OT: Four in every five sets of traffic lights should be removed, report claims

[Jonno]

Dave Plowman (News) scribbled

How long until he's suicidal because he's forced to drive on the left ?

[Clive George]

My preferred tactic when meeting one of those is to move forwards along the queue rather than back - the proportion of such idiots is sufficiently low that this normally works, and it does a very good job of showing the idiot that they are indeed dub.

[Mr Macaw]

I once parked in a bus stop and received a yell from a bus driver who wanted to use it. There was enough room for me and the bus, so I shouted "You could get a bus in there!"

Some people always expect the other to give way. Not sure what happens when two of them meet.

But when taking your test you have to reverse into a side road and parallel park....

Yes I have. I said *I* don't conform and get annoyed when others do and hold me up.

Like I said, I've never opened the highway code. I don't care for rules.

Not in Scotland, I can vaguely remember one, I think it was a main garage like BP or Shell, and the pump looked quite old. The modern ones I see have a tall arm above them holding all the hoses, I can see them being less likely to fail and leave the hose ready to get run over.

I don't queue, I use the pay at the pump. Card into pump, type pin, fill, leave. No waiting.

They're not that bright really.

[T i m]

Yes. But the point is that when the lights change in favour of the other traffic, *it* can actually flow (in principle anyway).

Erm, I'm talking about say a straight crossroads with both lanes in opposite direction running at the same time. To go straight ahead you can only enter the box if there is room for you out the other side. If turning right you can stop in the box whilst waiting for a gap in the oncoming traffic until you can turn right. That's it really?

There is an extra issue of how you pass other traffic waiting to turn right from the opposite direction. Officially I believe you are supposed to pass behind each other so you still have a unobstructed view of the oncoming traffic. In some places most people go in front (or they know they will never move) and in some places the road markings force them to do such.

No, you would never do that because you wouldn't generally be left across a lane doing that (you wouldn't pull in front of another vehicle as you aren't supposed to obstruct the free flow of traffic. Once the lights change, you pull across and are in front of the other crossing traffic anyway. None of it is perfect but it's better than nothing.

Try driving in a bus lane, or stopping on a no stopping route near an airport ...

Nope, the camera picks you up and you get a ticket in the post. We pulled into an airport car park, stopped at the barrier and the ticket came out with our registration printed on it. ;-)

Sounds ok in practice ... ;-(

Well, constant as in 'over a 24 hour period', not necessarily 'all the time', hence the need for the yellow boxes.

Same here, except when they do, if they can't get in you can get gridlock.

They already have. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Clive George]

And when it is correct to merge is almost certainly rather later than you think.

No, it really doesn't if you've got any driving ability whatsoever. You've planned the merge for the past half mile or more - you don't just shut your eyes and work it all out at the cones. When the merge point comes, you've worked out what to do, as has everybody around you, with appropriate road positioning indicating how the traffic will merge.

You really haven't grasped this have you? Because if you don't, somebody else will. Those "nutters" you complain about will always be there. If you merge late, they won't be bazzing past you, they'll be behind you.

And that can happen with early merging just as much as with merging at the merge point.

No you don't. Your tactic will never succeed. There will always be people who will disrupt it.

I manage it entirely fine. It's just planning and road positioning, and thinking about it in advance.

Except by doing so they created the opportunity for other people to overtake them. That opportunity will be taken - there's nothing you can do about it. The lorry driver is attempting to make a mobile zip-merge point - but that just highlights the fact that the zip-merge is the right thing to do.

If somebody was overtaking and forcing themselves in they hadn't zip merged, they'd merged early. The zip merge doesn't give the opportunity for anybody to overtake and force themselves in.

Suck it up. I've told you how to stop it, you're the one with the opportunity to change.

And you got passed. Sucks to be you.

In this discussion you're behaving like a moron, but we knew that. If the people in front don't move to take advantage of the empty till, I will of course take it. Like I do when driving. Your driving behaviour is that nobody uses the empty till, and if anybody tries to, people tut.

If you're going to choose an analogy, try not to choose such a shit one...

[T i m]

But they were going to, just you jumped in first. *That's* the whole point.

Yes, so you have told us.

Nope. If you consider a dual carriageway or even motorway, you are

*supposed* to only use lanes other than 1 for overtaking. So, that would mean you would be 'overtaking' other traffic whilst approaching a signposted known obstruction in the overtaking lane.

Nope, it wasn't an analogy but a final test of your ethics. I guessed right. ;-)

An actual analogy would be a single queue for all the tills and you just walking down the outside and straight up to the next free till because you can (or could until someone drags you outside etc). ;-)

If you really wanted to demonstrate your intention to be fair and still use both lanes you would parallel the last person in the queue and then zip in behind them by the cones. Driving past them to the front, just because you can and you don't realise how they got there (in the lane they were supposed to be in unless overtaking) is part of your problem (ask anyone in the queue you have just jumped).

