Merge in turn vigilantes

[Rroff]

You've provided one transcript quote of one bloke who, in 1950-something, said in a discussion that he "believed" it should be the other way around and who has since been proven very wrong regarding what he "thinks" makes for good traffic flow, even before Merge-In-Turn, as they were long-before adding extra lanes to roads precisely to keep higher volumes of traffic flowing.
Nothing about it becoming law or even a widespread idea, let alone any authorisation for a citizen to police the roads themselves when confronted by rude queue-jumpers.

Strangely enough, the law back then was saying pretty much the same as it does now, in effect using all the available space until directed to move over!!!
So as far as wider information supporting any of your arguments - Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish and discredited by the very stuff you yourself posted. Nothing to do with me at all.

He is actually talking about something different - traditionally before that point, where multi-lane carriage ways let alone queues at them were much less common in instances of 2 lanes of traffic trying to merge (usually something like roadworks) it would be more common to have someone - policeman, road worker, etc. directing traffic and those on the left (or open lane) would be given priority and those on the other lane held up until they were clear - which is where a lot of traditional views on how to approach them comes from - he is actually advocating a change towards modern forms of filtering.

The law back then as I've pointed out was far more vague on it and the general guidance counter to what is accepted now.

Against this, we have a culture of entitled people who WILL do whatever they think they can get away with, because they have a history of actually getting away with it and are only dissuaded by the certainty of punishment.

So why is there not a massive scrum with both lanes at the merging point involving a roughly 50/50 mix of drivers? its not like there is any real punishment it isn't like those that drive with disregard for the highway code act any differently in other situations so why do the vast majority just tamely get in lane in good time before the merge point? these people you describe wouldn't just leave a large open bit of road there unused they could get an edge on other drivers using.

 

[ttaskmaster]

He is actually talking about something different

So you're using one rule from Dayes of Yore to try and explain why people don't follow a completely different, totally unrelated modern one that has instructions posted right in front of them... Yeah, OK.

traditionally before that point, where multi-lane carriage ways let alone queues at them were much less common in instances of 2 lanes of traffic trying to merge (usually something like roadworks) it would be more common to have someone - policeman, road worker, etc. directing traffic and those on the left (or open lane) would be given priority and those on the other lane held up until they were clear - which is where a lot of traditional views on how to approach them comes from - he is actually advocating a change towards modern forms of filtering.

He's arguing about when traffic should filter left. Nothing to do with priority or being held up until one lane was clear and obviously something that would not work today, as it would leave at least one lane stopped for hours!!
Also nothing to do with queueing up and as out of date as the idea of a policeman directing traffic at any time other that around an RTA.

The law back then as I've pointed out was far more vague on it and the general guidance counter to what is accepted now.

As other posters have explained, even our parents understood modern road law, so anyone that doesn't is in the tiniest of minorities and probably shouldn't still be driving anyway.

So why is there not a massive scrum with both lanes at the merging point involving a roughly 50/50 mix of drivers?

The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. For instance... a man can try to force his way in, but only if there is room for him to do so. If there isn't without scratching up his car or dealing with an insurance claim from the third party, and he can't afford the associated costs, then he can't force his way in. Same for the car trying to block him - If he's fast enough off the mark to close the gap, he can block. But if he's driving a Škoda he doesn't have the power to pull of in time and the gap opens enough for the first car to get his wing in and you're then down to who can afford what damages and insurance premium increases.

its not like there is any real punishment it isn't like those that drive with disregard for the highway code act any differently in other situations

Actually, I'd say it's completely the opposite - People are far less concerned about ignoring, offending or cutting each other off when they're separated by a glazed, insulated, heated cage with the stereo blaring. I speak from both sides of that.

so why do the vast majority just tamely get in lane in good time before the merge point? these people you describe wouldn't just leave a large open bit of road there unused they could get an edge on other drivers using.

As above - Power, speed off the line, inches in front, repair costs, fear of conflict.
There is no nicey nicey on the road, just avoidance of the bad.

 

[Rroff]

So you're using one rule from Dayes of Yore to try and explain why people don't follow a completely different, totally unrelated modern one that has instructions posted right in front of them... Yeah, OK.

I've already addressed that point several times - it takes time for traditional values and accepted wisdom to filter out of common use - can expect at least one generation after the generation most affected by it to also be significantly affected by it and even the one after that will have some trickle down of it and as I showed until the 2015 revision the wording of the highway code was completely insufficient to correct people who might have got the wrong idea.

He's arguing about when traffic should filter left. Nothing to do with priority or being held up until one lane was clear and obviously something that would not work today, as it would leave at least one lane stopped for hours!!
Also nothing to do with queueing up and as out of date as the idea of a policeman directing traffic at any time other that around an RTA.

If you read the whole section, the highway code from around that time and have any idea of what driving was like in those times its fairly obvious what he is talking about and the pure point of it is to demonstrate that there are legacy reasons specific to this case. The point that it would have stopped one lane for hours with the increase in traffic and multi-lane carriageways is why there was a debate about it around those times. It is also relevant to queuing up as it influenced thinking on it around those times when as I pointed out the highway code, etc. was lacking partly because it was a relatively new thing in a wider sense.

As above - Power, speed off the line, inches in front, repair costs, fear of conflict.

The people you are describing don't have particular consideration for other road users, won't be particularly worried about conflict and have no problem pushing to the front and forcing their way in. You even contradict yourself in that post - one moment they have no consideration for others and are driving within inches of each other the next they are worried about getting scrapes pushing in make your mind up.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I've already addressed that point several times - it takes time for traditional values and accepted wisdom to filter out of common use - can expect at least one generation after the generation most affected by it to also be significantly affected by it and even the one after that will have some trickle down of it and as I showed until the 2015 revision the wording of the highway code was completely insufficient to correct people who might have got the wrong idea.

And yet most of us in the previous generation and that of our parents' already understood well enough... and indeed have been doing it almost all our lives anyway. It's only at certain points that those three single-syllable words have any special bearing. For the rest of it, you'd only not understand if you were a stubborn idiot.

If you read the whole section, the highway code from around that time and have any idea of what driving was like in those times its fairly obvious what he is talking about and the pure point of it is to demonstrate that there are legacy reasons specific to this case.

I read what you posted.
If there was some specific point you wished to raise, you should have explained it fully, with detailed updates and a forum-wide awareness campaign, so us old fogies would be aware of these new-fangled things!!

The people you are describing don't have particular consideration for other road users, won't be particularly worried about conflict and have no problem pushing to the front and forcing their way in.

They have problems in terms of the laws of physics. They cannot physically force something aside or enter a space where there is none.

You even contradict yourself in that post - one moment they have no consideration for others and are driving within inches of each other the next they are worried about getting scrapes pushing in make your mind up.

They are concerned for their own cars and their own costs, not others'. That's not a contradiction and in fact is the main driver behind a lot of the mentality you'll see on the road - "So long as I'm alright"....

 

[Rroff]

And yet most of us in the previous generation and that of our parents' already understood well enough... and indeed have been doing it almost all our lives anyway. It's only at certain points that those three single-syllable words have any special bearing. For the rest of it, you'd only not understand if you were a stubborn idiot.

Except a casual observation of traffic tends to indicate the opposite hence the number of threads on this subject - there is obviously some confusion and it certainly isn't a case of the majority understanding one way or the other.

EDIT: Doing some further reading it wasn't added to the highway code until 2007 and the signs would have gone up after that and was reworded in 2015 to make it clearer - around 1999ish is the first time it was considered for being included as established guidance but it was considered at the time there were too many drivers lacking knowledge of merge in turn and the proposal to have electronic signs that were triggered by traffic speed/queuing to flag when it was appropriate too compensate for that too expensive so shelved at the time. To quote from someone else's post on that: "So the majority of drivers over the age of 27 probably have no idea the rule even exsists let alone have been taught how to apply it"

I read what you posted.
If there was some specific point you wished to raise, you should have explained it fully, with detailed updates and a forum-wide awareness campaign, so us old fogies would be aware of these new-fangled things!!

It was pretty self explanatory even a child could understand it.

