Ashlee Neal, RAC and BBC Radio 5 Live have all tried to explain this as well and still a high percentage of people will continue to do what they always have done. A lot of them won’t change their ways either because they believe they are right because they have been driving for so long.
It's only misunderstood by those who are too dim to understand that a red cross on a lane and an arrow symbol pointing at the adjacent lane means ...'Lane ahead closed merge into the next lane'. If drivers weren't required to merge until they reached the closed off lane then the 'merge lanes arrow' would not be displayed until traffic actually reached the closed lane rather than, as they are at present, displayed to traffic upto half a mile before the closure. Now go on say 'but only displaying the merge arrow' at the closure would be downright dangerous. In which case you would be making my point for me.
@@sb1056sb Ashley Neal is wrong...he deleted his original video that caused the argument because he did not do ANY of what's discussed here i.e. using indicators and waiting for a gap. He instructed his student to just keep going and ignore the "blue one" i.e. the vehicle he was clashing with. He was literally teaching her the "stare straight ahead" trick. Ashley doesn't use his indicators and just moves over and this is at higher speeds where the other vehicles may not be aware the 2nd lane is ending. His questions to the DSA et al were disingenuous as he didn't ask about what he did and everyone was arguing over i.e. shove in with a sense of entitlement without indicating as "I'm ahead and it's my 'turn'." He basically asked if he had right of way as the van...and got the answer that nobody does. But he doesn't have right to force into a gap that's not there either
@@Greylobster A traffic officer did correct me on the term 'right of way'... much as other have noted... suggesting a better term - 'others PRIORITY' - has or has not presidence over yours... depending on the detail of course. Glad BBB cleared with topic up, as though not a 'late merger' particularly, I'm sick and tired of folk who assume queueing automatically buys them moral rights. NO! Queueing is simply courteous and polite, which is a good thing in a social context, but no guarantee of accelerating a requirement for the betterment of all! Sadly of course the roads are loaded with folk who couldn't regulate a smooth merge from either lane if you schooled them everyday for a year!
I think it was the late Barry Sheene who used to do a motorcycle training programme for youngsters on the TV many years ago who said “It’s no good having had the right of way when you’re lying in the morgue”.
The main caveat I put on this is that using both lanes is the right way to use the road but only if done safely. The over taking vehicle should travel at a sensible speed. They should not be hammering down at 70mph passing stationary traffic and arrive at the merge at high speed. They should drive at a safe speed relative to the queue.
Yep. The left lane observing the 50 mph limit only being passed because the cars in the right maintain 70 mph right up to the last second. Dangerous and unexpected speed difference! Too many drivers seem to think they're in a race.
You have to maintain a good speed just in case someone is thinking of blocking both lanes to stop you. Fast enough to make them think twice, slow enough to stop if they do anything stupid.
@@Strider9655 I get what you mean but that's probably a more aggressive approach than is ideal. I doubt a lawyer would tell you to say in court that you were trying to drive fast enough that people felt they had to let you past.
‘Merge in turn’ signage went up locally about ten years ago. Intimidation, aggression, gesturing, shouting, beeping, swerving, revving and ramming all stopped immediately.
In London everyone drives right up to the lane reduction and merges there. There are no empty lanes. There is no possibility of "jumping the queue" because there are no empty lanes to do it. It just works. I have only had this problem of people merging too early and getting the hump that someone else doesn't outside of London.
I'm not sure if 'zip merging' works well in practice. A merge that is essentially occurring at speed a few feet in front of a barrier is far more dangerous and more likely to lead to a collision. Far better to merge early, maybe have a slight delay, but ultimately avoid an accident that will cause economic loss, injury or death and potentially close the road for hours. By the way there is a secret compartment in the glovebox of BMW's that holds a document entitled "Die Straße gehört Ihnen".
They should and often do, the "USE BOTH LANES" sign in yellow and a red triangle sign with "Merge in turn" are often there, drivers are just blind to them.
@@imaner76 I have passed those signs, 1 mile from the merge point and an empty lane with all the traffic in 1 lane. I have also had at least 1 driver try to prevent me from using an empty lane, by straddling the line
Ive seen these signs and people just don’t want to see them. On the A429 north bound entering Stow In The Wold is two lanes the they merge into one. There is yellow signs displaying to use both lane and merge in turn even a diagram on the signs on how to use it. Yet the British public have it in their heads you must queue on a first come first service some will actively straddle both lanes to prevent people doing what they are supposed to do, often right by those signs.
@@BigBadLoneWolf Sadly there are many examples of "self Policing" by members of the public. Often, as in this example they are ill informed and often have an aggressive personality. They are arguably guilty of driving without due care and attention. But ignore them, remain driving defensibly, continue in lane and then wait at the merge point if needed. Not everyone is as dim-witted as, block the lane driver, or close the gap driver. Just don't you be, force the issue driver.
Agree with everything except the merge on motorway, or in fact any multi-lane national speed limit highway. Where you should merge into the merging lane as soon as practical. Unless (there’s always an unless) it is queuing low speed traffic. Gunning it to the last possible moment is a recipe for impending disaster.
Observation: when I am already in the lane that is continuing and drivers want to merge early, it means I end up letting in several cars, that have different ideas on where would be a good time to merge, instead of one if they had driven to the end of the lane and zip-merged.
Merge-in-turn works best when everybody knows how to do it and then does it. What happens here is the British, thinking they are God's gift to queuing, spectacularly failing at it. Done properly, there should be no elevated blood pressure, no passive-aggressive argy-bargy and to the utter disbelief of the apoplectic, a speedier passage through the entire process.
@@Ineverreadreplies "must remember that for the next time for he next the car behind me in the merging line (lane that a legal mine field all of its Owen) doesn't slow and weight for you to clear a the gap, also what is a lane (in the UK we have many names for to call them by ROAD's STREET's LANE's and that basic main top three, the list could go on, (my main point of Question is when in a lane Not a lane, e.g. as in it single , or double, or more number of lanes, second part, road (lane) markings, with or with out any white/coloured marking on road, signage on roads in connection the said road (Lane), would any of this come be for giving way to any (I would say ) questionable second, or more lanes, so to some it up who decides a lane is indeed a land, as in signals or multilabel lanes, sorry am going on a bit, back to lanes, what constitutes the bare minimal description of a single/dual carriage-way (lane) would say pedestrian crossing point in the middle of road as an example, made the road (lane) legally dual carriageway at that point in the or something like that, if yes, how long before and after would the still be consider as a dual-carriageway, with out any divider on the road to be fair and more in legally also? :-)
@@PedroConejo1939 Nothing is sped up, the traffic can only flow as quickly as the traffic beyond the merge point. It does reduce the overall length of the queue but not the speed at which cars pass through the area.
@@kevinmould6979 You are correct that neither method can affect the theoretical maximum speed through the constriction because that is dependent on what's happening after the merge. However, to achieve that maximum, you have to have either all vehicles in a single lane or effective zip-merging. If you require only single lane flow, where does the merge take place? It has to happen somewhere and pushing it back down the queue to an undetermined place is inefficient and often leads to vehicles having to stop to either wait for a place to merge or to let someone in (this also happens when merge-in-turn is not practised correctly). It also lengthens the queue and may cause congestion at junctions that would otherwise be clearer. The problem with zip-merging is that it requires forethought and co-operation, neither of which many drivers can or will do. Sadly, we will continue to sit in unnecessarily long queues.
We love queuing in the UK. You'll often have the left lane littered with traffic running alongside an empty right line. But the brave souls who dare use that right line will find themselves stuck there forever.
I don't agree with our dear lawyer here.. this is an issue of flow rate rather than capacity. If the flow rate through the restriction is x cars per minute, then this is the controlling factor and is not affected by how many lanes are occupied upstream of the restriction. If you look at this from a fluid flow perspective, the only additional factor is turbulence at the restriction causing delay. In many ways it is the flow of traffic coming down the fast lane that is causing delay to the slower traffic lane as they have the effect of blocking the smooth flow of the slow lane into the restriction by forcing into the flow. This is not a simple issue to solve, zipping is a partial solution, however it does rely on everyone playing fair and not hogging the junction. It does not however result in the traffic getting through the junction faster, all it does is even out the chances of an individual car getting through the junction. Perhaps lawyers (and traffic system designers) need to study physics a bit more.
@@felixthecat265 To be a cynical old Hector for a minute I personally think half of it is deliberate, once upon a time when a three lane motorway was closing two lanes it was staggered over a few miles first one lane then a mile ore two further up the next one - and by and large traffic kept moving, these days it seems some frontal lobotomy recipient has decided that it will be a terrific idea to close BOTH lanes at once at the same spot meaning anything up to four thousand vehicles an hour are suddenly plunged into one lane (with obviously only one third of the available capacity without even counting the hold up made by two thirds of the motorway all trying to maneuver into the one lane at the same time) as a permanent night working HGV driver I get this now on a twice or three time basis EVERY night now going from the north to the south of the country and usually the same back again.
I always let merging vehicles in leaving a suitable space in front. Always give lorries, buses excess loads plenty of space to merge as it is difficult for them to match a car's speed easily and they also have limited visibility. Don't try blocking off anyone, even what appears to be a chancer, because there might be emergency vehicles coming from behind that you may not see. I've witnessed exactly this scenario at a junction where front car blocked a merging vehicle only to be stopped by police impeding an emergency call!
Wonderful explanation of the HWC, if more drivers understood this about merging, life would be so much easier, and I wouldn't have to spend so much time snarled up in traffic jams. You've just gained yourself another subscriber.
Zipper merge needs to be the standard and taught to new drivers. It's simply the best solution. (there was a time when I didn't like drivers being let in after "jumping the line" but that's simply the wrong way of looking at it as suggested in this video).
I remember quite a long time ago, being advised to try to drive next to a space in the adjoining lane. If everyone did this (dream on) then merging would flow smoothly.
average speed cameras and the same speed restrictions across all lanes make motorway driving far more stressful, dangerous and slower. the speed limits need staggering across the lanes.
This is the best discussion of merge-in-turn I've seen (and I've seen a lot since I can't grasp how so many people find it difficult to put into practice). There's a lot of queue-warriors out there who will endeavour to block the open lane and then when they've queued themselves into a lather will prevent merging at the merge point. That feels really odd after seeing how the Germans can do it without problems, and have been doing so for 40 years.
That is not how you do it. What you do is spot someone in the line who feels how you do about queue jumpers who according to the RoW rule do not have RoW. Then the queue jumpers are the ones getting in a lather. And if you do that ALL the traffic moves faster, even the selfish ones racing down the outside lane to save 10 seconds and in the process costing everyone else minutes or more.
@@billgreen576 Outer lanes are overtaking lanes and you have a responsibility towards traffic that is overtaking you. Take the time to read up about being overtaken.
The highway code really needs another road sign to make it clear that they should use all lanes and merge at the last moment, alternating. That could clear up a lot of road rage!
There is a zip merge sign which is on an amber background. I always INDICATE my intention to merge or let someone ahead of me that is indicating their intention to merge in.
Most times when I'm in that situation, most people have merged well before the pinch point and traffic flows nicely, it's only when people deliberately leave it to the last minute without any attempt to merge prior that it causes traffic to slow and stop. Slower moving traffic tends to have smaller gaps so less chance of a seamless merge.
the problem is when one vehicle is trying to merge and another driver is annoyed and angry about it and they both figth over the space, that starts and stops the traffic behind as they speed up and slow down as its acts as a wave down the traffic flow. if you are going to do it properly, you need to be able to let these annoyed people go and feel they have won as its their attitude that is causing more congestion. currently there is a contraflow under a bridge on the A90 going to Perth from Dundee. traffic is told to move to the outside lane, but when its busy during the day, traffic up to half a mile back is sitting at 10 to 20mph using both lanes as people from the inside lane move to outside lane, this is before the 50mph signs and the 800yrd marker sign to move lane. i find staying in the inside lane its clear all the way to the road works and usually vehicles inside the 50mph speed limit ar at 30 to 40mph. all that extra space because people move lane early.
In Australia we have two types of merge. One where one lane physically ends, and there will be a broken lane marking indicating which lane is continuing (the primary lane) and which lane ends (the secondary lane). If your lane ends, you yield to the other lane. The second is a zipper merge. In this case the road marking line between the two lanes disappears as the toad narrows toward becoming one single lane. When neither lane is designated the primary lane, you merge one by one (like teeth in a zip).
If the merging drivers got in the queue early enough there would be no traffic jam , and the open lane would have no hold up , it's the merging drivers that are causing the que in the first place , this zip affect bull is a recent to the old highway code, which stated as soon as you see a blocked line get in the open line as soon as possible to save a que , now this zipper effect does not work
As a lorry driver I'm constantly astonished with the fact that some truckers will purposely block a merge in turn lane so no one can get past, even when that lane is clear in front of them, I always allow people to merge in turn, I'll always move over approaching a motorway on ramp when it's safe to do so, There are some truckers who give the rest of us a bad name.. I find that being courteous makes everybody's journey easier.
Include: merging into a motorway. It's the joining drivers responsibility to vary and get into the lane, not the driver already on. It irks me no end when joiners barge on, frequently without even a glance in the mirror.
True, but some drivers already on the motorway don't always seem to react properly. In one instance, I was about to merge onto a carriageway (from a stupidly short on ramp ) and end up in front of a car already on it. Instead of changing lanes or maintaining his speed, he accelerated a drove between two lanes. Daft bugger
Is this not a situation that also calls for zip-merging? If the traffic is flowing quickly and smoothly then it will be easy to join (and to move over to allow joining), if the traffic is heavy and moving slowly then it should be safe to allow joining traffic to merge.
@@kevinmould6979 highway code is quite specific. Most people however are polite and try to make a space but, f the traffic is heavy and precludes you making a space, then no.
@@kevinmould6979 no, it’s the joining traffic’s responsibility to adjust their speed. Vehicles already on the carriageway should maintain their speed. It’s easy.
