To be so annoyed with other drivers 'waving' me on

[TheresaVGreen]

I am quite happy to wait until a natural break in traffic to continue with my turning right manoeuvre thank you. I do not need you to come to a complete stop for me (which is dangerous and against the Highway Code), holding up everyone behind you, to then wave me on and get frustrated with me when I don't immediately take you up on your kind 'offer'.

I think I'm almost getting to the point where I am simply not going to move when I am waved on, and wait for the other driver to continue driving.

AIBU to be frustrated with drivers who take the rules into their own hands like this?

I'm talking about a slip road on to a dual carriageway where the traffic is at a standstill or very slow

My previous disclaimer are more like merges than sliproads I agree with normal rules of merging then - be reasonable, be safe, don't cause a problem for others. The Staring Ahead People are just determined to be right, and fuck everyone else.

And my long rant seems very, well, ranty. It's not directed at anyone and I didn't mean to sound superior or The Authority

Oh, I do love a good driving thread.

I both wave people on and respond to them waving me on. I treat it as an invitation, not a command. I don't go immediately if there's a reason not to.

I have to turn right off a main road, in a place where oncoming traffic is never required to stop, at both ends of my commute. At the home end I'm turning across two lanes, so one person stopping for me is often not good enough reason to proceed.

So I'm tempted to say it's a complete non-issue and wonder what the OP problem is.

I do think there is gender-specific behaviour when it comes to negotiation by gesture though. In the OP scenario of turning-right-across-traffic, I notice women drivers don't make eye contact and let me through, it's generally men who do it. I wonder if there's a converse thing, that certain men will stop for women in circumstances where they wouldn't for a man, when it isn't safe or sensible. I'm a man, so that might explain why I've almost never experienced problematic courtesy. (Though when I do, it doesn't bother me, I just don't accept the invitations I don't want.)

On balance, I think the OP is probably in the wrong, for treating the wave as an instruction rather than an invitation. It's never crossed my mind that anyone else thinks they're in charge of what my car does next.

Or, as I had last year (maybe longer), the dickhead driver who, well before the merge point, drove straddling the central line of the two lanes to prevent those "naughty" drivers on the right unfairly grabbing a place further up the following queue than they should "rightly" be

If you ever travel on the A303 you'll know that there are a lot of places where two lanes merge into one. Sometimes lorries straddle the two lanes to try to get people to merge earlier and speed things up. I don't know what's better - to have two lanes fully utilised and merging, or get everyone into one lane further back. I think it depends on the volume of traffic. But I can understand why those who do get into the right lane further back get annoyed with those who push in further up. There are some places where they specifically tell you to use both lanes though.

I've been driving 26 years and often leave gaps to let people cross when turning right, or let people out of junctions or similar.

Never had an accident or misunderstanding about what was meant by the waving on gesture - it's blatantly obvious in most cases.

And complete pricks who , in a que of slow moving traffic, will insist on sitting half a mile behind the car in front. trundling along at 5mph so they can feel they are more in control. Yet all this does is create more congestion

No it doesn't. If I have to keep stopping and starting, that creates more congestion than driving at a constant slow speed.

And you have to anticipate knobbish behaviour like this as you approach a joining slip Road usually by moving lanes well in advance Yes, I'm in the middle lane well before the sliproad

In an ideal world maybe. Not very easy when someone is flying along the middle lane at 90mph though and takes no notice of what's happening in front of them. Or the middle lane is simply congested. It's very often the case that you simply can't move over.

Actually, I'm not sure that temproarily slowing naturally by lightening your right foot - perhaps in anticipation of a potential hazard - is a massive problem.

I agree. This isn't a problem. The problem is them slowing down, forcing other people to avoid them all the while flashing at you who is braking on the slip road in order to merge behind them. It's so unbelievably dangerous.

I do sometimes get annoyed at people who drive at 5mph to the end of stopped traffic, rather than getting there quicker and stopping, because they are robbing me of the opportunity to adjust either the music or satnav, or rearrange my testicles. Just because you don't want to be stopped for a moment doesn't mean the people behind you don't have things they want/need to do.

(And I say that as someone who drives more gently than my car: the adaptive cruise control accelerates and brakes more sharply than I do, so it's not like I'm addicted to stop-go.)

