|
Oh yes, either that or slowing down to a snail's pace [ ;-) ] in lane 1 of a motorway half a mile before the exit, rather than using the exit slip road for its intended purpose.
|
|
|
During my working days I drove a grey Transit van and here we have a dual carrage way round town - doing a good 60+ I saw this Granada tootling down slip road - no indicator nothing so I just carried on - just before a collision he looked in his mirrors did a sharp left tug on steering and missed me -- he came past giving verbal so I pointed to my eyes - put on indicator and pointed then gave the sign for pressing pedal -- lost on him so gave him victory salute. - works vans are wonderful things - I think some people think we are mind readers. - All this was when I was a lot younger - not the sort of thing I would do now.
ps - if he had indicated I would have moved over
|
While it's normally better to accelerate up to pace on the slip road, it is certainly better when the road is very busy and you cannot see a gap to stop and wait for a gap, than to pull out anyway and possibly cause an accident.
|
|
|
Those drivers who drivers who refuse to move over to allow traffic to join a motorway when it is safe to do so are acting to say the least in in an ignorant manner. What is the significance of the right indicator when joining a motorway. What exactly is it meant to mean?
|
Those drivers who drivers who refuse to move over to allow traffic to join a
It's not always possible/safe to move over. However all they have to do is slow down a bit to make a gap, although it would have to be a big one if the car on the slip road has completely stopped.
EDIT CGN just seen you said 'when safe to do so' but my main point stands
Edited by Focus {P} on 18/12/2008 at 12:07
|
It's not always possible/safe to move over. However all they have to do is slow down a bit to make a gap although it would have to be a big one if the car on the slip road has completely stopped.
People would be more able to merge safely if people on the motorway actually left sensible gaps! Measure the gap left between vehicles sometime, it's often sub-second. People should not *have* to move over, and people joining certainly shouldn't expect them to.
|
|
|
The main point is that those on the slip road should give way to and/or adjust their speed to fit traffic already on the motorway/dual carriageway. That's all. Those on the carriageway should never have to give way nor move over, unless in an emergency situation. It is encumbent upon the joiners to adjust their speed and look for the gap.
I really do dislike the fashion for moving over, it muddies the waters and now that it is so prevalent people have completely forgotten the correct rules of right of way when joining motorways, and get annoyed when someone on the motoway does not act "courteously".
Result: less predictable behaviour and higher chance of accidents/road rage.
|
The main point is that those on the slip road should give way to and/or adjust their speed to fit traffic already on the motorway/dual carriageway.
As with so many aspects of how we are supposed to drive, that only works if everyone else is doing what they are supposed to do too. In this case, that means those on the motorway leaving sensible, safe following distances which also happen to work rather well as gaps to aim for when joining the motorway.
It is encumbent upon the joiners to adjust their speed and look for the gap.
Indeed it is. But sometimes the gap doesn't really exist and those on the motorway might have an opportunity to help. Stopping on the slip road or continuing on to the hard shoulder are extreme options only to be considered as a last resort. They don't put the person in lane 1 who chose not to move over when they had a chance at risk, but they do put others at risk and that makes the driver in lane 1 at least partly responsible (if they had the option to move over safely but chose not to simply through belligerent application of the rules of priority). We all have a responsibility to anticipate developing hazards and take reasonable steps to avoid them developing, whether they are likely to affect us directly or not. And if you're on the motorway you really have no excuse for not anticipating the on-slip road and it's potential hazards. Most on-slips are immediately preceded by an off-slip, and those are signed a mile in advance. That should be more than enough notice that there is an on-slip coming up.
Of course, none of that detracts from the fact that the motorway traffic still has priority and those joining should match their speed and position to cause minimal disruption when they join. It's just that often, in heavy traffic travelling too close, even minimal disruption can be quite a lot if people on the motorway don't help out.
I really do dislike the fashion for moving over it muddies the waters and now that it is so prevalent people have completely forgotten the correct rules of right of way when joining motorways and get annoyed when someone on the motoway does not act "courteously".
If I'm on the motorway in lane 2, passing bunched up traffic in lane 1, I quite often move out to lane 3 (if there's room) before anyone in lane 1 has moved out or even signalled as we approach an on-slip road. I do this for two reasons:
1) For my own safety so that the person in lane 1 who isn't paying any attention and suddenly finds someone joining to their left and darts out of the way into lane 2 doesn't hit me.
2) As a courtesy to those in lane 1 who, having got themselves more bunched up than they should, might find a space in lane 2 extremely useful to resolve the hazard they face with traffic joining from their left.
I think both of those reasons are very valid and sensible.
|
|
|
The main point is that those on the slip road should give way to and/or adjust their speed to fit traffic already on the motorway/dual carriageway. That's all.
This is part of the issue - too many drivers read "adjust speed" as "increase speed", whereas frequently a lift of the accelerator foot to merge in is often more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Focus
Yes of course its not always possible to do so or indeed may be unsafe to do so but driving on busy roads does requires a bit of cooperation from all parties. My comment was aimed at those drivers whose mission in life seems to make others live as difficult as possible on the mistaken grounds the they have "right of way"
|
the mistaken grounds the they have "right of way"
They do have right of way, though, don't they.
|
They do have right of way though don't they.
I believe the term is "priority", not right of way.
|
|
|
They do have right of way, though, don't they.