They have problems in terms of the laws of physics. They cannot physically force something aside or enter a space where there is none.

I have to question if you've ever actually driven :s people use intimidation in driving style and position and even gestures, etc. to try and force others out the way. Trying to limit it to just physics is ridiculous.

 

[Semple]

They have problems in terms of the laws of physics. They cannot physically force something aside or enter a space where there is none.

You've clearly not had anyone force/jump infront of you to the point you've had to brake hard to avoid going into the back of them. It's not safe to drive bumper-to-bumper so of course there is a little gap.

They are concerned for their own cars and their own costs, not others'. That's not a contradiction and in fact is the main driver behind a lot of the mentality you'll see on the road - "So long as I'm alright"....

I'd wager to say that most of the people who drive erratically (like you've described above) don't actually own their cars. They'll be some from of lease/company car that their employer pays for. They're unlikely to give two hoots if the car gets damaged in an accident, as they'll just pick up another.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You've clearly not had anyone force/jump infront of you to the point you've had to brake hard to avoid going into the back of them. It's not safe to drive bumper-to-bumper so of course there is a little gap.

If you're in slow moving traffic and still have to brake hard, you're going too fast in the first place.
This scenario is specifically about the slow moving traffic where Merge-In-Turn signs are used.

I'd wager to say that most of the people who drive erratically (like you've described above) don't actually own their cars. They'll be some from of lease/company car that their employer pays for. They're unlikely to give two hoots if the car gets damaged in an accident, as they'll just pick up another.

Ownership is irreleveant because either way they are still counting on you taking evasive action because you don't want the hassle of crashes, claims and repair bills.

Except a casual observation of traffic tends to indicate the opposite hence the number of threads on this subject - there is obviously some confusion and it certainly isn't a case of the majority understanding one way or the other.

Then you need to work on your interpretation of casual observation, perhaps even speak to a few people outside your little circle of clueless innocent friends.
People don't care and people don't care to know. In truth, I'd say it's more the younger generations that don't care, because they are more entitled and reckon they can get away with a lot more.

the proposal to have electronic signs that were triggered by traffic speed/queuing to flag when it was appropriate too compensate for that too expensive so shelved at the time.

So even little signs are too expensive... still want your multi-million Pound national awareness campaign, do you?

To quote from someone else's post on that: "So the majority of drivers over the age of 27 probably have no idea the rule even exsists let alone have been taught how to apply it"

So what?
There are MANY laws of which these people will remain unaware until they break one and end up in court. Why should this one be any different?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse and yet your reasoning is clearly flawed since so many drivers over 27, myself included, are aware. Even the most casual of observations should have revealed that to you.

It was pretty self explanatory even a child could understand it.

Assuming that child has a full and complete understanding of traffic since 1950 and has read every edition of the Highway Code, and has driven during those times, yes... which is the criteria you gave in order for it to qualify as "obvious".

I have to question if you've ever actually driven :s people use intimidation in driving style and position and even gestures, etc. to try and force others out the way. Trying to limit it to just physics is ridiculous.

"Driving style", "position"... That is physics. Intimidation doesn't force you to do anything unless you cave in to it. You can ignore the shouts and gestures and everything if you like. Roll up the window, put the stereo on, stare forward and pretend you can't see them, whatever. They still cannot force you aside unless YOU let them do it.

 

[Rroff]

There are MANY laws of which these people will remain unaware until they break one and end up in court. Why should this one be any different?

As before the difference here is that people have genuinely been under the impression a different approach is the valid one. You might refuse to believe so but the dozens of threads, studies by the HA, discussions by other government bodies, etc. suggest otherwise.

So even little signs are too expensive... still want your multi-million Pound national awareness campaign, do you?

The proposed idea was to have electronic signage at every instance where it was identified merge in turn might be appropriate under some conditions that were triggered by measuring traffic flow because the highway agency studies showed high levels of lacking driver awareness of merge in turn - that would have cost way way more.

People don't care and people don't care to know. In truth, I'd say it's more the younger generations that don't care, because they are more entitled and reckon they can get away with a lot more.

