I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I was going 
in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into one, while a 
crashed car was being recovered from the nearside lane, with cones and (I 
presume) "Police Slow" signs.

For about a hundred yards before the cones, there was a queue of traffic in 
Lane 2, and nothing in Lane 1 - everyone had moved over. Before that there 
was a large gap of about a hundred yards, then there were two artics 
side-by-side which were stationary, blocking both lanes with very long 
queues building up behind them.

I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will 
sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, remaining 
like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.

I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from rest and 
it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move slowly, with 
frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely remaining stationary 
while such a large gap exists ahead is taking the piss.

"Martin"  wrote in message 
news:c5GdnVttKYsy2G3XnZ2dnUVZ8kCdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I was 
> going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into one, while 
> a crashed car was being recovered from the nearside lane, with cones and 
> (I presume) "Police Slow" signs.
>
> For about a hundred yards before the cones, there was a queue of traffic 
> in Lane 2, and nothing in Lane 1 - everyone had moved over. Before that 
> there was a large gap of about a hundred yards, then there were two artics 
> side-by-side which were stationary, blocking both lanes with very long 
> queues building up behind them.
>
> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will 
> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, 
> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
>
> I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from rest 
> and it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move slowly, with 
> frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely remaining stationary 
> while such a large gap exists ahead is taking the piss.
>
>

Probably on his mobile

On 3 Nov, 15:01, "Martin"  wrote:
> I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I was going
> in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into one, while a
> crashed car was being recovered from the nearside lane, with cones and (I
> presume) "Police Slow" signs.
>
> For about a hundred yards before the cones, there was a queue of traffic in
> Lane 2, and nothing in Lane 1 - everyone had moved over. Before that there
> was a large gap of about a hundred yards, then there were two artics
> side-by-side which were stationary, blocking both lanes with very long
> queues building up behind them.
>
> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, remaining
> like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
>
> I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from rest and
> it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move slowly, with
> frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely remaining stationary
> while such a large gap exists ahead is taking the piss.

Why, where are you going? He can see a lot more ahead than you can. I
do this a lot, low gear tickover, slowly catch the queue ahead, stop,
wait for a sizeable space, low gear tickover again. Can't see what the
problem is, seems to me a lot better than constant stop start every 10
meters or so.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:45:51 -0800 (PST)
NM  wrote:
>Why, where are you going? He can see a lot more ahead than you can. I
>do this a lot, low gear tickover, slowly catch the queue ahead, stop,
>wait for a sizeable space, low gear tickover again. Can't see what the
>problem is, seems to me a lot better than constant stop start every 10
>meters or so.

Problem is if everyone did that the queues length would grow far longer
that it would otherwise have been and start blocking up junctions that it
wouldn't have done otherwise. The shorter a queue is the less problems it
causes for surrounding routes.

B2003

Martin wrote:
> I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I
> was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into
> one, while a crashed car was being recovered from the nearside lane,
> with cones and (I presume) "Police Slow" signs.
>
> For about a hundred yards before the cones, there was a queue of
> traffic in Lane 2, and nothing in Lane 1 - everyone had moved over.
> Before that there was a large gap of about a hundred yards, then
> there were two artics side-by-side which were stationary, blocking
> both lanes with very long queues building up behind them.
>
> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
>
> I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from
> rest and it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move
> slowly, with frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely
> remaining stationary while such a large gap exists ahead is taking
> the piss.

I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers 'jumping 
the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and then pushing in 
ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2. It's a 
favourite trick of truck drivers.

Kev

Ret. wrote:
> Martin wrote:

>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
>> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
>> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.

> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers 
> 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and then 
> pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2. 
> It's a favourite trick of truck drivers.

Indeed.  Often combined with the other trick of closing up very close to 
the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop bikes travelling 
down the gap between the miles and miles of stationery traffic

David

In article , Martin 
says...

> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will 
> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, remaining 
> like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
> 
> I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from rest and 
> it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move slowly, with 
> frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely remaining stationary 
> while such a large gap exists ahead is taking the piss.

It is. And that's from an ex-lorry driver. If the driver wants to block 
off a lane, he should join the Police and become a traffic officer. 
Until then, either drive up to the merge point or get out of the way.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

On 3 Nov, 16:17, boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:45:51 -0800 (PST)
>
> NM  wrote:
> >Why, where are you going? He can see a lot more ahead than you can. I
> >do this a lot, low gear tickover, slowly catch the queue ahead, stop,
> >wait for a sizeable space, low gear tickover again. Can't see what the
> >problem is, seems to me a lot better than constant stop start every 10
> >meters or so.
>
> Problem is if everyone did that the queues length would grow far longer
> that it would otherwise have been and start blocking up junctions that it
> wouldn't have done otherwise. The shorter a queue is the less problems it
> causes for surrounding routes.
>
> B2003

not really. a slow moving queue is easier to handle than a stop start
one and there is no evidence that the time to pass a given point is
either longer or shorter by either method.

On 3 Nov, 16:36, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
> > I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I
> > was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into
> > one, while a crashed car was being recovered from the nearside lane,
> > with cones and (I presume) "Police Slow" signs.
>
> > For about a hundred yards before the cones, there was a queue of
> > traffic in Lane 2, and nothing in Lane 1 - everyone had moved over.
> > Before that there was a large gap of about a hundred yards, then
> > there were two artics side-by-side which were stationary, blocking
> > both lanes with very long queues building up behind them.
>
> > I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
> > sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
> > remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
>
> > I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from
> > rest and it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move
> > slowly, with frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely
> > remaining stationary while such a large gap exists ahead is taking
> > the piss.
>
> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers 'jumping
> the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and then pushing in
> ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2. It's a
> favourite trick of truck drivers.
>
> Kev

It's entirely legal so why is it a trick.

On 3 Nov, 17:50, Lobster  wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
> > Martin wrote:
> >> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
> >> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
> >> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
> > I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers
> > 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and then
> > pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2.
> > It's a favourite trick of truck drivers.
>
> Indeed.  Often combined with the other trick of closing up very close to
> the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop bikes travelling
> down the gap between the miles and miles of stationery traffic
>
> David

Why is this a 'trick', personally I don't agree with it being a biker
myself but I can't see any trickery involved, piss poor driving maybe .

On 3 Nov, 17:51, Conor  wrote:
> In article , Martin
> says...
>
> > I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
> > sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead, remaining
> > like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
>
> > I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from rest and
> > it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move slowly, with
> > frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely remaining stationary
> > while such a large gap exists ahead is taking the piss.
>
> It is. And that's from an ex-lorry driver. If the driver wants to block
> off a lane, he should join the Police and become a traffic officer.
> Until then, either drive up to the merge point or get out of the way.
>
> --
> Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
>
> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

Unless I have the wrong end of the stick nobody is talking about
blocking lanes

NM wrote:
> On 3 Nov, 16:36, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Martin wrote:
>>> I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I
>>> was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into
>>> one, while a crashed car was being recovered from the nearside lane,
>>> with cones and (I presume) "Police Slow" signs.
>>
>>> For about a hundred yards before the cones, there was a queue of
>>> traffic in Lane 2, and nothing in Lane 1 - everyone had moved over.
>>> Before that there was a large gap of about a hundred yards, then
>>> there were two artics side-by-side which were stationary, blocking
>>> both lanes with very long queues building up behind them.
>>
>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
>>> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
>>> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
>>
>>> I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from
>>> rest and it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move
>>> slowly, with frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely
>>> remaining stationary while such a large gap exists ahead is taking
>>> the piss.
>>
>> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers
>> 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and
>> then pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in
>> lane 2. It's a favourite trick of truck drivers.
>>
>> Kev
>
> It's entirely legal so why is it a trick.

TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing.  When I've been 
patiently queuing in Lane 1 to get to a point where Lane 2 merges into Lane 
1, it ticks me off no end to see drivers whizzing past me and then getting 
into Lane 1 ahead of me. Having said that, using a truck to deliberately 
block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is *not* 
entirely legal!

Kev

NM wrote:
> On 3 Nov, 17:51, Conor  wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Martin says...
>>
>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
>>> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
>>> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
>>
>>> I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from
>>> rest and it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move
>>> slowly, with frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely
>>> remaining stationary while such a large gap exists ahead is taking
>>> the piss.
>>
>> It is. And that's from an ex-lorry driver. If the driver wants to
>> block off a lane, he should join the Police and become a traffic
>> officer. Until then, either drive up to the merge point or get out
>> of the way.
>>
>> --
>> Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
>>
>> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
>
> Unless I have the wrong end of the stick nobody is talking about
> blocking lanes

Yes they are. What happens is this:  There is a lane closure in lane 2 up 
ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the closure. Other 
drivers whiz up in lane 2, pass those drivers who are patiently queueing in 
lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they get to the closure.

Truck drivers in lane 1 often straddle the line between lane 1 and 2 to 
prevent cars passing them in lane 2. They also often work in pairs with a 
truck blocking lane 2 and then being allowed back into lane 1 by his 'mate' 
when they reach the closure.

Kev

Ret. used his keyboard to write :
> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing.  When I've been 
> patiently queuing in Lane 1 to get to a point where Lane 2 merges into Lane 
> 1, it ticks me off no end to see drivers whizzing past me and then getting 
> into Lane 1 ahead of me.

Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.

> Having said that, using a truck to deliberately 
> block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is *not* 
> entirely legal!

Drivers have been 'done' for doing it.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield  wrote:

> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.

Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before roadworks) are 
*frequently* sabotaged by truckers deliberately blocking lane 2.

Peter

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:rLidnYMAfoL8EW3XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Yes they are. What happens is this:  There is a lane closure in lane 2 up 
> ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the closure. Other 
> drivers whiz up in lane 2, pass those drivers who are patiently queueing 
> in lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they get to the closure.

you call it "pushing in", some of us would see it as making use of a gap to 
keep the traffic flowing.

james

Eccles wrote:
> Harry Bloomfield  wrote:
> 
>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
> 
> Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before roadworks) are 
> *frequently* sabotaged by truckers deliberately blocking lane 2.

  That does not stop the traffic using both lanes when queueing.

On 3 Nov, 17:50, Lobster  wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
> > Martin wrote:
> >> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
> >> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
> >> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
> > I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers
> > 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and then
> > pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2.
> > It's a favourite trick of truck drivers.
>
> Indeed.  Often combined with the other trick of closing up very close to
> the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop bikes travelling
> down the gap between the miles and miles of stationery traffic
>

Quite right. Bike shold take their place in queuing traffic like every
other vehicle.

McKevvy

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>
>> Unless I have the wrong end of the stick nobody is talking about
>> blocking lanes
>
>Yes they are. What happens is this:  There is a lane closure in lane 2 
>up ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the closure. 
>Other drivers whiz up in lane 2, pass those drivers who are patiently 
>queueing in lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they get to the 
>closure.

Therefore they are making use of the road available to them.  When do 
you suggest that they stop using L2? 100m, 500m, 1000m before the 
closure of the lane?  Or at the point of closure where they can zip 
merger into L1. Your description above sounds like the latter which 
seems to make sense, the only problem with that is all the lemmings in 
L1 complaining about people using L2 where it is still open to traffic. 
These same lemmings then steadfastly block those in L2 from zip merging 
into L1.  A bit more courtesy and give and take in this sort of 
situation would go a long way to keeping traffic moving.  Do you have to 
have BIG signs saying "Please zip merge"  or should it be down to common 
sense?

At the end of the day it does not make a lot of difference to journey 
time but it does make a lot of difference to peoples blood pressure.


>
>Truck drivers in lane 1 often straddle the line between lane 1 and 2 to 
>prevent cars passing them in lane 2. They also often work in pairs with 
>a truck blocking lane 2 and then being allowed back into lane 1 by his 
>'mate' when they reach the closure.

I saw 2 trucks on the M6 a while back straddling L1/L2 and L2/L3 to hold 
up everything behind some 3 or 4 miles before the signed closure of L3. 
An interesting manoeuvre......  One did have blue LED's on his dash so 
that probably made it OK??

-- 
Bill

Ret. wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>> I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I
>> was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into
>> one, while a crashed car was being recovered from the nearside lane,
>> with cones and (I presume) "Police Slow" signs.
>>
>> For about a hundred yards before the cones, there was a queue of
>> traffic in Lane 2, and nothing in Lane 1 - everyone had moved over.
>> Before that there was a large gap of about a hundred yards, then
>> there were two artics side-by-side which were stationary, blocking
>> both lanes with very long queues building up behind them.
>>
>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
>> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
>> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
>>
>> I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from
>> rest and it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move
>> slowly, with frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely
>> remaining stationary while such a large gap exists ahead is taking
>> the piss.
> 
> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers 
> 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and then 
> pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2. 
> It's a favourite illegal trick of truck drivers.

I corrected your post for you.

