Zip-merging

[jibberjabber25]

No, sorry I'm not a full IAM member yet. I am but a lowly associate so will not have the IAM magazine of 2004!

Hmm...I think I'm getting the idea of how the sign looks, but I'm not totally sure. Well, I'll go by what I know so far. If I came across such a sign in the distance I would choose the lane of least resistance well before the queue and be in that one.

As I said, I do not have a problem with zip-merging, but I have a problem with drivers who go into a lane that they MUST NOT be in in order to just the queue (e.g. X above the lane).

In the case that you are describing, zip-merging is indeed preferred so I would happily comply and allow others to do so.

[crr003]

No, sorry I'm not a full IAM member yet. I am but a lowly associate so will not have the IAM magazine of 2004!

I know - I've been following your "Observer Meter" in your signature.

Ask your observer - he/she should have one!

[jibberjabber25]

I haven't started with my observer yet. Haven't met him yet. Only know him via e-mail.

[crr003]

I haven't started with my observer yet. Haven't met him yet. Only know him via e-mail.

I'm trying to google a picture but not having much success.

This is good though:

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comme ... 300008.ece

http://www.onesuffolk.co.uk/News+Servic ... ks_548.htm

[brianhaddon]

Just seen this - sorry it's off topic...

Oh, sorry I couldn't get your names on the quote boxes - how do you do that?
Brian Haddon

Hi Brian. Usually you click on the "Quote" button next to the appropriate post and the names should be there for you. All you do is edit out the content that you do not want to quote.

Coo it works
Thanks jibberjabber25
Brian Haddon

[jibberjabber25]

No problem Brian.

Hi crr003. I have looked at those websites and they are a help. I just thought you had to get into the queue well in advance, I had no idea about zip merging, I thought it was wrong.

However, I don't see how there can be any gain from zip-merging. Although the queue would be shorter it would move more slowly because of the amount of stop-starting. Is there any proof that it is actually any better having one long faster moving queue of two slower moving ones?

If this can be proved then I would definately be for zip-merging, but at the moment I'm not sure.

Sorry, I know you'd like me to just say "YES I am totally for zip-merging" but I just don't know enough about it to decide as of yet...

[crr003]

However, I don't see how there can be any gain from zip-merging. Although the queue would be shorter it would move more slowly because of the amount of stop-starting. Is there any proof that it is actually any better having one long faster moving queue of two slower moving ones?

That's the point - it shouldn't stop-start if people left sensible gaps and allowed people in - instead we get this "over my dead body" attitude which causes people to bunch up and stop now anyway!

I don't know about real proof, but the government and Highways Agency seem to take it seriously:

"provide better information and signing, including initiatives like "zip merging" to minimise unavoidable delays and make queuing more efficient and less frustrating"

quoted from:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of ... 381m09.htm

Sorry, I know you'd like me to just say "YES I am totally for zip-merging" but I just don't know enough about it to decide as of yet...

I really wouldn't! It's not that important!

[jibberjabber25]

Well, I guess.....Anyhow the government should definately make it clearer where we should and where we shouldn't zip-merge I agree. At least then everyone will know what should be done and what shouldn't which as you say would relieve a lot of the tension on both sides.

I think I read up a lot about driving, and I had no idea about zip-merging, and still wouldn't know how to do it correctly on the road. Now I'm going to get an observer soon and I'll be taught that, but what about the large percentage that don't take up advanced driving. How are they supposed to know if it 1. isn't in the highway code and 2. isn't sign posted much (since I have never seen one).

[martine]

How are they supposed to know if it 1. isn't in the highway code and 2. isn't sign posted much (since I have never seen one).

Quite! I suppose that takes us full circle and where my original posting started. I can see that zip-merging could be good for all sorts of reasons but at the moment we are in limbo with some motorists doing it for the wrong reasons and the majority not even knowing it exists.

[Cessna172]

Yes that's it. Annoying isn't it? And as it stands, it's just damm rude. I love the way some people in L2 close up so that you could bearly get a razor blade between the bumpers! That's just plain dangerous as well but understandable.

I find it a little odd that an IAM observer would advocate not using an open section of road? The road is closed at the point it physically gets narrower, not a mile before.

Ray Keattch

[Cessna172]

I agree with martine. Also if you want to look at it from a safety point of view I would guess that it is less likely for there to be a collision when everyone is in the same lane queuing compared to when drivers are "pushing".

I can understand why you said this but I don't agree. It is more that the drivers who didn't use the open stretch of road are 'blocking' those trying to zip merge.

Ray Keattch

[Cessna172]

If I am in the target lane I don't see drivers who use the 'blocked' lane as far as possible as pushing in because I make allowances for other vehicles merging.
Brian Haddon

So do you not find it slightly annoying if car after car whizzes past you in L3 (and thereby queue jumping) only to force their way in at the cones? I am usually a polite and considerate driver (first to let people out from the left) but it's 'their' attitude that annoys. The L3 jumpers are usually driving too fast for the building traffic and often drive aggresively and the considerate driver suffers as a result.

This would not be a problem if it was widely publicised and generally accepted that L3 should be used up to the last few feet but it's not.

If you choose to merge a mile before the physical narrowing, then that surely is your choice, but it is rather strange of you to think of drivers using an open lane as 'pushing in'. They only have to do this because others are 'blocking' in any case - both as bad as each other IMHO.

I tend to merge at the physical barrier to make progress and make good use of open road space. However, if a gap is seen before this I will use it to maximise traffic flow, opening up a gap ahead of me to encourage others to merge.

Ray Keattch

[martine]

I agree with martine. Also if you want to look at it from a safety point of view I would guess that it is less likely for there to be a collision when everyone is in the same lane queuing compared to when drivers are "pushing".

I can understand why you said this but I don't agree. It is more that the drivers who didn't use the open stretch of road are 'blocking' those trying to zip merge.

Ray Keattch

And that's my point Ray - there are no signs (normally) and opinion is divided. It causes road rage and for *most* people it is considered rude and inconsiderate to leave the lane change until the last possible moment. It should be clarified in the highway code and signed and encouraged by ads/public info etc. and then we would all know where we stand.

PS. Do I take it you fly?

[Cessna172]

So do you not find it slightly annoying if car after car whizzes past you in L3 (and thereby queue jumping) only to force their way in at the cones? I am usually a polite and considerate driver (first to let people out from the left) but it's 'their' attitude that annoys. The L3 jumpers are usually driving too fast for the building traffic and often drive aggresively and the considerate driver suffers as a result.

This would not be a problem if it was widely publicised and generally accepted that L3 should be used up to the last few feet but it's not.

I totally agree Martin; I'm as patient and courteous as anyone but when people take the pee it can be downright rude. And as for the bright spark who pulls out just in front (or behind) you to queue jump to get in further down.

It is certainly fascinating that so many IAM/RoADA test passers can have such different views on this subject! I do find it odd when somebody considers using an open lane to be 'taking the pee' and 'rude'. The lane is open to all after all!

The drivers who want to merge as soon as possible are actually helping to slow the traffic IMHO. Each individual driver will have their own personal view of where the correct merge point is. Once they have merged, they will consider any driver that passes them to be a queue jumper. This is why we see so much raw emotion in queues, 2000 different merge points and tens of individual 'wars' along the queue.

I tend to use the open lane until I see a gap that I can merge into safely. As soon as I have merged, I will open a gap ahead to encourage others to merge too. If I get to the actual merge point and drivers are merging, I will let them do so.

Ray Keattch

[martine]

I tend to use the open lane until I see a gap that I can merge into safely. As soon as I have merged, I will open a gap ahead to encourage others to merge too. If I get to the actual merge point and drivers are merging, I will let them do so.

Ray Keattch

Yes indeed we should all do that - the problem comes with the people who make no attempt to merge until forced to do so by the cones missing their bumpers by inches that just winds people up. Bit like farting in public...it's only natural and normal but many people take offence so out of politeness most don't do it. It's not normally a safety issue (merging not farting!) so not a big thing really in the skills and techniques of advanced driving.

You really shouldn't be surprised in the differences of opinion...it's just that, an opinion and we all need some clear guidance.

What's your interest in advanced driving?