In Germany, when two lanes merge into one on the autobahn, drivers on the inner lane are obliged by law to permit one vehicle to merge from the outer lane. There are generally large signs displayed at the side of the autobahn reminding drivers to "zip" their lanes. If you close up to block a merging vehicle, you are liable to be fined.
Being previously a driving instructor i have made this point to my pupils when giving dual lane driving instruction. Sorry to say that the drivers of vehicles that generally take offence are the HGV drivers, to the extent that i've seen and video'd trucks pulling into the third lane to prevent you passing them. There should been much more awareness made so as to rectify this long tailback issue.
I've always followed the rule 'Give way to traffic approaching from the right' and it works for me. When joining a Motorway always speed up to match the seed of the traffic already on the motorway and give way to traffic aproaching from your right, i.e traffic already on the motorway.
While the video is quite correct in describing the process of merging, I would quibble with the statement that using only the left lane causes longer queues and slower traffic. Although the queue will be longer (twice as long as if both lanes were to be filled) the number of vehicles would be the same and, if the traffic flow through the narrower section is the same, the wait time will be the same. For example, if the single lane allows one car per second to pass, then 60 cars will move through each minute, regardless of how they queue. In practice, unless perfectly executed, 'late' merging leads to slower traffic flow as the more accommodating left lane drivers brake to a halt to allow cars to merge into the otherwise solidly packed lane causing a ripple of stop-start movement down the lane also resulting in an increased risk of low speed collision in lane. This research came to me via my brother in law, a former driving instructor and later County Road Safety Officer. He also described how it was recommended drivers behave, "Ideally, vehicles approaching a merge point would maintain good separation and the merging traffic should do so in good time. The merge point is the end of the process, not an instruction to wait until that point to take action." While it may not be in the spirit of the Highway Code, it is at least understandable why drivers can feel frustrated to have been edging forward in a stop/go pattern for ten minutes only to find cars shooting past at 70 before braking hard and forcing their way in right before they hit the buffers.
That stop-go pattern is usually the result of not merging in turn: by barging their way through it causes the other lane not to be at optimal merging speed and the only way for it to merge is for the other lane to slow down. As the lanes will be at high capacity, if not super-saturated, this causes the first lane to slow down. The eventual (quick) result is that both lanes come to a stop with the shock wave visible travelling back up the motorway (by dint of the stop-start nature you see - each stop is another shock wave, and if someone tries to allow for it to smooth it by creating a gap in front of themself to allow the shock wave to dissipate, often someone from the other lane will jump into the smoothing gap and destroy the attempt). Each "pinch point" has the ability to create a stop-start situation. The best flow is to utilise both lanes until the physical pinch point of the lanes actually merging and on approach to that point aligning yourself with a gap in the other lane ready to merge in turn. A curious effect of drivers that was brought up when I studied traffic flow is that when you have a stretch of motorway between two junctions that has two sets of roadworks which reduce the capacity by 1 lane there will be queuing at _both_ sets of roadworks despite the capacity of the second set exactly matching the amount of traffic that can exit the first set (there being no opportunity for traffic to leave or join between the two sets of roadworks).
The problem with longer queues is it often means tailbacks can reach junctions further back up the road therefore adding cars to the traffic jam that may have been able to turn off at the junction before the queue had it been half the length by both lanes being used. This is particularly relevant in towns and cities where junctions on dual carriageways can be quite close together.
I was always told to "give way to traffic from the right" in the UK. As you stated. The amount of people turning straight out of slip roads with or without signalling is almost a given. I stay in my lane and take all the abuse, even if the overtaking lanes are clear. Unless they are indicating. It's worse at night or around London. There it seems there is a free for all.
When drivers merge early, they remove the ability for the traffic in the other lane to predict the merge. This means that someone ends up having to break. When they break, everyone else ends up having to break. This of course, happens as someone else is merging early, resulting in someone having to really slam on their breaks because the merging car just threw their breaks on - and now we have a lane that's come to a stop for no good reason. So - yes, I'm one of those people who will drive in the right hand lane all the way to the end, and then merge... because as you say here, it's how it was designed to be used. I look forward to the day when there's more of us who don't merge in 100m before the merge point.
when did "priority" become "right of way"? right of way used to refer to stuff like footpaths and access to land, priority was who gets to go first on the road.
Indeed I thought was a classic confusion of terminology done by us legal muggles, but there it is in the HWC. I thought, for example, pedestrians and cycles don't have right of way on motorways, but there are situations in which one road user has priority over another.
2 things:- 1) Zip merging is a complex manoeuvre requiring synchronization between multiple cars - there is no feasible way to expect all road users to pull it off, it is completely unsafe to expect it and it actually goes against the rules of overtaking. There is no space in front of the car(s) you are trying to overtake therefore YOU SHOULD NOT BE ATTEMPTING TO OVERTAKE VIA A ZIP MERGING MANOEUVRE (rules 162/163). 2) Given that road users are incapable of performing a zip merger safely, the fastest way to travel *is* to get in lane early and continue on. If everyone did it while we were already going at the speed limit, we would continue at the speed limit. The reason everything slows down is because selfish drivers force everyone else to slow down so they can be at the front of traffic, then try and use zip merging as an excuse when questioned.
This "debate" has never been about "right of way", it's always been about people who don't understand how roads and merging work and those that do understand. The former, usually, behaving dangerously and like a bully when they are faced with a simple system that they don't understand. As you say, zippering at the merge. So many idiots on the road.
What if the inside lane is stationary right through the merge point then? I think you will be waiting quite some time. Simple courtesy defuses not antagonise situations.
The Humber bridge which seems to have permanent roadworks, but that's another story, normally has signs up to use both lanes for the very reason. Otherwise the tailback can easily block the preceding junction causing yet further tailbacks
Only last week I was in a merging lane and the car in front had the idea that all cars should que in only the main lane. She stopped in the middle of the merging lane stopping people from merging, the whole point of the extra lane that merges is so it shortens the que.
The speed of the queuing traffic is key, when moving at 70mph merging out of the closing lane much sooner is recommended. At slow speeds then filling up the closing lane is right. It sometimes takes a while for this to happen in changing circumstances. Beautifully put as usual. 👍👍
In the island of Jersey we have something called "Filter in Turn". Each car in each lane takes it, in turn, to merge into the single lane. We also have this at busy junctions, so that one lane of traffic is not queuing for ages. Because of this whenever things like traffic lights fail, drivers in Jersey will instinctively take it, in turn, to get through the junction safely.
If I am in a lane that is going to close, I will stay in it to the point that I have to move, for the reasons you have indicated. It is common sense as well as being in the Highway Code. The only reason that lane will be empty is because people have erroneously moved out of that lane too early, and it is normally those people people that won't let you merge. Unfortunately in this game two wrongs do not make a right.
Travelling along the A50 towards the old M1 Junction 24 I turned onto the last stretch in the right hand lane and was immediately confronted by an empty right hand lane and very slow moving traffic in the full left hand lane before the roadworks 1/2+mile ahead. The LH lane was nose to tail and did not offer any opportunity to merge in but in any case I travelled to the merge point at slow speed and attempted to merge only to get torrents of abuse despite the clear HWC advice. In the end I forced my way into the LH lane after 20+ cars had passed me. The sooner we get a system of continuing driver education similar in principle to professional CPD and HGV certification the safer our roads will be.
That you forced your way in is concern. It clarifies that you are an unsafe and unlawful driver. You lawfully need to wait until there is a space even if that is twenty or even forty cars. I am sorry the abuse thrown at you caused you to be aggressive and unlawful. If you simply waited with courtesy then I am sure a gap would have appeared.
That is one main reason I appreciate these videos is that the information is practical and clearly explains how law impacts all aspects of real, day to day life.
A couple of classic examples of this locally to me. People queuing back in a single lane, before a merge, so that they tailed back onto a roundabout and blocking it. One was a road design, the other was temporary roadworks. Highways put up a big 'Use Both Lanes' sign in both cases. On the permenant road system, people still take umbridge and try to force out cars using the empty lane. And years later there are still jams caused. On the temporary roadworks, the result was that people rather reluctantly allowed the non queuing cars to merge in, but very soon discovered that doing so dramatically improved the overall flow. And so were more polite. (My daughter took her driving test on this piece of temporary roadworks. And was warned by her instructor that if she joined the queue too early and didn't push right to the merge point, the examiner would fail her. And to ignore any bullying behaviour from other drivers.)
I don't think there is any right of way while merging however the common sense thing to me would be to take it in turns, one lane then the other. Best scenario for helping traffic flow.
I'm late to this one, but I have a comment on zip merging. I fully agree that zip merging is the intended use and that the queue would indeed result in a shorter queue, but I disagree that it's more efficient and that utilisation of both lanes would necessarily result in higher throughput. Road throughput is limited by the chokepoint, in this case the lane closure - Therefore unless there was a sudden change in this chokepoint such as the closure being lifted, the overall throughput should be the same. I'd actually argue that it is better to leave that lane empty on a motorway if it's the left-most lane for two reasons: 1) It allows people to exit the queue and use an earlier junction 2) It creates larger separation for the hard shoulder, which is likely to be required for emergency vehicles in this scenario
@@dirkbruere using both lanes and merging in turn, means the traffic queue is half the length of using 1 lane also filtering on a motorcycle also lessens congestion
@@dshe8637 Not if traffic is moving relatively fast, because then when the queue jumper gets to the front people slow down to let them in and it has a knock-on effect
Everything in the video is spot on. Sadly, you will meet some people who do NOT accept that slip road users have to give way. Avoiding arguments and giving way once in a while means you can avoid getting tangled up in an incident with a stranger you will never see again and get on with your life, albeit with an unwarranted delay of about a second or two. Merging in turn at the end of the road is correct, but you have to be thick skinned with those that disagree (i.e. people who have not read the Highway Code but still think they know it better than you) e.g. people that block both lanes, potentially even holding up emergency vehicles further back on the road. Consider this an opportunity to practice shrugging...
Driving in Switzerland recently I noted their sliproads had give way signs on them interestingly. Now I always try to move over for cars on the sliproad to merge in, but there are times I've nearly been taken out (car and bike) when I couldn't move over or change speed significantly because of other traffic and some plant pot comes flying down the sliproad like he owns the place.
The broken lines between the slip road and the carriageway are a give way sign and the joining traffic should obey that, it's a pity that so many road users don't understand what road markings mean.
CPO2, people think it is their absolute right to join the motorway or dual carriageway. They, “and I do mean they” should adapt to the traffic on the motorway. You should not have to move over for drivers coming down a slip road, Although we do do this. But we shouldn’t have to adapt to vehicles coming down a slip road. But modern traffic/ Drivers do not know how to merge,either on to a Motorway or any other road. They think it is their “Right of way” there is no right of way as he explains. But people still use this old terminology. It will get worse on the roads of this country. It’s modern people’s aggression.
I'm.often in CH, the give way sign is ignored. They also have a habit of going right to the very end of the merge lane then suddenly veer into the main carriage way even is there isn't any traffic , and they live to tailgate
@@donlunn792 I have been on the M1 late at night and overtaken a fast HGV in the outermost lane, exceeding the speed limit temporarily. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, a large black car appears behind me (must be doing the 'ton') and flashes me to get out of the way. Crazy! as I don't have reheat. What does that car driver expect me to do? Perhaps the driver's accelerator pedal has stuck in full throttle ( I think not).
The whole point of having warning signs that the lane is about to disappear in 600,400,200 yards is so that you can get into the lane that isn't going to close. Why on earth people drive all the way up to the cones before trying to merge, stopping all the traffic in their lane and forcing everyone in the other lane to slow and avoid them is beyond me. The whole point is that you're going to have to move over anyway - so it's making no difference to capacity if you merge it later you're just forcing the merge to occur in a time limited fashion. If you do it earlier (zipping) then you have time to complete the merge and the traffic will move through smoothly. It won't move through smoothly if you drive right up to the cones. The reason most people sort themselves out earlier is because it's the most efficient.
You said no one has the right of way, but with the new highway code out now with the ridiculous "vulnerability" rule there is now a hierarchy of those who will have to give way. A car driver will have to give way to a motorcyclist, a HGV will have to give way to a car.
Most Rd users will carry on regardless but if a motorcyclist or car driver in these situations decide to try their luck depending on the situation better get this on gravestone... I'm was right wasn't I?
Well explained. Thanks for the brilliant video! In my opinion, this Zip Merging principle actually also applies to joining the traffic from a slip road. Despite the law says that when joining the traffic the cars on the main road have the priority, but it is "inexplicitely" advised that the cars on the main road should slow down and let the waiting car to merge in. Correct me if not the case.
I once saw a jammed up merge in turn for roadworks on the M6. I was on my bike following a bike cop filtering between lanes (yes it is legal) when he got to the merge he stopped his bike and started directing the cars. That shows how woefully ignorant too many people are about merge in rules. It's sad really.
Filtering between lanes would only be legal if you give the necessary signal 5 seconds ahead of each and every lane change, and maintain the required minimum safe distance between bike and car.
It deeply saddens me that you had to confirm the legality of filtering on a motorbike.. it should be common knowledge for all road users these days but still bikers nearly get knocked off by angry drivers for it all the time, I've literally had people start fights with me and nearly hit me with their car over it who just can't seem to understand that for a motorbike it's too dangerous to be at the back of traffic waiting to be mashed between 2 cars so filtering is a must. Not only that but bikes can get ahead and out of the way quicker so helps have less stationary traffic queuing when there's no need. It's literally common sense but there's none of that about any more ☹️
Thank you, thank you, thank you. This needs to be compulsory viewing for every road user in the country. The amount of steam I generate when people talk about their "right of way" is probably the main cause of global warming! (Fortunately I manage to keep a lid on the boiler when I’m at the wheel.) Everyone needs to merge in turn and to do it correctly. I’ve never been able to understand the objection to using empty lanes to drive on. But the important consideration is merging IN TURN. I’m more than happy to let one vehicle in front of me at the pinch point, but then it’s up to the person behind me to do the same. Trying to merge several vehicles in together totally messes up the zip. This happens so much on very busy roads like the M25 when traffic is crawling along past entry slips and people feel the need to force themselves in in bunches.
