happens, I think this is a wind up and you\'re actually a really decent thoughtful, careful, considerate individual).
KB.
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't call you arrogant. I'd call you CJ out of Reggie Perrin...
|
|
Sorry, I dont know who CJ is. I have heard of the Reggie Perrin TV program but never seen it because it was a bit before my time.
|
|
|
Hmm well this has, I would imagine, now developed out of all proportion to the thread author's intentions.
There is one thing I would like to ask though, and which bothers me greatly.
Gen, you have expressed the fact that you feel it is ok to do 100mph plus on our motorways - and yet you also express horror at 100mph crashes in Australia and America?
I'm not sure that I can equate one with the other. Quite prepared to find that I have misread and that I am wrong - but, if I am not, can you ease my mind as to why you feel this way?
|
HF
I never drive at 100 (which my car would struggle with anyway). As I tried to state my speed on motorways is invariably at a maximum 75-85. I personally would not feel safe at that speed. Nor would I risk my license for the minute time savings. However if someone decides to drive at that speed I don\'t see why they keep moving over to the inside lane as it is unlikely they will \'block\' other traffic in the second or third lane. I wasn\'t saying it was okay to do 100mph on our motorways, but don\'t feel able to judge people who do; it\'s not my business unless they affect my safety.
My 100mph crash comment was relating to the extremely large lorries and single carriageway so relating to two vehicles having a head-on at 50mph each. It is why I wouldn\'t drive fast on a single track, since many people don\'t take account if you hit another car coming the other way your combined speed is often double your speed. I had to deal with a crash with four americans in australia who hit a truck (wrong side of road out of motel/cafe, not put seatbelts on yet). Two dead, two very seriously injured. I don\'t know if you have seen an american or australian truck but if you have you will know what i mean by massive and destructive to hit.
I only have one life and it is valuable to me. As such I will save as much time as I can. On the other hand I won\'t drive so fast I\'m putting my life in danger.
Hope that explains my position
|
>>Hope that explains my position
Yes, it does - thank you.
I've never been to Australia or America, but I can imagine what you mean about their trucks. I would also hazard a guess that you'd get similar results in a combined 100mph crash with a lorry over here. Not nice.
HF
|
Looking through and reading with interest the comments on the whole of this thread, it is symptematic(sp?) of the English to queue at every opportunity. I go through a junction every day and it amuses me that either one of the lanes always has a longer queue than the other and it's not always the same lane. Both go straight on, and a majority of drivers move into the lane with more people already queuing in it - why?
I have always thought that on the issue of merging by roadworks that merge in turn is by far the best option. I remember this was trialled a while back, and alongside each sign stating distance to the roadworks was a further sign saying "stay in lane", and then within the last 50 yards arrows on the road and signs saying "merge in turn". Far better, ensures people don't try and stop you merging in and ensures the back of the hold up doesn't stretch so far back and causes less of a problem. This should be drummed into us and become standard practice.
As for drivers who sit in an overtaking lane and don't pull to the left when clear - they are the reason for many hold up's in this country. In effect a three lane road becomes 2 lanes when they sit in the middle and single lane when outside as no-one can pass. It is one part of driving ignorance and selfishness that really winds me up. I would like to see the police stopping all drivers who insist on doing that and charging them with driving without due care and attention, or a lack of consideration to other road users. That may then stop the practice happening and the associated hold ups caused by the drivers.
Paul.
|
I go through a junction every day andit amuses me that either one of the lanes always has a longer queue than the other and it's not always the same lane. Both go straight on, and a majority of drivers move into the lane with more people already queuing in it - why?
It's probably some primative herding instinct :-) Plus if you go in the second lane and you don't know the area it is possible that at the other side of the junction there is a merge point where the two lanes turn into one. If you know there isn't then the shortest lane is the one to go for. If the straight ahead right lane also has right turn on it and there are cars in front it is possible to end up being blocked by the traffic turning right.