NM wrote:
> On 3 Nov, 16:36, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Martin wrote:
>>> I've just passed the scene of an accident on a dual carriageway (I
>>> was going in the opposite direction). Two lanes were filtering into
>>> one, while a crashed car was being recovered from the nearside lane,
>>> with cones and (I presume) "Police Slow" signs.
>>> For about a hundred yards before the cones, there was a queue of
>>> traffic in Lane 2, and nothing in Lane 1 - everyone had moved over.
>>> Before that there was a large gap of about a hundred yards, then
>>> there were two artics side-by-side which were stationary, blocking
>>> both lanes with very long queues building up behind them.
>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
>>> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
>>> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
>>> I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from
>>> rest and it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move
>>> slowly, with frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely
>>> remaining stationary while such a large gap exists ahead is taking
>>> the piss.
>> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers 'jumping
>> the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and then pushing in
>> ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2. It's a
>> favourite trick of truck drivers.
>>
>> Kev
> 
> It's entirely legal so why is it a trick.

It is not legal to obstruct the highway.

Ret. wrote:
> NM wrote:
>> On 3 Nov, 17:51, Conor  wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> Martin says...
>>>
>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
>>>> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
>>>> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
>>>
>>>> I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate from
>>>> rest and it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to move
>>>> slowly, with frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but surely
>>>> remaining stationary while such a large gap exists ahead is taking
>>>> the piss.
>>>
>>> It is. And that's from an ex-lorry driver. If the driver wants to
>>> block off a lane, he should join the Police and become a traffic
>>> officer. Until then, either drive up to the merge point or get out
>>> of the way.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
>>>
>>> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
>>
>> Unless I have the wrong end of the stick nobody is talking about
>> blocking lanes
> 
> Yes they are. What happens is this:  There is a lane closure in lane 2 
> up ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the closure. 
> Other drivers whiz up in lane 2, pass those drivers who are patiently 
> queueing in lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they get to the 
> closure.

...following the advice "merge in turn" (and keeping the queue shorter rather 
than longer, thereby reducing the likelihood of tailbacks obstructing 
junctions farer back which need not be affected)...

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> Ret. used his keyboard to write :
>> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing.  When I've been
>> patiently queuing in Lane 1 to get to a point where Lane 2 merges
>> into Lane 1, it ticks me off no end to see drivers whizzing past me
>> and then getting into Lane 1 ahead of me.
>
> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.

I agree - but is there any such thing as a 'sensible zip merge'?  It would 
work perfectly if all drivers co-operated with each other - but they don't! 
If, say, it's a lane 2 closure, many drivers will want to get into lane 1 
asap because they know if they get near the closure in lane 2, they will 
have difficulty getting into lane 1 because drivers who have been queueing 
are reluctant to let them in. This means that the queue in lane 1 gets 
longer and longer and drivers who *are* prepared to take the chance of 
getting in, whizz down lane 2, right up to the closure and begin to edge 
their way in.

>
>> Having said that, using a truck to deliberately
>> block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is
>> *not* entirely legal!
>
> Drivers have been 'done' for doing it.

Indeed. All it does, really, is move the lane closure further back!

Kev

On 3 Nov, 22:36, Vicko Zoomba  wrote:
> On 3 Nov, 17:50, Lobster  wrote:
>
> > Ret. wrote:
> > > Martin wrote:
> > >> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV will
> > >> sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves ahead,
> > >> remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of them.
> > > I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers
> > > 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and then
> > > pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction in lane 2.
> > > It's a favourite trick of truck drivers.
>
> > Indeed.  Often combined with the other trick of closing up very close to
> > the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop bikes travelling
> > down the gap between the miles and miles of stationery traffic
>
> Quite right. Bike shold take their place in queuing traffic like every
> other vehicle.
>
> McKevvy

Why

NM wrote:
> On 3 Nov, 22:36, Vicko Zoomba  wrote:
>> On 3 Nov, 17:50, Lobster  wrote:
>>
>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV
>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves
>>>>> ahead, remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of
>>>>> them.
>>>> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers
>>>> 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and
>>>> then pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction
>>>> in lane 2. It's a favourite trick of truck drivers.
>>
>>> Indeed. Often combined with the other trick of closing up very
>>> close to the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop bikes
>>> travelling down the gap between the miles and miles of stationery
>>> traffic
>>
>> Quite right. Bike shold take their place in queuing traffic like
>> every other vehicle.
>>
>> McKevvy
>
> Why

Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of vehicles, 
a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length of road as a car. 
They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers who have been patiently 
waiting to get through the bottle neck.

In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the outside of a long 
queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you?

Kev

jamesd1974 wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
> news:rLidnYMAfoL8EW3XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> Yes they are. What happens is this:  There is a lane closure in lane
>> 2 up ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the
>> closure. Other drivers whiz up in lane 2, pass those drivers who are
>> patiently queueing in lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they
>> get to the closure.
>
> you call it "pushing in", some of us would see it as making use of a
> gap to keep the traffic flowing.

Would you do the same thing in a post office queue?  Making use of the empty 
floor space next the main queue in order to keep the people flowing?

Kev

JNugent wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>>> On 3 Nov, 17:51, Conor  wrote:
>>>> In article ,
>>>> Martin says...
>>>>
>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV
>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves
>>>>> ahead, remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>>> I realise that HGVs are more difficult than cars to accelerate
>>>>> from rest and it is probably more difficult for an HGV driver to
>>>>> move slowly, with frequent stop-starts, than a car driver, but
>>>>> surely remaining stationary while such a large gap exists ahead
>>>>> is taking the piss.
>>>>
>>>> It is. And that's from an ex-lorry driver. If the driver wants to
>>>> block off a lane, he should join the Police and become a traffic
>>>> officer. Until then, either drive up to the merge point or get out
>>>> of the way.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
>>>>
>>>> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
>>>
>>> Unless I have the wrong end of the stick nobody is talking about
>>> blocking lanes
>>
>> Yes they are. What happens is this:  There is a lane closure in lane
>> 2 up ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the
>> closure. Other drivers whiz up in lane 2, pass those drivers who are
>> patiently queueing in lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they
>> get to the closure.
>
> ...following the advice "merge in turn" (and keeping the queue
> shorter rather than longer, thereby reducing the likelihood of
> tailbacks obstructing junctions farer back which need not be
> affected)...

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just stating things as they are, rather 
than as we would all like them to be!

Kev

On 4 Nov, 08:51, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> NM wrote:
> > On 3 Nov, 22:36, Vicko Zoomba  wrote:
> >> On 3 Nov, 17:50, Lobster  wrote:
>
> >>> Ret. wrote:
> >>>> Martin wrote:
> >>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV
> >>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves
> >>>>> ahead, remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of
> >>>>> them.
> >>>> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers
> >>>> 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and
> >>>> then pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction
> >>>> in lane 2. It's a favourite trick of truck drivers.
>
> >>> Indeed. Often combined with the other trick of closing up very
> >>> close to the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop bikes
> >>> travelling down the gap between the miles and miles of stationery
> >>> traffic
>
> >> Quite right. Bike shold take their place in queuing traffic like
> >> every other vehicle.
>
> >> McKevvy
>
> > Why
>
> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of vehicles,
> a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length of road as a car.
> They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers who have been patiently
> waiting to get through the bottle neck.
>
> In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the outside of a long
> queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you?
>
> Kev

No because a bike DOESN'T take up the same amount of space as a car
and by filtering won't increase the length of queue until the (usually
short) single-carriageway section, after which everyone can be on
their way.

Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one of
the perks of motorcycling...

"Bill"  wrote in message 
news:FNSw2INN6L8KFwCf@birchnet.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Ret.

>  Do you have to have BIG signs saying "Please zip merge"  or should it be 
> down to common sense?

IMO, big signs needed.  The sooner the better.  "Common sense" doesn't exist 
when it comes to lane merging.

Every day I witness bad tempered aggro caused at two roundabouts near me 
where two lanes exiting the roundabout merge into one. A few signs reminding 
folk to merge in turn would ease traffic flow and tempers enormously.

Tim

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:54:12 -0000
"Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> you call it "pushing in", some of us would see it as making use of a
>> gap to keep the traffic flowing.
>
>Would you do the same thing in a post office queue?  Making use of the empty 
>floor space next the main queue in order to keep the people flowing?

If the post office had marked queing lanes on the floor that merged into
one further ahead then people would form multiple queues and they wouldn't
be so stupid as to all queue in one lane if the other was empty. The 
fuckwittedness of some drivers who seem to think that because they were
stupid enough to queue for 10 mins when they could have driven down an
empty lane then get pissed off because someone else does just that never
cease to amaze me.

B2003

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:13:28 -0800 (PST)
NM  wrote:
>> Problem is if everyone did that the queues length would grow far longer
>> that it would otherwise have been and start blocking up junctions that it
>> wouldn't have done otherwise. The shorter a queue is the less problems it
>> causes for surrounding routes.
>>
>> B2003
>
>not really. a slow moving queue is easier to handle than a stop start
>one and there is no evidence that the time to pass a given point is
>either longer or shorter by either method.

Ok , I'll put this in simple terms for you - if everyone leaves a long gap
between the vehicle in front the queue becomes longer. A longer queue can
potentially block more junctions or side roads. These in turn start to back
up into other roads and cause problems there. Understand?

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:54:12 -0000
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>> you call it "pushing in", some of us would see it as making use of a
>>> gap to keep the traffic flowing.
>> Would you do the same thing in a post office queue?  Making use of the empty 
>> floor space next the main queue in order to keep the people flowing?
> 
> If the post office had marked queing lanes on the floor that merged into
> one further ahead then people would form multiple queues and they wouldn't
> be so stupid as to all queue in one lane if the other was empty. The 
> fuckwittedness of some drivers who seem to think that because they were
> stupid enough to queue for 10 mins when they could have driven down an
> empty lane then get pissed off because someone else does just that never
> cease to amaze me.
> 
> B2003
> 
Because it is tantamount to pushing in.

Bod

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> If the post office had marked queing lanes on the floor that merged
>> into one further ahead then people would form multiple queues and they
>> wouldn't be so stupid as to all queue in one lane if the other was
>> empty. The fuckwittedness of some drivers who seem to think that
>> because they were stupid enough to queue for 10 mins when they could
>> have driven down an empty lane then get pissed off because someone else
>> does just that never cease to amaze me.

> Because it is tantamount to pushing in.

So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/
supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join the 
short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that till empty 
until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"?

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:13:28 -0800 (PST)
> NM  wrote:
>>> Problem is if everyone did that the queues length would grow far longer
>>> that it would otherwise have been and start blocking up junctions that it
>>> wouldn't have done otherwise. The shorter a queue is the less problems it
>>> causes for surrounding routes.
>>>
>>> B2003
>> not really. a slow moving queue is easier to handle than a stop start
>> one and there is no evidence that the time to pass a given point is
>> either longer or shorter by either method.
> 
> Ok , I'll put this in simple terms for you - if everyone leaves a long gap
> between the vehicle in front the queue becomes longer. A longer queue can
> potentially block more junctions or side roads. These in turn start to back
> up into other roads and cause problems there. Understand?
> 
> B2003
> 
I would prefer to be crwaling along at a snails 
pace rather than keep stop starting every few seconds.

Bod

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>>> If the post office had marked queing lanes on the floor that merged
>>> into one further ahead then people would form multiple queues and they
>>> wouldn't be so stupid as to all queue in one lane if the other was
>>> empty. The fuckwittedness of some drivers who seem to think that
>>> because they were stupid enough to queue for 10 mins when they could
>>> have driven down an empty lane then get pissed off because someone else
>>> does just that never cease to amaze me.
> 
>> Because it is tantamount to pushing in.
> 
> So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/
> supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join the 
> short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that till empty 
> until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"?

That's a different analogy, that is two exit 
points, we're talking about 1 exit point merging 
from 2 queues.

Bod

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/
>> supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join the
>> short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that till
>> empty until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"?

> That's a different analogy, that is two exit points, we're talking about
> 1 exit point merging from 2 queues.

<sigh> It's the same difference. Think of the tills as the point at which 
the traffic merges, and "being served" as joining the single lane through 
the roadworks.

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>>> So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/
>>> supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join the
>>> short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that till
>>> empty until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"?
> 
>> That's a different analogy, that is two exit points, we're talking about
>> 1 exit point merging from 2 queues.
> 
> <sigh> It's the same difference. Think of the tills as the point at which 
> the traffic merges, and "being served" as joining the single lane through 
> the roadworks. 

A better analogy would be two toll booths. There 
would be two choices at the end of two queues for 
two toll booths, but when there's 2 queues of 
traffic trying to get into one lane, there's only 
one outlet at the end of the two.

Bod

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>>> So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/
>>>> supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join
>>>> the short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that
>>>> till empty until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"?

>>> That's a different analogy, that is two exit points, we're talking
>>> about 1 exit point merging from 2 queues.

>> <sigh> It's the same difference. Think of the tills as the point at
>> which the traffic merges, and "being served" as joining the single lane
>> through the roadworks.

> A better analogy would be two toll booths. There would be two choices at
> the end of two queues for two toll booths, but when there's 2 queues of
> traffic trying to get into one lane, there's only one outlet at the end
> of the two.

Fine. <shrugs, points to "or whatever" above.>

So - you join the long queue. You join the long queue. I, later, join the 
short queue. Unless I wait for your barrier to rise before pulling away, 
am I "pushing in"?