Look around you at work etc. surely you have some idea as to the character of those people sure it seems increasingly people are inconsiderate but there are still plenty of people who are reasonably decent - its also key to what I'm saying that there is a generational split involved.

 

[ttaskmaster]

As before the difference here is that people have genuinely been under the impression a different approach is the valid one.

SOME people have been unaware.
If it were a significant percentage, more would already have been done to educate people... But since it's more down to individual behaviours, it's far easier and cheaper to let them get on with it and leave their insurances to sort it out. If anything serious happens, it goes to court and someone pays a fine, which is just nice profit.

The proposed idea was to have electronic signage at every instance where it was identified merge in turn might be appropriate under some conditions that were triggered by measuring traffic flow because the highway agency studies showed high levels of lacking driver awareness of merge in turn - that would have cost way way more.

About £2,500 each, apparently. For the cost of a small, week-long TV awareness campaign on half the popular channels, you could install about 6,000 such signs.
And as you say, there aren't that many around...

Look around you at work etc. surely you have some idea as to the character of those people sure it seems increasingly people are inconsiderate but there are still plenty of people who are reasonably decent - its also key to what I'm saying that there is a generational split involved.

I look around and I see the older people becoming more inconsiderate, partly because they see the younger lot getting away with the same things and partly because they give less of a **** as they get older... and they're even proud of it in many cases, seemingly embracing the 'grumpy old curmudgeon' thing, which they say is because there's more people let them get away with because they're old... So much for it being a generational thing.
Looks like it's more down to how much each side of the conflict has to lose.

 

[Rroff]

I look around and I see the older people becoming more inconsiderate, partly because they see the younger lot getting away with the same things and partly because they give less of a **** as they get older... and they're even proud of it in many cases, seemingly embracing the 'grumpy old curmudgeon' thing, which they say is because there's more people let them get away with because they're old... So much for it being a generational thing.

I'm not disputing the trends but you are missing the numbers of people involved - you can't have becoming without there still being some proportions of people on either side of that transition and we still aren't at a point where its a tiny minority left.

About £2,500 each, apparently. For the cost of a small, week-long TV awareness campaign on half the popular channels, you could install about 6,000 such signs.
And as you say, there aren't that many around...

The cost for what was proposed as being necessary would be a lot more - it would require at each site several people and a week or two of work installing sensors for measuring traffic flow, all the backhaul infrastructure for power and maintenance as well as electronic signs (which was proposed to have several) and then all the cost of ongoing maintenance.

I think half the problem even where it is signed looking at many instances it is just two small signs right at or slightly after the merge point often confusingly with other signs that give different directions 100-200 yards before (in some cases there is even a get in lane sign 200 yards back or so and then merge in turn at the merge point) - they really need big signs nearer the start of where queues back upto as well along the lines of what some places have in Scotland: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8...4!1syDkNuldEnwEoZ_J2irw8Vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 though as per the original analysis it isn't very helpful in situations where it is only appropriate under certain traffic conditions if people are unaware of how to approach it properly.

Something like facebook campaigns and leaflet drops, etc. would be relatively inexpensive these days and something that wouldn't have been much of an option back around 1999 and even to an extent in 2007 when they started the groundwork for introducing merge in turn to the highway code proper.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'm not disputing the trends but you are missing the numbers of people involved - you can't have becoming without there still being some proportions of people on either side of that transition and we still aren't at a point where its a tiny minority left.

The minority is not tiny, but still a minority. Every single day just on the 4-mile journey into work, never mind any driving outside of that I end up doing, I encounter a good handful of chancers who try and pull off things they know damn well are wrong, but chance it because they think they'll get away with it. They do if the other drivers have more to lose, but it doesn't always work out this way.
You see a lot of people driving in ways to try and deny the chancers their opportunities, which is also where some of the faults originate, but all of this too is intentional.

The cost for what was proposed as being necessary would be a lot more - it would require at each site several people and a week or two of work installing sensors for measuring traffic flow, all the backhaul infrastructure for power and maintenance as well as electronic signs (which was proposed to have several) and then all the cost of ongoing maintenance.

