How do you stop the queue jumping motorists ?

[Justin Smith]

So the solution is that everyone use both lanes and merge in turn.

Not a ridiculous situation where we leave hundreds of metres of perfectly good tarmac empty.

 

This comment, more than anything, persuades me that you`re not really reading any of these posts are you Cyclone ?

 

One queue 100m long uses up 100m of lane. One double queue 50m long uses up 100m of lane. Furthermore, since the bottleneck is the constraining factor to the traffic, if a single queue moves at 10mph, a double queue will move at half that, namely, 5mph. There`s no difference at all. Even if we accept your theory that merging at the front does not reduce capacity (and I don`t accept that, it`s plainly incorrect), it makes no difference to how long it takes you to get through the junction. All it means is that some motorists can get through more quickly by jumping the queue, thus meaning all the rest will take longer.

 

I`m specifically talking about queues which don`t foul exit junctions here, that`s a different argument.

[Petminder]

I hope you don't drive in Germany. It's a legal requirement to merge in turn at the last possible point, and you can be punished for preventing drivers from doing so.

 

If they want it to work here then that is the way to go, make it a legal requirement and punish anyone seen not doing it.

[Justin Smith]

I hope you don't drive in Germany. It's a legal requirement to merge in turn at the last possible point, and you can be punished for preventing drivers from doing so.

 

If that`s correct, and I don`t necessarily agree with it, the effect would be that both queues would be the same length more of the time, so queue jumping would be eliminated.

Just out of interest, if the powers that be want merging at the last possible moment over here why do they warn of a closing lane hundreds of yards ahead ? That`s just asking for people to make sure they`re in the non closing lane early so as not to have to throw themselves on the mercy of other drivers, and also jumping any queue.

[TimmyR]

By merging early you eliminate the risk of being forced to stop, but increase the risk of someone else overtaking and pushing in. If no one pushed in, the single queue would move much faster than two queues trying to merge at the last moment. Computer simulations of a zip merge do show how it can work but it isn't left till the last moment and it doesn't allow for the differences between different drivers. I posted a link showing how a phantom traffic jam forms, they couldn't even get 22 drivers to drive round a track at uniform intervals, they ended up stop starting. If they can't achieve that, how would you manage to get thousands of drivers to drive in sync and then merge into each other at a given point. In theory it works but in practice it doesn't because there will always be someone willing to push in and others that are willing to stop someone merging, there will be some that can't maintain the same speed and distance, some that brake a little to hard and some that apply a bit to much gas.

 

I'm sorry i'm still not getting your point on this. I've watched the vid about phantom traffic jams but I don't see how its related. In the case of a closed lane, everyone has to merge at some point and that will either be at the last possible minute or somewhere around where the first sign indicates a lane closure. It makes no difference. The traffic will have to slow down in both cases and merging early won't make any difference to how much it will have to slow down. Unless you can show me a computer simulation of merging late against merging early, I'm not convinced.

Edited November 22, 2016 by TimmyR

[Petminder]

I'm sorry i'm still not getting your point on this. I've watched the vid about phantom traffic jams but I don't see how its related. In the case of a closed lane, everyone has to merge at some point and that will either be at the last possible minute or somewhere around where the first sign indicates a lane closure. It makes no difference. The traffic will have to slow down in both cases and merging early won't make any difference to how much it will have to slow down. Unless you can show me a computer simulation of merging late against merging early, I'm not convinced.

 

If you can't see how its related I think you are going to have difficulty understating the point I made.

 

If you try to merge 100m from the cones and someone prevents you, you can carry on moving in the hope that someone else lets you in, if you wait till the last possible moment and no one lets you in you have no choice but to stop, how that effect the queue behind you is down to how fast you are moving but no matter what speed you are dong it would cause everyone behind to stop, once they are stood still and the other lane is moving it makes merging significantly more difficult.

 

Think of it this way, you are trying to merge with motorway traffic from the slip road but no one lets you in so you have to stop, your task of merging is now more difficult because they are moving and you are not.

[Cyclone]

This comment, more than anything, persuades me that you`re not really reading any of these posts are you Cyclone ?

 

One queue 100m long uses up 100m of lane. One double queue 50m long uses up 100m of lane. Furthermore, since the bottleneck is the constraining factor to the traffic, if a single queue moves at 10mph, a double queue will move at half that, namely, 5mph. There`s no difference at all. Even if we accept your theory that merging at the front does not reduce capacity (and I don`t accept that, it`s plainly incorrect), it makes no difference to how long it takes you to get through the junction. All it means is that some motorists can get through more quickly by jumping the queue, thus meaning all the rest will take longer.

 

I`m specifically talking about queues which don`t foul exit junctions here, that`s a different argument.

 

Argh, how can you be so stupid?

 

1 queue, 100 metres long might be blocking a side junction or tailing onto a roundabout that a 50 metre queue wouldn't be.

[Flexo]

if you wait till the last possible moment and no one lets you in you have no choice but to stop

 

It's not necessary to be "let in". Two lanes merge; neither has priority.

[Petminder]

Argh, how can you be so stupid?

 

1 queue, 100 metres long might be blocking a side junction or tailing onto a roundabout that a 50 metre queue wouldn't be.

 

Blocking a side road is against the rules and would result in a test fail, its considered bad driving, queuing traffic as no need to block side roads, they should just leave a gap to keep the side road clear.

 

I have told you this several times.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2016 at 16:41 ----------

 

It's not necessary to be "let in". Two lanes merge; neither has priority.

 

So you intend driving into the side of a car that is already in the lane you want to merge with, if not someone will need to allow you to merge.

[Cyclone]

Not making good progress is also a test fail. So why sit in a queue when there hundreds of metres of safe overtaking you can do.

 

You 'having told me' means little. You've also told us all to sit in queues for no good reason and against all common sense.

[Petminder]

Not making good progress is also a test fail. So why sit in a queue when there hundreds of metres of safe overtaking you can do.

 

You 'having told me' means little. You've also told us all to sit in queues for no good reason and against all common sense.

 

I can assure you that you would not fail a driving test for not making progress if you are in queuing traffic, you would fail though if you jump the queue of waiting traffic.

You can check it in the highway code if you don't believe me but I can assure you that you would fail a test for blocking a junction.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Petminder