Driving through Red X warnings

[Dadam]

Note the wording.

That is all convention, not a requirement.


A red X means the lane is closed and should not be driven upon, regardless of any previous or later instruction to merge.

X = Lane closed, do not drive upon it past that point, period (as the muricans say.)

Yes, I hoped my post was clear that I was responding to the post about coned off lanes on non-motorway roads. Obviously you have to have merged before the X

 

[Jody]

The ones for the closed lanes do, which is why those cameras went off.

You learn something new every day.

Had no idea they were used for lane enforcement

 

[Alex321]

You learn something new every day.

Had no idea they were used for lane enforcement

It is only fairly recent - since September 2022 in most cases.
https://nationalhighways.co.uk/arti...s been an offence,able to enforce the cameras.

 

[DCLane]

SWMBO's had a DVLA letter today, so I guess she's done it again or been speeding. Again.

The issue is the impact on son no. 2's car insurance, not hers, as she's a named driver.

Edit: it's simply an information mailer.

 

[lazybloke]

SWMBF - she who must be fined

 

[matticus]

Am I missing something here? Whilst they're in a closed lane, they appear to be travelling at about 40mph, whilst you appear to be in an open lane labelled 40mph and travelling at 49mph. Is that not also a bit of a problem?

2 hours later ... have you reported this offence yet?

 

[winjim]

It's the same thing as last minute lane changers on non motorway roads who change lane when the cones start rather than at the advance warning signs, then bully their way into the other lane hoping to get ahead. It doesn't really matter what they know or don't know, or whether they even care as long as you know, and anticipate their twattish behaviour. No point spoiling your day getting angry about it.

Lord knows, as a cyclist you end up having to think for other road users often enough, and as a motorcyclist, even more.

That be zip merging and is the correct way to do it.

 

[gbb]

Nope, they're doing the right thing. The lane closure is the correct merge point, the warning signs are just that, giving you advance warning. The correct procedure is to use all the available road space then merge in turn. What happens is people try to lay claim to "their" road space early, then get territorial about it as they perceive (incorrectly) those using the other lane as queue jumping. That's the twattish behavior.

Highway code rule 134
“You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as directed.
"In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily.
"Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended at high speed.”

So if traffic is free flowing, moving early is best but if there's a queue it's best to merge at the closure point.

As with so many things in the Highway Code, its not entirely clear, you WILL do this, or you WILL do that, rather its often you SHOULD.

I'd argue, particually on a motorway, making the actual point a lane is closed the merge point is uneccessary and potentially dangerous, particually in heavy traffic.
Those that take the appropriate lane early are lessening the confusion and risk later on....for everyone..

Getting territorial is of course wrong, i agree. If someone chooses to merge at the last point, he is quite entitled to do so. However it does increase the risk of static traffic, the LAST thing you want on a motorway.

 

[Dadam]

@gbb I guess I should have clarified the post a bit more. It was in reply to @a.twiddler 's post referring to non-motorway coned off lanes.

I'd argue, particually on a motorway, making the actual point a lane is closed the merge point is uneccessary and potentially dangerous, particually in heavy traffic.

I'd argue the opposite. The heavier the traffic the more important it is to use all lanes. That's why they're there.

Those that take the appropriate lane early are lessening the confusion and risk later on....for everyone..

Those taking the lane too early are actually increasing the risk of a tipping point where that lane's flow switches from slowing but moving, to stop/start. Too many vehicles trying to merge unnecessarily early. There should be no confusion with appropriate signage.

Getting territorial is of course wrong, i agree. If someone chooses to merge at the last point, he is quite entitled to do so. However it does increase the risk of static traffic, the LAST thing you want on a motorway.

The volume of road space available is obviously greater if all lanes are used until they can't be. So the risk of static traffic is that much higher if all the cars try to cram into half a mile of 1 lane, vs the same distance of 2 or 3 lanes, and this is more dangerous than everybody calmly merging at an appropriate point.

 

[lazybloke]

@gbb I guess I should have clarified the post a bit more. It was in reply to @a.twiddler 's post referring to non-motorway coned off lanes.


I'd argue the opposite. The heavier the traffic the more important it is to use all lanes. That's why they're there.


Those taking the lane too early are actually increasing the risk of a tipping point where that lane's flow switches from slowing but moving, to stop/start. Too many vehicles trying to merge unnecessarily early. There should be no confusion with appropriate signage.


The volume of road space available is obviously greater if all lanes are used until they can't be. So the risk of static traffic is that much higher if all the cars try to cram into half a mile of 1 lane, vs the same distance of 2 or 3 lanes, and this is more dangerous than everybody calmly merging at an appropriate point.

Surely it takes time for traffic to merge nicely, so it should be signposted in advance and not at the last minute?

Bunching of traffic and stop/start congestion can be reduced by use of variable speed limits.

 

[Willd]

M6 near Coventry.

Ahh that's your problem there