Saw Someone Purposefully Blocking Queue Jumper (s) in Heavy City Traffic. Kind of Liked It

[Deactivated] on 08/04/2018 - 00:56
Last edited 08/04/2018 - 11:42 by 1 other user

As so often happens in city traffic some sort of bend the rules and all sense of right and wrong/ethics/morals/conscience go straight out the window by… can I call the more egotistical/self-absorbed of society.

I was in traffic last week and noticed someone was very obviously blocking queue jumpers by sort of being (lagging?) in 1.5 lanes for the duration of a long stretch that came into a single lane.

I have to admit, I kind of liked it. It was sort of like forcing those who are… conscientiously challenged to wait like the rest of us. Made me wonder what other road users thoughts might be on witnessing such.

Hoping to keep it light, just curious. :O)

Automotive

Comments

  • knobbs on 08/04/2018 - 02:39
    +57

    I too get satisfaction watching this happen and then the people trying to cut in get all worked up at them. Why I feel this way I'm not sure, maybe some justice is what gets me off?

    • knobbs on 08/04/2018 - 17:49
      +4

      Wanted to reiterate that I was talking about motorways/highways when it comes to a standstill with saturated traffic. People at the front of the mergin queue have been merging 1 to 1 at a certain point. Then someone behind them thinks they should jump ahead and go around onto the shoulder to get around them and push into the motorway at the latest possible moment.

      Traffic lights its completely different, I would say go for it.

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/04/2018 - 19:51
      +4

      I'm so glad I no longer drive….

    • cameldownunder on 09/04/2018 - 11:38
      -8

      When was that? Could be me. I normally exit the queue who gets merged in, and drive parallel to the car who was in front of me, to merge back behind that car at the merging point. The car who was behind me before I changed lane does understand what I am doing

      • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 12:23
        +2

        The problem with vigilantism is that not everyone exercises sound judgement.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 13:21
          +3

          Take these two for example:

          https://youtu.be/51epGAms9Jc

        • cameldownunder on 09/04/2018 - 14:14

          @Scrooge McDuck: Yes that was the wrong thing to do, the 2 queues were for the Exit to the left, traffic in direction of Manchester was free. Not the same ha having 20 or more cars pushing in from the left side in the space of 200m.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/04/2018 - 19:32

          @Scrooge McDuck: hope this guy gets reported.

  • Euphemistic on 08/04/2018 - 07:11
    +59

    Well I’m the other way. Traffic works better if both lanes are used until the end and then everyone merges one for one. ‘Blocking’ is a stupid idea and only necessary because driver can’t cope with merging and think that they must get to the other lane or they’ll miss out.

    Call me a queue jumper, but seriously, if there is 100m of free left lane why did they build it?

    On the flip side though, love it when someone moves over to block queue jumpers that are using the shoulder.

    • Quantumcat on 08/04/2018 - 08:01
      +21

      It doesn't work any better, the two lanes have to become one eventually, so whether traffic moves gently forward at the same speed the cars are going to go once it becomes a single lane or moves faster then comes to a standstill as people fight about who is merging where, the same number of people are going to get through on the single lane at the same speed. By blocking the queue jumpers it is fairer in addition to traffic moving at the exact same speed it would have anyway.

      • tomsco on 08/04/2018 - 08:07
        +14

        But when traffic lights are involved, it may mean getting an extra 5 people through before a red.

        as people fight about who is merging where

        Exactly. Too much arrogance on the road is the problem. Just because it’s not a zip merge, doesn’t mean you can’t treat it like a zip merge.

        • Quantumcat on 08/04/2018 - 10:30
          -2

          If there's a traffic light involved that's true, but people would be able to see that and probably wouldn't be blocking queue jumpers (unless they're trying to be a pain). And in any case there's unlikely to be the left side free because people can see the traffic light and want to get through it. Rather than being polite and waiting their turn.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 08/04/2018 - 18:11
          +2

          @Quantumcat:

          2 objective advantages of cutting-in come to mind:

          1. Where one person wants to get ahead more than the other, cutting maximises social utility. Some drivers are just inattentively cruising on the road, others have an urgent deadline to meet. This is the same concept as triage in emergency rooms.