Most of that infrastructure is already in place, including the sensors in many cases, although manual monitoring and control is likely cheaper as they can just tack that on to existing roles.
Additionally, it wouldn't happen at every site anyway, just as you don't get Merge-In-Turn signs at every point where slow traffic merges, even if the traffic backs up a little. Sites will be prioritised, with only the heavier traffic sites getting attention.

I think half the problem even where it is signed looking at many instances it is just two small signs right at or slightly after the merge point often confusingly with other signs that give different directions 100-200 yards before

Depends on the road beforehand. Some places you simply cannot get anything better.

they really need big signs nearer the start of where queues back upto as well along the lines of what some places have in Scotland:

Many places aren't big enough for signs like that in the first place.
But if the traffic is slow-moving, you have plenty of time to see the signs either side of the road.

though as per the original analysis it isn't very helpful in situations where it is only appropriate under certain traffic conditions if people are unaware of how to approach it properly.

And yet it doesn't hurt to follow the signs when it's not going slowly, although people would have no need to if it's flowing fine anyway... assuming they're driving properly and not too close to the car in front, thus creating the queues to begin with.

Something like facebook campaigns and leaflet drops, etc. would be relatively inexpensive these days and something that wouldn't have been much of an option back around 1999 and even to an extent in 2007 when they started the groundwork for introducing merge in turn to the highway code proper.

Leaflets largely get chucked away with all the other circulars, if they get read at all. People generally don't care what's written on them.
Farcebook??!! And how many old people are on that, I wonder?
How much would you have to pay to ensure your ad is seen by everyone, over and above the random/targeted adverts and those of companies with massive advertising budgets? I understand M&S alone spent £200m on their advertising, for example.

 

[Rroff]

The minority is not tiny, but still a minority. Every single day just on the 4-mile journey into work, never mind any driving outside of that I end up doing, I encounter a good handful of chancers who try and pull off things they know damn well are wrong, but chance it because they think they'll get away with it. They do if the other drivers have more to lose, but it doesn't always work out this way.
You see a lot of people driving in ways to try and deny the chancers their opportunities, which is also where some of the faults originate, but all of this too is intentional.

Yes a handful of people - I'm not disputing there are a good number of people who drive like this and it is increasingly becoming a problem - as mentioned earlier anyone over the age of approx. 27 should have been taught appropriately and should know better. But you are significantly doing an injustice to the numbers that are unaware.

Most of that infrastructure is already in place, including the sensors in many cases, although manual monitoring and control is likely cheaper as they can just tack that on to existing roles.
Additionally, it wouldn't happen at every site anyway, just as you don't get Merge-In-Turn signs at every point where slow traffic merges, even if the traffic backs up a little. Sites will be prioritised, with only the heavier traffic sites getting attention.

Wasn't the case though back in ~1999 when it was originally proposed.

But if the traffic is slow-moving, you have plenty of time to see the signs either side of the road.

In many instances you won't see the signs until very near the merge point long after the majority of people have already moved over to the left lane.

Leaflets largely get chucked away with all the other circulars, if they get read at all. People generally don't care what's written on them.
Farcebook??!! And how many old people are on that, I wonder?

Many older people still read leaflets and newspapers, etc. - a lot of them do indeed shun modern electronics communications but there are increasing numbers of older people on the likes of facebook as well (my parents actually aren't but about 80% of their friends of the same age are) but that isn't the only place where ads, etc. can be placed.

 

[ttaskmaster]

as mentioned earlier anyone over the age of approx. 27 should have been taught appropriately and should know better.

Under, surely, since the law is only 'recent', despite me and my parents (all of whom are/were quite far past 27) all knowing better...

But you are significantly doing an injustice to the numbers that are unaware.

It's the law. It's perfectly just. It may not seem fair... but the onus is on them to know the law, so by not holding up their end they're part of the cause in the first place.

Wasn't the case though back in ~1999 when it was originally proposed.

Most of the infrastructure was already in place, particularly the data cables as they already powered and controlled things like traffic lights and in certain parts of the country used the same data networks as the internet - Back in 1997 we could (and did) shut down the lights on South Reading A33 if we tried to upload enough video files at the same time!