As for drivers who sit in an overtaking lane and don't pull to the left when clear - they are the reason for many hold up's in this country. In effect a three lane road becomes 2 lanes when they sit in the middle and single lane when outside as no-one can pass. It is one part of driving ignorance and selfishness that really winds me up.
Some stick in one lane due to lack of confidence in lane changing on motorways. I assume some also think that if they are doing 70mph on the nose no-one should be wanting to come past them anyway and if they do they should move over to the outside lane to do it.
In busy situations it is often easier to pootle up the middle lane rather than either being sandwiched between the artics, bobbing and weaving in and out of the middle lane after overtaking each car (according to the highway code) or being bumper to bumper at 80mph in the outside lane. If I am sticking in the middle lane then I make sure I am passing traffic in the left hand lane as much as possible. If there is no one behind me then I may stick to the same speed as the left hand lane but adjacent to a gap. If someone comes up behind me then I will use the gap.
teabelly
|
I posted a thread similar to this about 6 months back and so I'll take this opportunity to restate my support for the "Merge in turn" crowd. My reasoning is simple: it stops anyone charging up the empty lane and queue jumping. Hopefully that then saves tempers flaring.
An interesting anecdote to add to this: Yesterday I was in this very situation going round the Coventry bypass: line of queuing traffic, empty lane, etc. So I thought "to hell with it" and shot up the empty lane until I met the obligatory van driver who straddled both lanes to stop queue jumpers whereupon I, and all the cars who chose to follow me, chugged along and merged in turn at the cones. The irony is that thereafter, the empty lane thing must have at least for the next few minutes been solved since everyone was merging at the cones and not 100s of yards beforehand. So well done that van driver whereever you are.
Splodgeface
|
I am on the side of those HGVs and vans that choose to block the dying lane.
I find that the traffic in front of them does merge much more quietly and the general traffic flow is faster. In addition, if the obstruction is due to say, an accident, then I am sure that the Van/Lorry would pull over for the emergency vehicles, who would otherwise have to fight their way through the traffic shooting down and cloggin up the dying lane.
I agree with Hootie's point that just because someone has decided to shoot up the outside lane to get in front of the traffic, this should not give them the right to queue barge all those drivers waiting patiently. After all, if this happened at your local supermarket with trolleys, there would soon be a punch up!
I have to confess, that I do this myself - yes I know it draws attention to me but it really helps the flow of traffic and we all get to our destinations quicker - call me a self righteous prat if you want. However, once there was an ambulance coming up behind me in this position and after I pulled over, he was able to progress straight to the scene about 2 miles further up. Had I not done what I did, he would have to have fought both lanes full of traffic for 2 miles and he would have probably reached the scene 5 minutes later, 5 minuits can be the difference between life and death.
As I say call me a self righteous prat if you want.
--
Signature has been removed due to lack of interest!
Hugo
|
Hugo, being so pre-occupied with where other cars are on the road is not good for you. I can absolutely assure you that driving is much more pleasant when you gain a security of not having to be concerned about whether another car is in front or wants to overtake etc. Just let them go. I was with a colleague recently who went purple with rage because the car in front of us let another car in when the lanes went down from 3 to 2 immediately after a set of traffic lights - not a roadwork it was just the road layout. There are 3 lanes and then there are 2 - somebody has to use the lane otherwise it would be empty for about 10 miles. Not everybody using it is going to know that the lanes reduce.
If you are prepared to obstruct traffic 2 miles away from a merge point I wonder why you choose that distance and not, say, another mile back? Or perhaps 4 or 5 miles back, or 10? I'm not being funny, I'm just trying to point out that your view of where the right point is might be slightly different to somebody else. What would you think if you suddenly found somebody imposing similar behaviour on you 10 miles from a roadwork?
I ask these questions but won't see any responses because I'm off to France and Switzerland tomorrow. (today)
I just wish more people would be less concerned with others and let those who want to pass get on with it. I think the roads would be a better place for it.
|
Jeds
Food for thought I suppose.....
H
|
|
|
|
|