          2. When one vehicle is more nimble than the other, cutting saves time for all. Some vehicles like trucks and Camrys leave huge gaps in traffic, so a more nimble vehicle can move into that gap and eventually back out if it, rather than queuing up behind and adding to congestion.

        • Cheemeister on 08/04/2018 - 20:25
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          In cases where the movement of traffic can be described as a queue, I don't think either of these points justify queue jumping.

        • Mrbean007 on 08/04/2018 - 20:52

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          vehicles like trucks and Camrys leave huge gaps in traffic

          Love cutting in really cant stand people leaving huge gaps half the time
          these same morons are on the phone not watching traffic :/

        • Slippery Fish on 09/04/2018 - 08:22

          @Quantumcat: I only ever take the left at lights if it's about to change, then I can go around and don't have to slow down.

        • cameldownunder on 09/04/2018 - 11:41
          +5

          @Scrooge McDuck: "like trucks and Camrys leave huge gaps in traffic"
          Maybe because they weigh several tons, and need more space to brake to keep the brakes cool so they have brakes left when they really need them?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 12:07
          +6

          @cameldownunder:

          They also accelerate a lot more slowly and get left behind by the traffic in front. So in that case they don't need braking room.

          .

          The same applies to trucks.

        • cameldownunder on 09/04/2018 - 12:37
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck: they slowly accelerate to 50, then need to brake because of the queue and some smart driver comes in in front of the truck, behind the queue and just robs the truck of 10m of breaking space.
          Another issue with this changing lane hysteria, is that cars wanting to change lane are leaving big gaps ready to pounce out, slowing the traffic even more.
          Additionally all this changing lanes only adds additional stress when drivers already stressed.

      • Blitzfx on 09/04/2018 - 01:57
        +19

        No, you're incorrect. Multiple research on traffic has shown last minute merging is the best. https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/rude-drivers-who-merge-at-t…

        Another paper has shown that there's benefits to both scenarios depending on the type of road and level of congestion.
        For most scenarios, it's better to merge late.

        Key Findings
        For the Interstate work zone, the early-merge scenario was found to make speeds more consistent and reduce both queue lengths and queue stops. It made merging smoother than the real-world scenario. It did, however, decrease speeds upstream more and pushed the queue farther away from the merge point. It was modeled based off a perfect scenario where all drivers would merge early, which in real life would most likely not be the case, so results in the real world would not be expected to be as great.
        The late-merge scenario also improved operations for the Interstate work zone, by decreasing travel time, queue lengths, and queue stops. Speeds at the merge point were lower than with the real-world scenario, which is a potential safety benefit.
        For the urban work zone, only the late-merge scenario was tested. It was found to decrease operations by slightly increasing travel time, and all queue lengths.
        The real-world merging behavior for this work zone greatly resembled the early-merge strategy, which saw improved operations compared to the late-merge strategy for the Interstate scenario. This may help to explain the decrease in operations seen with the late-merge strategy at this work zone.
        The early-merge strategy was not tested for the urban work zone as the majority of drivers already merged early with none merging within 200 feet of the merge point.

        Conclusions
        Overall, both the early-merge and late-merge strategies were found to improve operations and to smooth flow at the merge points in the work zone. Queue lengths, which pose safety concerns if
        xi
        they extend too far upstream, because they can surprise drivers who are not expecting or aware of the work zone ahead, were decreased in both situations.
        The early merge was found to be a good option when there was moderate congestion as it smoothed speeds and had shorter queues and travel times than the late-merge or real-world options. If vehicles increased, however, this option could extend queues farther upstream, which could result in longer queues.
        The late-merge option did improve operations over the real-world scenario and may have been a better option if more vehicles were present.

