*** wouldn't let me on to the m50!

pvt.joker

easyontheeye wrote: »

of course.

so ....if the slip lane had proceeded for the length of the M50 would you have stayed in it the whole way if traffic was slow moving as you say it was?

Own up OP , you were queue skipping. You came on here looking for sympathy but you haven't gotten any so now you're backing down on your statements.

Drivers, in particular on the M50 are sick of chancers who do things like that, and personally I love seeing them being blocked off, they often end up losing any "advantage" they have gained due to being stuck at the end of the slip waiting for a gap.

Turbodreams

i wouldn't have let you in either if you were trying to skip as many cars as possible by travelling up the slip road!

easyontheeye

pvt.joker wrote: »

so ....if the slip lane had proceeded for the length of the M50 would you have stayed in it the whole way if traffic was slow moving as you say it was?

Own up OP , you were queue skipping. You came on here looking for sympathy but you haven't gotten any so now you're backing down on your statements.

Drivers, in particular on the M50 are sick of chancers who do things like that, and personally I love seeing them being blocked off, they often end up losing any "advantage" they have gained due to being stuck at the end of the slip waiting for a gap.

looks like your off the same cut as that woman...we may duel in the future

and nope wasnt Q skipping.

OldmanMondeo

easyontheeye wrote: »

looks like your off the same cut as that woman...we may duel in the future

and nope wasnt Q skipping.

You not gone yet, or where you block off at the exit...:eek:

easyontheeye

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

You not gone yet, or where you block off at the exit...:eek:

didnt get a chance so had to continue on alittle longer ...

pvt.joker

easyontheeye wrote: »

looks like your off the same cut as that woman...we may duel in the future

we may , and I'll block you off if you try pulling that stunt again

Fair play to the woman I say.

trellheim

Legally, if you go beyond the hatched joining section you are driving illegally on the hard shoulder or am I wrong ?

hawker

pvt.joker wrote: »

so ....if the slip lane had proceeded for the length of the M50 would you have stayed in it the whole way if traffic was slow moving as you say it was?

Own up OP , you were queue skipping. You came on here looking for sympathy but you haven't gotten any so now you're backing down on your statements.

Drivers, in particular on the M50 are sick of chancers who do things like that, and personally I love seeing them being blocked off, they often end up losing any "advantage" they have gained due to being stuck at the end of the slip waiting for a gap.

If the slip road is the length of the M50 he is still entitled to drive to the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I cannot see a problem with that.

And believe me, I hate people who skip queues.

Vertakill

I take this stretch of road everyday but I'm confused to whereabouts exactly the OP is talking about.

The Ballymount slip road becomes the left lane of the M50, which leads onto another slip road. Were you driving all the way up this lane and she stopped you getting into the middle lane?

When I'm taking that route I go down the slip road and as soon the complete line becomes dotted, I merge onto the middle m50 lane because if you don't merge (and you stay in your lane), you're stuck in a long bottleneck queue.

Zube

hawker wrote: »

And believe me, I hate people who skip queues.

I dislike queue jumpers, but I realize that there will always be rude and selfish drivers. What I hate are the Good Samaritans who let the @#%*s in at the head of the queue.

pvt.joker

Zube wrote: »

What I hate are the Good Samaritans who let the @#%*s in at the head of the queue.

+1


If people would stop letting them in then this sort of ignorant selfish behaviour would stop overnight.

easyontheeye

Zube wrote: »

I dislike queue jumpers, but I realize that there will always be rude and selfish drivers. What I hate are the Good Samaritans who let the @#%;*s in at the head of the queue.

seems i cant escape this thread...

so if you dislike people joining at the end and at the start, when is acceptable?

-Chris-

There's a natural time to join, you can feel it in your bones. When you get the feeling of "wey-hey, I'm making up loads of room here" you've probably gone too far.

Merge in turn.

P.S. people will say you have the right to travel all the way to the cones before joining the main carriageway, but I'm not addressing the legalities of it, I'm worried about the manners involved and consideration for other drivers.

dade

easyontheeye wrote: »

seems i cant escape this thread...

so if you dislike people joining at the end and at the start, when is acceptable?

eh? they said they hated the people that skip teh queue and those that allowed you to skip the queue?

you get this behavior a lot on the M1 just past the airport as people want to get onto the M50 you'll even see them cutting in at the last minute straight over from the over taking lane straight across to the slip road for the M50/N32 same again at the port tunnel coming in at the last minute to head into whitehall. just once I'd love to see one forced into the tunnel to pay the €12 might teach the sod a lesson.

Balfa

I know I'm setting myself for a thrashing now...