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>>>>> So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/
>>>>> supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join
>>>>> the short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that
>>>>> till empty until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"?
> 
>>>> That's a different analogy, that is two exit points, we're talking
>>>> about 1 exit point merging from 2 queues.
> 
>>> <sigh> It's the same difference. Think of the tills as the point at
>>> which the traffic merges, and "being served" as joining the single lane
>>> through the roadworks.
> 
>> A better analogy would be two toll booths. There would be two choices at
>> the end of two queues for two toll booths, but when there's 2 queues of
>> traffic trying to get into one lane, there's only one outlet at the end
>> of the two.
> 
> Fine. <shrugs, points to "or whatever" above.>
> 
> So - you join the long queue. You join the long queue. I, later, join the 
> short queue. Unless I wait for your barrier to rise before pulling away, 
> am I "pushing in"?

No.

Bod

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>> A better analogy would be two toll booths. There would be two choices
>>> at the end of two queues for two toll booths, but when there's 2
>>> queues of traffic trying to get into one lane, there's only one outlet
>>> at the end of the two.

>> Fine. <shrugs, points to "or whatever" above.>
>> 
>> So - you join the long queue. You join the long queue. I, later, join
>> the short queue. Unless I wait for your barrier to rise before pulling
>> away, am I "pushing in"?

> No.


So what's the difference?

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>>>> A better analogy would be two toll booths. There would be two choices
>>>> at the end of two queues for two toll booths, but when there's 2
>>>> queues of traffic trying to get into one lane, there's only one outlet
>>>> at the end of the two.
> 
>>> Fine. <shrugs, points to "or whatever" above.>
>>>
>>> So - you join the long queue. You join the long queue. I, later, join
>>> the short queue. Unless I wait for your barrier to rise before pulling
>>> away, am I "pushing in"?
> 
>> No.
> 
> 
> So what's the difference?

Can't you see that the motorway scenario is 2 
separate queues merging into, say> 1 toll booth?
So, in effect, a driver in the correct lane for 
the single booth waits patiently in the booth lane 
and anyone in other lanes have to push in or be 
let in to that booth lane.

Bod

Bod  wrote:

> Because it is tantamount to pushing in.

Well there's the view of the stupid faction as endorsed by the stupid
party and too blind too lok through a windscreen crew.

So where, in your opinion, is the back of the queue? Should every driver
constantly look for the longest queue of non-moving traffic and join
that? What happens when, as often does, the queue is so long that the
lane restrictions cannot be seen? If you come across a queue of traffic
in (say) lane 1 but lanes 2 and 3 are free flowing do you just join the
queue and ignore the empty lanes? And what informs the driver that this
is what they must do?

It's also mildly amusing that both you and Kevin "God's gift to driving"
Lunn have never heard of the term "zip merge." Nor yet it seems have
either of you read the large signs that the HA puts up in advance of
lane restrictions that read "USE ALL LANES THEN MERGE IN TURN"

What do you think that means, eh, dingleberrybrain?

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:57:56 +0000
Bod  wrote:
>> If the post office had marked queing lanes on the floor that merged into
>> one further ahead then people would form multiple queues and they wouldn't
>> be so stupid as to all queue in one lane if the other was empty. The 
>> fuckwittedness of some drivers who seem to think that because they were
>> stupid enough to queue for 10 mins when they could have driven down an
>> empty lane then get pissed off because someone else does just that never
>> cease to amaze me.
>> 
>> B2003
>> 
>Because it is tantamount to pushing in.

No it isn't - pushing in is jumping a queue. A 3 lane motorway is 3 queues
until it merges. If some drivers want to sit in the long queue instead of
one of the shorter ones thats their choice. Do people queuing to get into
a football match or exhibition all queue at the same turnstile? No, they
wouldn't be that thick. And yes it is the same situation because people
who got in first on a shorter queue might get better seats and so have
an advantage.

B2003

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:40:06 +0000
Bod  wrote:
>> So what's the difference?
>
>Can't you see that the motorway scenario is 2 
>separate queues merging into, say> 1 toll booth?
>So, in effect, a driver in the correct lane for 
>the single booth waits patiently in the booth lane 
>and anyone in other lanes have to push in or be 
>let in to that booth lane.

There was an M&S in moorgate in london that DID have 2 queues for 1 bank of
tills, presumably because it prevented 1 long queue from snaking around the 
shop.  The queueing points were marked and people naturally joined both queues.
What they didn't do was queue in one and leave the other free. At least
not when I used it. 

B2003

Ret. wrote:
> Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>> Ret. used his keyboard to write :
>>> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing.  When I've
>>> been patiently queuing in Lane 1 to get to a point where Lane 2
>>> merges into Lane 1, it ticks me off no end to see drivers whizzing
>>> past me and then getting into Lane 1 ahead of me.
>>
>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
>
> I agree - but is there any such thing as a 'sensible zip merge'?  It
> would work perfectly if all drivers co-operated with each other - but
> they don't! If, say, it's a lane 2 closure, many drivers will want to
> get into lane 1 asap because they know if they get near the closure
> in lane 2, they will have difficulty getting into lane 1 because
> drivers who have been queueing are reluctant to let them in. This
> means that the queue in lane 1 gets longer and longer and drivers who
> *are* prepared to take the chance of getting in, whizz down lane 2,
> right up to the closure and begin to edge their way in.
>

Exactly, the problem is caused not by vehicles staying in the 2nd lane, its 
caused by vehicles moving to the first lane early instead of driving up to 
the obstruction and then zip merging.
>>
>>> Having said that, using a truck to deliberately
>>> block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is
>>> *not* entirely legal!
>>
>> Drivers have been 'done' for doing it.
>
> Indeed. All it does, really, is move the lane closure further back!
>
No. That is caused by the vehicles at the front sitting in a single file. If 
half the vehicles were to move into the empty lane then the queue would then 
become correspondingly shorter.

The traffic flow past the obstruction is usually fairly constant, the 
approach to the obstruction is a null end game, any vehicle managing to get 
past the obstruction faster by passing other vehicles means that the rest of 
the vehicles will take longer to pass the obstruction.

--

Geoff

Bill wrote:
> In message , Ret.
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>
>
> I saw 2 trucks on the M6 a while back straddling L1/L2 and L2/L3 to
> hold up everything behind some 3 or 4 miles before the signed closure
> of L3. An interesting manoeuvre......

Why, they are following the correct procedure, its the vehicles in front who 
all stay in one lane who make the whole queue longer, if half of them moved 
into the empty lane then the queue would get shorter and every body would 
get past the obstruction quicker.

--

Geoff

"GeoffC"  wrote in message 
news:cad3c$4af17358$5351e322$5611@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> Ret. wrote:
>> Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>>> Ret. used his keyboard to write :
>>>> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing.  When I've
>>>> been patiently queuing in Lane 1 to get to a point where Lane 2
>>>> merges into Lane 1, it ticks me off no end to see drivers whizzing
>>>> past me and then getting into Lane 1 ahead of me.
>>>
>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
>>
>> I agree - but is there any such thing as a 'sensible zip merge'?  It
>> would work perfectly if all drivers co-operated with each other - but
>> they don't! If, say, it's a lane 2 closure, many drivers will want to
>> get into lane 1 asap because they know if they get near the closure
>> in lane 2, they will have difficulty getting into lane 1 because
>> drivers who have been queueing are reluctant to let them in. This
>> means that the queue in lane 1 gets longer and longer and drivers who
>> *are* prepared to take the chance of getting in, whizz down lane 2,
>> right up to the closure and begin to edge their way in.
>>
>
> Exactly, the problem is caused not by vehicles staying in the 2nd lane, 
> its caused by vehicles moving to the first lane early instead of driving 
> up to the obstruction and then zip merging.
>>>
>>>> Having said that, using a truck to deliberately
>>>> block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is
>>>> *not* entirely legal!
>>>
>>> Drivers have been 'done' for doing it.
>>
>> Indeed. All it does, really, is move the lane closure further back!
>>
> No. That is caused by the vehicles at the front sitting in a single file. 
> If half the vehicles were to move into the empty lane then the queue would 
> then become correspondingly shorter.
>
> The traffic flow past the obstruction is usually fairly constant, the 
> approach to the obstruction is a null end game, any vehicle managing to 
> get past the obstruction faster by passing other vehicles means that the 
> rest of the vehicles will take longer to pass the obstruction.

What is needed is more public education about using both lanes until the 
lane closure and then zip-merging.  There are a lot of people with the 
misconception that a sign indicating a lane closure in 600m means that 
people should move out of that lane ASAP.  I too was one of those people who 
thought that at one time but I now realise that it is better if everyone 
uses both lanes up to the point where the traffic merges into a single lane.

Mr Benn wrote:
<SNIP>

> What is needed is more public education about using both lanes until
> the lane closure and then zip-merging.  There are a lot of people
> with the misconception that a sign indicating a lane closure in 600m
> means that people should move out of that lane ASAP.  I too was one
> of those people who thought that at one time but I now realise that
> it is better if everyone uses both lanes up to the point where the
> traffic merges into a single lane.

Hallelujah brother :-)

--

Geoff

On 4 Nov, 12:47, "GeoffC"  wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > In message , Ret.
> > <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>
> > I saw 2 trucks on the M6 a while back straddling L1/L2 and L2/L3 to
> > hold up everything behind some 3 or 4 miles before the signed closure
> > of L3. An interesting manoeuvre......
>
> Why, they are following the correct procedure, its the vehicles in front who
> all stay in one lane who make the whole queue longer, if half of them moved
> into the empty lane then the queue would get shorter and every body would
> get past the obstruction quicker.
>
> --
>
> Geoff

But if a truck is straddling both of the available lanes, and moving
at the pace of the slowest, then nobody can get into the empty lane!
The result is miles of empty, available road being blocked by a self
appointed traffic policeman in a truck.

Steve.

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:w-2dnec7j7QV3WzXnZ2dnUVZ7tSdnZ2d@pipex.net...

>
> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of 
> vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length of 
> road as a car. They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers who have 
> been patiently waiting to get through the bottle neck.
>
> In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the outside of a 
> long queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you?
>
> Kev
>
>

It's a perk of riding a bike. If I had a bike then I would take advantage of 
it's smaller size and ability to get into a gap that a car could not. Nobody 
has to drop back to make space for the bike so they haven't been affected.

I prefer a car though which has the perk of protecting me from the weather. 
If a biker can safely get into some space ahead of me in a queue then he or 
she is more than welcome.

Bob

Bob wrote:
> 
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
> news:w-2dnec7j7QV3WzXnZ2dnUVZ7tSdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> 
>>
>> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of 
>> vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length 
>> of road as a car. They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers 
>> who have been patiently waiting to get through the bottle neck.
>>
>> In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the outside of a 
>> long queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you?
>>
>> Kev
>>
>>
> 
> It's a perk of riding a bike. If I had a bike then I would take 
> advantage of it's smaller size and ability to get into a gap that a car 
> could not. Nobody has to drop back to make space for the bike so they 
> haven't been affected.
> 
> I prefer a car though which has the perk of protecting me from the 
> weather. If a biker can safely get into some space ahead of me in a 
> queue then he or she is more than welcome.
> 
> Bob

Agreed, it's no skin off my nose.

Bod

chemo wrote:
> On 4 Nov, 08:51, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>>> On 3 Nov, 22:36, Vicko Zoomba  wrote:
>>>> On 3 Nov, 17:50, Lobster  wrote:
>>
>>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV
>>>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves
>>>>>>> ahead, remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of
>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop
>>>>>> drivers 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in
>>>>>> lane 1 and then pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the
>>>>>> obstruction in lane 2. It's a favourite trick of truck drivers.
>>
>>>>> Indeed. Often combined with the other trick of closing up very
>>>>> close to the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop
>>>>> bikes travelling down the gap between the miles and miles of
>>>>> stationery traffic
>>
>>>> Quite right. Bike shold take their place in queuing traffic like
>>>> every other vehicle.
>>
>>>> McKevvy
>>
>>> Why
>>
>> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of
>> vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length
>> of road as a car. They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers
>> who have been patiently waiting to get through the bottle neck.
>>
>> In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the outside of
>> a long queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you?
>>
>> Kev
>
> No because a bike DOESN'T take up the same amount of space as a car
> and by filtering won't increase the length of queue until the (usually
> short) single-carriageway section, after which everyone can be on
> their way.

You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single lane 
swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on both sides. 
When the lights change, only so many vehicles out of the queue can cross the 
bridge at any one time. A sole bike, allowing for a safe distance in front 
of him, and a similar distance given by the driver behind him, will indeed 
take up almost as much length as a car.  So every time a biker motors down 
the outside of the queue and then pushes in at the front he is pushing back 
a car driver who has been patiently queuing up to the bridge.
>
> Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one of
> the perks of motorcycling...

It's simply bad manners and lack of consideration.

