Man of Honour
I'm sure I've seen some signs that say "USE BOTH LANES". Maybe they just need to spam these a bit more. Drive that message home. A massive empty lane is absolutely infuriating.
Merge in turn vigilantes
- Thread starter lordrobs
- Start date
People just ignore them. This one near me is a classic example:
The center lane gets maybe 10% of the traffic of the left lane. And traffic in the left lane often acts in an aggressive manner toward traffic in the center lane, particularly on exit of the roundabout/the approach to the merge point. Most left lane traffic also cuts across the center lane on the way round the roundabout, forcing the traffic in the center lane to either brake, or cut the right lane.
From years of using this road, I'm left with the conclusion that a fair number of people using the left lane do not understand how to drive. They ignore clear road signs. They ignore lane markings. They drive far too close to the vehicle in front, and act aggressively toward other drivers. Occasionally, one of them will decide to enforce their own interpretation of how the road system works, and will straddle both lanes.
I'd say it's the drivers that are the problem, not the signage.
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
So Highway Code Rule 134 doesn't have exist? It makes no reference to either of those needing to be present and recommends merge in turn for lane closures at low speed in queuing traffic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
Doesn't matter - The Highway Code is quite specific about it and peoples' different ideas leave them open to things like Flash For Cash.
All are things you're taught not to do in your driving lessons...
Only if the traffic is heavy enough that you need to use both, though. It does not mean that if the few cars present are ambling along at decent speed down the left, that you should automatically "make best use of all available space" and hoon down the empty lane expecting to just nip in at the end.
But it does matter - no one will ever have picked up or been taught things like sitting intentionally in a blind spot and its fairly obviously a bad thing although some might be unaware of what they are doing. My dad for instance learnt to drive in a very different era regardless and picked up many habits about how to drive from his mum who learnt to drive volunteering to drive support vehicles towards the end of WW2 for instance where the accepted use of headlights was very different regardless of the highway code and its application today or theoretical requirement to refresh familiarity with it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
One of the first things we did on CBT was to walk around a number of different vehicle types and see exactly where the blind spots were, so we knew not to sit in them... Most people are very aware of their own, so there's really no excuse for ignoring those of other road users, especially the ones with similar vehicles.
I know full well all of this.... People used to do a lot of things 'back in the day' that are now bad, dangerous or downright stupid. It's still no excuse.
My own father managed to adapt his driving habits well enough even into his 70s and he learned to drive before the war!
I don't think you are quite getting the problem I'm highlight and regardless of trying to word around it the reality is its a very real thing, sure there might be the odd person who is switched on enough or had another reason to adapt/update their awareness of some driving habits/highway code but the reality is many don't and haven't or we wouldn't even be having this thread.
There is a marked difference between something that is distinctly dangerous and will never have been taught as an accepted approach and something like merge in turn which the approach many have come to use of itself isn't directly dangerous and very obviously hasn't been taught in the same way in different generations and groups of people with a knock on effect.
EDIT: As a highlight of it regarding the whole merge in turn thing - the conversation once came up at a wedding I was at with a disagreement between someone (who was right) and someone who was actually a driving instructor (who was wrong) - almost everyone over the age of 30 or so was siding with the driving instructor - I think only 3 people out of like a dozen or so knew what the proper way to do it was.
There is a marked difference between something that is distinctly dangerous and will never have been taught as an accepted approach and something like merge in turn which the approach many have come to use of itself isn't directly dangerous and very obviously hasn't been taught in the same way in different generations and groups of people with a knock on effect.
EDIT: As a highlight of it regarding the whole merge in turn thing - the conversation once came up at a wedding I was at with a disagreement between someone (who was right) and someone who was actually a driving instructor (who was wrong) - almost everyone over the age of 30 or so was siding with the driving instructor - I think only 3 people out of like a dozen or so knew what the proper way to do it was.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,053
If a sign saying "Merge in turn" has to be present for merge in turn to apply, what happens when there's no such sign? If you've been instructed to "Use both lanes" and then your lane ends, but you're not meant to merge in turn, what are you meant to do? Sit there until all of the traffic from the left lane clears? On many routes, you could have a long wait. Why use the outside lane at all in that situation?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
It still won't wash in court, though and that's all that matters.
Which is why the answer is either a series of targetted campaigns to bring the old fogies up to speed on all the aspects of how they should be driving in this century... or compulsory retests for everyone at their own expense, with massive spending on enforcing licence checks for all those who will inevitably insist they know better because they've been driving since 1945 and just drive without a current licence... which would also have the added benefit of policing those who cannot merge in turn on those occasions when there is a sign telling them to do so.
My point is that without a campaign it won't change regardless of what would happen in court.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
I still see people driving on mobile phones... and even not wearing seatbelts, despite Clunk-Click Every Trip, if you're old enough to remember that one?
What will have more of an impact is if enough people start getting properly prosecuted or otherwise penalised, both the uneducated/out-of-date and those wilfully ignoring the law. Might be a stretch on some of those, but if you can demonstrate that their actions bear some responsibility for the incident then it requires punishment, even if you punish both sides involved.
The reason most people do things they shouldn't is because they know, or are pretty certain, they will get away with it.
Man of Honour
It doesn't. The Highway Code encourages merge in turn at any lane closure/ending etc.
They are quite different examples though - I doubt many if anyone for instance has been brought up taught that the thing to do is to not use the seatbelt :s
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
Again, why they're doing it doesn't matter.
What matters is that they're still doing it in the first place and in some instances (some things more than others) it causes or leads to accidents.
Doesn't matter if it's negligence, laziness, ignorance, senility, mental incapacity, can't speak English, or just being a BMW driver, it's still a problem and is no different than if they're driving round in a car that's seriously unroadworthy. Either they keep up with modern standards, or they suffer the penalties.
Doesn't change the reality that most people doing things like this believe that is the proper way to do it, people don't believe/aren't taught that the proper way is not to wear a seatbelt, no one intentionally drives in a blind spot because they think that is the right thing to do. Deal with that reality and things can change - those that don't wear a seatbelt for instance are mostly those who wilfully don't, ignoring any kind of campaign or being taught otherwise rather than believing they are doing it properly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
I do not care what they believe and will not listen to a single word they have to say about it and neither will any decent cop or judge. It is irrelevant.
The law is the law and if they break it, willfully or otherwise, they should be punished. If they end up killing someone because of it, they should be punished more. The more people who get caught and punished and/or kill people as a result of improper behaviour, the more people in general will wise up and stop doing it.
The possibility of bad consequences isn't what dissuades people. It's the certainty. The more certain we make it, the less they will chance it.
Wow... just wow. That really is being a complete dick about something that people genuinely think they are in the right and could be resolved with an approach with that in mind - these people aren't being intentionally awkward and like 90% would adapt their approach made properly aware.
I really had a higher estimation of you as a person than that.
I really had a higher estimation of you as a person than that.
Soldato
The problem lies in trying to change opinion without a relatable, proven detrimental effect to the individual. Without that, people just don't care. Its doubly hard in this case because you have to get these people to admit that they are wrong and have been wrong the whole time.
Most I've talked to so far have had zero idea there was any other angle to it - whether they'll change their approach in future I have no idea but most seemed to take it onboard when shown relevant sections of the highway code, etc.
EDIT: Can't really see people doing anything dramatically different while the majority still approach it wrong however.