If they thought what you were doing was fair or reasonable, they would do the same right?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Again, you are confusing reasonable people in a queue resenting you 'pushing in' with a fair a reasonable system being applied by all.

It is perfectly reasonable (and a requirement) to let people merge for all sorts of reasons but most don't take kindly to anyone taking advantage of that in an unreasonable way.

Another good example of that is vehicles joining a slow moving motorway (when all lanes are moving slowly).

Again, most reasonable people will slowly merge where they might or a bit sooner than they might typically and are generally allowed in with no issues.

Then you get the odd 'nutter' who will undertake those already merging and drive right up to the end of the slip road and even onto the hard shoulder and finally force their way in way ahead of everyone else.

You probably see nothing wrong with that either eh? It's not all about what you can get away with over anyone else, it's doing what would be considered 'reasonable' by the majority.

Cheers, T i m

[damduck-egg]

Changes as you pull the slider from the bottom stop up towards the top stop. At the bottom you are in advance of the final position by a few inches to a over a couple yards or more depending on what is being joined.

if you class the top stop as being the obstruction then until the slider reaches the top stop the lumps or teeth are merging in advance. So irrespective if you or Tim are correct then the zip on a pair trousers or a boat awning isn't really the best description despite the name.

G Harman

[Clive George]

And you do carry on adding evidence to support that statement.

Like I said, you're behaving like a moron. You're inventing behaviour which hasn't been described. I am perfectly capable of judging a socially acceptable length of time to wait to allow the people in front to move and take advantage of the empty till. It's not very long - normally people will move pretty quickly.

Or when traffic is sufficiently heavy that you can't pull back in.

Just because you can't imagine a sensible way to plan a merge which doesn't irritate people, doesn't mean it's not possible.

No you didn't, you just demonstrated you're a moron.

Funnily enough that's actually quite close to what I do - that's the entire point about the planning of the merge well in advance. If the traffic is moving, I will keep pace for a reasonable distance to allow a clean and straightforward merge. OTOH if the LH lane is stopped I will pass, but then so will plenty of other people.

No, it's their problem. They have exactly the same opportunity as I do to use that lane. If they choose not to take it, that's their loss - though I will encourage them to do so, just as I am encouraging you to do so.

I've told you many times now that that's exactly what they should do in order to prevent what you describe as queue jumping.

It is the only thing which will prevent it.

[Clive George]

"don't take kindly"? Doesn't sound like a well balanced person.

One of the things you haven't considered in this discussion is the possibility that I might not be the "nutter" you describe. There is a happy medium between early merging and charging up in an unreasonable manner.

I've let you carry on with the presumption that I am driving like a psychopath, to let you carry on digging your holes, but I will occasionally point out you're wrong.

I will probably merge later than you. However I will have negotiated my merge point a lot earlier, and will be matching speed, so I will be allowed in with no issues.

You will have merged, and will have left a gap for one of those "nutters" you disparage. I won't have left that gap, so if there is a "nutter" behind me, they have to merge sensibly. Which one of us is encouraging the "nutter" behaviour?

At no point have I condoned such behaviour.

If you met me out on the roads, you might realise that the way I drive is a lot more "reasonable" than you think from your baseless assumptions here. But I will still take advantage of the gaps you leave unnecessarily.

[Tim Watts]

Nope - VW Touran has a high roof and the filler is forward of the rear that whatever you do with a pump hose, it's only *just* reaches, usually with the nozzle in a kak handed position and the hose pulling on my rear wiper - that's with the car tight up to the pump.

I gave up trying with that malarchy a long time ago and just wait for a right-side pump :-|

I regard most of those signs as liars :)

[DerbyBorn]

I don't have a problem with this but:

1. Not if you can see that the person has only just arrived at the give-way line. They do not have priority.

1. Not if there is a gap in the traffic a few vehicles behind me.

2. Not if it is a well know local rat-run for people to avoid the traffic lights. (It only encourages them - someone has to educate them)

1. Unfortunately traffic lights create a "platoon effect" of a solid convoy for a time - there will soon be a gap. Be patient and consider your route choices.

[DerbyBorn]

They certainly do in the USA - everything takes off like a train when the lights change. It is non-competitive, stress free and enjoyable.