I am reminded of the tale of the New York cabbie. He had been involved in a collision with a highly irate woman who was claiming she had right of way. He replied, "Lady, right of way ain't something you got or you ain't got. Its something the other guy gives you. And if he don't give it, you ain't got it!"
“Right of way” doesn’t really mean what people think it means; and they haven’t got what they think they’ve got. ‘Right of way’ simply exists where any person has the right to pass and re-pass along a way. The right may be limited to a form of transport (such as on foot for a footpath). What is being discussed is priority. Only one sign gives priority TO a road user (where it is matched with a corresponding give way to oncoming traffic), and that is only out of practical necessity. Priority does not mean superiority; nor does it entitle somebody to proceed against somebody regardless.
@@andyxox4168 none of those is an example of giving priority to somebody, and it is important that we understand that. Stop sign: this tells a driver/rider to stop; that does not give them priority; it is not a sign to another road user, therefore it does not give the other road user priority. No entry sign: tells a driver/rider that they cannot access a way by going past the sign; it is not giving priority to anybody. Traffic lights tell drivers/riders to stop or that they may proceed if it is safe to do so; importantly a green light does not give priority over other road users, for example a vehicle that was already on the junction when the lights changed.
Merging in turn is also often misunderstood at those traffic lights when a single lane opens in to 2 lanes just before the lights and merges back in to one lane after the lights. Logically, this allows more vehicles to pass through for each sequence of the traffic lights but so many drivers fail to understand this and treat those in the outside lane as 'jumping the queue', whereas they are actually reducing the queuing before the lights.
@@johnallan1134 I think you've misunderstood the scenario. He's talking about where there are two lanes going straight or where the right lane is for going straight or turning right. Oncoming traffic turning right should wait in the "middle section" or in their own lane if there is no extra space. They should never be positioned in an oncoming live lane.
Thank you very informative video.My take on this is that if I am on the left and a car is on my right either along side me Or just in front it is overtaking or trying to overtake therefore you should give way even stopping if need be to continue could force The other car onto the wrong side of the road possibly causing an accident
In the scenario you show (at 5:25), when two lanes merge into one, the left hand lane will be travelling at normal speed - possibly 40, 50 60 or 70mph as there is no obstruction or incident. Therefore merging in turn or zip merging should not apply, according to the highway code. Cars in the right lane approaching the merge point should start to indicate in good time and merge when an appropriate opportunity arises. As in any other situation when you change lane you should do so when it is safe.
Yeah leaving it until the last second to merge gives you nowhere to go if the cars on the left won't let you in. Since most people don't enable you to zip merge and safety is the highest priority it is usually safer to do as you say and merge when it's safe to do so. If everyone was a robot then rigidly following a set of rules for merging would be good and well but not everyone thinks ahead while driving so we've got to drive defensively.
I agree, IF the traffic in the unobstructed lane is still moving at a reasonable speed. However, when there is congestion and traffic is just creeping forwards then all lanes should be utilised with zip merging at the point of the lane closure.
@@cpyart I don't need to read it up thank you. These people that wait until the merging point before moving in have reached a situation where they are no longer overtaking, As I go along if anyone that overtakes me wishes to move back they are welcome to do so - they must indicate and wait until it is safe. The issue here, though, is about merging in turn and the fact (according to the HC) that it should only be done so when two slow moving queues must merge.
It's frustrating when they seem to indicate a lane closure waaaay before it's actually closed, if they want people using the lanes up to the obstruction/filter point they need to sign and communicate that much better. My pet issue on the M25 was lane closed signs on the electric gantry when they were well over a mile away from actually being closed. It made you feel a real git for thinking about driving in them, even though it's the most efficient way.
They need to give drivers plenty of time to be able to merge in a safe manner so have to give clear warnings of road closures. Giving vehicles only say 300 yds warning could lead to serious pile ups so giving warnings a mile or more especially on a motorway gives drivers plenty of time to merge.
Interesting, this is exactly what I was taught & always use but I have noticed that more & more drivers seem to think that they DO have the right of way when joining a motorway or A road to the point that they increase their speed significantly to try & beat rather than match the cars already on the road. I thought there must have been a change in the code 🤔 When My youngest daughter was having driving lessons recently she was taught to be ‘assertive’ which she informed me after we went out on our practice sessions & she approached a roundabout and didn’t stop despite there not being much of a gap. I told her it was ok to be assertive but not suicidal 🤪 & that she should be prepared to stop 1st if necessary😬
When 3 lanes merge into two, it is the speed of the two lanes that determines how fast the traffic moves as a whole. Using the three lanes more effectively and merging in turn does nothing to help the flow of traffic once merged.
This deserves more upvotes. I came to comments looking for this point. A "shorter" queue means nothing unless the length of the queue is otherwise impeding the road system behind it. Performing zip merging on a "just in time" basis slows the traffic through the bottleneck. Many people do not have the ability to either yeild or join lanes in a manner which does not impede traffic flow, this becomes increasingly true as the probability of finding someone who can yield without impeding those behind decreases, as in the "just in time" scenario. I'm pleased blackbeltbarrister found a professional outside systems design or mathematics.
Another way of describing it… the number of lanes before a bottleneck doesn’t change how long it takes to get through the bottleneck. Then after the bottleneck all that traffic has to disperse somewhere, which often can’t happen.
@@tyrantworm7392 merge in turn improved traffic flow as it provides a definitive point to merge, instead of letting people individually choose where to merge which creates inefficiencies. The other main issue is the queue is doubled in length, which doubles the chances of a slip road being blocked which would also congest local roads. Please hand your license back in
One of the best explanations on the net… BUT the real reason people Que and not proceed down the empty lane..is so not to experience the road rage and confrontation at the merging point 🤷♂️
The one thing that gets missed with the theory of zip merging is that a single queue will move through the pinch point at a speed *more than* double that of two queues merging since the traffic moves more smoothly & less decisions are being made. I'm not disagreeing that the rules are what you explained, or that it's based on the theory you explained. Just stating that unless or until the queue grows so long it interferes with other junctions further back, the theory is flawed.
I think your logic here is actually what is flawed, there is no reason why traffic would move more smoothly or that less decisions would have to be made if everyone merged earlier because the same amount of merging still has to happen, somewhere along the line everyone on the ending lane still has to move into the other lane. by doing it early you're still slowing the cars behind you down to create a gap whether you do it early or late, difference is you are using up more road space to do it like he said, if everyone merged a quarter of a mile early all you've achieved is make the queue a quarter of a mile longer.
@@RWoody1995 Logic has nothing to do with it, some university did a study & timed the flow with it set up signed early "get in lane" & alternately signed "use both lanes" + "merge in turn" at the same site, The flow was measurably faster in the case where the traffic formed a single queue. Unfortunately I don't remember which university or the date of the study, but they basically disproved zip merge for dual carriageway lane closures. The bull headedness & pushing & shoving at a single merge point doesn't flow as smoothly as merging further back when you've long braking gaps between cars to slot into & the whole thing slows down. A single queue moving at 20 mph clears faster than 2 queues moving at 8 mph each.
@@beardyface8492 Agreed, the act of having to merge, even if everyone is co-operative, is likely to introduce a small delay compared to motoring straight through in one line.
@@rogerking7258 Indeed, though it can still be advantageous when there's something along the merged section introducing an additional hold-up such that traffic ends up standing for sufficient distance to interfere with a junction further back which might be avoided by using the empty lane-space as a car park. Frankly the regulations ought to specify that either "get in lane" or "merge in turn" signage is actually deployed as appropriate in all cases. Failing that, the default needs to be the opposite of what it currently is in the highway code. In this country, for cultural reasons "merge in turn" only works even reasonably well when *explicitly signposted*. Otherwise it results in road-rage, collisions, & people deliberately closing the space needed to merge down to prevent such merging. Theory & the real world simply don't match here, we're not the same culture as the European countries from which the idea was adopted.
@@rogerking7258 I drive approx 50 - 60k per year and never ever does a single lane motor through. Merge in turn is more efficient and quicker. It’s the brain donors who straddle lanes to prevent it that should be prosecuted. But ultimately all they achieve is both lanes merging as they get to the merge point. Even when huge signs are telling us to use both lanes and merge in turn, many planks continue to go single file causing huge queues and road rage. The ignorance is huge😂😂😂😂 If drivers think I’m “pushing in” well, I don’t really care at all. I’m following the hwc and I’ll be home quicker and less stressed.
Section D6.23.3 of the "Traffic Signs Manual" mentions alternate priority at the merging point. The exact wording: "Merge in turn is the process of two traffic flows combining into one by shared alternate priority."
They're doing the correct thing by using the right lane until the merge point, and you're doing the correct thing by allowing them to merge in turn. Why exactly is your arse hurting?
It’s rife in the Peterborough area which has its own outer circle that’s mostly entered from slip roads. Not only is it their God given right to drive out of the slip road as and when they please without any regard for traffic already on the ring (“Parkway” as it’s called here), but if you dont slam on your anchors or swerve out into traffic in the outer lane you’re condemned to more abuse than if you’d raped their daughter.
All computer traffic models show you're absolutely correct. It greatly reduces overall waiting. There should be more merge-in-turn signs. I guess the problem is the people who don't allow anyone in would still struggle with the concept, no doubt blaming it on a Republican/right wing/Conservative conspiracy and an infringement of their human rights to be a prat.
Zip merging should be simple its basically just letting the car ahead of you join if everyone in the left lane just let 1 car in front everything would be fine but unfortunatly too many people want to be 1 car length further ahead because apparently that makes all the difference. I've also been in traffic on long stretches of road and the amount of people who just immediatly accelerate up to speed only to end up stopped 5 seconds later amazes me its bad for traffic flow, in slow moving traffic that is stop start I will typically only start moving 10 seconds after the car in front and even I will be going at an incredibly slow speed so by the time I need to stop again traffic in front starts moving again this keeps traffic flowing at a constant low speed and less of a stop start jam making it safer for all.
In Victoria, Australia, if I am already on the freeway, I’m expected to give way to merging traffic. Other cars will move to the right lane and avoid the problem. I often slow down to let the merging traffic in. Once I kept my speed and the merging car tooted at me. The merging cars have to cross a dotted line to merge.
Question, what about the lorries, vans or other vehicles that straddle their lane to block off the clear road? Or sit in it entirely and don't merge themselves just to stop you going ahead. Is this an offence in any way?
_"If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine..."_ Highways Act 1980. One day, I'll see someone get done for it but so far I haven't.
YES! We need to get the word out about Zipper merging! This arbitrary not using a merging lane and stubbornly bullying people who do is insane. If you weren't supposed to use it, then why does it exist?! Surely they would just not bother spending the money to make it. It's not as if letting a single person merge in between you and the car in front is going to slow you down. In fact, if we all just default zipper merged then it would massively reduce congestion! It's SO IMPORTANT!
Thank you for clarifying this! I learned to drive in the Netherlands and 'ritsen' (zip merging) is common there and the flow is much more efficient as a result of the British queuing way .
I totally agree, drive to end and zip-merge in turn at low speed is by far the best and most efficient way. People randomly cutting in early slows everyone down.
@@drstrangelove4998 This is what I have a problem with, how is it more efficient? If you can get 12 cars through a bottleneck per minute, the cars behind that do not increase the delta. If they're in 1 lane also doing 12 cars per minute or 2 lanes doing 6 cars per minute (maybe slightly slower because they also have to merge).
@@AndyCalderbank Nothing to do with efficiency it's more to do with safety. A red cross and a merge arrow means lane closed merge ASAP not a mile later after using the closed lane to speed to the head of the queue and push in possibly causing shunts further back. www.gov.uk/government/news/red-x-means-dont-drive-in-that-lane
As a motorcyclist I can assure you there have been many occasions when coming down that closing lane and needing to “merge in turn” I have been forced to actually stop because nobody has given me space to do that safely. One thing is for sure I am not going to merge between trucks doing 70+ mph that are barely 7 metres apart. Yes they’re going too fast but that doesn’t help me on my bike. So I’m forced then to pull into the open lane from a standstill.
What about drivers that have used a clear lane on the motorway that displays a red X for half a mile or so? Surely this is illegal use of a clear lane to queue jump? I see this regularly happening and it's very frustrating if you've patiently queued.
I concur. Using the principles in this video, I suggest there should be merge in turn at the point of the Red X Signal (HWC258 "If red lights flash on a signal and a red “X” is showing, you MUST NOT drive in the lane shown as closed beyond the signal")
I find it very annoying when several cars that are prepared to queue for a zip point, and someone decides they are more important that they can go to the front. If I can wait, so should they. We all have somewhere to be.
No, not unethical but they do get annoyed when you are doing what is supposed to happen and join the lane one for one. Let the car in and then carry on and the car behind you should then let another car in and so on. The only drivers in the wrong are those that refuse to let a car in from the outer lane, the person in the outer lane is doing what is supposed to happen and use the empty lane on the out side and merge one by one.
@@mohammedhasan8814 This is what you wrote "That's a good one, some people (from both lanes) are absolutely unethical. Ethics is about what is morally right or wrong, so, if you mean that drivers from both lanes can be right and they can be wrong, then yes I suppose that could be described as unethical but the drivers that do the correct thing and allow one car through are ethically correct, the ones that don`t are ethically incorrect.
Thank God you’ve actually spelled out the motorway scenario. You get horns beeping at you when you do it as though you’re doing something wrong when in fact the single big long queue is more incorrect. Don’t get me wrong I’ve saved lots of time doing this but it’s good you educate drivers
This is a great explanation of this issue. I think the biggest gripe that most people have is that, you are very much correct, we are a country that know how to queue.... as such, we do not like queue jumpers. If it were the case that both lanes were equal in length, not a single person would have any issues letting another car in. The challenge is that, in my opinion, once you see a sign saying merge in turn, cars in the closing lane (normally on the offside) should then match their speed with the other lanes and NOT go any further than the last car they overtook, so that they can then merge in turn when closer to the end of that lane. But, the rules don't say this. The result being that most cars in the closing lane will continue at FAR higher speeds, using it to their advantage to overtake a whole row of traffic, this is where the conflict comes in. However, I have noticed whilst re-reading sections of the Highway Code that the rules do seem very vague and can be interpreted in various ways - hence much of the bad driving on the roads.
