"Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by PH »

Raph wrote:Just checking - arriving at the back of a 200yd traffic queue, you'd just stay at the back would you? I often do that if there's no space either side.


Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no, I'd judge each situation on it's merits and be the first to say I don't always get it right.
But if I found myself where you are at the start of that clip I'd consider I'd made an error, likewise for being so far left at the lights.
You're right that there's a lot of co operation needed on the roads, but you can't always rely on it and the van driver wasn't obliged to let you in.
Once you'd made your way in, he was obliged to give you the space to be safe and there's no excuse for not doing so.
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by irc »

Raph wrote: Remember this was stationary traffic - I couldn't actually "cut him up" - he wasn't moving! Maybe I haven't made that clear yet. We were there for almost a minute before moving off, during that time he didn't remonstrate or object in any way..


Stopped for a minute? In that case no excuse for not getting right into the middle of the lane so there was no way he could squeeze you.

Raph wrote:Just checking - arriving at the back of a 200yd traffic queue, you'd just stay at the back would you? I often do that if there's no space either side.


Show me the queue and I'll tell you. Every situation is different.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by Vorpal »

Personally, I would complain to the company. There was no call to either squeeze you or verbally abuse you.

I think I would have handled the filtering a little differently, but I don't see anything basically wrong with what the OP did.

What I usually do on a junction like that is filter up about one change of the lights, then insert myself/merge into the lane in primary. It's easier to do when traffic is moving, which is why I try to time it to roughly a change of the lights. That way, I can be in primary for the hazards around a junction, but still take advantage of filtering.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Raph
Posts: 636
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 8:14pm
Location: Banbury

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by Raph »

Apols for dragging this on, I'll wrap up after this!

For this traffic queue it would definitely be ridiculous to wait at the back, though maybe that's a matter of opinion. The usual motorist logic is that bikes and cars follow the same rules - yes of course, that's mine too, but cars and bikes aren't actually the same. If I really had the same status on a bike as in a car, then if a bike isn't allowed to get through a gap on the basis that a bike and a car can't share a lane, it follows that a car behind a bike on a single lane should never overtake it... which is clearly nonsense; I want cars behind me to overtake me and get on their way, and similarly to let me get through the LH gap and get on mine without freaking out violently that it's unfair.

Given how the guy acted, I don't think I would have done any better getting right in front of him while he was stationary. Years ago I had a van driver try to pin me to the following vehicle when I was crossing the road on foot through a gap of a couple of feet between the two stationary vehicles and he lunged forwards to try and squash me against the next motor, and yelled that I should use a zebra crossing fifty yards up the road. I had a cup of takeaway tea in my hand, too hot to drink, I was almost irresistibly tempted to lure him out of the motor with a few taunts and do something I would definitely have regretted for life, as he may have later become a nice person but his face wouldn't have healed. However his intention was to maim me. This situation could have been similar, except the bike would have got mangled.

There are bullies everywhere, I keep telling myself the best policy is simply to keep away from them as you've suggested, but that means leaving more and more of the world to them which in turn means our world gets smaller and smaller. In the words of Frank Zappa, The meek shall inherit nothing.

PS highway code on changing lanes:

"In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily. Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed," surely then it's more safe and appropriate when stationary.

"If you need to change lanes, do so in good time" This was hardly last-second as copiously mentioned.

"...not change lanes to the left to overtake" Maybe that's what he thought I'd done (I hadn’t).
Raph
Posts: 636
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 8:14pm
Location: Banbury

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by Raph »

Vorpal wrote:Personally, I would complain to the company. There was no call to either squeeze you or verbally abuse you.

I think I would have handled the filtering a little differently, but I don't see anything basically wrong with what the OP did.

What I usually do on a junction like that is filter up about one change of the lights, then insert myself/merge into the lane in primary. It's easier to do when traffic is moving, which is why I try to time it to roughly a change of the lights. That way, I can be in primary for the hazards around a junction, but still take advantage of filtering.

Yes, waiting for traffic to move, then taking a place in the queue, preferably with a nod from whoever I'm merging in front of...

Oh well, I live and learn... This is the first incident of this sort I've had in well over 30 years (I lived in London then, cabbies spat on you daily just for fun), so it's not that I habitually **** off motorists.

I recently started the thread about the lorry passing too close - I got a few comments there that I was too close to the kerb and too willing to share a lane, so maybe that's something I can take on board!

Thanks for all the replies.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by Vorpal »

Get yourself a copy of Cyclecraft by John Franklin.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by PH »

Vorpal wrote:Get yourself a copy of Cyclecraft by John Franklin.