Kev

Ret. wrote:
> chemo wrote:
>> On 4 Nov, 08:51, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>> NM wrote:
>>>> On 3 Nov, 22:36, Vicko Zoomba  wrote:
>>>>> On 3 Nov, 17:50, Lobster  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV
>>>>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves
>>>>>>>> ahead, remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of
>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop
>>>>>>> drivers 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in
>>>>>>> lane 1 and then pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the
>>>>>>> obstruction in lane 2. It's a favourite trick of truck drivers.
>>>
>>>>>> Indeed. Often combined with the other trick of closing up very
>>>>>> close to the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop
>>>>>> bikes travelling down the gap between the miles and miles of
>>>>>> stationery traffic
>>>
>>>>> Quite right. Bike shold take their place in queuing traffic like
>>>>> every other vehicle.
>>>
>>>>> McKevvy
>>>
>>>> Why
>>>
>>> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of
>>> vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length
>>> of road as a car. They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers
>>> who have been patiently waiting to get through the bottle neck.
>>>
>>> In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the outside of
>>> a long queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you?
>>>
>>> Kev
>>
>> No because a bike DOESN'T take up the same amount of space as a car
>> and by filtering won't increase the length of queue until the (usually
>> short) single-carriageway section, after which everyone can be on
>> their way.
> 
> You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single 
> lane swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on 
> both sides. When the lights change, only so many vehicles out of the 
> queue can cross the bridge at any one time. A sole bike, allowing for a 
> safe distance in front of him, and a similar distance given by the 
> driver behind him, will indeed take up almost as much length as a car.  
> So every time a biker motors down the outside of the queue and then 
> pushes in at the front he is pushing back a car driver who has been 
> patiently queuing up to the bridge.
>>
>> Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one of
>> the perks of motorcycling...
> 
> It's simply bad manners and lack of consideration.
> 
> Kev
> 
> 
As long as the bikes are not impeding other 
vehicles, where's the problem?

Bod

Mr Benn wrote:
> "GeoffC"  wrote in message
> news:cad3c$4af17358$5351e322$5611@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>> Ret. wrote:
>>> Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>>>> Ret. used his keyboard to write :
>>>>> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing.  When I've
>>>>> been patiently queuing in Lane 1 to get to a point where Lane 2
>>>>> merges into Lane 1, it ticks me off no end to see drivers whizzing
>>>>> past me and then getting into Lane 1 ahead of me.
>>>>
>>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
>>>
>>> I agree - but is there any such thing as a 'sensible zip merge'?  It
>>> would work perfectly if all drivers co-operated with each other -
>>> but they don't! If, say, it's a lane 2 closure, many drivers will
>>> want to get into lane 1 asap because they know if they get near the
>>> closure in lane 2, they will have difficulty getting into lane 1
>>> because drivers who have been queueing are reluctant to let them
>>> in. This means that the queue in lane 1 gets longer and longer and
>>> drivers who *are* prepared to take the chance of getting in, whizz
>>> down lane 2, right up to the closure and begin to edge their way in.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly, the problem is caused not by vehicles staying in the 2nd
>> lane, its caused by vehicles moving to the first lane early instead
>> of driving up to the obstruction and then zip merging.
>>>>
>>>>> Having said that, using a truck to deliberately
>>>>> block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is
>>>>> *not* entirely legal!
>>>>
>>>> Drivers have been 'done' for doing it.
>>>
>>> Indeed. All it does, really, is move the lane closure further back!
>>>
>> No. That is caused by the vehicles at the front sitting in a single
>> file. If half the vehicles were to move into the empty lane then the
>> queue would then become correspondingly shorter.
>>
>> The traffic flow past the obstruction is usually fairly constant, the
>> approach to the obstruction is a null end game, any vehicle managing
>> to get past the obstruction faster by passing other vehicles means
>> that the rest of the vehicles will take longer to pass the
>> obstruction.
>
> What is needed is more public education about using both lanes until
> the lane closure and then zip-merging.  There are a lot of people
> with the misconception that a sign indicating a lane closure in 600m
> means that people should move out of that lane ASAP.  I too was one
> of those people who thought that at one time but I now realise that
> it is better if everyone uses both lanes up to the point where the
> traffic merges into a single lane.

It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, 
and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in.  Many wont and so 
you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion for you! 
Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was patiently 
queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..."

Kev

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>> If the post office had marked queing lanes on the floor that merged
>>> into one further ahead then people would form multiple queues and
>>> they wouldn't be so stupid as to all queue in one lane if the other
>>> was empty. The fuckwittedness of some drivers who seem to think that
>>> because they were stupid enough to queue for 10 mins when they could
>>> have driven down an empty lane then get pissed off because someone
>>> else does just that never cease to amaze me.
>
>> Because it is tantamount to pushing in.
>
> So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/
> supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join the
> short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that till
> empty until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"?

Ah - but there isn't two 'tills' in the road situation - there's only one - 
ie only one lane open at the closure point.

Kev

Ret. wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>>> If the post office had marked queing lanes on the floor that merged
>>>> into one further ahead then people would form multiple queues and
>>>> they wouldn't be so stupid as to all queue in one lane if the other
>>>> was empty. The fuckwittedness of some drivers who seem to think that
>>>> because they were stupid enough to queue for 10 mins when they could
>>>> have driven down an empty lane then get pissed off because someone
>>>> else does just that never cease to amaze me.
>>
>>> Because it is tantamount to pushing in.
>>
>> So if there's two tills with separate queues at the post office/
>> supermarket/whatever, you join the long one - then I come in, join the
>> short one, and get served before you rather than leaving that till
>> empty until you've been served - I'm "pushing in"?
> 
> Ah - but there isn't two 'tills' in the road situation - there's only 
> one - ie only one lane open at the closure point.
> 
> Kev

If you think about it, whether all cars use lane 1 
  or all cars use both lanes and merge into one. 
The flow will always be the same volume in lane 1. 
The only advantage gained, is by the ones pushing 
in at the closure point.
  I would have more sympathy for a driver trying 
to merge into lane 1 at about 300yds before the 
closure and would be more prepared to let him in, 
as opposed to them going as far as they can to the 
closure point.

Bod

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:o_idnYSbt8UxAWzXnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Mr Benn wrote:
>> "GeoffC"  wrote in message
>> news:cad3c$4af17358$5351e322$5611@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>> Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>>>>> Ret. used his keyboard to write :
>>>>>> TBH, I don't necessarily agree that it's a bad thing.  When I've
>>>>>> been patiently queuing in Lane 1 to get to a point where Lane 2
>>>>>> merges into Lane 1, it ticks me off no end to see drivers whizzing
>>>>>> past me and then getting into Lane 1 ahead of me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
>>>>
>>>> I agree - but is there any such thing as a 'sensible zip merge'?  It
>>>> would work perfectly if all drivers co-operated with each other -
>>>> but they don't! If, say, it's a lane 2 closure, many drivers will
>>>> want to get into lane 1 asap because they know if they get near the
>>>> closure in lane 2, they will have difficulty getting into lane 1
>>>> because drivers who have been queueing are reluctant to let them
>>>> in. This means that the queue in lane 1 gets longer and longer and
>>>> drivers who *are* prepared to take the chance of getting in, whizz
>>>> down lane 2, right up to the closure and begin to edge their way in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly, the problem is caused not by vehicles staying in the 2nd
>>> lane, its caused by vehicles moving to the first lane early instead
>>> of driving up to the obstruction and then zip merging.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Having said that, using a truck to deliberately
>>>>>> block a motorway lane is an unnecessary obstruction - and so it is
>>>>>> *not* entirely legal!
>>>>>
>>>>> Drivers have been 'done' for doing it.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. All it does, really, is move the lane closure further back!
>>>>
>>> No. That is caused by the vehicles at the front sitting in a single
>>> file. If half the vehicles were to move into the empty lane then the
>>> queue would then become correspondingly shorter.
>>>
>>> The traffic flow past the obstruction is usually fairly constant, the
>>> approach to the obstruction is a null end game, any vehicle managing
>>> to get past the obstruction faster by passing other vehicles means
>>> that the rest of the vehicles will take longer to pass the
>>> obstruction.
>>
>> What is needed is more public education about using both lanes until
>> the lane closure and then zip-merging.  There are a lot of people
>> with the misconception that a sign indicating a lane closure in 600m
>> means that people should move out of that lane ASAP.  I too was one
>> of those people who thought that at one time but I now realise that
>> it is better if everyone uses both lanes up to the point where the
>> traffic merges into a single lane.
>
> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, 
> and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in.  Many wont and so 
> you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion for you! 
> Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was 
> patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..."
>
> Kev

That does happen but unlike some drivers, I just patiently wait until there 
is a safe opportunity to merge.  I don't drive a BMW you see!

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:36:00 +0000
Bod  wrote:
>If you think about it, whether all cars use lane 1 
>  or all cars use both lanes and merge into one. 
>The flow will always be the same volume in lane 1. 
>The only advantage gained, is by the ones pushing 
>in at the closure point.

And considerably shortening the queue. Perhaps everyone should start queuing
in one lane 10 miles before the roadworks? Wouldn't want to push in front now
would we?

>  I would have more sympathy for a driver trying 
>to merge into lane 1 at about 300yds before the 
>closure and would be more prepared to let him in, 
>as opposed to them going as far as they can to the 
>closure point.

What difference does it make to you if he goes in front at 300 yards or 
0 yards?

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:36:00 +0000
> Bod  wrote:
>> If you think about it, whether all cars use lane 1 
>>  or all cars use both lanes and merge into one. 
>> The flow will always be the same volume in lane 1. 
>> The only advantage gained, is by the ones pushing 
>> in at the closure point.
> 
> And considerably shortening the queue. Perhaps everyone should start queuing
> in one lane 10 miles before the roadworks? Wouldn't want to push in front now
> would we?
> 
>>  I would have more sympathy for a driver trying 
>> to merge into lane 1 at about 300yds before the 
>> closure and would be more prepared to let him in, 
>> as opposed to them going as far as they can to the 
>> closure point.
> 
> What difference does it make to you if he goes in front at 300 yards or 
> 0 yards?
> 
> B2003
> 
It just seems that they are taking de piss for 
some reason.You have to remember that plenty of 
drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into 
lane 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to 
cheat, that's the way it feels anyway.

Bod

On 4 Nov, 15:21, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single lane
> swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on both sides.
> When the lights change, only so many vehicles out of the queue can cross the
> bridge at any one time. A sole bike, allowing for a safe distance in front
> of him, and a similar distance given by the driver behind him, will indeed
> take up almost as much length as a car.  So every time a biker motors down
> the outside of the queue and then pushes in at the front he is pushing back
> a car driver who has been patiently queuing up to the bridge.
>

It is not the 2 wheeler who is causing the queue.
If the car drivers were all on bikes, either powered or pedalled, the
traffic lights would not be necessary.

Bod wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>> chemo wrote:
>>> On 4 Nov, 08:51, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>> NM wrote:
>>>>> On 3 Nov, 22:36, Vicko Zoomba  wrote:
>>>>>> On 3 Nov, 17:50, Lobster  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV
>>>>>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front
>>>>>>>>> moves ahead, remaining like this while a large gap builds up
>>>>>>>>> ahead of them.
>>>>>>>> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop
>>>>>>>> drivers 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in
>>>>>>>> lane 1 and then pushing in ahead of them when they get up to
>>>>>>>> the obstruction in lane 2. It's a favourite trick of truck
>>>>>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed. Often combined with the other trick of closing up very
>>>>>>> close to the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop
>>>>>>> bikes travelling down the gap between the miles and miles of
>>>>>>> stationery traffic
>>>>
>>>>>> Quite right. Bike shold take their place in queuing traffic like
>>>>>> every other vehicle.
>>>>
>>>>>> McKevvy
>>>>
>>>>> Why
>>>>
>>>> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of
>>>> vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same
>>>> length of road as a car. They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead
>>>> of drivers who have been patiently waiting to get through the
>>>> bottle neck. In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the 
>>>> outside
>>>> of a long queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you?
>>>>
>>>> Kev
>>>
>>> No because a bike DOESN'T take up the same amount of space as a car
>>> and by filtering won't increase the length of queue until the
>>> (usually short) single-carriageway section, after which everyone
>>> can be on their way.
>>
>> You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single
>> lane swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on
>> both sides. When the lights change, only so many vehicles out of the
>> queue can cross the bridge at any one time. A sole bike, allowing
>> for a safe distance in front of him, and a similar distance given by
>> the driver behind him, will indeed take up almost as much length as
>> a car. So every time a biker motors down the outside of the queue
>> and then pushes in at the front he is pushing back a car driver who
>> has been patiently queuing up to the bridge.
>>>
>>> Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one
>>> of the perks of motorcycling...
>>
>> It's simply bad manners and lack of consideration.
>>
>> Kev
>>
>>
> As long as the bikes are not impeding other
> vehicles, where's the problem?

But they are!  If only so many vehicles can get over the bridge per ATS 
change, and if a bike takes up as much length of road as a car, then every 
bike that motors down the outside of the queue, and then takes up a place in 
the line of cars going over the bridge, prevents one of the cars in the 
queue from getting on the bridge. I perhaps ought to mention that the layout 
at the bridge prevents bikes from getting to the front of the queue, they 
would have to cross the white line by the red traffic light to do that, and 
so they wait alongside the queue near the front and then 'push' in.

Kev

Bod wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>>
>> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>> news:w-2dnec7j7QV3WzXnZ2dnUVZ7tSdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>>>
>>> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of
>>> vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length
>>> of road as a car. They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers
>>> who have been patiently waiting to get through the bottle neck.
>>>
>>> In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the outside
>>> of a long queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you?
>>>
>>> Kev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's a perk of riding a bike. If I had a bike then I would take
>> advantage of it's smaller size and ability to get into a gap that a
>> car could not. Nobody has to drop back to make space for the bike so
>> they haven't been affected.
>>
>> I prefer a car though which has the perk of protecting me from the
>> weather. If a biker can safely get into some space ahead of me in a
>> queue then he or she is more than welcome.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Agreed, it's no skin off my nose.


It may be if you are in rush to get home and keep getting pushed farther 
back from crossing the single lane bridge by bikers pushing in.

Kev

Ret. wrote:
> Bod wrote:
>> Ret. wrote:
>>> chemo wrote:
>>>> On 4 Nov, 08:51, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>>> NM wrote:
>>>>>> On 3 Nov, 22:36, Vicko Zoomba  wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3 Nov, 17:50, Lobster  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV
>>>>>>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front
>>>>>>>>>> moves ahead, remaining like this while a large gap builds up
>>>>>>>>>> ahead of them.
>>>>>>>>> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop
>>>>>>>>> drivers 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in
>>>>>>>>> lane 1 and then pushing in ahead of them when they get up to
>>>>>>>>> the obstruction in lane 2. It's a favourite trick of truck
>>>>>>>>> drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed. Often combined with the other trick of closing up very
>>>>>>>> close to the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop
>>>>>>>> bikes travelling down the gap between the miles and miles of
>>>>>>>> stationery traffic
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite right. Bike shold take their place in queuing traffic like
>>>>>>> every other vehicle.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> McKevvy
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why
>>>>>
>>>>> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of
>>>>> vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same
>>>>> length of road as a car. They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead
>>>>> of drivers who have been patiently waiting to get through the
>>>>> bottle neck. In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down 
>>>>> the outside
>>>>> of a long queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kev
>>>>
>>>> No because a bike DOESN'T take up the same amount of space as a car
>>>> and by filtering won't increase the length of queue until the
>>>> (usually short) single-carriageway section, after which everyone
>>>> can be on their way.
>>>
>>> You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single
>>> lane swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on
>>> both sides. When the lights change, only so many vehicles out of the
>>> queue can cross the bridge at any one time. A sole bike, allowing
>>> for a safe distance in front of him, and a similar distance given by
>>> the driver behind him, will indeed take up almost as much length as
>>> a car. So every time a biker motors down the outside of the queue
>>> and then pushes in at the front he is pushing back a car driver who
>>> has been patiently queuing up to the bridge.
>>>>
>>>> Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one
>>>> of the perks of motorcycling...
>>>
>>> It's simply bad manners and lack of consideration.
>>>
>>> Kev
>>>
>>>
>> As long as the bikes are not impeding other
>> vehicles, where's the problem?
> 
> But they are!  If only so many vehicles can get over the bridge per ATS 
> change, and if a bike takes up as much length of road as a car, then 
> every bike that motors down the outside of the queue, and then takes up 
> a place in the line of cars going over the bridge, prevents one of the 
> cars in the queue from getting on the bridge. I perhaps ought to mention 
> that the layout at the bridge prevents bikes from getting to the front 
> of the queue, they would have to cross the white line by the red traffic 
> light to do that, and so they wait alongside the queue near the front 
> and then 'push' in.
> 
> Kev

Oh, that's different. I was talking in general 
about normal roads.

Bod

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> It just seems that they are taking de piss for some reason.You have to
> remember that plenty of drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into
> lane 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to cheat, that's the way it
> feels anyway.

Yeh, just like all those people who join the queue next to you in the 
supermarket, even though your queue's longer, so they get served first. 
Bastards. Cheats.

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>> It just seems that they are taking de piss for some reason.You have to
>> remember that plenty of drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into
>> lane 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to cheat, that's the way it
>> feels anyway.
> 
> Yeh, just like all those people who join the queue next to you in the 
> supermarket, even though your queue's longer, so they get served first. 
> Bastards. Cheats.

Totally different, there is not two queues merging 
into one till.

Bod

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> Yeh, just like all those people who join the queue next to you in the
>> supermarket, even though your queue's longer, so they get served first.
>> Bastards. Cheats.

> Totally different, there is not two queues merging into one till.

Does it matter?

He arrived after you, but will be served and leave first.

Adrian wrote:
> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>>> Yeh, just like all those people who join the queue next to you in the
>>> supermarket, even though your queue's longer, so they get served first.
>>> Bastards. Cheats.
> 
>> Totally different, there is not two queues merging into one till.
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> He arrived after you, but will be served and leave first.

Let's put it this way; if you had waited in a 
queue for a till for 10 minutes and just before 
you got served, someone came along beside you and 
pushed in front of you, would you not care?

Bod

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:54:17 +0000
Bod  wrote:
>It just seems that they are taking de piss for 
>some reason.You have to remember that plenty of 
>drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into 
>lane 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to 
>cheat, that's the way it feels anyway.

So? Nothings stopping you doing the same. I could understand your point if
you had an alloted lane you had to sit in but you don't. If theres an empty
lane then drive down it - it don't see the issue.

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:54:17 +0000
> Bod  wrote:
>> It just seems that they are taking de piss for 
>> some reason.You have to remember that plenty of 
>> drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into 
>> lane 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to 
>> cheat, that's the way it feels anyway.
> 
> So? Nothings stopping you doing the same. I could understand your point if
> you had an alloted lane you had to sit in but you don't. If theres an empty
> lane then drive down it - it don't see the issue.
> 
> B2003
> 
I take your point but somehow it seems like cheating.

Bod

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:14:50 +0000
Bod  wrote:
>Adrian wrote:
>> Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>> 
>>>> Yeh, just like all those people who join the queue next to you in the
>>>> supermarket, even though your queue's longer, so they get served first.
>>>> Bastards. Cheats.
>> 
>>> Totally different, there is not two queues merging into one till.
>> 
>> Does it matter?
>> 
>> He arrived after you, but will be served and leave first.
>
>Let's put it this way; if you had waited in a 
>queue for a till for 10 minutes and just before 
>you got served, someone came along beside you and 
>pushed in front of you, would you not care?

FFS. That scenario is the same as someone using the hard shoulder to get to
the front of the queue. Its not the same as someone perfectly legally and
correctly driving down an empty lane.

B2003

Bod  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>> Totally different, there is not two queues merging into one till.

>> Does it matter?
>> 
>> He arrived after you, but will be served and leave first.

> Let's put it this way; if you had waited in a queue for a till for 10
> minutes and just before you got served, someone came along beside you
> and pushed in front of you, would you not care?

An analogy closer to some tit blatting down the shoulder to get past the 
queue.

If there was two clearly marked lines, one of which was empty, then - no 
- it'd be my own fucking silly fault.

paul george wrote:
> On 4 Nov, 15:21, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> 
>> You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single
>> lane swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on
>> both sides. When the lights change, only so many vehicles out of the
>> queue can cross the bridge at any one time. A sole bike, allowing
>> for a safe distance in front of him, and a similar distance given by
>> the driver behind him, will indeed take up almost as much length as
>> a car. So every time a biker motors down the outside of the queue
>> and then pushes in at the front he is pushing back a car driver who
>> has been patiently queuing up to the bridge. 
>> 
> 
> It is not the 2 wheeler who is causing the queue.
> If the car drivers were all on bikes, either powered or pedalled, the
> traffic lights would not be necessary.

LOL!  Yes, you have a point. 

Kev

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:54:17 +0000
> Bod  wrote:
>> It just seems that they are taking de piss for
>> some reason.You have to remember that plenty of
>> drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into
>> lane 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to
>> cheat, that's the way it feels anyway.
>
> So? Nothings stopping you doing the same. I could understand your
> point if you had an alloted lane you had to sit in but you don't. If
> theres an empty lane then drive down it - it don't see the issue.

The reason that many drivers don't do this is because they know that when 
they reach the obstruction, they will be relying on the good will of lane 1 
drivers (who have been patiently waiting) to let them in. They know that 
many will regard them as queue jumpers and just not let them in. Right or 
wrong, that is their thinking - and that is why they join the lane 1 queue 
further back.

Kev

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:34:24 -0000
"Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>drivers (who have been patiently waiting) to let them in. They know that 
>many will regard them as queue jumpers and just not let them in. Right or 
>wrong, that is their thinking - and that is why they join the lane 1 queue 
>further back.

Yes , you're probably right. Theres a section of the A406 where 3 lanes merge
into 2 and even though everyone uses all lanes there are still people in
the centre lane who refuse to let people from the outside lane merge in at
the end. I was slowly merging in behind another car last year and some bint
in a people carrier tried to go around me! When she realised that I didn't 
give a rats arse if the banger I was driving got an extra few dents from her
shiny new bratmobile she backed off. Stupid c**.

B2003

Steve Smith wrote:
> On 4 Nov, 12:47, "GeoffC"  wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> In message , Ret.
>>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>
>>> I saw 2 trucks on the M6 a while back straddling L1/L2 and L2/L3 to
>>> hold up everything behind some 3 or 4 miles before the signed
>>> closure of L3. An interesting manoeuvre......
>>
>> Why, they are following the correct procedure, its the vehicles in
>> front who all stay in one lane who make the whole queue longer, if
>> half of them moved into the empty lane then the queue would get
>> shorter and every body would get past the obstruction quicker.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Geoff
>
> But if a truck is straddling both of the available lanes, and moving
> at the pace of the slowest, then nobody can get into the empty lane!
> The result is miles of empty, available road being blocked by a self
> appointed traffic policeman in a truck.
>
Try reading my post again, especially the bit about cars in front of the 
truck using up the empty lane.

--

Geoff

In article <f9ec34a2-633c-4598-ac16-b023282f2db9
@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, paul george says...

> If the car drivers were all on bikes, either powered or pedalled, the
> traffic lights would not be necessary.

Two words:

Vietnam, Hanoi.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

I followed a little red Nissan for ten miles down tiny little N Yorks 
back roads this morning.

I usually expect these cars and their owners, not to make much if any 
progress, but this one was not only making good progress, its driver 
knew how to make full use of the sight lines to maintain speed and 
safety through the bends. Little use of brakes and all the appropriate 
signals and positioning. I followed it all the way almost into Ripon 
centre, where it branched off about a mile out.

I got into the centre, to find this red Nissan rejoin me, but behind me 
and from my left. I was in shock as I took a good look at the driver 
who's driving I had not faulted for ten miles. I took a quick glance as 
I passed her on my left - it was a little old lady. She then followed 
me into local supermarket car park chose herself a spot and reverse 
parked it with amazing deterity - impressed I certainly was.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> I followed a little red Nissan for ten miles down tiny little N Yorks 
> back roads this morning.
> 
> I usually expect these cars and their owners, not to make much if any 
> progress, but this one was not only making good progress, its driver 
> knew how to make full use of the sight lines to maintain speed and 
> safety through the bends. Little use of brakes and all the appropriate 
> signals and positioning. I followed it all the way almost into Ripon 
> centre, where it branched off about a mile out.
> 
> I got into the centre, to find this red Nissan rejoin me, but behind me 
> and from my left. I was in shock as I took a good look at the driver 
> who's driving I had not faulted for ten miles. I took a quick glance as 
> I passed her on my left - it was a little old lady. She then followed me 
> into local supermarket car park chose herself a spot and reverse parked 
> it with amazing deterity - impressed I certainly was.
> 
You sure it wasn't Clarkson in drag?  :-)

Bod

It happens that Harry Bloomfield formulated :
> I followed a little red Nissan for ten miles down tiny little N Yorks back 
> roads this morning.
>
> I usually expect these cars and their owners, not to make much if any 
> progress, but this one was not only making good progress, its driver knew how 
> to make full use of the sight lines to maintain speed and safety through the 
> bends. Little use of brakes and all the appropriate signals and positioning. 
> I followed it all the way almost into Ripon centre, where it branched off 
> about a mile out.
>
> I got into the centre, to find this red Nissan rejoin me, but behind me and 
> from my left. I was in shock as I took a good look at the driver who's 
> driving I had not faulted for ten miles. I took a quick glance as I passed 
> her on my left - it was a little old lady. She then followed me into local 
> supermarket car park chose herself a spot and reverse parked it with amazing 
> deterity - impressed I certainly was.

Sorry about that, it was meant to be a fresh thread. New thread 
started.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Ret. used his keyboard to write :
> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of vehicles, a 
> bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length of road as a car. 
> They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers who have been patiently 
> waiting to get through the bottle neck.

A bike needn't take up any in line space, if other vehicle's drivers 
know how to cooperate by keeping to the side.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Ret. wrote:
> 
> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 
> closure, and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in.  Many 
> wont and so you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have 
> compassion for you! Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past 
> me while I was patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let 
> him in..."

  So, don't whizz as you go past.

Bod wrote:
> 
> If you think about it, whether all cars use lane 1  or all cars use both 
> lanes and merge into one. The flow will always be the same volume in 
> lane 1. 

  Er, No.

The only advantage gained, is by the ones pushing in at the
> closure point.

  There is an advantage if the traffic maintains exactly the same order but 
spreads over two lanes instead of one.

Ret. expressed precisely :
> You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single lane 
> swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on both sides. 
> When the lights change, only so many vehicles out of the queue can cross the 
> bridge at any one time. A sole bike, allowing for a safe distance in front of 
> him, and a similar distance given by the driver behind him, will indeed take 
> up almost as much length as a car.  So every time a biker motors down the 
> outside of the queue and then pushes in at the front he is pushing back a car 
> driver who has been patiently queuing up to the bridge.

A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car. 
Starting at the front of a queue they should leave all the cars way 
behind, so in what way do they hold anyone up or take up a space?


>>  
>> Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one of
>> the perks of motorcycling...
>
> It's simply bad manners and lack of consideration.

Handling a bike is completely different thing to that of a car. Stop a 
bike and it falls over, so their riders generally prefer to come to an 
actual stop as infrequently as possible. They are very hard work in 
stop/go traffic. Imagine having to put your legs out every time you 
stop in your car, to prop it up.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

on 04/11/2009, Ret. supposed :
> It's simply bad manners and lack of consideration.

So how the police trained riders do exactly the same?

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Ret. submitted this idea :
> But they are!  If only so many vehicles can get over the bridge per ATS 
> change, and if a bike takes up as much length of road as a car, then every 
> bike that motors down the outside of the queue, and then takes up a place in 
> the line of cars going over the bridge, prevents one of the cars in the queue 
> from getting on the bridge. I perhaps ought to mention that the layout at the 
> bridge prevents bikes from getting to the front of the queue, they would have 
> to cross the white line by the red traffic light to do that, and so they wait 
> alongside the queue near the front and then 'push' in.

You are missing one important detail - even a small bike would leave 
you standing, therefore they are not really holding you up at all.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Ret. was thinking very hard :
> It may be if you are in rush to get home and keep getting pushed farther back 
> from crossing the single lane bridge by bikers pushing in.

Oh come on...

Its cold, its wet and miserable out there. There are hardly droves of 
bikers out on your bridge. The poor sods hand are frozen to the handle 
bars, show some sympthy :-)

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Mr Benn laid this down on his screen :
> What is needed is more public education about using both lanes until the lane 
> closure and then zip-merging.  There are a lot of people with the 
> misconception that a sign indicating a lane closure in 600m means that people 
> should move out of that lane ASAP.  I too was one of those people who thought 
> that at one time but I now realise that it is better if everyone uses both 
> lanes up to the point where the traffic merges into a single lane.

..and to be fair, so was I :D

Now I join whever lane is the shorter and zip at the obstruction.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Ret. used his keyboard to write :
> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, and 
> you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in.  Many wont and so you 
> are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion for you! Most 
> of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was patiently 
> queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..."

That is not the way it happens.

Two lanes, with queues in both, your merge (if you have joined the 
shorter lane) will be in front or behind the vehicle you have been 
alongside for some while. I always zip and never have any bother 
getting in, all I do is try to appear not that desperate to get in and 
leave a gap ahead of me prior to merging.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Ret. wrote :
> jamesd1974 wrote:
>> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>> news:rLidnYMAfoL8EW3XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>> Yes they are. What happens is this:  There is a lane closure in lane
>>> 2 up ahead. Drivers begin queuing in lane 1 leading up to the
>>> closure. Other drivers whiz up in lane 2, pass those drivers who are
>>> patiently queueing in lane 1 and then 'push' their way in when they
>>> get to the closure.
>>
>> you call it "pushing in", some of us would see it as making use of a
>> gap to keep the traffic flowing.
>
> Would you do the same thing in a post office queue?  Making use of the empty 
> floor space next the main queue in order to keep the people flowing?

I often do see two parallel queues going up to the PO counter, which 
zip merge when the queue arrives at the counter. I also see it at Mc 
D's.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

After serious thinking Bod wrote :
> It just seems that they are taking de piss for some reason.You have to 
> remember that plenty of drivers who are in lane 1, quite often get into lane 
> 2 and then zoom up to the closure point to cheat, that's the way it feels 
> anyway.

Bod - the sensible and fairest way all round is to fill both lanes to 
capacity right up to the point of the merge. No one can then gain any 
advantage or jump the queue - the problem resolves itself. Try it and 
report back.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> Ret. submitted this idea :
>> But they are!  If only so many vehicles can get over the bridge per
>> ATS change, and if a bike takes up as much length of road as a car,
>> then every bike that motors down the outside of the queue, and then
>> takes up a place in the line of cars going over the bridge, prevents
>> one of the cars in the queue from getting on the bridge. I perhaps
>> ought to mention that the layout at the bridge prevents bikes from
>> getting to the front of the queue, they would have to cross the
>> white line by the red traffic light to do that, and so they wait
>> alongside the queue near the front and then 'push' in.
>
> You are missing one important detail - even a small bike would leave
> you standing, therefore they are not really holding you up at all.

No, I am not missing that important detail. They cannot leave anyone 
standing because they cannot get in front of the queue and cannot overtake 
on the bridge because it's too narrow. They can only slot in near the head 
of the queue and go over the bridge in single file with the other cars - so 
each bike that goes over the bridge prevents a queuing car from getting over 
the bridge when the lights change.

Kev

on 04/11/2009, Bod supposed :
> Let's put it this way; if you had waited in a queue for a till for 10 minutes 
> and just before you got served, someone came along beside you and pushed in 
> front of you, would you not care?

Yes of course, but on the road there are two lanes, two queues both 
waiting to get in one till or lane. Fill both lanes and it all becomes 
very fair.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> Ret. expressed precisely :
>> You're wrong. I've given this example before but near me is a single
>> lane swing bridge over a river. At rush hour long queues build up on
>> both sides. When the lights change, only so many vehicles out of the
>> queue can cross the bridge at any one time. A sole bike, allowing
>> for a safe distance in front of him, and a similar distance given by
>> the driver behind him, will indeed take up almost as much length as
>> a car.  So every time a biker motors down the outside of the queue
>> and then pushes in at the front he is pushing back a car driver who
>> has been patiently queuing up to the bridge.
>
> A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car.
> Starting at the front of a queue they should leave all the cars way
> behind, so in what way do they hold anyone up or take up a space?

Because they are *not* at the front of the queue. The only way they could 
get to the front of the queue would be by crossing the white line against 
the red traffic light. The nature of the road means that even sitting at the 
side of the queue, at the front, they would obstruct large vehicles coming 
over the bridge from the other side. All they can do is get *near* to the 
front of the queue and then slot in.

>
>
>>>
>>> Being able to pass queues of jealous car drivers is definitely one
>>> of the perks of motorcycling...
>>
>> It's simply bad manners and lack of consideration.
>
> Handling a bike is completely different thing to that of a car. Stop a
> bike and it falls over, so their riders generally prefer to come to an
> actual stop as infrequently as possible. They are very hard work in
> stop/go traffic. Imagine having to put your legs out every time you
> stop in your car, to prop it up.

I was biker in my teens. I then grew up and got some sense!

Kev

Bod wrote:
> Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>> I followed a little red Nissan for ten miles down tiny little N Yorks
>> back roads this morning.
>> 
>> I usually expect these cars and their owners, not to make much if any
>> progress, but this one was not only making good progress, its driver
>> knew how to make full use of the sight lines to maintain speed and
>> safety through the bends. Little use of brakes and all the
>> appropriate signals and positioning. I followed it all the way
>> almost into Ripon centre, where it branched off about a mile out.
>> 
>> I got into the centre, to find this red Nissan rejoin me, but behind
>> me and from my left. I was in shock as I took a good look at the
>> driver who's driving I had not faulted for ten miles. I took a quick
>> glance as I passed her on my left - it was a little old lady. She
>> then followed me into local supermarket car park chose herself a
>> spot and reverse parked it with amazing deterity - impressed I
>> certainly was. 
>> 
> You sure it wasn't Clarkson in drag?  :-)

What? You think Clarkson drives according to Roadcraft?

Kev

Ret. formulated on Wednesday :
> Because they are *not* at the front of the queue. The only way they could get 
> to the front of the queue would be by crossing the white line against the red 
> traffic light. The nature of the road means that even sitting at the side of 
> the queue, at the front, they would obstruct large vehicles coming over the 
> bridge from the other side. All they can do is get *near* to the front of the 
> queue and then slot in.

OK, now I understand. There is a similar bridge near here and what I do 
(on the bike) is tuck in close to the front, then just before the 
lights change pull out and up to the front. Usually I hit the far side 
of the bridge before the first vehicle has started to really move.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> on 04/11/2009, Bod supposed :
>> Let's put it this way; if you had waited in a queue for a till for
>> 10 minutes and just before you got served, someone came along beside
>> you and pushed in front of you, would you not care?
>
> Yes of course, but on the road there are two lanes, two queues both
> waiting to get in one till or lane. Fill both lanes and it all becomes
> very fair.

So long as the drivers in both lanes co-operate with each other. Often they 
don't!

Kev

Ret. used his keyboard to write :
> So long as the drivers in both lanes co-operate with each other. Often they 
> don't!

But filling both lanes, so neither has any advantage removes the 
element of competition. Then you see the co-ordinated and slick merge 
take place.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

After serious thinking Bod wrote :
> Can't you see that the motorway scenario is 2 separate queues merging into, 
> say> 1 toll booth?
> So, in effect, a driver in the correct lane for the single booth waits 
> patiently in the booth lane and anyone in other lanes have to push in or be 
> let in to that booth lane.

The alternative is for all fair minded drivers, to queue in your one 
lane which is the lane which is the only one open at the roadworks. 
Lets say 95% of them are fair minded. The 5% of unfair ones still go 
charging down in the closed lane and no doubt someone will let them in 
- but there will be lots of conflict. Not a very fair system is it, 
with all this cheating.

The fair way is for both lanes to be filled up evenly, which completely 
prevents any cheating and everyone merges sweetly where it goes down to 
one lane. Because no one is cheating, the merge happens without any 
conflict.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> After serious thinking Bod wrote :
>> Can't you see that the motorway scenario is 2 separate queues
>> merging into, say> 1 toll booth?
>> So, in effect, a driver in the correct lane for the single booth
>> waits patiently in the booth lane and anyone in other lanes have to
>> push in or be let in to that booth lane.
>
> The alternative is for all fair minded drivers, to queue in your one
> lane which is the lane which is the only one open at the roadworks.
> Lets say 95% of them are fair minded. The 5% of unfair ones still go
> charging down in the closed lane and no doubt someone will let them in
> - but there will be lots of conflict. Not a very fair system is it,
> with all this cheating.
>
> The fair way is for both lanes to be filled up evenly, which
> completely prevents any cheating and everyone merges sweetly where it
> goes down to one lane. Because no one is cheating, the merge happens
> without any conflict.

I agree 100% - but it's only fair if drivers in the two lanes co-operate at 
the merge point!

Kev

"Harry Bloomfield"  wrote in message 
news:mn.24f17d9b0ebb764c.106911@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...
> After serious thinking Bod wrote :
>> Can't you see that the motorway scenario is 2 separate queues merging 
>> into, say> 1 toll booth?
>> So, in effect, a driver in the correct lane for the single booth waits 
>> patiently in the booth lane and anyone in other lanes have to push in or 
>> be let in to that booth lane.
>
> The alternative is for all fair minded drivers, to queue in your one lane 
> which is the lane which is the only one open at the roadworks. Lets say 
> 95% of them are fair minded. The 5% of unfair ones still go charging down 
> in the closed lane and no doubt someone will let them in - but there will 
> be lots of conflict. Not a very fair system is it, with all this cheating.
>
> The fair way is for both lanes to be filled up evenly, which completely 
> prevents any cheating and everyone merges sweetly where it goes down to 
> one lane. Because no one is cheating, the merge happens without any 
> conflict.

Better still if there is plenty of warning and traffic gets into one lane in 
plenty of time, nerging while the traffic is still flowing freely. The 
single lane can then flow freely through the restriction, because there is 
no need for everyone to slow to a crawl to allow merging to take place at 
the last minute.

Very often you see traffic flowing well, then it becomes almost stationary 
due to merging, and then once it's a single lane it speed up again to 
whatever speed limit has been imposed for the single or narrow lane.

Merging only works *well* if it does not slow both streams of traffic to a 
crawl while it takes place.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:41:02 GMT
Harry Bloomfield  wrote:
>A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car. 

Dream on. 5th gear did a drag race between an F1 car and a racing bike
a few years back - up to about 100ish they were almost equal , after that the 
F1 car just left the bike for dead. And that was a *racing* bike, not a road 
bike, going in a straight line. Through a corner the bike wouldn't have stood
a chance at any speed. I'm sure its on youtube somewhere.

B2003

"Harry Bloomfield"  wrote in message 
news:mn.243c7d9b5531c118.106911@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...
> Ret. used his keyboard to write :
>> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, 
>> and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in.  Many wont and 
>> so you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion for 
>> you! Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was 
>> patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..."
>
> That is not the way it happens.
>
> Two lanes, with queues in both, your merge (if you have joined the shorter 
> lane) will be in front or behind the vehicle you have been alongside for 
> some while. I always zip and never have any bother getting in, all I do is 
> try to appear not that desperate to get in and leave a gap ahead of me 
> prior to merging.

I find it amusing seeing some drivers virtually touching the cones before 
trying to merge.

On 5 Nov, 10:13, boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:41:02 GMT
>
> Harry Bloomfield  wrote:
> >A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car.
>
> Dream on. 5th gear did a drag race between an F1 car and a racing bike
> a few years back - up to about 100ish they were almost equal , after that the
> F1 car just left the bike for dead. And that was a *racing* bike, not a road
> bike, going in a straight line. Through a corner the bike wouldn't have stood
> a chance at any speed. I'm sure its on youtube somewhere.
>
> B2003

Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just
about everything else in the mirror.

On 5 Nov, 10:41, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Harry Bloomfield"  wrote in message
>
> news:mn.243c7d9b5531c118.106911@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...
>
> > Ret. used his keyboard to write :
> >> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure,
> >> and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in.  Many wont and
> >> so you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion for
> >> you! Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was
> >> patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..."
>
> > That is not the way it happens.
>
> > Two lanes, with queues in both, your merge (if you have joined the shorter
> > lane) will be in front or behind the vehicle you have been alongside for
> > some while. I always zip and never have any bother getting in, all I do is
> > try to appear not that desperate to get in and leave a gap ahead of me
> > prior to merging.
>
> I find it amusing seeing some drivers virtually touching the cones before
> trying to merge.

You must have been behind them as they merged then.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:00:18 -0800 (PST)
NM  wrote:
>Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just
>about everything else in the mirror.

He said:

"A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car"

Sorry , but thats bollocks. A racing bike might be able to hold its own with an F1 car
in certain situations but a road bike wouldn't stand a chance.

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:00:18 -0800 (PST)
> NM  wrote:
>> Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just
>> about everything else in the mirror.
> 
> He said:
> 
> "A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car"
> 
> Sorry , but thats bollocks. A racing bike might be able to hold its own with an F1 car
> in certain situations but a road bike wouldn't stand a chance.
> 
> B2003
> 

Have to disagree, several road bikes on the market 
would compare to an F1 car in accelleration up to 
about 100mph.

Bod

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:23:35 +0000
Bod  wrote:
>boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:00:18 -0800 (PST)
>> NM  wrote:
>>> Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just
>>> about everything else in the mirror.
>> 
>> He said:
>> 
>> "A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car"
>> 
>> Sorry , but thats bollocks. A racing bike might be able to hold its own with
>an F1 car
>> in certain situations but a road bike wouldn't stand a chance.
>> 
>> B2003
>> 
>
>Have to disagree, several road bikes on the market 
>would compare to an F1 car in accelleration up to 
>about 100mph.

BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_cars#Forward_acceleration

The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):[citation needed]

    0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds
    0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds
    0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds* 

Show me road bike that can get to 124mph in under 4 seconds.

B2003

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:23:35 +0000
> Bod  wrote:
>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:00:18 -0800 (PST)
>>> NM  wrote:
>>>> Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just
>>>> about everything else in the mirror.
>>> He said:
>>>
>>> "A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car"
>>>
>>> Sorry , but thats bollocks. A racing bike might be able to hold its own with
>> an F1 car
>>> in certain situations but a road bike wouldn't stand a chance.
>>>
>>> B2003
>>>
>> Have to disagree, several road bikes on the market 
>> would compare to an F1 car in accelleration up to 
>> about 100mph.
> 
> BS.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_cars#Forward_acceleration
> 
> The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):[citation needed]
> 
>     0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds
>     0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds
>     0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds* 
> 
> Show me road bike that can get to 124mph in under 4 seconds.
> 
> B2003
> 
Ok, but give me a few years though.  :-)

Bod

Bod wrote:
> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:23:35 +0000
>> Bod  wrote:
>>> boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:00:18 -0800 (PST)
>>>> NM  wrote:
>>>>> Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just
>>>>> about everything else in the mirror.
>>>> He said:
>>>>
>>>> "A decnt sized bike has as much and more acceleration as an F1 car"
>>>>
>>>> Sorry , but thats bollocks. A racing bike might be able to hold its 
>>>> own with
>>> an F1 car
>>>> in certain situations but a road bike wouldn't stand a chance.
>>>>
>>>> B2003
>>>>
>>> Have to disagree, several road bikes on the market would compare to 
>>> an F1 car in accelleration up to about 100mph.
>>
>> BS.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_cars#Forward_acceleration
>>
>> The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):[citation needed]
>>
>>     0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds
>>     0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds
>>     0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds*
>> Show me road bike that can get to 124mph in under 4 seconds.
>>
>> B2003
>>
> Ok, but give me a few years though.  :-)
> 
> Bod

I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in 
5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where).

Bod

In article <12bbcc02-616f-44c0-8539-
d17705c9955c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, NM says...

> Which bears out what he was saying, standing start to 100 mph=just
> about everything else in the mirror.

Err, no.

The only reason the bike kept up in that Ch5 drag race (Was on Dave last 
week) was because Jenson said he couldn't put all the power down because 
it was a race done on a private bit of industrial land, not a proper 
race track. Once he was able to put the power down, he left the bike for 
dead.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

In article , Bod says...

> I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in 
> 5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where).
> 
Drag racers do better than that. In 5.3 seconds, a top fueller will be 
at >300MPH.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

On 4 Nov, 17:29, Harry Bloomfield 
wrote:
> It happens that Harry Bloomfield formulated :
>
>
>
>
>
> > I followed a little red Nissan for ten miles down tiny little N Yorks back
> > roads this morning.
>
> > I usually expect these cars and their owners, not to make much if any
> > progress, but this one was not only making good progress, its driver knew how
> > to make full use of the sight lines to maintain speed and safety through the
> > bends. Little use of brakes and all the appropriate signals and positioning.
> > I followed it all the way almost into Ripon centre, where it branched off
> > about a mile out.
>
> > I got into the centre, to find this red Nissan rejoin me, but behind me and
> > from my left. I was in shock as I took a good look at the driver who's
> > driving I had not faulted for ten miles. I took a quick glance as I passed
> > her on my left - it was a little old lady. She then followed me into local
> > supermarket car park chose herself a spot and reverse parked it with amazing
> > deterity - impressed I certainly was.
>
> Sorry about that, it was meant to be a fresh thread. New thread
> started.
>

It showed up as a new thread in Pan on my newsreader at home, but not
on GG this morning. I replied to the "new" thread I saw..

Mike P

Conor wrote:
> In article , Bod says...
> 
>> I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in 
>> 5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where).
>>
> Drag racers do better than that. In 5.3 seconds, a top fueller will be 
> at >300MPH.
> 
> 
> 
Fair enough, but I was talking about a street 
legal bike.

Bod

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:05:23 +0000
Bod  wrote:
>> Ok, but give me a few years though.  :-)
>> 
>> Bod
>
>I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in 
>5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where).

Thrown off a cliff? ;)

Actually Fifth gear did test some road bike , might have been the above,
that did 0-100 in 6 seconds. Certainly bang for buck you can't beat a high
powered road bike. 

B2003

On 5 Nov, 12:11, Conor  wrote:
> In article , Bod says...
>
> > I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in
> > 5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where).
>
> Drag racers do better than that. In 5.3 seconds, a top fueller will be
> at >300MPH.

I like the fact that if you got a Veyron up to full speed, then let a
top fueller go as Veryon came past at 253mph, the top fueller would
*still* beat it over the next 1/4 mile from a standing start..

Mike P

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:11:03 -0000
Conor  wrote:
>In article , Bod says...
>
>> I've seen a report of Hayabusa doing 0 100mph in 
>> 5.3s somewhere though (can't remember where).
>> 
>Drag racers do better than that. In 5.3 seconds, a top fueller will be 
>at >300MPH.

I read somewhere that top fuel dragsters are the fastest accelerating manned
vehicle in the world if you don't count some tests with rocket sleds.

B2003

In article <hcugc6$c24$1@aioe.org>, boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk says...

> Actually Fifth gear did test some road bike , might have been the above,
> that did 0-100 in 6 seconds. Certainly bang for buck you can't beat a high
> powered road bike. 
> 
My problem is that I like the security of four wheels. A Caterham 7 can 
do 0-60 in 3 seconds and an Atom, equally quickly.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

"NM"  wrote in message 
news:251b56bf-08be-4bdd-94c8-436681419213@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
On 5 Nov, 10:41, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Harry Bloomfield"  wrote in message
>
> news:mn.243c7d9b5531c118.106911@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...
>
> > Ret. used his keyboard to write :
> >> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 
> >> closure,
> >> and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in. Many wont and
> >> so you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion 
> >> for
> >> you! Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was
> >> patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..."
>
> > That is not the way it happens.
>
> > Two lanes, with queues in both, your merge (if you have joined the 
> > shorter
> > lane) will be in front or behind the vehicle you have been alongside for
> > some while. I always zip and never have any bother getting in, all I do 
> > is
> > try to appear not that desperate to get in and leave a gap ahead of me
> > prior to merging.
>
> I find it amusing seeing some drivers virtually touching the cones before
> trying to merge.

You must have been behind them as they merged then.
--------

Adjacent lane smartarse.

On 5 Nov, 14:08, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "NM"  wrote in message
>
> news:251b56bf-08be-4bdd-94c8-436681419213@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Nov, 10:41, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Harry Bloomfield"  wrote in message
>
> >news:mn.243c7d9b5531c118.106911@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...
>
> > > Ret. used his keyboard to write :
> > >> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2
> > >> closure,
> > >> and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in. Many wont and
> > >> so you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion
> > >> for
> > >> you! Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was
> > >> patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..."
>
> > > That is not the way it happens.
>
> > > Two lanes, with queues in both, your merge (if you have joined the
> > > shorter
> > > lane) will be in front or behind the vehicle you have been alongside for
> > > some while. I always zip and never have any bother getting in, all I do
> > > is
> > > try to appear not that desperate to get in and leave a gap ahead of me
> > > prior to merging.
>
> > I find it amusing seeing some drivers virtually touching the cones before
> > trying to merge.
>
> You must have been behind them as they merged then.
> --------
>
> Adjacent lane smartarse.

then why were they merging, 3 down to two with you in the slow lane
perhaps, then they were still ahead of you.

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:o_idnYSbt8UxAWzXnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@pipex.net...

> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, 
> and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in.  Many wont and so 
> you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion for you! 
> Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was 
> patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..."

The more people zip merge, the more they get used to it.

Currently it's a no-brainer - you can't lose by going up the empty lane, so 
do so.

It's clueless drivers like you and Bod who create the problems by merging 
early. While you persist in your behaviour, there will be an opportunity for 
people to "queue jump" at your expense. If you change your behaviour, you 
either gain or better yet, create a situation where there aren't inequities 
between the queues, and we have proper zip merging.

Those of us who are already zip merging have discovered your worries are 
baseless - we can and have merged at the closure many times.

(ways to make this work include : Not taking the piss and roaring up and 
diving at the last minute - roll up to the closure point at a similar speed 
to the other lane, so your merge is planned. Being prepared to drop back a 
car if the person you're planning to merge in front of is being a tit - if 
you plan your merge you can see if they are sufficently early that you can 
put a backup plan into action).

boltar2003@yahoo.co.uk used his keyboard to write :
> Dream on. 5th gear did a drag race between an F1 car and a racing bike
> a few years back - up to about 100ish they were almost equal ,

Which was pretty much what I said.

> after that the
> F1 car just left the bike for dead. 

Which is what you would expect, due to the poor ability of a bike to 
cut through the air. However 100mph might seem just a bit too quick on 
Kev's bridge.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Clive George wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
> news:o_idnYSbt8UxAWzXnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@pipex.net...
> 
>> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 closure, 
>> and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in.  Many wont and so 
>> you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have compassion for you! 
>> Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past me while I was 
>> patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let him in..."
> 
> The more people zip merge, the more they get used to it.
> 
> Currently it's a no-brainer - you can't lose by going up the empty lane, so 
> do so.
> 
> It's clueless drivers like you and Bod who create the problems by merging 
> early. While you persist in your behaviour, there will be an opportunity for 
> people to "queue jump" at your expense. If you change your behaviour, you 
> either gain or better yet, create a situation where there aren't inequities 
> between the queues, and we have proper zip merging.
> 
> Those of us who are already zip merging have discovered your worries are 
> baseless - we can and have merged at the closure many times.
> 
> (ways to make this work include : Not taking the piss and roaring up and 
> diving at the last minute - roll up to the closure point at a similar speed 
> to the other lane, so your merge is planned. Being prepared to drop back a 
> car if the person you're planning to merge in front of is being a tit - if 
> you plan your merge you can see if they are sufficently early that you can 
> put a backup plan into action). 
> 
> 
Back to reality, I've seen on many occasions, the 
cars in lane 1 not letting lane 2 in because lane 
1 drivers (rightly or wrongly) are thinking, sod 
you trying to push in. That is often what happens 
in real life.

Bod

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7lgen9F3ctv0qU1@mid.individual.net...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
>> news:o_idnYSbt8UxAWzXnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>>> It certainly *is* better - so long as when you get to the lane 2 
>>> closure, and you are in lane 2, the drivers in lane 1 let you in.  Many 
>>> wont and so you are stuck there waiting for some kind soul to have 
>>> compassion for you! Most of them will think, "That bastard whizzed past 
>>> me while I was patiently queueing in lane 1 and I'm damned if I'll let 
>>> him in..."
>>
>> The more people zip merge, the more they get used to it.
>>
>> Currently it's a no-brainer - you can't lose by going up the empty lane, 
>> so do so.
>>
>> It's clueless drivers like you and Bod who create the problems by merging 
>> early. While you persist in your behaviour, there will be an opportunity 
>> for people to "queue jump" at your expense. If you change your behaviour, 
>> you either gain or better yet, create a situation where there aren't 
>> inequities between the queues, and we have proper zip merging.
>>
>> Those of us who are already zip merging have discovered your worries are 
>> baseless - we can and have merged at the closure many times.
>>
>> (ways to make this work include : Not taking the piss and roaring up and 
>> diving at the last minute - roll up to the closure point at a similar 
>> speed to the other lane, so your merge is planned. Being prepared to drop 
>> back a car if the person you're planning to merge in front of is being a 
>> tit - if you plan your merge you can see if they are sufficently early 
>> that you can put a backup plan into action).
> Back to reality, I've seen on many occasions, the cars in lane 1 not 
> letting lane 2 in because lane 1 drivers (rightly or wrongly) are 
> thinking, sod you trying to push in. That is often what happens in real 
> life.

I'm reminded of a Phill Nice sketch (remember that rubber-faced 
impressionist from the 1990s) in which he described the L1 driver staring 
fixedly ahead and totally ignoring the guy who was trying to push in: "I can 
neither see you or hear you. You do not exist." ;-)

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7lgen9F3ctv0qU1@mid.individual.net...

> Back to reality, I've seen on many occasions, the cars in lane 1 not 
> letting lane 2 in because lane 1 drivers (rightly or wrongly) are 
> thinking, sod you trying to push in. That is often what happens in real 
> life.

Your reality seems to be somewhat at odds with mine, and various other 
posters here.

It only takes one sane person to let somebody in - there aren't that many 
nutters about.

It's your loss, not mine - you can either join us, and zip merge properly, 
or sit there grumbling about "queue jumpers".

Clive George wrote:
> "Bod"  wrote in message 
> news:7lgen9F3ctv0qU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>> Back to reality, I've seen on many occasions, the cars in lane 1 not 
>> letting lane 2 in because lane 1 drivers (rightly or wrongly) are 
>> thinking, sod you trying to push in. That is often what happens in real 
>> life.
> 
> Your reality seems to be somewhat at odds with mine, and various other 
> posters here.
> 
> It only takes one sane person to let somebody in - there aren't that many 
> nutters about.
> 
> It's your loss, not mine - you can either join us, and zip merge properly, 
> or sit there grumbling about "queue jumpers". 
> 
> 
I said *I've seen*, I actually let drivers in.

Bod

"Bod"  wrote in message 
news:7lgjanF3d0gm6U1@mid.individual.net...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Bod"  wrote in message 
>> news:7lgen9F3ctv0qU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> Back to reality, I've seen on many occasions, the cars in lane 1 not 
>>> letting lane 2 in because lane 1 drivers (rightly or wrongly) are 
>>> thinking, sod you trying to push in. That is often what happens in real 
>>> life.
>>
>> Your reality seems to be somewhat at odds with mine, and various other 
>> posters here.
>>
>> It only takes one sane person to let somebody in - there aren't that many 
>> nutters about.
>>
>> It's your loss, not mine - you can either join us, and zip merge 
>> properly, or sit there grumbling about "queue jumpers".
> I said *I've seen*, I actually let drivers in.

I wasn't claiming you didn't let drivers in. The thing is, the majority of 
people are like you in that respect, so worrying about being stuck in L2 is 
baseless.

Nick Finnigan  wrote:
> Eccles wrote:
>> Harry Bloomfield  wrote:
>>
>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
>>
>> Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before
>> roadworks) are *frequently* sabotaged by truckers deliberately
>> blocking lane 2.
>
>  That does not stop the traffic using both lanes when queueing.

Really?  How does that work with a big truck in the way?

Peter

Eccles wrote:
> Nick Finnigan  wrote:
>> Eccles wrote:
>>> Harry Bloomfield  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
>>> Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before
>>> roadworks) are *frequently* sabotaged by truckers deliberately
>>> blocking lane 2.
>>  That does not stop the traffic using both lanes when queueing.
> 
> Really?  How does that work with a big truck in the way?

  Some of the traffic uses one lane, and some of it the other.
Some of it in front of the big truck, some of it behind.

"Eccles" <peter@peter> wrote in message 
news:i-2dnYPZEpVJp27XnZ2dnUVZ7oGdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> Nick Finnigan  wrote:
>> Eccles wrote:
>>> Harry Bloomfield  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
>>>
>>> Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before
>>> roadworks) are *frequently* sabotaged by truckers deliberately
>>> blocking lane 2.
>>
>>  That does not stop the traffic using both lanes when queueing.
>
> Really?  How does that work with a big truck in the way?

Provided the people front of the truck don't merge into L1 early, it works 
fine.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:11:29 +0000, Steve Firth hollered:

> Bod  wrote:
> 
>> Because it is tantamount to pushing in.
> 
> Well there's the view of the stupid faction as endorsed by the stupid
> party and too blind too lok through a windscreen crew.
> 
> So where, in your opinion, is the back of the queue? Should every driver
> constantly look for the longest queue of non-moving traffic and join
> that? What happens when, as often does, the queue is so long that the
> lane restrictions cannot be seen? If you come across a queue of traffic
> in (say) lane 1 but lanes 2 and 3 are free flowing do you just join the
> queue and ignore the empty lanes? And what informs the driver that this
> is what they must do?
> 
> It's also mildly amusing that both you and Kevin "God's gift to driving"
> Lunn have never heard of the term "zip merge."

I'm sure that when I was in either Holland (or Germany?) a few years ago, 
they actually had signs up with what translated as "merge like a zip" on 
them.

Mike P

On 5 Nov, 22:46, Mike P  wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:11:29 +0000, Steve Firth hollered:
>
>
>
> > Bod  wrote:
>
> >> Because it is tantamount to pushing in.
>
> > Well there's the view of the stupid faction as endorsed by the stupid
> > party and too blind too lok through a windscreen crew.
>
> > So where, in your opinion, is the back of the queue? Should every driver
> > constantly look for the longest queue of non-moving traffic and join
> > that? What happens when, as often does, the queue is so long that the
> > lane restrictions cannot be seen? If you come across a queue of traffic
> > in (say) lane 1 but lanes 2 and 3 are free flowing do you just join the
> > queue and ignore the empty lanes? And what informs the driver that this
> > is what they must do?
>
> > It's also mildly amusing that both you and Kevin "God's gift to driving"
> > Lunn have never heard of the term "zip merge."
>
> I'm sure that when I was in either Holland (or Germany?) a few years ago,
> they actually had signs up with what translated as "merge like a zip" on
> them.
>
> Mike P

There were a series of ad's on Dutch TV showing an overhead view of
the same junction, one view with push and let in merging and another
view with zip merging the difference on throughput was quite
considerable, much greater than I had supposed it would be.

Ret. wrote:
> NM wrote:
>> On 3 Nov, 22:36, Vicko Zoomba  wrote:
>>> On 3 Nov, 17:50, Lobster  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>> I've seen this behaviour before: in a queue of traffic, an HGV
>>>>>> will sometimes remain stationary when the traffic in front moves
>>>>>> ahead, remaining like this while a large gap builds up ahead of
>>>>>> them.
>>>>> I think you will find that it is a deliberate ploy to stop drivers
>>>>> 'jumping the queue' by overtaking queueing drivers in lane 1 and
>>>>> then pushing in ahead of them when they get up to the obstruction
>>>>> in lane 2. It's a favourite trick of truck drivers.
>>>
>>>> Indeed. Often combined with the other trick of closing up very
>>>> close to the adjacent lane, for no other purpose than to stop bikes
>>>> travelling down the gap between the miles and miles of stationery
>>>> traffic
>>>
>>> Quite right. Bike shold take their place in queuing traffic like
>>> every other vehicle.
>>>
>>> McKevvy
>>
>> Why
> 
> Because in many situations, when a queue ends in a single file of 
> vehicles, a bike slots in - and then takes up almost the same length of 
> road as a car. They have, therefore, 'pushed in' ahead of drivers who 
> have been patiently waiting to get through the bottle neck.

Bikes are allowed to filter though.

> In such situations you wouldn't dream of driving down the outside of a 
> long queue in a car and then 'pushing in' would you?

Yes, I do it whenever possible! I can't see the sense in merging 800 
yards before the obstruction like everyone else seems to and sitting for 
ages.

Clive George  wrote:
> "Eccles" <peter@peter> wrote in message
> news:i-2dnYPZEpVJp27XnZ2dnUVZ7oGdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>> Nick Finnigan  wrote:
>>> Eccles wrote:
>>>> Harry Bloomfield  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
>>>>
>>>> Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before
>>>> roadworks) are *frequently* sabotaged by truckers deliberately
>>>> blocking lane 2.
>>>
>>>  That does not stop the traffic using both lanes when queueing.
>>
>> Really?  How does that work with a big truck in the way?
>
> Provided the people front of the truck don't merge into L1 early, it
> works fine.

How did the people in front of the truck get there?

Peter

"Eccles" <peter@peter> wrote in message 
news:YaKdnSoMcacx_2jXnZ2dnUVZ7sadnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> Clive George  wrote:
>> "Eccles" <peter@peter> wrote in message
>> news:i-2dnYPZEpVJp27XnZ2dnUVZ7oGdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>>> Nick Finnigan  wrote:
>>>> Eccles wrote:
>>>>> Harry Bloomfield  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before
>>>>> roadworks) are *frequently* sabotaged by truckers deliberately
>>>>> blocking lane 2.
>>>>
>>>>  That does not stop the traffic using both lanes when queueing.
>>>
>>> Really?  How does that work with a big truck in the way?
>>
>> Provided the people front of the truck don't merge into L1 early, it
>> works fine.
>
> How did the people in front of the truck get there?

Drove? It's one of the very basic bits of the driving test - if you can't 
steer and control your forward speed enough to get out of the test centre 
car park, you're really not going to get a licence.

Clive George  wrote:
> "Eccles" <peter@peter> wrote in message
> news:YaKdnSoMcacx_2jXnZ2dnUVZ7sadnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>> Clive George  wrote:
>>> "Eccles" <peter@peter> wrote in message
>>> news:i-2dnYPZEpVJp27XnZ2dnUVZ7oGdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>> Nick Finnigan  wrote:
>>>>> Eccles wrote:
>>>>>> Harry Bloomfield  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is where a sensible zip merge works perfectly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zip merges (with 'use both lanes when queuing' notices before
>>>>>> roadworks) are *frequently* sabotaged by truckers deliberately
>>>>>> blocking lane 2.
>>>>>
>>>>>  That does not stop the traffic using both lanes when queueing.
>>>>
>>>> Really?  How does that work with a big truck in the way?
>>>
>>> Provided the people front of the truck don't merge into L1 early, it
>>> works fine.
>>
>> How did the people in front of the truck get there?
>
> Drove? It's one of the very basic bits of the driving test - if you
> can't steer and control your forward speed enough to get out of the
> test centre car park, you're really not going to get a licence.

Through the truck, or over the top?

Peter

Ray Keattch  wrote:

> > Yup. Theres a man whose TV career nosedived spectacularly. Doing silly faces
> > obviously has a short shelf life in this country though the americans
> > obviously still find it hilarious otherwise I'm at a loss to explain the
> > success of Jim Carrey since the man is about as funny as cancer.
> 
> Really?  We love his films and laugh non stop through them.

Why am I not surprised by that?

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote in
news:1j96o12.pdcwvuipiup5N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk: 

> Ray Keattch  wrote:
> 
>> > Yup. Theres a man whose TV career nosedived spectacularly. Doing
>> > silly faces obviously has a short shelf life in this country though
>> > the americans obviously still find it hilarious otherwise I'm at a
>> > loss to explain the success of Jim Carrey since the man is about as
>> > funny as cancer. 
>> 
>> Really?  We love his films and laugh non stop through them.
> 
> Why am I not surprised by that?

What makes you laugh Steve?

Mr. Benn <%%@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote in
> news:1j96o12.pdcwvuipiup5N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk: 
> 
> > Ray Keattch  wrote:
> > 
> >> > Yup. Theres a man whose TV career nosedived spectacularly. Doing
> >> > silly faces obviously has a short shelf life in this country though
> >> > the americans obviously still find it hilarious otherwise I'm at a
> >> > loss to explain the success of Jim Carrey since the man is about as
> >> > funny as cancer. 
> >> 
> >> Really?  We love his films and laugh non stop through them.
> > 
> > Why am I not surprised by that?
> 
> What makes you laugh Steve?

Mostly, retards on Usenet. Some twat pulling faces doesn't.