martine wrote:What do people think - good or bad or makes no difference?
martine wrote:Sure it will make the queues shorter but the time taken will be the same won't it?
What do people think - good or bad or makes no difference?
crr003 wrote:If it makes the queues shorter and takes the same time - that's a good thing isn't it?
martine wrote:Why? The time getting through the obstruction will probably be the same - just the queue is shorter (and slower) - so what?
Is this what is known as Zip merging?
Agreed but I think we were talking about 3 lane m-way with one lane closed. I think the only benefit is the queue is shorter but the time in the queues for either system is the same. I can see it's a good idea where there is another junction immediately before the closure as others have posted above.899cc wrote:When using both lanes (in any situation, not just road works) I can see two benefits (in theory). You're likely to get more cars (potentially double the number) over at lights if they merge after the lights. The queue will be shorter, which could unblock things further back.
Yes it's going to take long time before this is accepted by the majority of drivers. I'm not sure I can put up with the aggression if I start 'pushing in' at the closure even though I'd be driving to the HC.899cc wrote:The reality is that people put their foot down in the RHL to overtake, even if it's moving at exactly the same rate as the LHL. Cars in the RHL will also always want to overtake an extra car in the LHL, which leads to dangerous driving. When the idiots in the RHL cut in, they force people in the LHL to brake, which can cause a ripple of braking. I think British drivers are incapable of doing anything that requires a little thought.
I'm not sure I can put up with the aggression if I start 'pushing in' at the closure even though I'd be driving to the HC.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests