Suspended
[TW]Fox;27944001 said:
Just playing Devil's Advocate; the HWC doesn't forbid such an action or state you should not do it does it? It's not illegal either. I personally wouldn't do it, but I suppose you could if you wanted to.
Poll: Merge in turn - why does nobody get it?
- Thread starter squerble
- Start date
- Status
Just playing Devil's Advocate; the HWC doesn't forbid such an action or state you should not do it does it? It's not illegal either. I personally wouldn't do it, but I suppose you could if you wanted to.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
There is absolutely nothing illegal about it but neither is it recognised as the correct way to do something either. Which is why I don't think it's the same thing.
Soldato
I face a similar situation on my way into Bristol every day. I go in the outside lane and as a vast majority of drivers decide to queue on the left I get to the front relatively quickly. About once a week a driver (usually a lorry) will take it upon themselves to straddle the lanes in order to block me. I don't get particularly wound up but do find the self righteous enforcement a little odd.
I was taught to merge in turn, it is in the highway code and is completely logical to me.
I was taught to merge in turn, it is in the highway code and is completely logical to me.
Man of Honour
I can confirm I do the roundabout trick sometimes. It isn't the same as this though, not by a long shot! The roundabout trick is cheeky, this isn't.
I think you've answered your own question (twice).
The Highway Code is not the Law and does use 'must' and 'must not' when specifically referring to things which are stated in Law.
I also believe you were right when you said that 'undertaking' (overtaking on the left) is not a crime in itself, but that it could be used as an example of another offence.
What the Highway Code is trying to indicate, is that in slow moving queueing traffic, where lanes are moving at similar speeds, then it is ok to pass on the left - or pass on the nearside.
The quoted text is trying to point out that important distinction between 'undertaking' (overtaking on the left) which is likely to land you in trouble and 'passing on the left', or 'passing on the nearside', which is specifically allowed in this sort of circumstance.
I'm not saying that the Merc driver was breaking the law by driving quickly down the left hand lane and passing traffic on his right. But that doesn't necessarily make it the 'right' thing for him to have been doing either.
Last edited:
Caporegime
[TW]Fox;27943619 said:
In static traffic where there is a clear obstruction you'd have to explain very clearly how having 2 lines of traffic and not one means the queue can decrease any faster than a single line. I just dont think it does. If everyobe was moving at 20 mph maybe. When traffic is deadlocked how would it help that's wgat i don't understand. Zero movement of obe lane = zero movement of 2 lanes.
Man of Honour
Even if there is no movement, using both lanes better uses the space, preventing mile long tailbacks as well as avoiding unnecessary blocked junctions or roundabouts. It's just common sense to queue in the two lanes provided.
Caporegime
Shorter queue yes. Faster? Imo creates more indecision about who goes and higher chance of an accident neither of which are desirable consequences.
Man of Honour
The indecision is only caused by absolute muppets who don't understand 'one from this lane, one from my lane'
'In turn' really is way more simple than people give credit for.
Caporegime
Not really, besides a car in another lane has further to travel to get into your lane so would take longer so would in theory be slower than everyone in a single file line?
It's not really about speed as if it's gridlocked with one car pulling off at a time then it will move the same speed, 1 lane or 2. What it is about is using road space efficiently and minimising tail backs blocking roundabouts and junctions. And...... Whether there's a good reason or not (which what I've just explained is) if a lane isn't closed/ coned off then it's free for all to use. The fact the 'but, but, but, it's rude' brigade can't seem to grasp this concept is amazing.
Rules are realistically there for people who aren't clever enough to make their own judgements.
Lapping a roundabout isn't a reasonable thing to do.
Soldato
They were both in the wrong as soon as they started weaving about on the hard shoulder.
This is what I was thinking as I didn't see any merge in turn or "use both lanes to queue" signs on that video and the video starts just before the 200 yard marker.
I have a similar closed lane on a dual carriageway on my way to work but that has massive red signs saying to use both lanes to queue (and still you get a massive long jam in one lane most of the time
)To be honest both drivers look like numpties in the video. Where is that option in the poll
?
Soldato
It doesn't need to:
There isn't a sign that says stop at a red light but that's what you're meant to do
We should change the name over here to zip merge, the average Brit is obviously no smarter than the average Yank and it needs spelling out.
This is what I was thinking as I didn't see any merge in turn or "use both lanes to queue" signs on that video and the video starts just before the 200 yard marker.
I have a similar closed lane on a dual carriageway on my way to work but that has massive red signs saying to use both lanes to queue (and still you get a massive long jam in one lane most of the time
Those signs only exist to try and stop the tidal wave of morons who queue in a single lane. They don't imply you shouldn't use both lanes if they are not present.
Soldato
There's a road in Chelmsford that's good for doing an impatient merc move.
As long as you gun it to 100mph+ you can scream past someone doing the limit and merge smoothly in front of them.
As long as you gun it to 100mph+ you can scream past someone doing the limit and merge smoothly in front of them.
- Status