Motorway Road Rage - Brits are idiots when they arrive at roadworks

[Arrowfoot]

[QUOTE 3658546, member: 45"]You're not talking about where's the best place for the merging to take place in terms of the optimum speed of the activity, because in that case location is irrelevant. What you're talking about, and it's emerging all over this discussion, is the problem caused by drivers not making this work together.[/QUOTE]

Let take the case of 8 men of science and lets call them Marzjennings, User, Mort, Broadside, Shadow, glasgowcyclist, arch_tect and subaqua each having their own car. All 8 have impeccable manners with a mensa IQ. Lets also consider that they were trained to merge from 2 lanes into a single lane multiple times in an actual motorway that was closed just for the training.

So you have the best trained, smartest and well manned folks trained to merge in the most efficient manner. Do you think speed of the cars moving thru the bottleneck would be faster at the neck of the bottleneck (pun intended). Or is the speed faster if they have already merged some distance before and are already in a single file approaching the bottleneck.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Let take the case of 8 men of science and lets call them Marzjennings, User, Mort, Broadside, Shadow, glasgowcyclist, arch_tect and subaqua each having their own car. All 8 have impeccable manners with a mensa IQ. Lets also consider that they were trained to merge from 2 lanes into a single lane multiple times in an actual motorway that was closed just for the training.

So you have the best trained, smartest and well manned folks trained to merge in the most efficient manner. Do you think speed of the cars moving thru the bottleneck would be faster at the neck of the bottleneck (pun intended). Or is the speed faster if they have already merged some distance before and are already in a single file approaching the bottleneck.

Both scenarios could be achieved at the same speed.

GC

 

[ufkacbln]

I replied to a post about merging early as opposed to merging at the front... Any interptreatation of that is the right of the reader

What interests me is the conflict between

[QUOTE 3657737, member: 45"]
The most efficient way, which reduces the delay and the length of the congestion, is to merge towards the front of the queue. [/quote]

[QUOTE 3657961, member: 45"]Merging at the front and traffic having to stop causes delays, .[/QUOTE]

 

[Hip Priest]

Jesus wept. Motoring has become some sort of national mental illness.

 

[Dayvo]

I replied to a post about merging early as opposed to merging at the front... Any interptreatation of that is the right of the reader

What interests me is the conflict between

I think Mr Paul has been round too many roundabouts a bit too quickly.

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 3659212, member: 45"]No conflict there at all. Do try reading the whole thread, it will really help you.

And while you're at it, see #102, and stop telling fibs.[/QUOTE]

As I said your interpretation of this post is your problem not mine.

 

[snorri]

But to travel on the HS2 with high demand, a ticket will cost your first born son being indentured into Railtrack upon his 18th birthday. Daughters will serve as comfort maidens to shareholders and you still won't be guaranteed a seat. In First Class meanwhile...

Well, I don't have a daughter but would be pleased to merge at the front, even before reaching Aviemore, with a comfort maiden in the First Class sleeper to London, now what was the problem?

Edit woops forgot the

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 3659374, member: 45"]Go figure....[/QUOTE]

I still can't see how this is supposedly a "fib"


You have yet to establish your absurd claim.....

 

[S.Giles]

Person A drives deliberately slowly purely in order to prevent person B from proceeding at their chosen rate, all for the purpose of making timely progress.

That's an interesting paradox!

 

[Arrowfoot]

Both scenarios could be achieved at the same speed.

GC

No. Thats the reason why people leave the second lane pretty much empty. Surely all of them cannot be wrong, all the time.

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 3659407, member: 45"]I don't need to say anything else. It's there in front of you.[/QUOTE]
We'll take that as a refusal t justify your absurd claim then.... par for the course

 

[threebikesmcginty]

There's some good info and animations to support what Mr P says unfortunately it's all American, where they're a bit more switched on to this, so most people will just dismiss it as they consider all Americans to be really thick.

 

[Dan B]

Thing is, everyone in twon centres already knows how to merge in turn from two lanes down to one, because all[*] the junctions around here with traffic lights have two lanes on approach and one lane on the exit. Do people just forget how to drive when they leave London?

[*] not all, but certainly many

 

[benb]

Have you all gone completely mad?
A moment's thought will show that it makes no difference at all whether you merge at the point the 2 lanes become 1, or several miles before, except the latter will cause a much longer tailback. All you're doing is artificially moving the lane closure backwards - making virtual cones if you will.

Once you have merged, you accelerate as normal, and almost immediately catch up to the person in front from the other lane. Don't forget you are still in a single lane at this point, so traffic will be slower moving than normal.

The only possible scenario where early merging will benefit is where the obstruction is only a few metres long, and the section of road immediately returns to two lanes.

The most efficient way to get through a lane restriction is to make full use of the available road space, and merge in turn at the point the road goes from 2 lanes to 1.

 

[marknotgeorge]

Let take the case of 8 men of science and lets call them Marzjennings, User, Mort, Broadside, Shadow, glasgowcyclist, arch_tect and subaqua each having their own car. All 8 have impeccable manners with a mensa IQ. Lets also consider that they were trained to merge from 2 lanes into a single lane multiple times in an actual motorway that was closed just for the training.

So you have the best trained, smartest and well manned folks trained to merge in the most efficient manner. Do you think speed of the cars moving thru the bottleneck would be faster at the neck of the bottleneck (pun intended). Or is the speed faster if they have already merged some distance before and are already in a single file approaching the bottleneck.

So we've established that given sufficiently light traffic volume, merging early does not impede traffic flow. Now add to the men of science a zillion or so other numpties, such that the volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of a single lane (which is presumably why two lanes were built in the first place). This is what causes the conjestion, and this is where merging in turn becomes more efficient.