In many instances you won't see the signs until very near the merge point long after the majority of people have already moved over to the left lane.

In many cases the merge is on the exit of a roundabout, where you cannot have advanced signage. There isn't room and you'll cause more confusion than anything else.

Many older people still read leaflets and newspapers, etc. - a lot of them do indeed shun modern electronics communications but there are increasing numbers of older people on the likes of facebook as well (my parents actually aren't but about 80% of their friends of the same age are) but that isn't the only place where ads, etc. can be placed.

The more places you target, the even-more-expensiverer it becomes... Signs looking pretty dirt-cheap, still, even the electronic ones - Heck, at this rate we'll have 6-8 signs on every merge, whether needed or not!

 

[Rroff]

It's the law. It's perfectly just. It may not seem fair... but the onus is on them to know the law, so by not holding up their end they're part of the cause in the first place.

Missing the context I used injustice. I'm also talking about how the situation could potentially be resolved rather than just bleating "but its the law" and nothing ever getting sorted.

Most of the infrastructure was already in place, particularly the data cables as they already powered and controlled things like traffic lights and in certain parts of the country used the same data networks as the internet - Back in 1997 we could (and did) shut down the lights on South Reading A33 if we tried to upload enough video files at the same time!

Would still need to make connections into that, lots of places would not have had sensors, etc.

In many cases the merge is on the exit of a roundabout, where you cannot have advanced signage. There isn't room and you'll cause more confusion than anything else.

Less of an issue in those places as people won't have merged 200 odd yards back and a single large sign like the link earlier would suffice.

The more places you target, the even-more-expensiverer it becomes... Signs looking pretty dirt-cheap, still, even the electronic ones - Heck, at this rate we'll have 6-8 signs on every merge, whether needed or not!

You are vastly mixing up the prices - we run large scale ad campaigns at work for way less than the cost of extensive electronic road infrastructure upgrades - way less.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Missing the context I used injustice.

You didn't specify, so I covered both...

I'm also talking about how the situation could potentially be resolved rather than just bleating "but its the law" and nothing ever getting sorted.

Since there are already a myriad of other such laws, few of which people are even so bothered about but might even attract a prison sentence, I don't see this as a particular problem.

Would still need to make connections into that, lots of places would not have had sensors, etc.

The signs can carry the sensors atop easy enough, no need for separate connections. If they're anything like the kit we have here on-site, you can even have a solar panel and windmill to power them and make them wireless, no need for connections at all.

Less of an issue in those places as people won't have merged 200 odd yards back and a single large sign like the link earlier would suffice.

Two medium-sized signs, as the roundabouts aren't that big and you don't want to obscure vision around it.
But already you're cutting down the workload even further, with this.

You are vastly mixing up the prices - we run large scale ad campaigns at work for way less than the cost of extensive electronic road infrastructure upgrades - way less.

Google suggests otherwise, with channels openly stating the cost of advert slots and me having asked a couple of friends in the industry when considering the project from our end.
Again, many millions for a very small campaign. You'd need a properly large campaign in order to capture the majority of your target market, across multiple platforms... and even then, your target audience is so small you stand a good chance of missing about half of them.

But I'm sure you can supply exact figures for TV, magazine, newspaper, billboard, social media and leaflet campaigns that specifically include prime time slots and forced online adverts to capture the widest possible audience.....?

 

[Rroff]

The signs can carry the sensors atop easy enough, no need for separate connections. If they're anything like the kit we have here on-site, you can even have a solar panel and windmill to power them and make them wireless, no need for connections at all.

Would need road sensors covering the approach not just the speed of traffic moving through the merge point itself - back in those days wireless connections and solar infrastructure was a lot more expensive than it is now.

But I'm sure you can supply exact figures for TV, magazine, newspaper, billboard, social media and leaflet campaigns that specifically include prime time slots and forced online adverts to capture the widest possible audience.....?