But I can understand why those who do get into the right lane further back get annoyed with those who push in further up

It really winds me up when traffic is clearly merging & there's always at least one idiot that zooms past everyone else & tries to get let in half a mile down the road. Do they think everyone else is merging just for shits & giggles? Pricks.

really winds me up when traffic is clearly merging & there's always at least one idiot that zooms past everyone else & tries to get let in half a mile down the road. Do they think everyone else is merging just for shits & giggles? Pricks.

Aren't you meant to merge at the last moment, right at the end before the lanes merge?

If you're merging half a mile before the lanes merge then isn't that a waste of road?

(May be misunderstanding or explaining badly here!)

I don't know what's better - to have two lanes fully utilised and merging, or get everyone into one lane further back

All traffic flow models I've seen cited in blogs/articles state that you utilise both carriageways to the point of merge, then zipper merge. This is the most efficient way to keep traffic moving.

But it relies on those in the left lane not being arses.

It really winds me up when traffic is clearly merging & there's always at least one idiot that zooms past everyone else & tries to get let in half a mile down the road. Do they think everyone else is merging just for shits & giggles?

Yes. Why else have you switched lanes too early? There's no reason for it and traffic moves better if everyone uses both lanes to the point on merge.

I can't know other people's preferences but I know mine & 99% of the time I appreciate being let out or waved on etc so I do the same.

Sorry if that annoys people but not being let out occasionally annoys me so swings & roundabouts.

And it relies on the road conditions up ahead being such that traffic is able to keep moving - which the right hand lane drivers don't always take into account as they act like arses by trying to push in at the last minute.

Why, when two lanes merge, is it the right hand lane drivers that are "pushing in"? Even the Highway Code says to merge in turn. Go Google some traffic studies on the efficacy. And all of them acknowledge how counterintuitive it is. But it works.

And what of the left hand laners causing a massive tailback and preventing people leaving the carriageway before the merge point?

But we're British, we queue.

You can buy bumper stickers that tell others you are a zip merger

I'm working on the basis that it's the right hand lane that's closed and that it's not blocking an exit (although if that's the case you should really be paying more attention to road signs and move over in plenty of time in order to exit). It could just as easily be the left hand lane that pushes in - depends on which lane is closed. I have no need to google - I've been driving for 27 years over many hundreds of thousands of miles, and I'm well aware of how it works in reality.

Queuing is a wonderful thing - embrace the order, rather than ,sigh>!

even

Yanbu. I don't budge until I have the right of way and the space. I used to work for one of the emergency services and took advanced driving lessons so I don't muck about.

If someone wants to wave me across I ignore them. I've had other drivers get visibly shitty with me when I won't move. If they want to ignore the highway code I'm letting it be their problem.

A colleague was involved in a serious accident after being waved across. I never risk it.

But why the assumption that whichever driver is in the "wrong" lane is at fault for using the "wrong" lane to its maximum capacity? If two lanes merge into one, I don't usually see that either driver necessarily has a priority over the other - we are both using two lanes on a road, and those two lanes are about to become one, let's deal with it.

The most efficient way to deal with it for ALL road users, as has been demonstrated by initiatives around the world and is now codified in our own Highway Code, is to merge in turn - this means use both lanes such that there are cars in each taking turns. The obvious exception is when there is no bottleneck at the merge, in which case there's no problem switching lanes early, because all traffic is flowing freely through the merge.

This method - use both lanes to merge point then merge in turn, reduces traffic queues by 50%.

It just goes against the grain of many drivers' approach to driving, which is that no one is getting past them, the boy-racing, cheeky wotsits.

There is a call for increased signage to direct traffic to use both lanes and merge in turn. Would you obey those signs? Would you still get cross if you chose to switch early and I obeyed those signs?

Did you miss my post of 13:11?

And it relies on the road conditions up ahead being such that traffic is able to keep moving - which the right hand lane drivers don't always take into account as they act like arses by trying to push in at the last minute
This? What's your point?

If the traffic ahead is at a standstill/crawling, both lanes behind the merge are going to be clogged. In that case, there's even less rationale for the "open" lane driver to think the driver merging from the "closed" lane is getting a jump on them.

My point is that the "right hand lane" drivers aren't acting like arses, nor are they "pushing" in - there is no such thing in a zip merge.