[Nightjar]

Strictly it means no *stopping* during the period shown on adjacent notices, except for a licensed taxi stopping to set down or pick up a passenger or a blue badge holder stopping to pick up or set down a disabled person. There is also an exemption for buses, which may stop in a marked bus bay. However, I didn't want to pick too many nits :-)

[Nightjar]

On 25/01/2016 20:41, Eednud wrote: ...

I recall Oxford Street working like that at a steady 30mph, in the days when cars were still allowed to drive down it.

[T i m]

Yes, that would be covered by my "There are some vehicles this doesn't apply to of course." then Tim. So I was really only talking about those people who are driving vehicles where you could easily reach the hose to the opposite side, if only the driver could get the car closer to the pump than a cars width and position it forward far enough to put the back on line with the hose etc.

Daughter 2003 Transit Connect is ok because it's very like many cars with the filler behind the o/s rear wheel arch.

I don't know if I've ever had to test them as I can generally position my car(s) so that the std length hose would reach in any case?

I think it's about 50:50 now that I fill from the 'wrong' side, mostly because I can then drive straight onto an empty pump. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

+1

Cheers, T i m

[spuorgelgoog]

In the case of two buses the other night, the drivers settle down with their paper and thermos in a state of satisfied intransigence until one finishes looking at the pictures and relents, making a queue of cars behind him all reverse.

Owain

[T i m]

What, when there has been a 'Lane closed ahead indication for a mile? The only reason *you* can't pull back in is you have just overtaken a bunch of people and they aren't making it easy for you.

I can and do merge very sensibly all the time mate. I have also seen what happens when people try to take advantage and leave it till it's too late.

Yes, that must be it. You are at odds with the majority and I'm the moron (and they are all 'idiots')?

Yes, we know, and it's wrong. You don't leave the getting into the left (non overtaking) lane till you reach the cones, you do so sooner.

Of course ... and do so in plenty of time before the cones.

That doesn't make it 'right'. I agree it can be difficult, depending on the road.

Given a long straight dual carriageway with a section of say 50 mph restricted roadworks closing the outside lane and assuming the queue stays within the range covered by the warning signs, if everyone formed up in the inside lane it would be on a (fair) 'first come, first served' basis. However, if the queue becomes too long and especially if it should back up past the warning signs, anyone arriving at the end of the queue may not realise what everyone else was doing till it was too late, however, the 'good' thing to do at that point was to pull into the queue at the earliest opportunity, NOT drive right past everyone else and push in at the front. The people in the queue are being fair and have set the precedence by queuing.

The only other fair thing to do and still placate your overwhelming need to dive in the overtaking lane right up to the cones, is for every other car starting from the front to move into the overtaking lane, only to zip back into the only open lane once up against the cones? Can you see how pointless that would be?

The only exception to that (as I said) was if the road before the lane closure was complicated by a roundabout or some such where an extended queue would then obstruct other traffic.

Yes, we know just how fair you are(n't).

Yes, but they don't because it's not what the road signs have indicated they should do, nor the highway code (re both use of the overtaking lane and what to do with a lane closure).

And I would not do so because it's neither fair nor legal. It made me LOL the other day and I hope it was you I was watching. The motorway was completely closed and everyone was being directed off on a slip-road. The instruction to pull over was posted several times over a large distance and 99% of people were doing exactly what they were instructed. However, *some* who felt the instruction didn't apply to them tried to do exactly what you advocate and the Police where parking them up in the outside lane and fining them all! ;-)

No, there are other ways civilised people behave and demonstrate respect for each other.

No, see above (even though you might be right ITRW because of how many selfish people there are out there).

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Ironically that's exactly what a 'well balanced person' would feel. Same with *any* anti-social activity.

You haven't demonstrated any alternative as yet? ;-(

Of course.

Please do your best mate. ;-)

Much later by the sound of it. ;-(

Then that's fine. If you polled the drivers around you and they judged your manoeuvre to be fair and reasonable and you weren't taking advantage of anyone else then that's how it should be. That wasn't what you were saying you did though.

Typically yes. Often people fed-up with being take advantage of will bunch up to make it harder for the nutters to get in by any other means than stealth (jumping in before someone can close the gap) or just forcing their way in.

They won't be able to (see above) because they will now be up against the cones and would rather ram someone than stop.

You, always, 100%.

But you will do the exact same from the opposite side? Going down the outside of a single line queue going though a width restriction is exactly the same as someone undertaking to then force themselves in at the last second. It's not 'fair' and it's not socially acceptable. And you HAVE told us you are happy to queue jump.

They are based on your own admissions and nothing else. If you are (now?) changing the description of what you actually do then yes, you may well be a 'reasonable' driver.

Because any gap I leave will *never* be 'unnecessary' then you have once again demonstrated your attitude towards all this.

Cheers, T i m