        It also depends on how many lanes there are and how many trucks etc. there are. Again for most cases, late merging is better as a blanket rule.
        www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/05-r6.pdf

        ABSTRACT

        Several alternative lane merge strategies have been proposed in recent years to process vehicles through work zone lane closures more safely and efficiently. Among these is the late merge. With the late merge, drivers are instructed to use all lanes to the merge point and then take turns proceeding through the work zone. Its efficiency has been tested on only a limited basis. The purpose of this project was to determine when, if at all, deployment of the late merge was beneficial.

        The late merge concept was evaluated by comparing it to the traditional merge using computer simulations and field evaluations. Computer simulations included analysis of 2-to-1, 3-to-1, and 3-to-2 lane closure configurations to determine its impact on throughput and the impact of factors such as free flow speed, demand volume, and percentage of heavy vehicles. Field tests were limited to 2-to-1 lane closures, as recommended by state transportation officials, and examined the impact of treatment type on vehicle throughput, percentage of vehicles in the closed lane, and time in queue.

        Results of the computer simulations showed the late merge produced a statistically significant increase in throughput volume for only the 3-to-1-lane closure configuration and was beneficial across all factors for this type of closure. For the 2-to-1 and 3-to-2 lane closure configurations, the late merge increased throughput when the percentage of heavy vehicles was large.

        Field tests showed similar trends with regard to throughput. Although throughput increased, the increase was not statistically significant because of the limited number of heavy vehicles at the site. More drivers were in the closed lane, indicating a response to the late merge signs. Time in queue was also reduced, although the reductions were not statistically significant.

        The authors conclude that the late merge should be considered for 3-to-1 lane closure configurations but not until a sound methodology for deployment has been developed and tested in the field. For the 2-to-1 and 3-to-2 configurations, the late merge should be implemented only when the percentage of heavy vehicles is at least 20 percent.

        The impact of the number of trucks / heavy vehicles confirms what Scrooge McDuck had said earlier about merging late.

        https://www.workzonesafety.org/training-resources/fhwa_wz_gr…

        The early merging strategy advises drivers to move out of the closed lane well before the forced merge point and before traffic breaks down. To avoid congestion, the early merging strategy works best when there is a low traffic volume on the road combined with high average speeds.

        The late merging strategy works best when the road has a high traffic volume and low average speed due to congestion. Drivers are instructed to remain in their respective lanes until they reach the designated merge point. This ensures that both lanes are being used to their full capacity, and traffic flow is smooth by minimizing unnecessary lane changes. Once at the merge point, late merging encourages an alternating merging style, or zippered merging, in which cars take turns moving into the open lane.

        It should be pointed out that nobody is complaining about slow traffic and congestion in low traffic & high average speed scenarios so we can presume to omit those results from this discussion.

        Please remember to reverse the lanes when reading the papers because American roads are on the opposite side to Australia.

        Due to the number of people being negged with opinions that align with what's been proven by research, I have to call you out that it's people like you and everyone else who upvoted you in the name of road etiquette / social fairness etc. that are slowing down traffic.

        • This Guy on 09/04/2018 - 04:46
          +1

          Yes, it would move the chock point forward, but there has to be some advantage to use the left lane.

          Using a lane for advantage is socially unacceptable when their is a queue.

        • AddNinja on 09/04/2018 - 08:19
          +3

          I’m aware of this research, but honestly, I’d rather a slower queue where queue jumpers are punished than faster queue where queue jumpers are rewarded. I guess that’s called bloody mindedness :)

          I notice too that this sort of bloody mindedness has been seen in apes too. So any analysis that ignores it is perhaps focused a little narrowly.

        • mskeggs on 09/04/2018 - 09:41
          +4

          @AddNinja:
          There is also behavioural research that shows your preference is widely held. People would rather a smaller personal reward equal to others than a slightly larger one if it means somebody else gets an outsize reward.