Or also from John Franklin in conjunction with the institute of Advanced motorists, the book "How to be a better cyclist"
It's the same advice, but I found it easier to read and the diagrams and photos clearer.
http://www.iam.org.uk/cyclists/insight-cyclists

I like lending my copy to anti cyclist motorists I meet, it's harder for them to argue with advice from such a well respected motorists organisation than from any other source. Just the offer of a loan is often enough to shut them up, but at least one has read it and come away with a better understanding :)
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by PH »

Raph wrote:Yes, waiting for traffic to move, then taking a place in the queue, preferably with a nod from whoever I'm merging in front of...


You keep referring to this as merging, but to me it's changing lanes. You seem to be in the left turn lane and want to be in the straight on one, any merging would have taken place before you got to that point.
Out of interest, where did the other cyclist go?
Raph
Posts: 636
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 8:14pm
Location: Banbury

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by Raph »

PH wrote:
Raph wrote:Yes, waiting for traffic to move, then taking a place in the queue, preferably with a nod from whoever I'm merging in front of...


You keep referring to this as merging, but to me it's changing lanes. You seem to be in the left turn lane and want to be in the straight on one, any merging would have taken place before you got to that point.
Out of interest, where did the other cyclist go?

The highway code refers to it as merging in the bit about changing lanes. I've already quoted this above: "In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily. Merging in turn is recommended". When changing lanes you have inevitably to leave the previous lane and merge with the new one if there is already traffic on the new one. I don't see the contradiction. And neither does the highway code.
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by PH »

Well I don't know the road or the road markings, but at some point I imagine that the two lanes with the two purposes becomes obvious. Not merging at this point is using the inside lane to overtake, this is against all the advise and against the rules in the HC. At the start of the clip, you're in the wrong lane for the direction you want to go, are you not?
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by Vorpal »

PH wrote:Well I don't know the road or the road markings, but at some point I imagine that the two lanes with the two purposes becomes obvious. Not merging at this point is using the inside lane to overtake, this is against all the advise and against the rules in the HC. At the start of the clip, you're in the wrong lane for the direction you want to go, are you not?

I think he's filtering? Which doesn't fall under the 'no undertaking'. I don't know that particular junction. It may well be safer to filter on the other side, but there may also not be space, or there may be a narrow lane on the other side with oncoming traffic?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by PH »

Vorpal wrote:I think he's filtering? Which doesn't fall under the 'no undertaking'.

My understanding is that filtering takes place within the same lane and from my viewing it looks like the other lane is being used. Either way, it's a poor place to be at that junction and one I think it would have been better to avoid.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by Bicycler »

PH wrote:
Vorpal wrote:I think he's filtering? Which doesn't fall under the 'no undertaking'.

My understanding is that filtering takes place within the same lane and from my viewing it looks like the other lane is being used.

It's stationary traffic, so not undertaking. It is an adjacent lane, so not properly filtering. It's a left turning lane, so it's against the rules to use this to travel along the queue of traffic in the adjacent lane.
Raph
Posts: 636
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 8:14pm
Location: Banbury

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by Raph »

PH wrote:Well I don't know the road or the road markings, but at some point I imagine that the two lanes with the two purposes becomes obvious. Not merging at this point is using the inside lane to overtake, this is against all the advise and against the rules in the HC. At the start of the clip, you're in the wrong lane for the direction you want to go, are you not?

No. I was leaning to the left as my left foot was one the ground but the rear facing vid (which I haven't managed to crop) confirms I was well within the white line. But I had come in from the left hand lane. To remain in the RH lane throughout I'd have had to stay at the back of the queue of traffic, a couple of hundred yards back. But the one lane splits into two, so I DIDN'T change lanes to overtake on the inside, I stayed on the inside and therefore ended up in the inside lane, but I appreciate that to anyone at the front of the queue, that's academic. If a car had done that then tried to cut in, it would have been insanely cheeky, and in giving way the guy would have lost one place in the queue - so it would have been fair enough for him to get annoyed.

The other cyclist did the same as me, one place back, but the lorry behind her (another artic) just let her in cos he's a proper grown-up, like every single driver for the last 20 years we've lived around here. However what I'd say she did considerably better than me was waiting outside the lane to get consent from the lorry driver, rather than stick herself in front of him.

Decades ago I remember the highway code suggested getting off the bike for difficult right turns, crossing the road on foot and starting again, dunno if it still does. I think I might use that a lot more now, though motorists do occasionally get really miffed if I get off at a red light, walked 5 yards and get on again!
Raph
Posts: 636
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 8:14pm
Location: Banbury

Re: "Merging" onto a lane? & resulting road rage...

Post by Raph »

Bicycler wrote:
PH wrote:
Vorpal wrote:I think he's filtering? Which doesn't fall under the 'no undertaking'.

My understanding is that filtering takes place within the same lane and from my viewing it looks like the other lane is being used.

It's stationary traffic, so not undertaking. It is an adjacent lane, so not properly filtering. It's a left turning lane, so it's against the rules to use this to travel along the queue of traffic in the adjacent lane.

Fair enough! PS where does it say so? (not quibbling, just like to see the wording)
Post Reply