Near where i live, on a road into the city, there's a dual carriageway (40mph) that comes off a roundabout. At a point, this dual carriageway technically ends. On the city-bound direction 2 lanes remain, but lane 1 becomes a bus lane. From as far back as the roundabout (half a mile) people will know that there is a bus lane ahead, and if the traffic is backed up people will join the queue leaving lane 1 completely empty.
Great explanation. Although some truck drivers seeing a sign saying "USE BOTH LANES" seem to think this means straddling the line to prevent anyone else passing ;-)
I'm interested to see the extract apparently from the Highway Code, at 1:17 & which states that there is no "Right Of Way" conferred by the Code. I cannot find this overview in my print copy of the Code, which is the 16th Edition, 10th Impression dated 2021 & is, to my knowledge, the latest printed version. (the last update which became effective in Jan 2022, and is causing all the problems you have been addressing, is not due to be available in print until April 2022). Can you please advise where this "overview" can be found.
Has anyone else seen cars in a queue in lane 2 of a 3 lane road (for example) with a merge point ahead, leave lane 2 and move into lane 3 at speed only to try and re-merge right at the merge point? 🤦♂️ Great video stimulating much educational discussion, Not sure what needs to be done to resolve this problem, but education is a good start. 👍
I absolutely agree with everything in this video, sadly there will always be people in any scenario who think they are better than everyone else, that they are above the law and just have to get infront of the car in front. I wish the law would concentrate on those people and zip filter them off into a non-return dead end, preferably a brick wall to put them out of our misery.
Was not long ago when I struggled to get through a roundabout because everyone was queueing in the left lane, causing a very long queue, then when I was driving down the empty right lane a lorry suddenly staggered both lanes and almost made me crash. I really wish more people watched this video.
Feeling morally compelled to queue in one lane when two or more are available but then on the open road filling up the right/fast lane and matching the speed of the left. Welcome to British clown roads 😎
Yep. Reminds me of "Mr Average Speed". 40mph along the wide, open NSL country A road and then staying at 40mph past a school in the busy village with a 30 limit..
It’s ok explaining what is the idea and how to merge in turn, but trying to get it through to the self appointed road police, who straddle two lanes, because they think those who are using all the road space correctly are jumping the queue.
I spent 30 years as a police officer, half of it in the Roads Policing arena. My last role before retirement was as my Force's road safety officer. Your analysis is the clearest and most concise I've ever heard on this thorny subject and I agree entirely. Incidentally, one of my last acts as an officer was to urge the highways authority to place "merge in turn" signs on a bottleneck leading out of my town as there was so much anger and ire, not to say road rage amongst queuing drivers. The problem was completely solved once the signs went up. Once people understand basic road craft they seem happy to adhere to it!
Aren't all outer lanes overtaking lanes and therefore those being overtaken have a responsibility towards the overtaking driver as given under rule 168 ?
Well I suspect your 15 year stint policing roads might be a bit questionable. I would expect a police officer to know what a Red Cross over a lane means. But if you are a bit rusty it means Lane Closed-do not use it. A merge arrow over a lane means Merge NOW not a mile further on so that you can agressively push in and cause havoc. The explanation outlined here is not at all clear, it contadicts the highway code and is quite obviously dreamed up to justify Black Belt's own bad driving habits and in my view he is acting extremely irresponsibly trying to convince others that they should also ignore the rules outlined in the Highway Code.
@@malcolmwilcox8921 Well as a Cop and a Traffic Cop at that who appears to not know what a red cross over a motorway lane means I certainly don't find amusing. First a Barrister and now Traffic Cop, it's beyond ridiculous but does show what the general public have to tolerate. Perhaps as a roads safety officer you shoud read this 'Goverment Road Infrastructure' article albeit a bit too late for your local residents to benefit. www.gov.uk/government/news/red-x-means-dont-drive-in-that-lane In addition to that, mege in turn also doesn't mean go to the head of a queue and force your way in. It means no more than Merge in turn. The Lane closed sign and merge lanes sign shows the motorist at which point they should merge in turn. It isn't rocket science and would be clear enough if wasn't for people spouting confusion about the subject on a public platform. Although vehicles travelling at 30mph (and below) on urban roads have a less critical situation of course and perhaps all lanes could be used safely right up to the closure if so indicated but to smugly give the impression that some half baked rule invented here on TH-cam is a factual gereral law is both totally irresponsible and dangerous. Beware any driver giving this credence, A poll of 19000 drivers reinforced that there is a lack of understanding showing that a third of drivers would continue in a Red X lane until they saw the reason for the closure before changing lanes which is clearly wrong and illegal.
So my wife and I have disagreed on ZIP merging for years, so do I play her this video and have to make my own dinner for a month, or just quietly know where the truth lies.
Very informative, thank you. Obviously situations differ, and there is a roundabout near me where there is about a hundred yards of two lane before it merges into one. The problem I, and a lot of local residents, have is that the cars that travel in the right hand lane are moving a lot faster than the left lane. They push in rather than merge in turn, causing the left lane to brake. This increases the risk of an accident, and slows the left lane. The slower left lane makes the right lane more attractive to vehicles coming off the roundabout, who then push in. I have been stuck in that area not moving whilst cars in the right lane just keep pushing in. If everyone did merge in turn, this situation would not arise. I also think that this road should be two lane a lot further. There is tarmac enough to do so, it would just require a re-paint of the road markings to double the length of two lane road available.
I will always use the empty lane 2 and merge at the end. I will not defend the idiots that use lane 2 and force their way in but I do understand that they may feel they have to based on the fact many left laners think right laners are queue jumping and pushing in and will try anything to block them even if it results in a RTC.
You are correct in saying that the length of the queue would be shorter if using 3 lanes but obviously wider, needles to say the time spent in the queue would be the same for either as long as drivers took it in turns like you suggest. Regarding taking turns, this would be fine if we lived in an ideal world but sadly we don’t and that is why we end up with many non confrontational drivers queuing on the left as they don’t want to have any issues trying to join where the queues merge.
Entering a .motorway clause is misleading I have to 1) give way 2) match speed. if I'm running out of slip road I must break one of these either 1) cut in 2) slow down and try and enter the motorway from a far reduced speed to the rest of the motorway. Both alternative are clearly dangerous. Some sections of highway code assume there's still only about 20 cars on the entire network not 30 million plus lorries , motorbikes coaches etc.
30 years ago, cops pulled me for changing lanes to allow someone charging up the on slip to join the M8. Traffic behind me was too close and fast to brake, and my offside lane was clear, so I pulled out to let the guy on. Next thing the plods are bollocking me because I'd caused a hazard and that it was not my call to make. I was told in no uncertain terms that it is the responsibility of traffic joining the motorway to adjust position and speed. So now I sit tight at whatever speed I'm doing and let the joining driver make up his mind to either hurry up or wait.
@@kasimsultonfan Im not sure why you would get pulled over by the police for this unless the lane change was a problem, I would imagine the rest of the situation is needed for context. And yes the car merging onto the motorway should be the one looking to make adjustments to join while cars on the motorway keeping the same speed as you should allows the joining car to asses the situation and adjust accordingly. @Paul Houghton its not a contradiction, you are giving way to the motorway traffic (not stopping just adjusting speed and position) you as the non priority vehicle need to match the speed of traffic as stated and position to merge to a safe space.
@@MadMcGlory think you misread, what happens when there is no more slip road left and there was no opportunity to join the. Motorway before . You have to do something there is only 3 logically options and none of them will comply with the rules in that instance
@@PabloTBrave I get what your saying and yes I have experienced the situation where there are to many cars in the left lane leavening no clear gaps to enter. But in this situation is everyone following the HWC, such as are the cars in the left lane leaving enough of a gap between them selves and the car in front as they should probably not and did the joining car not read the situation and end up in a stationary position at the end of the slip road. In the previous video about 'is the HWC law' he goes over the rule 144 which is driving without reasonable consideration for others and this will not be adhered to if cars in the left lane are not leaving the space required. In the past I have had the situation where I have had to stop at the end of a slip road, I should not have done due to as you mention the unsafe means of not having matching speeds, but this only has happened to me where a car in the left lane is closing the gap and this should not be done as they are leaving to little room not specifically for me but as of the space required between you and the car in front of you. In this situation I have followed the rules and been left in the situation you are stating but this has been caused by someone else not doing what they should be doing. My point is that the HWC is not a single rule for each situation, its rules that state if every one is doing as stated then this rule should work, and if it does not then this other rule should apply. The HWC cannot be written to account for people doing the wrong thing, its written in the way of this is the correct thing and if this does not apply then do the safest thing based on other relevant rules.
Only time I see people running out of slip road is when they don't look for a gap and adjust their speed to join safely. Next time you go past a slip road watch those who join just look in their mirrors seconds before . plan your driving it is easy
Speaking as a former Motorcyclist - we had the "lifesaver left" - "lifesaver right" quick turn of our head to see if all is clear. This is applied when driving my car and most motorcyclists do this. Just saying.
What gets my goat is the numpties who decide to “police” the empty lane by straddling the line and blocking the empty lane. I used to have this where I was sat in a tailback on the M4 waiting for someone to hit me, only to discover the queue after the slip road and beyond the exit was twice as long as it should have been because of idiot ‘vigilantes’.
I'm glad the common sense answer is the correct one. The road signs seems to me to show that vehicles take turns when 2 lanes merge. Drivers are not supposed to put their foot down when behind another in order to undertake them and ensure no one gets between them and the car that was in front of them. Not are they to find enough space to undertake when the merged car and they are now in the remaining lane. We all need dash cams, or the highways need more cameras installed.
This covers one of the most misunderstood things on Britain’s roads. Well done.
Ashlee Neal, RAC and BBC Radio 5 Live have all tried to explain this as well and still a high percentage of people will continue to do what they always have done. A lot of them won’t change their ways either because they believe they are right because they have been driving for so long.
👍
It's only misunderstood by those who are too dim to understand that a red cross on a lane and an arrow symbol pointing at the adjacent lane means ...'Lane ahead closed merge into the next lane'. If drivers weren't required to merge until they reached the closed off lane then the 'merge lanes arrow' would not be displayed until traffic actually reached the closed lane rather than, as they are at present, displayed to traffic upto half a mile before the closure. Now go on say 'but only displaying the merge arrow' at the closure would be downright dangerous. In which case you would be making my point for me.
@@sb1056sb Ashley Neal is wrong...he deleted his original video that caused the argument because he did not do ANY of what's discussed here i.e. using indicators and waiting for a gap. He instructed his student to just keep going and ignore the "blue one" i.e. the vehicle he was clashing with. He was literally teaching her the "stare straight ahead" trick. Ashley doesn't use his indicators and just moves over and this is at higher speeds where the other vehicles may not be aware the 2nd lane is ending.
His questions to the DSA et al were disingenuous as he didn't ask about what he did and everyone was arguing over i.e. shove in with a sense of entitlement without indicating as "I'm ahead and it's my 'turn'." He basically asked if he had right of way as the van...and got the answer that nobody does. But he doesn't have right to force into a gap that's not there either
@@Greylobster A traffic officer did correct me on the term 'right of way'... much as other have noted... suggesting a better term - 'others PRIORITY' - has or has not presidence over yours... depending on the detail of course. Glad BBB cleared with topic up, as though not a 'late merger' particularly, I'm sick and tired of folk who assume queueing automatically buys them moral rights. NO! Queueing is simply courteous and polite, which is a good thing in a social context, but no guarantee of accelerating a requirement for the betterment of all! Sadly of course the roads are loaded with folk who couldn't regulate a smooth merge from either lane if you schooled them everyday for a year!
I think it was the late Barry Sheene who used to do a motorcycle training programme for youngsters on the TV many years ago who said “It’s no good having had the right of way when you’re lying in the morgue”.
The main caveat I put on this is that using both lanes is the right way to use the road but only if done safely. The over taking vehicle should travel at a sensible speed. They should not be hammering down at 70mph passing stationary traffic and arrive at the merge at high speed. They should drive at a safe speed relative to the queue.
This is the key point
Yep. The left lane observing the 50 mph limit only being passed because the cars in the right maintain 70 mph right up to the last second. Dangerous and unexpected speed difference! Too many drivers seem to think they're in a race.
You have to maintain a good speed just in case someone is thinking of blocking both lanes to stop you. Fast enough to make them think twice, slow enough to stop if they do anything stupid.
@@Strider9655 blocking both lanes is a whole new level of stupid.
@@Strider9655 I get what you mean but that's probably a more aggressive approach than is ideal. I doubt a lawyer would tell you to say in court that you were trying to drive fast enough that people felt they had to let you past.
‘Merge in turn’ signage went up locally about ten years ago. Intimidation, aggression, gesturing, shouting, beeping, swerving, revving and ramming all stopped immediately.
Yeh not round here, no one seems to know how to read signs
@@alanhillyard1639 Likewise.
It works in the Channel Islands ,too, at mini roundabouts .
Exactly this. if it was signed better all this agro would stop.
Thanks for this - I've always been frustrated at drivers going to the end and cutting in last minute. I've changed my view on this now.
Before getting frustrated you should have read up about it. Otherwise you're wasting your emotions. Glad you see it now.
It's pretty simple, if they wanted you to merge a mile back. The merge world have been a mile back.
depends how many BIG RED X's they drove through before the merge :)
In London everyone drives right up to the lane reduction and merges there. There are no empty lanes. There is no possibility of "jumping the queue" because there are no empty lanes to do it. It just works. I have only had this problem of people merging too early and getting the hump that someone else doesn't outside of London.
@@Robert-cu9bm You mean where they put the signs. Perhaps a brick wall would be easier for you to understand.
*BlackBeltBarrister* : "No-body has right of way"
*Every Audi/BMW/Merc/Range driver* : hold my drink
I'm not sure if 'zip merging' works well in practice. A merge that is essentially occurring at speed a few feet in front of a barrier is far more dangerous and more likely to lead to a collision. Far better to merge early, maybe have a slight delay, but ultimately avoid an accident that will cause economic loss, injury or death and potentially close the road for hours.
By the way there is a secret compartment in the glovebox of BMW's that holds a document entitled "Die Straße gehört Ihnen".
We had public information films on TV in Germany about the Zip Fastener method of merging. This was almost 40 years ago, it seemed like common sense.
British people lack common sense
Yes, but common sense is the least common of the senses … ;-)
'Right of way'
Doesn't guarantee you Immortality .
Why don’t local councils simply put signs up “FILL BOTH LANES” 🤷♂️
They should and often do, the "USE BOTH LANES" sign in yellow and a red triangle sign with "Merge in turn" are often there, drivers are just blind to them.
@@imaner76 I have passed those signs, 1 mile from the merge point and an empty lane with all the traffic in 1 lane. I have also had at least 1 driver try to prevent me from using an empty lane, by straddling the line
Ive seen these signs and people just don’t want to see them. On the A429 north bound entering Stow In The Wold is two lanes the they merge into one. There is yellow signs displaying to use both lane and merge in turn even a diagram on the signs on how to use it. Yet the British public have it in their heads you must queue on a first come first service some will actively straddle both lanes to prevent people doing what they are supposed to do, often right by those signs.
@@BigBadLoneWolf Sadly there are many examples of "self Policing" by members of the public. Often, as in this example they are ill informed and often have an aggressive personality. They are arguably guilty of driving without due care and attention. But ignore them, remain driving defensibly, continue in lane and then wait at the merge point if needed. Not everyone is as dim-witted as, block the lane driver, or close the gap driver. Just don't you be, force the issue driver.
Agree with everything except the merge on motorway, or in fact any multi-lane national speed limit highway. Where you should merge into the merging lane as soon as practical. Unless (there’s always an unless) it is queuing low speed traffic. Gunning it to the last possible moment is a recipe for impending disaster.
Observation: when I am already in the lane that is continuing and drivers want to merge early, it means I end up letting in several cars, that have different ideas on where would be a good time to merge, instead of one if they had driven to the end of the lane and zip-merged.
Merge-in-turn works best when everybody knows how to do it and then does it. What happens here is the British, thinking they are God's gift to queuing, spectacularly failing at it. Done properly, there should be no elevated blood pressure, no passive-aggressive argy-bargy and to the utter disbelief of the apoplectic, a speedier passage through the entire process.
@@Ineverreadreplies "must remember that for the next time for he next the car behind me in the merging line (lane that a legal mine field all of its Owen) doesn't slow and weight for you to clear a the gap, also what is a lane (in the UK we have many names for to call them by ROAD's STREET's LANE's and that basic main top three, the list could go on, (my main point of Question is when in a lane Not a lane, e.g. as in it single , or double, or more number of lanes, second part, road (lane) markings, with or with out any white/coloured marking on road, signage on roads in connection the said road (Lane), would any of this come be for giving way to any (I would say ) questionable second, or more lanes, so to some it up who decides a lane is indeed a land, as in signals or multilabel lanes, sorry am going on a bit, back to lanes, what constitutes the bare minimal description of a single/dual carriage-way (lane) would say pedestrian crossing point in the middle of road as an example, made the road (lane) legally dual carriageway at that point in the or something like that, if yes, how long before and after would the still be consider as a dual-carriageway, with out any divider on the road to be fair and more in legally also? :-)
@@PedroConejo1939 Nothing is sped up, the traffic can only flow as quickly as the traffic beyond the merge point. It does reduce the overall length of the queue but not the speed at which cars pass through the area.
Another good explanation
@@kevinmould6979 You are correct that neither method can affect the theoretical maximum speed through the constriction because that is dependent on what's happening after the merge. However, to achieve that maximum, you have to have either all vehicles in a single lane or effective zip-merging. If you require only single lane flow, where does the merge take place? It has to happen somewhere and pushing it back down the queue to an undetermined place is inefficient and often leads to vehicles having to stop to either wait for a place to merge or to let someone in (this also happens when merge-in-turn is not practised correctly). It also lengthens the queue and may cause congestion at junctions that would otherwise be clearer. The problem with zip-merging is that it requires forethought and co-operation, neither of which many drivers can or will do. Sadly, we will continue to sit in unnecessarily long queues.
We love queuing in the UK. You'll often have the left lane littered with traffic running alongside an empty right line. But the brave souls who dare use that right line will find themselves stuck there forever.
Disagree that you'll be stuck there forever, may get some dirty looks, but don't really care while I'm saving a big chunk of time.
@@nelch agree totally, just because a majority are being pig headed morons, doesn't mean you have to be too.
Nelch Davies Realistically how much time can be saved doing this?
I don't agree with our dear lawyer here.. this is an issue of flow rate rather than capacity. If the flow rate through the restriction is x cars per minute, then this is the controlling factor and is not affected by how many lanes are occupied upstream of the restriction. If you look at this from a fluid flow perspective, the only additional factor is turbulence at the restriction causing delay. In many ways it is the flow of traffic coming down the fast lane that is causing delay to the slower traffic lane as they have the effect of blocking the smooth flow of the slow lane into the restriction by forcing into the flow. This is not a simple issue to solve, zipping is a partial solution, however it does rely on everyone playing fair and not hogging the junction. It does not however result in the traffic getting through the junction faster, all it does is even out the chances of an individual car getting through the junction.
Perhaps lawyers (and traffic system designers) need to study physics a bit more.
@@felixthecat265 To be a cynical old Hector for a minute I personally think half of it is deliberate,
once upon a time when a three lane motorway was closing two lanes it was staggered over a few miles first one lane then a mile ore two further up the next one - and by and large traffic kept moving,
these days it seems some frontal lobotomy recipient has decided that it will be a terrific idea to close BOTH lanes at once at the same spot meaning anything up to four thousand vehicles an hour are suddenly plunged into one lane (with obviously only one third of the available capacity without even counting the hold up made by two thirds of the motorway all trying to maneuver into the one lane at the same time) as a permanent night working HGV driver I get this now on a twice or three time basis EVERY night now going from the north to the south of the country and usually the same back again.
I always let merging vehicles in leaving a suitable space in front.
Always give lorries, buses excess loads plenty of space to merge as it is difficult for them to match a car's speed easily and they also have limited visibility.
Don't try blocking off anyone, even what appears to be a chancer, because there might be emergency vehicles coming from behind that you may not see.
I've witnessed exactly this scenario at a junction where front car blocked a merging vehicle only to be stopped by police impeding an emergency call!
Wonderful explanation of the HWC, if more drivers understood this about merging, life would be so much easier, and I wouldn't have to spend so much time snarled up in traffic jams.
You've just gained yourself another subscriber.
Zipper merge needs to be the standard and taught to new drivers. It's simply the best solution. (there was a time when I didn't like drivers being let in after "jumping the line" but that's simply the wrong way of looking at it as suggested in this video).
I remember quite a long time ago, being advised to try to drive next to a space in the adjoining lane. If everyone did this (dream on) then merging would flow smoothly.
average speed cameras and the same speed restrictions across all lanes make motorway driving far more stressful, dangerous and slower. the speed limits need staggering across the lanes.
This is the best discussion of merge-in-turn I've seen (and I've seen a lot since I can't grasp how so many people find it difficult to put into practice). There's a lot of queue-warriors out there who will endeavour to block the open lane and then when they've queued themselves into a lather will prevent merging at the merge point. That feels really odd after seeing how the Germans can do it without problems, and have been doing so for 40 years.
That is not how you do it. What you do is spot someone in the line who feels how you do about queue jumpers who according to the RoW rule do not have RoW. Then the queue jumpers are the ones getting in a lather. And if you do that ALL the traffic moves faster, even the selfish ones racing down the outside lane to save 10 seconds and in the process costing everyone else minutes or more.
Psst, don't mention the Germans. Otherwise you'll trigger the "We fought two wars so we don't have to do it like the Germans"-fraction here.
@@billgreen576 Outer lanes are overtaking lanes and you have a responsibility towards traffic that is overtaking you. Take the time to read up about being overtaken.
The highway code really needs another road sign to make it clear that they should use all lanes and merge at the last moment, alternating. That could clear up a lot of road rage!
Rule 168 covers it.
There is a zip merge sign which is on an amber background. I always INDICATE my intention to merge or let someone ahead of me that is indicating their intention to merge in.
Most times when I'm in that situation, most people have merged well before the pinch point and traffic flows nicely, it's only when people deliberately leave it to the last minute without any attempt to merge prior that it causes traffic to slow and stop. Slower moving traffic tends to have smaller gaps so less chance of a seamless merge.
Yeah, special sign for Queuing English people :)
the problem is when one vehicle is trying to merge and another driver is annoyed and angry about it and they both figth over the space, that starts and stops the traffic behind as they speed up and slow down as its acts as a wave down the traffic flow. if you are going to do it properly, you need to be able to let these annoyed people go and feel they have won as its their attitude that is causing more congestion.
currently there is a contraflow under a bridge on the A90 going to Perth from Dundee. traffic is told to move to the outside lane, but when its busy during the day, traffic up to half a mile back is sitting at 10 to 20mph using both lanes as people from the inside lane move to outside lane, this is before the 50mph signs and the 800yrd marker sign to move lane. i find staying in the inside lane its clear all the way to the road works and usually vehicles inside the 50mph speed limit ar at 30 to 40mph. all that extra space because people move lane early.
In Australia we have two types of merge.
One where one lane physically ends, and there will be a broken lane marking indicating which lane is continuing (the primary lane) and which lane ends (the secondary lane). If your lane ends, you yield to the other lane.
The second is a zipper merge. In this case the road marking line between the two lanes disappears as the toad narrows toward becoming one single lane. When neither lane is designated the primary lane, you merge one by one (like teeth in a zip).
It's a pity we don't have the 'Public Information Films' of yesteryear. As a ten-year-old I learned quite a few handy driving tips!
If the merging drivers got in the queue early enough there would be no traffic jam , and the open lane would have no hold up , it's the merging drivers that are causing the que in the first place , this zip affect bull is a recent to the old highway code, which stated as soon as you see a blocked line get in the open line as soon as possible to save a que , now this zipper effect does not work
In Germany they use a "zip fastener" system where each lane alternates, no exception. It's not a code, it's the law.
They have ways of making you merge.
Seems more sensible
The same system operates on Jersey where two roads merge and it works extremely well.
As a lorry driver I'm constantly astonished with the fact that some truckers will purposely block a merge in turn lane so no one can get past, even when that lane is clear in front of them, I always allow people to merge in turn, I'll always move over approaching a motorway on ramp when it's safe to do so, There are some truckers who give the rest of us a bad name.. I find that being courteous makes everybody's journey easier.
In Germany the police would fine them for that.
When a motorway lane has had an x for a few mile people still use it to jump the queue so these guys are doing the polite and principled a favour.
@@notanindividual6474 They would also fine a driver for ignoring a 'Lane closed' sign.
Include: merging into a motorway. It's the joining drivers responsibility to vary and get into the lane, not the driver already on. It irks me no end when joiners barge on, frequently without even a glance in the mirror.
True, but some drivers already on the motorway don't always seem to react properly. In one instance, I was about to merge onto a carriageway (from a stupidly short on ramp ) and end up in front of a car already on it. Instead of changing lanes or maintaining his speed, he accelerated a drove between two lanes. Daft bugger
Is this not a situation that also calls for zip-merging? If the traffic is flowing quickly and smoothly then it will be easy to join (and to move over to allow joining), if the traffic is heavy and moving slowly then it should be safe to allow joining traffic to merge.
@@kevinmould6979 highway code is quite specific. Most people however are polite and try to make a space but, f the traffic is heavy and precludes you making a space, then no.
@@PSNragglefraggle1 Indeed. Maintain speed is the main help, so the incoming driver can vary their speed to join.
@@kevinmould6979 no, it’s the joining traffic’s responsibility to adjust their speed. Vehicles already on the carriageway should maintain their speed. It’s easy.
In Germany, when two lanes merge into one on the autobahn, drivers on the inner lane are obliged by law to permit one vehicle to merge from the outer lane. There are generally large signs displayed at the side of the autobahn reminding drivers to "zip" their lanes. If you close up to block a merging vehicle, you are liable to be fined.
Being previously a driving instructor i have made this point to my pupils when giving dual lane driving instruction. Sorry to say that the drivers of vehicles that generally take offence are the HGV drivers, to the extent that i've seen and video'd trucks pulling into the third lane to prevent you passing them. There should been much more awareness made so as to rectify this long tailback issue.
I've always followed the rule 'Give way to traffic approaching from the right' and it works for me.
When joining a Motorway always speed up to match the seed of the traffic already on the motorway and give way to traffic aproaching from your right, i.e traffic already on the motorway.
That was always in the highway code and I thought it was still there , why remove a perfectly common sense rule ?
While the video is quite correct in describing the process of merging, I would quibble with the statement that using only the left lane causes longer queues and slower traffic. Although the queue will be longer (twice as long as if both lanes were to be filled) the number of vehicles would be the same and, if the traffic flow through the narrower section is the same, the wait time will be the same. For example, if the single lane allows one car per second to pass, then 60 cars will move through each minute, regardless of how they queue.
In practice, unless perfectly executed, 'late' merging leads to slower traffic flow as the more accommodating left lane drivers brake to a halt to allow cars to merge into the otherwise solidly packed lane causing a ripple of stop-start movement down the lane also resulting in an increased risk of low speed collision in lane. This research came to me via my brother in law, a former driving instructor and later County Road Safety Officer. He also described how it was recommended drivers behave, "Ideally, vehicles approaching a merge point would maintain good separation and the merging traffic should do so in good time. The merge point is the end of the process, not an instruction to wait until that point to take action."