        • Beanvee on 09/04/2018 - 11:17
          +3

          @AddNinja: If both lanes are utilised properly though the other lane wouldn't be queue jumpers because both lanes would be equally occupied.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 12:26

          Due to the number of people being negged with opinions that align with what's been proven by research, I have to call you out that it's people like you and everyone else who upvoted you in the name of road etiquette / social fairness etc. that are slowing down traffic.

          Unfortunately, the truth isn't always popular.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 12:28

          @mskeggs:

          There is also behavioural research that shows your preference is widely held. People would rather a smaller personal reward equal to others than a slightly larger one if it means somebody else gets an outsize reward.

          Yet another disadvantage of democracy.

        • AddNinja on 09/04/2018 - 17:02

          @Scrooge McDuck: I disagree. There are many reasons why taking a smaller, but fairer, reward might be a better outcome for an individual in a wider context. Sure, maybe everyone takes a little longer to get through the intersection. If that is all you consider, the system is sub-optimal. But more broadly, we punish those who queue jump, making them wait even longer, and we enforce social norms about turn-taking being good, and cheating being bad. Finally, by people acting together in this way, they are creating a community - rather than a free for all. And social cohesion like this has lots of benefits. Man. I just reinterpreted my bloody mindedness as the most noble of things ;)

        • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 19:16

          @AddNinja:

          Society shouldn't punish an individual for acting in the interests of society. Nor should it presume that an individual who acts unfairly in a case where it is strictly preferred, will do also in a case where it is not. Lest it mistake informed altruism for exploitation.

          A better strategy is to punish unfairness only when it is detrimental to society, rather than your all-encompassing approach.

      • supersabroso on 09/04/2018 - 18:44
        +2

        Mate it definitely works better, because the engineers designed it to merge exactly at that location for the optimal effect.

        They didn't just randomly choose the merge location. The later traffic merges, the better it is to reduce traffic at key bottlenecks like traffic lights and on/off ramps.

        It's not up to you to be an idiot and think that you're smarter than the road design engineer.

      • stumo on 09/04/2018 - 18:54
        +1

        It does work better because it has been deigned to work that way. Having everyone in 1 queue makes that queue twice as long and that means it is stretching beyond where it was designed to go. That could make the tail of the queue go close to a blind bend or crest, which is outright dangerous.

        I try to slow down to a crawl and merge nicely. By the time I'm at the final merge point the traffic is flowing constantly without the stop start BS that is caused by people racing up and merging last minute. By crawling in the merge lane it prevents that from happening and also prevents the main queue getting too long.

    • tomsco on 08/04/2018 - 08:05

      Agreed. Civil planners would have done far greater research to determine where a lane should end.

      As you mentioned, it’s because the quality of drivers on the road and their inability to merge that leads to issues.

    • stueyh on 08/04/2018 - 14:22
      -7

      The left lane is for slow vehicles like trucks and buses to move in to when there is light traffic, so that when they're going up the hill at 30km/h in a 60 zone, they're not holding up traffic, it's not for self important people who believe they're the only ones that need to get home in a hurry to just scoot past the other vehicles doing the right thing maintaining their place in the queue of traffic

      • Euphemistic on 08/04/2018 - 14:25
        +6

        Quite often the left lane can be used the same as the right lane in an urban setting. There is no need to keep left on a 60km/h road.

      • whooah1979 on 08/04/2018 - 17:41

        The left lane is for slow vehicles like trucks and buses to move in to when there is light traffic, so that when they're going up the hill at 30km/h in a 60 zone, they're not holding up traffic,

        not in nsw. trucks are not required to use the left lane unless there signs instructing them to do so.
        https://www.google.com.au/search?q=trucks+use+left+lane+nsw&…

    • JoJoker on 08/04/2018 - 20:46
      +2

      On the flip side though, love it when someone moves over to block queue jumpers that are using the shoulder.