I don't know where all this "queue jumpers" thing came from. That tarmac's there for a reason. I use as much as I can for the benefit of everyone. The benefits of what you call "queue jumping" aren't quite as apparent when joining a motorway as they are when one lane of a dual carriageway is closed for roadworks. Check out my amazing diagram below of a portion of dual carriageway (or motorway) that's been closed down to one lane:

================-----===============
   *

If we imagine there are all sorts of signs to merge beginning at *, and everyone "courteously" merges as soon as possible at that point, you're effectively shutting down the motorway hundreds of metres (if not kilometres) too early, and wasting all that usable driving space.

You effectively end up with a road that's closed as follows:

===------------------===============
   *

This means the road is at half capacity for over three times as long as it should be, increasing EVERYONE's journey time.

What I do is drive all the way up until the lane ends then get in. I don't cut people off, but I do leave it to what I consider to be fairly late to jump in, and I always find a gap because, if traffic's moving slowly, there are always eejits who aren't ready or aware enough to accelerate when the car in front of them does so, in fact I'm not even slowing anyone down*, because the cars behind the innattentive person have to wait for them anyway.

Alright, it doesn't make as much difference as above to wait an extra 50 metres in everyday motorway-entering, but the principal still applies.

And while there are certainly selfish aspects to it - I don't care to be stuck behind someone who's inattentive and not enthusiastic about keeping traffic moving - I don't feel bad about it because I know it improves overall traffic flow. And if you're on the motorway, still a km from reaching the junction, completely oblivious to what I'm doing up ahead, I've actually just made your commute (almost imperceptibly) shorter, rather than longer. And you're welcome

Finally, just to add insult to feigned injury, I'm also one of your "Good Samaritans" who let's the "jumpers" in


* - Okay, technically when all the spaces in the traffic even out, you have been slowed by the simple fact that there's an extra car on the roadway, but that's never as frustrating as being slowed because the idiot in front of you doesn't start moving when they should.

craichoe

IMO The Queue jumpers and the Anti Queue Jumping vigilantes are both wrong.

People shouldn't jump queues but people shouldn't go blocking cars off either.

Everyone should just take it easy and not let tempers get the better of them.

If your that annoyed report the driver to traffic watch, besides their going to get ... what .. 7 - 8 cars in front of you ? ... How much faster are they going to reach their destination. I mean, i've had a Porsche pass me out doing 220km/h plus on the AutoBahn and then later catch up with him 10 km down the road while i'm only pootling along at 160 km/h.

This driver justice and blah blah blah he's jumping the queue i'm not letting him away with that is why Irish drivers are bloody dangerous.

On top of that, driving up the a*se of the person in front of you Increases the starting and stopping and slows everyone down further.

In a jam, let the traffic merge ffs

easyontheeye

support has arrived

Vertakill

I'm gonna have a look at this now in a couple hours when I'm heading home, just to clarify things.
THEN I'm going to abuse you when I get home. :P

Zube

Balfa wrote: »

I don't know where all this "queue jumpers" thing came from.

It's simple: in your diagram, the speed of traffic is determined by the speed after the constriction to one lane. Queueing in two lanes does not speed that up at all for anyone. It can't.

The only way anyone can get through faster is if most of the drivers obey the signs and merge and queue in an orderly fashion, and people like you skip to the front and barge in. You save some time, you slow all the people behind you down.

If we all did it your way, we would fill both lanes, and then have to merge right at the cones, one car from each lane. This would be more likely to cause a complete stop at the cones than a merge further back, which is why the signs tell us to merge earlier, and most non-idiots do so.

pvt.joker

AudiChris wrote: »

people will say you have the right to travel all the way to the cones before joining the main carriageway

To those people I would say this. Fine. Drive to the end of the cones.

But that means that people already ON the road have the right to keep going and block you from coming on.

Works both ways.

pvt.joker

dade wrote: »

just once I'd love to see one forced into the tunnel to pay the €12 might teach the sod a lesson.

They wouldn't pay it. They'd probably start reversing backwards out of the tunnel like that idiot did before, I think a video of it was shown on the news.

craichoe

pvt.joker wrote: »

To those people I would say this. Fine. Drive to the end of the cones.

But that means that people already ON the road have the right to keep going and block you from coming on.

Works both ways.

Damn Queue jumpers !

Alun

Zube wrote: »

If we all did it your way, we would fill both lanes, and then have to merge right at the cones, one car from each lane. This would be more likely to cause a complete stop at the cones than a merge further back, which is why the signs tell us to merge earlier, and most non-idiots do so.

If you're talking about a roadworks situation where two lanes merge into one, then that is exactly what should happen IMO. It matters not a hoot where the actual merging takes place, and a well-defined place, such as just before the point where the cones are is at least unambiguous. It's also what is required by law in many European countries now along with the requirement that everybody merge in turn (zip merging). There's usually a sign at that point saying "Merge now".

The problem with the way it's generally done here, and in the UK too, is that the position where everyone merges, and beyond which anyone else trying to merge is considered by the other self-appointed guardians of the law to be "a queue jumper" is purely arbitrary, and generally tends to drift further and further back from the merge point as time goes on.