I'm not at liberty to share work related data - one of our biggest national campaigns cost around 8 million and a huge slice of that was in designing, shooting and producing the video/media content, etc. which wouldn't be required in this case - that was a large scale nation wide awareness campaign due to rebranding.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Would need road sensors covering the approach not just the speed of traffic moving through the merge point itself -

Street lighting. Job done. Next?
Seriously, it's that easy... and they're about 1/14th the price of the medium-sized electronic signs.

back in those days wireless connections and solar infrastructure was a lot more expensive than it is now.

Ah, so we should abandon the whole project because "it used to be expensive".... OK, cool. Over to you then...
I'm starting to see why you put so much belief into a very few people still thinking in the past dictating how absolutely everyone drives half a century later...!!

I'm not at liberty to share work related data - one of our biggest national campaigns cost around 8 million

He says, sharing that work related data in the very same sentence... See, people just don't care!

But regardless, that 8 mil would buy you just one or two slots on some of the popular channels. More if you cover all regions. More if you want prime time. Add to that all the other platforms and requirements and you could almost pave the road with electronic signs!!

 

[Rroff]

Street lighting. Job done. Next?
Seriously, it's that easy... and they're about 1/14th the price of the medium-sized electronic signs.


Ah, so we should abandon the whole project because "it used to be expensive".... OK, cool. Over to you then...
I'm starting to see why you put so much belief into a very few people still thinking in the past dictating how absolutely everyone drives half a century later...!!


He says, sharing that work related data in the very same sentence... See, people just don't care!

But regardless, that 8 mil would buy you just one or two slots on some of the popular channels. More if you cover all regions. More if you want prime time. Add to that all the other platforms and requirements and you could almost pave the road with electronic signs!!

I was stating why the project was abandoned originally and the reason why it was considered at all in the first place. I'm not saying that original plan should be carried out at all - in this day and age it is largely redundant compared to the alternatives. The key thing was that it was considered at all and the reasons why which run counter to the argument you are making.

Sharing a vague figure is different than an exact breakdown - which I don't have access to without a good reason anyhow and would need to ask permission to publish outside the company.

You are aware that previous motoring awareness campaign cost breakdowns are available to the public through the freedom of information act and for a years advertising show costing way lower than your projections?

 

[ttaskmaster]

I was stating why the project was abandoned originally and the reason why it was considered at all in the first place. I'm not saying that original plan should be carried out at all

You were throwing up all manner of additional factors, presenting as objections or barriers to the project. This in context was another, but if you're now saying otherwise then there's no reason to avoid going ahead!

in this day and age it is largely redundant compared to the alternatives.

Namely letting them bear the responsibility...

The key thing was that it was considered at all and the reasons why which run counter to the argument you are making.

My argument is that it's perfectly viable now and in fact has been for a while, as evidenced by all the other signage doing the exact same thing for different road governances.

Sharing a vague figure is different than an exact breakdown - which I don't have access to without a good reason anyhow and would need to ask permission to publish outside the company.

You could have approximated them nonetheless...

You are aware that previous motoring awareness campaign cost breakdowns are available to the public through the freedom of information act and for a years advertising show costing way lower than your projections?

Such as?
Lets see these, then... along with the FOI-available figures that measure how effective such things have been.

 

[Rroff]

You were throwing up all manner of additional factors, presenting as objections or barriers to the project. This in context was another, but if you're now saying otherwise then there's no reason to avoid going ahead!


Namely letting them bear the responsibility...


My argument is that it's perfectly viable now and in fact has been for a while, as evidenced by all the other signage doing the exact same thing for different road governances.


You could have approximated them nonetheless...


Such as?
Lets see these, then... along with the FOI-available figures that measure how effective such things have been.

You are confusing a lot of things I've said and why. Sure it might be viable now but that is beside the point - the point was the HA's analysis identified social factors that meant awareness of merge in turn was low which meant looking at measures to deal with that - they even specifically identify trends from the 1950s as having an impact. Its part of why it was progressively introduced to the highway code from 2007 to 2015 rather than hard introduced in 1999 - I assume under the assumption that being taught over that period would have a big enough impact to influence overall usage which hasn't really worked.

Here is one example:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...chment_data/file/291955/drink-drive-costs.pdf