While it may not be in the spirit of the Highway Code, it is at least understandable why drivers can feel frustrated to have been edging forward in a stop/go pattern for ten minutes only to find cars shooting past at 70 before braking hard and forcing their way in right before they hit the buffers.
That stop-go pattern is usually the result of not merging in turn: by barging their way through it causes the other lane not to be at optimal merging speed and the only way for it to merge is for the other lane to slow down.
As the lanes will be at high capacity, if not super-saturated, this causes the first lane to slow down. The eventual (quick) result is that both lanes come to a stop with the shock wave visible travelling back up the motorway (by dint of the stop-start nature you see - each stop is another shock wave, and if someone tries to allow for it to smooth it by creating a gap in front of themself to allow the shock wave to dissipate, often someone from the other lane will jump into the smoothing gap and destroy the attempt).
Each "pinch point" has the ability to create a stop-start situation.
The best flow is to utilise both lanes until the physical pinch point of the lanes actually merging and on approach to that point aligning yourself with a gap in the other lane ready to merge in turn.
A curious effect of drivers that was brought up when I studied traffic flow is that when you have a stretch of motorway between two junctions that has two sets of roadworks which reduce the capacity by 1 lane there will be queuing at _both_ sets of roadworks despite the capacity of the second set exactly matching the amount of traffic that can exit the first set (there being no opportunity for traffic to leave or join between the two sets of roadworks).
The problem with longer queues is it often means tailbacks can reach junctions further back up the road therefore adding cars to the traffic jam that may have been able to turn off at the junction before the queue had it been half the length by both lanes being used. This is particularly relevant in towns and cities where junctions on dual carriageways can be quite close together.
I hate when you get the driver who is half in one lane and half in the other just to stop anyone over taking 😒🙄
I was always told to "give way to traffic from the right" in the UK. As you stated. The amount of people turning straight out of slip roads with or without signalling is almost a given. I stay in my lane and take all the abuse, even if the overtaking lanes are clear. Unless they are indicating. It's worse at night or around London. There it seems there is a free for all.
When drivers merge early, they remove the ability for the traffic in the other lane to predict the merge. This means that someone ends up having to break. When they break, everyone else ends up having to break. This of course, happens as someone else is merging early, resulting in someone having to really slam on their breaks because the merging car just threw their breaks on - and now we have a lane that's come to a stop for no good reason.
So - yes, I'm one of those people who will drive in the right hand lane all the way to the end, and then merge... because as you say here, it's how it was designed to be used. I look forward to the day when there's more of us who don't merge in 100m before the merge point.
when did "priority" become "right of way"? right of way used to refer to stuff like footpaths and access to land, priority was who gets to go first on the road.
Indeed I thought was a classic confusion of terminology done by us legal muggles, but there it is in the HWC. I thought, for example, pedestrians and cycles don't have right of way on motorways, but there are situations in which one road user has priority over another.
I reckon it's because of those damn synonoyms
2 things:-
1) Zip merging is a complex manoeuvre requiring synchronization between multiple cars - there is no feasible way to expect all road users to pull it off, it is completely unsafe to expect it and it actually goes against the rules of overtaking. There is no space in front of the car(s) you are trying to overtake therefore YOU SHOULD NOT BE ATTEMPTING TO OVERTAKE VIA A ZIP MERGING MANOEUVRE (rules 162/163).
2) Given that road users are incapable of performing a zip merger safely, the fastest way to travel *is* to get in lane early and continue on. If everyone did it while we were already going at the speed limit, we would continue at the speed limit. The reason everything slows down is because selfish drivers force everyone else to slow down so they can be at the front of traffic, then try and use zip merging as an excuse when questioned.
This "debate" has never been about "right of way", it's always been about people who don't understand how roads and merging work and those that do understand. The former, usually, behaving dangerously and like a bully when they are faced with a simple system that they don't understand. As you say, zippering at the merge.
So many idiots on the road.
What if the inside lane is stationary right through the merge point then?
I think you will be waiting quite some time. Simple courtesy defuses not antagonise situations.
@@Odysseuss. neither will be stationary if people are merging in turn, that's the whole point.
The debate is about right of way. People cut me off daily when merging into my lane…
The Humber bridge which seems to have permanent roadworks, but that's another story, normally has signs up to use both lanes for the very reason. Otherwise the tailback can easily block the preceding junction causing yet further tailbacks
Norwich has a sign saying 'Merge in turn'
Should read merge while your having a turn 😃😂😃😂😃
So does Bracknell. And many other places too. 😉
Only last week I was in a merging lane and the car in front had the idea that all cars should que in only the main lane. She stopped in the middle of the merging lane stopping people from merging, the whole point of the extra lane that merges is so it shortens the que.
The speed of the queuing traffic is key, when moving at 70mph merging out of the closing lane much sooner is recommended. At slow speeds then filling up the closing lane is right. It sometimes takes a while for this to happen in changing circumstances. Beautifully put as usual. 👍👍
Personally, I feel the distance between the vehicles in each specific lane is key (ie - the greater the gap, the easier it is to merge)
No, no, no!😂😂 did you learn anything from the video 😂😂 you are completely wrong, the speed is irrelevant you should aways zipper merge
@@Stealth360stealth I totally agree. But of course slow down sufficiently (to the speed of the traffic being merged into) to make the merge safe.
In the island of Jersey we have something called "Filter in Turn". Each car in each lane takes it, in turn, to merge into the single lane. We also have this at busy junctions, so that one lane of traffic is not queuing for ages. Because of this whenever things like traffic lights fail, drivers in Jersey will instinctively take it, in turn, to get through the junction safely.
Use all available road space. Allow merge.
It really is _that_ simple. And even then, people can't/won't do it.
If I am in a lane that is going to close, I will stay in it to the point that I have to move, for the reasons you have indicated. It is common sense as well as being in the Highway Code. The only reason that lane will be empty is because people have erroneously moved out of that lane too early, and it is normally those people people that won't let you merge. Unfortunately in this game two wrongs do not make a right.
Travelling along the A50 towards the old M1 Junction 24 I turned onto the last stretch in the right hand lane and was immediately confronted by an empty right hand lane and very slow moving traffic in the full left hand lane before the roadworks 1/2+mile ahead. The LH lane was nose to tail and did not offer any opportunity to merge in but in any case I travelled to the merge point at slow speed and attempted to merge only to get torrents of abuse despite the clear HWC advice. In the end I forced my way into the LH lane after 20+ cars had passed me. The sooner we get a system of continuing driver education similar in principle to professional CPD and HGV certification the safer our roads will be.
That you forced your way in is concern. It clarifies that you are an unsafe and unlawful driver.
You lawfully need to wait until there is a space even if that is twenty or even forty cars.
I am sorry the abuse thrown at you caused you to be aggressive and unlawful.
If you simply waited with courtesy then I am sure a gap would have appeared.
the car in front is priority. IF your speeding up to effectively preform a pit manoeuvre on a car that’s in front, you are in the wrong.
Very useful 👌 I do like the road law videos, mundane but the clarity they give is practical and actionable.
That is one main reason I appreciate these videos is that the information is practical and clearly explains how law impacts all aspects of real, day to day life.
@@Arcticnick absolutely 💯
Nick Williams. Agree...
A couple of classic examples of this locally to me. People queuing back in a single lane, before a merge, so that they tailed back onto a roundabout and blocking it. One was a road design, the other was temporary roadworks.
Highways put up a big 'Use Both Lanes' sign in both cases.
On the permenant road system, people still take umbridge and try to force out cars using the empty lane. And years later there are still jams caused.
On the temporary roadworks, the result was that people rather reluctantly allowed the non queuing cars to merge in, but very soon discovered that doing so dramatically improved the overall flow. And so were more polite.
(My daughter took her driving test on this piece of temporary roadworks. And was warned by her instructor that if she joined the queue too early and didn't push right to the merge point, the examiner would fail her. And to ignore any bullying behaviour from other drivers.)
I don't think there is any right of way while merging however the common sense thing to me would be to take it in turns, one lane then the other. Best scenario for helping traffic flow.
At 70 mph?
It doesn't specify a speed, I was thinking more in terms of lane closures and roadworks etc..
@@Arcticnick yes, if spacing is adequate, as for all speeds
@@Arcticnick why would you b doing 70 at a pinch point?
@@johnallan1134 why 70? Maybe if I was in a hurry!
I'm late to this one, but I have a comment on zip merging. I fully agree that zip merging is the intended use and that the queue would indeed result in a shorter queue, but I disagree that it's more efficient and that utilisation of both lanes would necessarily result in higher throughput. Road throughput is limited by the chokepoint, in this case the lane closure - Therefore unless there was a sudden change in this chokepoint such as the closure being lifted, the overall throughput should be the same.
I'd actually argue that it is better to leave that lane empty on a motorway if it's the left-most lane for two reasons:
1) It allows people to exit the queue and use an earlier junction
2) It creates larger separation for the hard shoulder, which is likely to be required for emergency vehicles in this scenario
So if there is a long queue in one lane when the other is closed up ahead, we should move over and fill both lanes
Yes. It's so reasonable. But you will be thought of as 'butting in' if you do 😆
@@dshe8637 Just blocking the queue jumpers by getting in first...
@@dirkbruere sometimes people can't appreciate that two queues are quicker than one...
@@dirkbruere using both lanes and merging in turn, means the traffic queue is half the length of using 1 lane also filtering on a motorcycle also lessens congestion
@@dshe8637 Not if traffic is moving relatively fast, because then when the queue jumper gets to the front people slow down to let them in and it has a knock-on effect
Everything in the video is spot on.
Sadly, you will meet some people who do NOT accept that slip road users have to give way. Avoiding arguments and giving way once in a while means you can avoid getting tangled up in an incident with a stranger you will never see again and get on with your life, albeit with an unwarranted delay of about a second or two. Merging in turn at the end of the road is correct, but you have to be thick skinned with those that disagree (i.e. people who have not read the Highway Code but still think they know it better than you) e.g. people that block both lanes, potentially even holding up emergency vehicles further back on the road. Consider this an opportunity to practice shrugging...
Driving in Switzerland recently I noted their sliproads had give way signs on them interestingly. Now I always try to move over for cars on the sliproad to merge in, but there are times I've nearly been taken out (car and bike) when I couldn't move over or change speed significantly because of other traffic and some plant pot comes flying down the sliproad like he owns the place.
The broken lines between the slip road and the carriageway are a give way sign and the joining traffic should obey that, it's a pity that so many road users don't understand what road markings mean.
@@kevinmould6979 Indeed, I found it refreshing that they state it more explicitly on the Swiss roads though.
CPO2, people think it is their absolute right to join the motorway or dual carriageway. They, “and I do mean they” should adapt to the traffic on the motorway. You should not have to move over for drivers coming down a slip road, Although we do do this. But we shouldn’t have to adapt to vehicles coming down a slip road. But modern traffic/ Drivers do not know how to merge,either on to a Motorway or any other road. They think it is their “Right of way” there is no right of way as he explains. But people still use this old terminology. It will get worse on the roads of this country. It’s modern people’s aggression.
I'm.often in CH, the give way sign is ignored. They also have a habit of going right to the very end of the merge lane then suddenly veer into the main carriage way even is there isn't any traffic , and they live to tailgate
@@donlunn792 I have been on the M1 late at night and overtaken a fast HGV in the outermost lane, exceeding the speed limit temporarily. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, a large black car appears behind me (must be doing the 'ton') and flashes me to get out of the way. Crazy! as I don't have reheat. What does that car driver expect me to do? Perhaps the driver's accelerator pedal has stuck in full throttle ( I think not).
The whole point of having warning signs that the lane is about to disappear in 600,400,200 yards is so that you can get into the lane that isn't going to close. Why on earth people drive all the way up to the cones before trying to merge, stopping all the traffic in their lane and forcing everyone in the other lane to slow and avoid them is beyond me. The whole point is that you're going to have to move over anyway - so it's making no difference to capacity if you merge it later you're just forcing the merge to occur in a time limited fashion. If you do it earlier (zipping) then you have time to complete the merge and the traffic will move through smoothly. It won't move through smoothly if you drive right up to the cones. The reason most people sort themselves out earlier is because it's the most efficient.
You said no one has the right of way, but with the new highway code out now with the ridiculous "vulnerability" rule there is now a hierarchy of those who will have to give way. A car driver will have to give way to a motorcyclist, a HGV will have to give way to a car.
Most Rd users will carry on regardless but if a motorcyclist or car driver in these situations decide to try their luck depending on the situation better get this on gravestone... I'm was right wasn't I?
@@johnallan1134
Your right, guarantee there will be no change of attitude.
Well explained. Thanks for the brilliant video! In my opinion, this Zip Merging principle actually also applies to joining the traffic from a slip road. Despite the law says that when joining the traffic the cars on the main road have the priority, but it is "inexplicitely" advised that the cars on the main road should slow down and let the waiting car to merge in. Correct me if not the case.
I once saw a jammed up merge in turn for roadworks on the M6. I was on my bike following a bike cop filtering between lanes (yes it is legal) when he got to the merge he stopped his bike and started directing the cars. That shows how woefully ignorant too many people are about merge in rules. It's sad really.
yep.
Filtering between lanes would only be legal if you give the necessary signal 5 seconds ahead of each and every lane change, and maintain the required minimum safe distance between bike and car.
@@neuralwarp .
Not in the UK, the only necessary requirement is that all parties take reasonable care.
It deeply saddens me that you had to confirm the legality of filtering on a motorbike.. it should be common knowledge for all road users these days but still bikers nearly get knocked off by angry drivers for it all the time, I've literally had people start fights with me and nearly hit me with their car over it who just can't seem to understand that for a motorbike it's too dangerous to be at the back of traffic waiting to be mashed between 2 cars so filtering is a must. Not only that but bikes can get ahead and out of the way quicker so helps have less stationary traffic queuing when there's no need. It's literally common sense but there's none of that about any more ☹️
@@MDM1992 yea. saddens me too. Everything you said is spot on.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. This needs to be compulsory viewing for every road user in the country. The amount of steam I generate when people talk about their "right of way" is probably the main cause of global warming! (Fortunately I manage to keep a lid on the boiler when I’m at the wheel.)
Everyone needs to merge in turn and to do it correctly. I’ve never been able to understand the objection to using empty lanes to drive on. But the important consideration is merging IN TURN. I’m more than happy to let one vehicle in front of me at the pinch point, but then it’s up to the person behind me to do the same. Trying to merge several vehicles in together totally messes up the zip. This happens so much on very busy roads like the M25 when traffic is crawling along past entry slips and people feel the need to force themselves in in bunches.
The courteous use of indicators has a big influence on whether I make room for a merge.
I am reminded of the tale of the New York cabbie. He had been involved in a collision with a highly irate woman who was claiming she had right of way. He replied, "Lady, right of way ain't something you got or you ain't got. Its something the other guy gives you. And if he don't give it, you ain't got it!"
“Right of way” doesn’t really mean what people think it means; and they haven’t got what they think they’ve got.
‘Right of way’ simply exists where any person has the right to pass and re-pass along a way. The right may be limited to a form of transport (such as on foot for a footpath).
What is being discussed is priority. Only one sign gives priority TO a road user (where it is matched with a corresponding give way to oncoming traffic), and that is only out of practical necessity. Priority does not mean superiority; nor does it entitle somebody to proceed against somebody regardless.
Indeed, using the wrong term 'right of way' suggests one person has an absolute right and not merely priority.
Stop Sign, Traffic Lights, No Entry, all of these give priority to a road user
@@andyxox4168 none of those is an example of giving priority to somebody, and it is important that we understand that. Stop sign: this tells a driver/rider to stop; that does not give them priority; it is not a sign to another road user, therefore it does not give the other road user priority. No entry sign: tells a driver/rider that they cannot access a way by going past the sign; it is not giving priority to anybody. Traffic lights tell drivers/riders to stop or that they may proceed if it is safe to do so; importantly a green light does not give priority over other road users, for example a vehicle that was already on the junction when the lights changed.
Right of way in these circumstances is just academic in my opinion. Just use common sense and courtesy instead of getting annoyed or competitive.
Merging in turn is also often misunderstood at those traffic lights when a single lane opens in to 2 lanes just before the lights and merges back in to one lane after the lights. Logically, this allows more vehicles to pass through for each sequence of the traffic lights but so many drivers fail to understand this and treat those in the outside lane as 'jumping the queue', whereas they are actually reducing the queuing before the lights.
So where does oncoming traffic position themselves if turning right?
@@johnallan1134 I think you've misunderstood the scenario. He's talking about where there are two lanes going straight or where the right lane is for going straight or turning right. Oncoming traffic turning right should wait in the "middle section" or in their own lane if there is no extra space. They should never be positioned in an oncoming live lane.
Thank you very informative video.My take on this is that if I am on the left and a car is on my right either along side me
Or just in front it is overtaking or trying to overtake therefore you should give way even stopping if need be to continue could force
The other car onto the wrong side of the road possibly causing an accident
In the scenario you show (at 5:25), when two lanes merge into one, the left hand lane will be travelling at normal speed - possibly 40, 50 60 or 70mph as there is no obstruction or incident. Therefore merging in turn or zip merging should not apply, according to the highway code. Cars in the right lane approaching the merge point should start to indicate in good time and merge when an appropriate opportunity arises. As in any other situation when you change lane you should do so when it is safe.
Yeah leaving it until the last second to merge gives you nowhere to go if the cars on the left won't let you in. Since most people don't enable you to zip merge and safety is the highest priority it is usually safer to do as you say and merge when it's safe to do so.
If everyone was a robot then rigidly following a set of rules for merging would be good and well but not everyone thinks ahead while driving so we've got to drive defensively.
I agree, IF the traffic in the unobstructed lane is still moving at a reasonable speed. However, when there is congestion and traffic is just creeping forwards then all lanes should be utilised with zip merging at the point of the lane closure.
The traffic in the outer lane is overtaking traffic. Read up on your responsibility towards overtaking traffic when you are the one being overtaken.
@@cpyart I don't need to read it up thank you. These people that wait until the merging point before moving in have reached a situation where they are no longer overtaking, As I go along if anyone that overtakes me wishes to move back they are welcome to do so - they must indicate and wait until it is safe. The issue here, though, is about merging in turn and the fact (according to the HC) that it should only be done so when two slow moving queues must merge.
@@michaelsmith6509 The outer lane is an overtaking lane and any traffic in it at any point on it are indeed overtaking traffic and rule 168 applies.
Reminds me of a New Zealand road sign which is now slowly disappearing - Merge Like A Zip with a zipper illustration.
It's frustrating when they seem to indicate a lane closure waaaay before it's actually closed, if they want people using the lanes up to the obstruction/filter point they need to sign and communicate that much better. My pet issue on the M25 was lane closed signs on the electric gantry when they were well over a mile away from actually being closed. It made you feel a real git for thinking about driving in them, even though it's the most efficient way.
They need to give drivers plenty of time to be able to merge in a safe manner so have to give clear warnings of road closures. Giving vehicles only say 300 yds warning could lead to serious pile ups so giving warnings a mile or more especially on a motorway gives drivers plenty of time to merge.
A mile on a motorway is covered in less than sixty seconds.
Interesting, this is exactly what I was taught & always use but I have noticed that more & more drivers seem to think that they DO have the right of way when joining a motorway or A road to the point that they increase their speed significantly to try & beat rather than match the cars already on the road. I thought there must have been a change in the code 🤔
When My youngest daughter was having driving lessons recently she was taught to be ‘assertive’ which she informed me after we went out on our practice sessions & she approached a roundabout and didn’t stop despite there not being much of a gap. I told her it was ok to be assertive but not suicidal 🤪 & that she should be prepared to stop 1st if necessary😬
When 3 lanes merge into two, it is the speed of the two lanes that determines how fast the traffic moves as a whole. Using the three lanes more effectively and merging in turn does nothing to help the flow of traffic once merged.
No but it brings the back of the queues forward, so less likely to have a pile up or to block a junction behind. Make use of all that tarmac.
This deserves more upvotes. I came to comments looking for this point. A "shorter" queue means nothing unless the length of the queue is otherwise impeding the road system behind it. Performing zip merging on a "just in time" basis slows the traffic through the bottleneck. Many people do not have the ability to either yeild or join lanes in a manner which does not impede traffic flow, this becomes increasingly true as the probability of finding someone who can yield without impeding those behind decreases, as in the "just in time" scenario. I'm pleased blackbeltbarrister found a professional outside systems design or mathematics.
The shorter the lesser lane section the better for total flow.
Another way of describing it… the number of lanes before a bottleneck doesn’t change how long it takes to get through the bottleneck. Then after the bottleneck all that traffic has to disperse somewhere, which often can’t happen.
@@tyrantworm7392 merge in turn improved traffic flow as it provides a definitive point to merge, instead of letting people individually choose where to merge which creates inefficiencies. The other main issue is the queue is doubled in length, which doubles the chances of a slip road being blocked which would also congest local roads. Please hand your license back in
One of the best explanations on the net…
BUT the real reason people Que and not proceed down the empty lane..is so not to experience the road rage and confrontation at the merging point 🤷♂️
The one thing that gets missed with the theory of zip merging is that a single queue will move through the pinch point at a speed *more than* double that of two queues merging since the traffic moves more smoothly & less decisions are being made. I'm not disagreeing that the rules are what you explained, or that it's based on the theory you explained. Just stating that unless or until the queue grows so long it interferes with other junctions further back, the theory is flawed.
I think your logic here is actually what is flawed, there is no reason why traffic would move more smoothly or that less decisions would have to be made if everyone merged earlier because the same amount of merging still has to happen, somewhere along the line everyone on the ending lane still has to move into the other lane. by doing it early you're still slowing the cars behind you down to create a gap whether you do it early or late, difference is you are using up more road space to do it like he said, if everyone merged a quarter of a mile early all you've achieved is make the queue a quarter of a mile longer.
@@RWoody1995 Logic has nothing to do with it, some university did a study & timed the flow with it set up signed early "get in lane" & alternately signed "use both lanes" + "merge in turn" at the same site, The flow was measurably faster in the case where the traffic formed a single queue. Unfortunately I don't remember which university or the date of the study, but they basically disproved zip merge for dual carriageway lane closures.
The bull headedness & pushing & shoving at a single merge point doesn't flow as smoothly as merging further back when you've long braking gaps between cars to slot into & the whole thing slows down.
A single queue moving at 20 mph clears faster than 2 queues moving at 8 mph each.
@@beardyface8492 Agreed, the act of having to merge, even if everyone is co-operative, is likely to introduce a small delay compared to motoring straight through in one line.
@@rogerking7258 Indeed, though it can still be advantageous when there's something along the merged section introducing an additional hold-up such that traffic ends up standing for sufficient distance to interfere with a junction further back which might be avoided by using the empty lane-space as a car park.
Frankly the regulations ought to specify that either "get in lane" or "merge in turn" signage is actually deployed as appropriate in all cases.
Failing that, the default needs to be the opposite of what it currently is in the highway code.
In this country, for cultural reasons "merge in turn" only works even reasonably well when *explicitly signposted*. Otherwise it results in road-rage, collisions, & people deliberately closing the space needed to merge down to prevent such merging. Theory & the real world simply don't match here, we're not the same culture as the European countries from which the idea was adopted.
@@rogerking7258 I drive approx 50 - 60k per year and never ever does a single lane motor through. Merge in turn is more efficient and quicker. It’s the brain donors who straddle lanes to prevent it that should be prosecuted. But ultimately all they achieve is both lanes merging as they get to the merge point.
Even when huge signs are telling us to use both lanes and merge in turn, many planks continue to go single file causing huge queues and road rage. The ignorance is huge😂😂😂😂
If drivers think I’m “pushing in” well, I don’t really care at all. I’m following the hwc and I’ll be home quicker and less stressed.
Section D6.23.3 of the "Traffic Signs Manual" mentions alternate priority at the merging point. The exact wording: "Merge in turn is the process of two traffic flows combining into one by shared alternate priority."
Despite secretly thinking they're a pain in the arse, I usually let those in the right lane in, safer than smashing up the car
Both you and the cars you let in are doing the right thing. Don’t change.
why do you think they are a pain in the arse when its actually what is meant to be done and you could do exactly the same thing ?
They're doing the correct thing by using the right lane until the merge point, and you're doing the correct thing by allowing them to merge in turn. Why exactly is your arse hurting?
You'd think by the standard of driving today everyone on the slip has the right of way🙄.
Same with those changing lanes 😡
It’s rife in the Peterborough area which has its own outer circle that’s mostly entered from slip roads. Not only is it their God given right to drive out of the slip road as and when they please without any regard for traffic already on the ring (“Parkway” as it’s called here), but if you dont slam on your anchors or swerve out into traffic in the outer lane you’re condemned to more abuse than if you’d raped their daughter.
All computer traffic models show you're absolutely correct. It greatly reduces overall waiting. There should be more merge-in-turn signs. I guess the problem is the people who don't allow anyone in would still struggle with the concept, no doubt blaming it on a Republican/right wing/Conservative conspiracy and an infringement of their human rights to be a prat.
FYI human rights bleaters tend to be lefty socialists 😂
Zip merging should be simple its basically just letting the car ahead of you join if everyone in the left lane just let 1 car in front everything would be fine but unfortunatly too many people want to be 1 car length further ahead because apparently that makes all the difference. I've also been in traffic on long stretches of road and the amount of people who just immediatly accelerate up to speed only to end up stopped 5 seconds later amazes me its bad for traffic flow, in slow moving traffic that is stop start I will typically only start moving 10 seconds after the car in front and even I will be going at an incredibly slow speed so by the time I need to stop again traffic in front starts moving again this keeps traffic flowing at a constant low speed and less of a stop start jam making it safer for all.
In Victoria, Australia, if I am already on the freeway, I’m expected to give way to merging traffic. Other cars will move to the right lane and avoid the problem. I often slow down to let the merging traffic in. Once I kept my speed and the merging car tooted at me. The merging cars have to cross a dotted line to merge.
Question, what about the lorries, vans or other vehicles that straddle their lane to block off the clear road? Or sit in it entirely and don't merge themselves just to stop you going ahead. Is this an offence in any way?
_"If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine..."_ Highways Act 1980.
One day, I'll see someone get done for it but so far I haven't.
YES! We need to get the word out about Zipper merging! This arbitrary not using a merging lane and stubbornly bullying people who do is insane. If you weren't supposed to use it, then why does it exist?! Surely they would just not bother spending the money to make it. It's not as if letting a single person merge in between you and the car in front is going to slow you down. In fact, if we all just default zipper merged then it would massively reduce congestion! It's SO IMPORTANT!
Thank you for clarifying this! I learned to drive in the Netherlands and 'ritsen' (zip merging) is common there and the flow is much more efficient as a result of the British queuing way .
I totally agree, drive to end and zip-merge in turn at low speed is by far the best and most efficient way. People randomly cutting in early slows everyone down.
@@drstrangelove4998 This is what I have a problem with, how is it more efficient? If you can get 12 cars through a bottleneck per minute, the cars behind that do not increase the delta. If they're in 1 lane also doing 12 cars per minute or 2 lanes doing 6 cars per minute (maybe slightly slower because they also have to merge).
@@AndyCalderbank Nothing to do with efficiency it's more to do with safety. A red cross and a merge arrow means lane closed merge ASAP not a mile later after using the closed lane to speed to the head of the queue and push in possibly causing shunts further back.
www.gov.uk/government/news/red-x-means-dont-drive-in-that-lane
As a motorcyclist I can assure you there have been many occasions when coming down that closing lane and needing to “merge in turn” I have been forced to actually stop because nobody has given me space to do that safely. One thing is for sure I am not going to merge between trucks doing 70+ mph that are barely 7 metres apart. Yes they’re going too fast but that doesn’t help me on my bike. So I’m forced then to pull into the open lane from a standstill.