If we're talking about a slip road, it's a different can of worms altogether though.

easyontheeye

i remember gay byrne on matt cooper today fm advocating to use the full length of the slip road!!

cabrwab

Im defending the OP here as he seemed IMHO to do the right thing, you get at the ballymount exit people trying to merge as soon as the hatch markings end, which is stupid proceed to the end and zip merge, traffic moves, yeah people need to stop thinking themselves as Judge Dread here, you do when on the main carriage way have right of way but to proceed block a gap in slow moving traffic is stupid and selfish.

I hate queue jumpers but its always going to happen, give them the one finger salute and the end of it!

If the op was proceeding up to the cones not to cut or jump but genuinely merge in turn its fine to keep traffic moving.
However if he was bobbing in and out of traffic to get home quicker well.....

But the righteousness in this place jebus !!

Zube

Alun wrote: »

If you're talking about a roadworks situation where two lanes merge into one, then that is exactly what should happen IMO. It matters not a hoot where the actual merging takes place, and a well-defined place, such as just before the point where the cones are is at least unambiguous. It's also what is required by law in many European countries now along with the requirement that everybody merge in turn (zip merging). There's usually a sign at that point saying "Merge now".

Cones and a zip merge will cause a total stoppage at lower traffic volumes than a more gradual merge. It is better to keep traffic moving, even slowly, than to have it stop, and then start again. If drivers would show some sense and courtesy in merging gradually where the signs tell us to, we'd all win.

I also think the current queue jumpers would cheat on the zip merge, too, bullying nervous drivers into giving up their spot, and then one whole lane charging through stymying the other.

peasant

Zube wrote: »

Cones and a zip merge will cause a total stoppage at lower traffic volumes than a more gradual merge.

Zip merge works perfectly IF people actually know what they're doing. Both lanes slow down before the obstacle, gaps between cars are gradually increased and you line yourself up with the gap in the other lane into which you then move / stay if you're not changing lane

End result is one sweet continous flow without stoppages.

If people merge before the obstacle and at varying places, the spacing of the cars doesn't work and you get interrupted flows with people speeding up and slowing down (or even stopping) all the time.

Balfa

Zube wrote: »

It's simple: in your diagram, the speed of traffic is determined by the speed after the constriction to one lane. Queueing in two lanes does not speed that up at all for anyone. It can't.

I don't really understand. Are you talking about the speed of traffic (i.e. the speed of an individual car) or the total throughput of the roadway (which is more directly related to journey times, which are what people actually care about)?

If we all did it your way, we would fill both lanes, and then have to merge right at the cones, one car from each lane. This would be more likely to cause a complete stop at the cones than a merge further back, which is why the signs tell us to merge earlier, and most non-idiots do so.

While that can certainly happen, you'd have to be a fairly incompetent driver to consistently come to a complete standstill. And of course we have to accept that there are incompetent drivers, and there's nothing we can do about that. So I wouldn't urge everyone to merge at the very last second. But I would urge people to merge as late as they feel comfortable doing, taking into account safety and their driving ability. And if you skip five people to do so, take heart in the fact that the five hundred people behind them will all get home a little sooner.

Alun

Zube wrote: »

Cones and a zip merge will cause a total stoppage at lower traffic volumes than a more gradual merge. It is better to keep traffic moving, even slowly, than to have it stop, and then start again.

No need to stop and start ..why should they? Just slow down to the prescribed limit and merge in turn where it says so. Anyway, a lot of (practical) research and trials in the countries where this technique is mandatory (such as the Netherlands) has apparently shown this not to be the case, hence its adoption there.

Zube

Balfa wrote: »

I don't really understand. Are you talking about the speed of traffic (i.e. the speed of an individual car) or the total throughput of the roadway (which is more directly related to journey times, which are what people actually care about)?

I'm talking about cars per minute through the constriction. There are two things happening:

1) Cars are travelling through the bottleneck in a single line.
2) Cars arriving at the bottleneck are queueing up to enter it.

If traffic volumes are really low, you may not notice part 2, but we are talking about a situation where queuing is happening.

Using both lanes right up to the bottleneck (using all of the tarmac, as you suggested) does not speed up the cars on the single lane section, and does not increase the number of cars per minute through the bottleneck, and doesn't reduce travel times.

What it does is make the queue stretch a shorter distance from the obstruction, and reduces the distance in which traffic slows down to a queue. This really does mean the queue is more likely to stop completely, and a stoppage to ripple back away from the obstruction. A more gradual merge, signposted further back along the road, means more time for the traffic to slow into an orderly queue, which is why that's the way the authorities here signpost things that way.

And if you skip five people to do so, take heart in the fact that the five hundred people behind them will all get home a little sooner.

Traffic through the bottleneck goes no more quickly or slowly no matter how the queue is organized. You skipping five people means those five people are slower, no-one else is affected either way.