Legally no they don't.
And I can't believe that people are prepared to hold to their mistaken principles rather than facilitate another drivers entry to a motorway. After a crash would such drivers take comfort in the fact that they were in the right even though they could have prevented an accident?
|
Don't get me wrong, I would always move over if needed in order to allow for others' errors in judgment, in order to prevent an accident. So long as there's room outside me, of course.
However, I think it's a terrible idea to move over just out of courtesy when there's no need, and the joining driver should always compensate for the presence of traffic already on the motorway and join behind, for reasons I gave earlier.
|
I think it's a terrible idea to move over just out of courtesy when there's no need
Why is it terrible?
|
I think it's a terrible idea to move over just out of courtesy when there's no need Why is it terrible?
Because it sets people's expectations that everyone will do it. That's all I'm saying. Far better we all stick to the highway code, if some do and some don't then that causes confusion and hesitation and a drop in our ability to predict others' behaviour.
|
|
However I think it's a terrible idea to move over just out of courtesy when there's no need
Really? Because if I'm in lane 1, perhaps being followed a tad closer than I would like, and I find myself with a car joining from my left at about the same position as me I have a number of options:
1) Do nothing and hope the person joining sorts it out? Certainly not!
2) Accelerate to get ahead of the problem and have them join behind me? Well, apart from the fact that I might need to exceed the speed limit, that's not realistic in the car I usually drive - acceleration from say 70 to 80 is not exactly poky.
3) Slow down so they join ahead of me? It's an option, but not a very comfortable one if I'm already being followed, particularly if I'm being followed too closely. Deliberately reducing the gap behind me to enable someone else to also take the gap in front of me is not something I'd opt for if I could avoid it.
4) Move out into lane 2? That's by far the most preferable option if it's safe to do so. Leaves a gap for the other vehicle to join and allows me to maintain my speed and avoid increasing the hazard from the vehicle behind, but it's not possible if there is somebody in lane 2 next to or close behind me. Unless they move out into lane 3 to give me my most preferable option back and help us all out.
When I'm the person in lane 2 I consider moving into lane 3 as a courtesy because that's what I would thank others for doing for me. That's the definition of courtesy isn't it?
|
|
GJD, all your examples are of problem situations. Fair enough. I'm talking about not moving over when there is no problem. It should be left to the joiner to slot in appropriately. If there's no need, there's no need. So I don't. When I don't need to.
|
GJD all your examples are of problem situations. Fair enough. I'm talking about not moving over when there is no problem.
I think we probably agree. I certainly don't move over when I don't need to. I suppose what I'm saying is that if I see what I suspect is a potential problem developing, I will consider taking steps to avoid the problem before it actually happens, rather than waiting until my suspicions are confirmed when doing something about it may be a rather more hurried and uncomfortable task.
|
|
|
|
|
My comment was aimed at those drivers whose mission in life seems to make others live as difficult as possible
I understand, but I think it's better to leave a gap rather than move over.
|
|
|
|
|
'What is the significance of the right indicator when joining a motorway. What exactly is it meant to mean?'
That question could be taken another way-it seems a bit pointless to me,where else is anyone going to be going?I suppose it may highlight one's presence but,once on the slip road,there is no choice but to bear right.
|
it seems a bit pointless to me,where else is anyone going to be going?
I agree - can't see the point. If I was pedantic I would ask the question why signal right when turning left?
|
|
Or why use the left lane of a slip road when merging right?
|
|
|
|
|
ps - if he had indicated I would have moved over
What on earth difference does that make??!!
It sounds like he got all sorts of things wrong: not looking, not matching his speed to the motorway traffic, swerving out of the way and swearing at you. But are you really suggesting that if he hadn't got any of those things wrong, but had still not signalled you would somehow have still had a problem?
The indicator was one of his tools for communicating with other road users - you in this case. What exactly would the indicator have communicated that his presence driving down the slip road hadn't communicated already?
|
|
His indicating would have communicated that he was aware of the road conditions and was looking in his mirror instead of being in his own little world -he seemed to be one of those that thought no matter how he drove others would compensate for him --I could have moved over as the dual carriageway happened to be empty and I was prepared to avoid a last minute collision - If I had been on a motorway I would have moved over earlier or slowed .
|
His indicating would have communicated that he was aware of the road conditions and was looking in his mirror instead of being in his own little world
That might be what you do before you signal, but I think it would be brave to assume everyone does. The signal means "I intend to move out to the right or turn right". In a situation where there is another option that doesn't involve moving out to the right or turning right, a signal is a useful means of helping to communicate which option you are planning. A normal slip road is not such a situation. There is only one option the driver on the slip lane is likely to be intending: joining the dual carriageway. So that situation is high up the "no decision, no need for a signal" list [*]. Not that a signal does any harm - it's not likely to confuse anyone either - it just doesn't add much.
His lack of a signal wasn't what communicated to you that he wasn't paying attention. His speed and position relative to you did that. If he had got his speed and position relative to you correct, but not signalled, would you really have had a problem? Or even remembered it?
[*] It may add some value in more complex road layouts of merging lanes and junctions where, although you actually only have one option, that may not be immediately obvious to the traffic around you. Or when the traffic is very busy and the flashing orange light might help attract the attention of people around you who need to know you are there but have a lot of other things to think about too at that moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