They don't like us motorcyclists mate
What about drivers that have used a clear lane on the motorway that displays a red X for half a mile or so? Surely this is illegal use of a clear lane to queue jump? I see this regularly happening and it's very frustrating if you've patiently queued.
You are correct. The use of a closed lane marked with an X is illegal.
Anyone who uses a lane closed by an X commits an offence as soon as they pass the sign while still in that lane.
Absolutely i wish this was covered and would really appreciate like the blackbeltbarrister to answer this
I concur. Using the principles in this video, I suggest there should be merge in turn at the point of the Red X Signal (HWC258 "If red lights flash on a signal and a red “X” is showing, you MUST NOT drive in the lane shown as closed beyond the signal")
@@DavidWillcox but often on motorways its not safe to suddenly change lanes or come to a stop if you see this red X sign.
I find it very annoying when several cars that are prepared to queue for a zip point, and someone decides they are more important that they can go to the front. If I can wait, so should they. We all have somewhere to be.
You mean, you can't drive and you're mad that they can?
It’s your logic the queue could be ten miles long as none is allowed to overtake a car in the left lane
That's a good one, some people (from both lanes) are absolutely unethical.
No, not unethical but they do get annoyed when you are doing what is supposed to happen and join the lane one for one. Let the car in and then carry on and the car behind you should then let another car in and so on. The only drivers in the wrong are those that refuse to let a car in from the outer lane, the person in the outer lane is doing what is supposed to happen and use the empty lane on the out side and merge one by one.
@@honestchris7472 I'm dyslexic but I think I've written makes sense, reread what I've written, and also you've just explain what I said, so why no?
@@mohammedhasan8814 This is what you wrote "That's a good one, some people (from both lanes) are absolutely unethical.
Ethics is about what is morally right or wrong, so, if you mean that drivers from both lanes can be right and they can be wrong, then yes I suppose that could be described as unethical but the drivers that do the correct thing and allow one car through are ethically correct, the ones that don`t are ethically incorrect.
@@honestchris7472 that's why I've written some and not all(or even most).
Thank God you’ve actually spelled out the motorway scenario. You get horns beeping at you when you do it as though you’re doing something wrong when in fact the single big long queue is more incorrect. Don’t get me wrong I’ve saved lots of time doing this but it’s good you educate drivers
This is a great explanation of this issue. I think the biggest gripe that most people have is that, you are very much correct, we are a country that know how to queue.... as such, we do not like queue jumpers. If it were the case that both lanes were equal in length, not a single person would have any issues letting another car in.
The challenge is that, in my opinion, once you see a sign saying merge in turn, cars in the closing lane (normally on the offside) should then match their speed with the other lanes and NOT go any further than the last car they overtook, so that they can then merge in turn when closer to the end of that lane. But, the rules don't say this. The result being that most cars in the closing lane will continue at FAR higher speeds, using it to their advantage to overtake a whole row of traffic, this is where the conflict comes in.
However, I have noticed whilst re-reading sections of the Highway Code that the rules do seem very vague and can be interpreted in various ways - hence much of the bad driving on the roads.
Near where i live, on a road into the city, there's a dual carriageway (40mph) that comes off a roundabout. At a point, this dual carriageway technically ends. On the city-bound direction 2 lanes remain, but lane 1 becomes a bus lane. From as far back as the roundabout (half a mile) people will know that there is a bus lane ahead, and if the traffic is backed up people will join the queue leaving lane 1 completely empty.
Great explanation. Although some truck drivers seeing a sign saying "USE BOTH LANES" seem to think this means straddling the line to prevent anyone else passing ;-)
I see this a lot and not just wagons. I long for the day when they obstruct an unmarked police car.
@@PedroConejo1939 and? Explain what the obstruction rule has to do with emerging?
So not them all? I take it you a driving instr?
@@GolfWhisky enlighten us then?
@UDIDIT Driver Training and ur a driving instructor that only drives cars i can tell 🤣😂🤣😂
I'm interested to see the extract apparently from the Highway Code, at 1:17 & which states that there is no "Right Of Way" conferred by the Code. I cannot find this overview in my print copy of the Code, which is the 16th Edition, 10th Impression dated 2021 & is, to my knowledge, the latest printed version. (the last update which became effective in Jan 2022, and is causing all the problems you have been addressing, is not due to be available in print until April 2022). Can you please advise where this "overview" can be found.
I make full use of the right lane and save lots of time too. People do get upset lol.
Has anyone else seen cars in a queue in lane 2 of a 3 lane road (for example) with a merge point ahead, leave lane 2 and move into lane 3 at speed only to try and re-merge right at the merge point? 🤦♂️
Great video stimulating much educational discussion, Not sure what needs to be done to resolve this problem, but education is a good start. 👍
I absolutely agree with everything in this video, sadly there will always be people in any scenario who think they are better than everyone else, that they are above the law and just have to get infront of the car in front. I wish the law would concentrate on those people and zip filter them off into a non-return dead end, preferably a brick wall to put them out of our misery.
👍
So, you agree with the facts, but you don't want anyone to utilize the rules by merging in turn?
@@chrisb8075 who is this question for?
Was not long ago when I struggled to get through a roundabout because everyone was queueing in the left lane, causing a very long queue, then when I was driving down the empty right lane a lorry suddenly staggered both lanes and almost made me crash.
I really wish more people watched this video.
Feeling morally compelled to queue in one lane when two or more are available but then on the open road filling up the right/fast lane and matching the speed of the left. Welcome to British clown roads 😎
Yep. Reminds me of "Mr Average Speed". 40mph along the wide, open NSL country A road and then staying at 40mph past a school in the busy village with a 30 limit..
@@buggs9950 .........and they consider themselves the safest drivers ever??????????????
It's good for me, means I have less traffic to deal with.
Not doing anything legally wrong and not doing anything wrong are two different things.
It’s ok explaining what is the idea and how to merge in turn, but trying to get it through to the self appointed road police, who straddle two lanes, because they think those who are using all the road space correctly are jumping the queue.
I spent 30 years as a police officer, half of it in the Roads Policing arena. My last role before retirement was as my Force's road safety officer. Your analysis is the clearest and most concise I've ever heard on this thorny subject and I agree entirely. Incidentally, one of my last acts as an officer was to urge the highways authority to place "merge in turn" signs on a bottleneck leading out of my town as there was so much anger and ire, not to say road rage amongst queuing drivers. The problem was completely solved once the signs went up. Once people understand basic road craft they seem happy to adhere to it!
Aren't all outer lanes overtaking lanes and therefore those being overtaken have a responsibility towards the overtaking driver as given under rule 168 ?
Well I suspect your 15 year stint policing roads might be a bit questionable. I would expect a police officer to know what a Red Cross over a lane means. But if you are a bit rusty it means Lane Closed-do not use it. A merge arrow over a lane means Merge NOW not a mile further on so that you can agressively push in and cause havoc. The explanation outlined here is not at all clear, it contadicts the highway code and is quite obviously dreamed up to justify Black Belt's own bad driving habits and in my view he is acting extremely irresponsibly trying to convince others that they should also ignore the rules outlined in the Highway Code.
@@openminded3763 hahaha, that's really funny, you had me going to a moment there!
@@malcolmwilcox8921 Well as a Cop and a Traffic Cop at that who appears to not know what a red cross over a motorway lane means I certainly don't find amusing. First a Barrister and now Traffic Cop, it's beyond ridiculous but does show what the general public have to tolerate. Perhaps as a roads safety officer you shoud read this 'Goverment Road Infrastructure' article albeit a bit too late for your local residents to benefit. www.gov.uk/government/news/red-x-means-dont-drive-in-that-lane In addition to that, mege in turn also doesn't mean go to the head of a queue and force your way in. It means no more than Merge in turn. The Lane closed sign and merge lanes sign shows the motorist at which point they should merge in turn. It isn't rocket science and would be clear enough if wasn't for people spouting confusion about the subject on a public platform. Although vehicles travelling at 30mph (and below) on urban roads have a less critical situation of course and perhaps all lanes could be used safely right up to the closure if so indicated but to smugly give the impression that some half baked rule invented here on TH-cam is a factual gereral law is both totally irresponsible and dangerous. Beware any driver giving this credence, A poll of 19000 drivers reinforced that there is a lack of understanding showing that a third of drivers would continue in a Red X lane until they saw the reason for the closure before changing lanes which is clearly wrong and illegal.
No, stop it, you're killing me !!! 😁
So my wife and I have disagreed on ZIP merging for years, so do I play her this video and have to make my own dinner for a month, or just quietly know where the truth lies.
If she punishes you because she's wrong, time for a new wife i think 😉
Show her the video, then have her make dinner for the next month for being wrong.
Very informative, thank you. Obviously situations differ, and there is a roundabout near me where there is about a hundred yards of two lane before it merges into one. The problem I, and a lot of local residents, have is that the cars that travel in the right hand lane are moving a lot faster than the left lane. They push in rather than merge in turn, causing the left lane to brake. This increases the risk of an accident, and slows the left lane. The slower left lane makes the right lane more attractive to vehicles coming off the roundabout, who then push in. I have been stuck in that area not moving whilst cars in the right lane just keep pushing in.
If everyone did merge in turn, this situation would not arise. I also think that this road should be two lane a lot further. There is tarmac enough to do so, it would just require a re-paint of the road markings to double the length of two lane road available.
Outer lanes are overtaking lanes and you have responsibilities towards traffic that is overtaking you.
I will always use the empty lane 2 and merge at the end. I will not defend the idiots that use lane 2 and force their way in but I do understand that they may feel they have to based on the fact many left laners think right laners are queue jumping and pushing in and will try anything to block them even if it results in a RTC.
This may be childish of me, but I do have a bit of smug feeling that you have confirmed what I already believed to be true.
😁
You are correct in saying that the length of the queue would be shorter if using 3 lanes but obviously wider, needles to say the time spent in the queue would be the same for either as long as drivers took it in turns like you suggest. Regarding taking turns, this would be fine if we lived in an ideal world but sadly we don’t and that is why we end up with many non confrontational drivers queuing on the left as they don’t want to have any issues trying to join where the queues merge.
Entering a .motorway clause is misleading I have to 1) give way 2) match speed. if I'm running out of slip road I must break one of these either 1) cut in 2) slow down and try and enter the motorway from a far reduced speed to the rest of the motorway. Both alternative are clearly dangerous. Some sections of highway code assume there's still only about 20 cars on the entire network not 30 million plus lorries , motorbikes coaches etc.
30 years ago, cops pulled me for changing lanes to allow someone charging up the on slip to join the M8. Traffic behind me was too close and fast to brake, and my offside lane was clear, so I pulled out to let the guy on. Next thing the plods are bollocking me because I'd caused a hazard and that it was not my call to make. I was told in no uncertain terms that it is the responsibility of traffic joining the motorway to adjust position and speed. So now I sit tight at whatever speed I'm doing and let the joining driver make up his mind to either hurry up or wait.
@@kasimsultonfan Im not sure why you would get pulled over by the police for this unless the lane change was a problem, I would imagine the rest of the situation is needed for context. And yes the car merging onto the motorway should be the one looking to make adjustments to join while cars on the motorway keeping the same speed as you should allows the joining car to asses the situation and adjust accordingly. @Paul Houghton its not a contradiction, you are giving way to the motorway traffic (not stopping just adjusting speed and position) you as the non priority vehicle need to match the speed of traffic as stated and position to merge to a safe space.
@@MadMcGlory think you misread, what happens when there is no more slip road left and there was no opportunity to join the. Motorway before . You have to do something there is only 3 logically options and none of them will comply with the rules in that instance
@@PabloTBrave I get what your saying and yes I have experienced the situation where there are to many cars in the left lane leavening no clear gaps to enter. But in this situation is everyone following the HWC, such as are the cars in the left lane leaving enough of a gap between them selves and the car in front as they should probably not and did the joining car not read the situation and end up in a stationary position at the end of the slip road. In the previous video about 'is the HWC law' he goes over the rule 144 which is driving without reasonable consideration for others and this will not be adhered to if cars in the left lane are not leaving the space required. In the past I have had the situation where I have had to stop at the end of a slip road, I should not have done due to as you mention the unsafe means of not having matching speeds, but this only has happened to me where a car in the left lane is closing the gap and this should not be done as they are leaving to little room not specifically for me but as of the space required between you and the car in front of you. In this situation I have followed the rules and been left in the situation you are stating but this has been caused by someone else not doing what they should be doing. My point is that the HWC is not a single rule for each situation, its rules that state if every one is doing as stated then this rule should work, and if it does not then this other rule should apply. The HWC cannot be written to account for people doing the wrong thing, its written in the way of this is the correct thing and if this does not apply then do the safest thing based on other relevant rules.
Only time I see people running out of slip road is when they don't look for a gap and adjust their speed to join safely. Next time you go past a slip road watch those who join just look in their mirrors seconds before . plan your driving it is easy
Speaking as a former Motorcyclist - we had the "lifesaver left" - "lifesaver right" quick turn of our head to see if all is clear. This is applied when driving my car and most motorcyclists do this. Just saying.
What gets my goat is the numpties who decide to “police” the empty lane by straddling the line and blocking the empty lane. I used to have this where I was sat in a tailback on the M4 waiting for someone to hit me, only to discover the queue after the slip road and beyond the exit was twice as long as it should have been because of idiot ‘vigilantes’.
I'm glad the common sense answer is the correct one. The road signs seems to me to show that vehicles take turns when 2 lanes merge. Drivers are not supposed to put their foot down when behind another in order to undertake them and ensure no one gets between them and the car that was in front of them. Not are they to find enough space to undertake when the merged car and they are now in the remaining lane. We all need dash cams, or the highways need more cameras installed.