ADUK Archive

How can you merge without easing off?

So you had two choices (excluding initiating a collision): slow, to let him in ahead, or accelerate to keep him behind.

You'd already formed an opinion, based on the foglights, of what type of driver he was. So, surely, the decision was whether or not to be confrontational or proactive in avoiding a dangerous situation?

Which was the AD choice?

Let's be gentle with WG - he's already told us he eased off, let the other driver go first, generally behaved in an advanced manner.

His question is what effect that has had on the other driver's perception - is their belief in their own importance reinforced by WG's sensible but submissive action? If so, how could this be avoided? Maybe it couldn't.

vonhosen wrote:How do you hope to make a positive change from within your car & with him in his?
What option would you rather do than 'accommodate'?

There is, for safety, no other option than to accommodate.
It's rubbish, but there you go, Government appears to only want to pander to the lowest common denominator.

WhoseGeneration wrote:

vonhosen wrote:How do you hope to make a positive change from within your car & with him in his?
What option would you rather do than 'accommodate'?

There is, for safety, no other option than to accommodate.
It's rubbish, but there you go, Government appears to only want to pander to the lowest common denominator.

What's rubbish about accommodating others?
Somebody had to accommodate where two becomes one didn't they?

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:Let's be gentle with WG - he's already told us he eased off, let the other driver go first, generally behaved in an advanced manner.

His question is what effect that has had on the other driver's perception - is their belief in their own importance reinforced by WG's sensible but submissive action? If so, how could this be avoided? Maybe it couldn't.

Thankyou for understanding my point.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:Let's be gentle with WG - he's already told us he eased off, let the other driver go first, generally behaved in an advanced manner.

His question is what effect that has had on the other driver's perception - is their belief in their own importance reinforced by WG's sensible but submissive action? If so, how could this be avoided? Maybe it couldn't.

How are you going to find out without asking the other driver?

What should Government be doing about this? (Apart from get rid of bus lanes of course).

vonhosen wrote:...How are you going to find out without asking the other driver?

Maybe that's the answer. More unmarked cars and more tickets.

MGF wrote:What should Government be doing about this? (Apart from get rid of bus lanes of course).

I'm not sure what 'this' that they should be doing something about is.

MGF wrote:What should Government be doing about this? (Apart from get rid of bus lanes of course).

vonhosen wrote:...How are you going to find out without asking the other driver?

Maybe that's the answer. More unmarked cars and more tickets.

Ticket for what?
Fog lights?
Is that what everybody wants?

vonhosen wrote:
What's rubbish about accommodating others?
Somebody had to accommodate where two becomes one didn't they?

The other exceeded the 30 mph limit and executed an overtake as the lanes became one.
Then, what do I care?, I'm old, I'm still alive, I must be doing something right.
I am one who does facilitate merging and allowing others to enter traffic when circumstances allow.
I'll admit and here we, again, enter the stuff this thread has come to discuss, to, sometimes, having a human response.

WhoseGeneration wrote:That'd be me then today, 30 mph limit, two lanes approaching one because the left one becomes a bus lane, "Ok, Mr. Mercedes driver with foglights on with no need, I'll ease off to let you get ahead".
So, do I reinforce that driver's attitude to "making progress"?
See the problem?
It's a nonsense if those who are thinking have to increasingly bow to and accommodate those who just do what they want.

I know what your point is, and I sympathise. However, apart from that which has already been said:

Q: What may happen to you if you do not accommodate him? Is it worth it?

Q: Having taken some other course of action, would you be happy describing and justifying it to other people, e.g. on here?

Q: What will likely happen to him - without your input - based on his behaviour?

Q: What is your role and/or duty in changing his behaviour? What about others?

Q: Is there a legitimate or at least understandable explanation for his behaviour?

Q: Will you remember and be annoyed by this incident in several days?

Q: At the end of your journey, what will be the difference both in progress and feelings (e.g. stress) between having let him in or not?

WhoseGeneration wrote:

vonhosen wrote:
What's rubbish about accommodating others?
Somebody had to accommodate where two becomes one didn't they?

The other exceeded the 30 mph limit and executed an overtake as the lanes became one.
Then, what do I care?, I'm old, I'm still alive, I must be doing something right.
I am one who does facilitate merging and allowing others to enter traffic when circumstances allow.
I'll admit and here we, again, enter the stuff this thread has come to discuss, to, sometimes, having a human response.

Do others accommodate you at times & let you go?
How do you think they feel about that?
(I'm not having a go, just genuinely interested)

vonhosen wrote:Ticket for what?
Fog lights?
Is that what everybody wants?

Inconsiderate driving appears to be the charge. Fear of being caught and sanctioned might help.

Worrying about encouraging bad driving is about as helpful as buying a car and worrying about encouraging car theft.

trashbat wrote:

WhoseGeneration wrote:That'd be me then today, 30 mph limit, two lanes approaching one because the left one becomes a bus lane, "Ok, Mr. Mercedes driver with foglights on with no need, I'll ease off to let you get ahead".
So, do I reinforce that driver's attitude to "making progress"?
See the problem?
It's a nonsense if those who are thinking have to increasingly bow to and accommodate those who just do what they want.

I know what your point is, and I sympathise. However, apart from that which has already been said:

Q: What may happen to you if you do not accommodate him? Is it worth it?

Q: Having taken some other course of action, would you be happy describing and justifying it to other people, e.g. on here?

Q: What will likely happen to him - without your input - based on his behaviour?

Q: What is your role and/or duty in changing his behaviour? What about others?

Q: Is there a legitimate or at least understandable explanation for his behaviour?

Q: Will you remember and be annoyed by this incident in several days?

Q: At the end of your journey, what will be the difference both in progress and feelings (e.g. stress) between having let him in or not?

Too much analysis, that way lies madness.
With never an answer.