      This, although from the outset seems great, could be a very stupid thing to do. What if someone's dying on the backseat?

      • WhyAmICommenting on 09/04/2018 - 19:23

        There's a good reddit on this. Interesting read if you can find it. Something about a lumberjack or similar worker

    • OzzyOzbourne on 08/04/2018 - 22:04
      +2

      IF everyone merges 1 to 1…almost never happens

      • Euphemistic on 09/04/2018 - 08:00

        IF everyone merges 1 to 1…almost never happens

        Becuase people are stupid. Many cant see the bigger picture and think that they'll be late because one car gets in front of them.

        • mezje on 09/04/2018 - 09:22
          +2

          People are stupid yes but most importantly people are entitled. Everyone has somewhere to be and everyone wants to get there as fast as possible. Nobody wants to let the dude who skipped 6 car lengths up the left lane in…

          Traffic would 'flow' better if people entered the left lane once the right lane became too full and merged 1:1 but that almost never happens.

        • Euphemistic on 09/04/2018 - 10:32
          +2

          @mezje: we have a set of lights near Home that has a lane merge shortly after. So many times I see a queue in the right lane and nothing much in the left. The left lane will slip through the lights while the right gets stopped. It doesn’t make any sense.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 12:38

          @Euphemistic:

          Many people lack initiative and exhibit herd behaviour — sheeple. They're here on OzBargain too!

    • lostn on 10/04/2018 - 22:32

      It's for people coming from a different lane, e.g. turning left out of a shopping center and merging. If you weren't coming from the shopping center's exit, you shouldn't be in that merging lane. You're just using it to push in which frustrates people who waited in line. There are legit uses for that lane.

      • Euphemistic on 11/04/2018 - 10:08
        +1

        There is a point where it changes from queue jumping to using the road as intended. If there are only a few cars, then racing up the spare lane is queue jumping. Once the queue gets longer than maybe 6 cars, then both lanes should really be utilise and zipper merging should occur. Of course this also depends on the traffic volumes, if there arent' any extra cars coming behind you, then it makes sense to join the end of a 'reasonable' queue. If there are another dozen cars comig behind, then moving down a vacant lane and zipper merging helps the flow.

        • lostn on 11/04/2018 - 16:21
          +1

          Here's what happens to me every day leaving work in peak hour. It's not a merging lane, so different scenario, but same concept. Turning right has a lane dedicated to it, but it's a very busy lane for turning right. There's high volumes of cars wanting to turn right, but when the lights are green for turning right, only a few get to go before it's red again. Going straight has 4 lanes, and the traffic moves fast. When the lights are green, those lanes pretty much get emptied. But there is still that long queue for turning right. So a driver who wants to turn right sees a massive queue and decides to enter the rightmost lane for going straight which is empty of traffic, then goes right up to the front and turns his indicators on, telling everyone in the long queue he wants to turn right also but doesn't want to queue up like everyone else. Do you think that's a douchy thing to do, or is he just using the available lanes as intended? If it's ok to push in, what even is the point of queueing up? Everyone should just go to the front via the straightward lane and just push in, expecting people to let them in.

          When someone does this to me, I always tailgate the car in front of me to not give them an opening to enter. And usually they toot me and give me the bird, as though they are entitled to push in just because they went to the front and indicated. Do you think they're being entitled, or they're just using the resources available to them that they should be using? Btw, by being at the front of a straightward lane and wanting to turn right, they're also holding up the traffic behind them. Other cars who are using the same lane to continue straight as was intended for the lane are now blocked and have to wait for them to successfully enter the turning lane, or avoid the lane completely and put more congestion on the other lanes.

          Would you let the person in, if you queued up for 15 minutes and saw someone skip the queue, go to the front, and expect you to let them in?

          If there was a car accident or a car with mechanical failures in front of them, fair enough. I always let them in. But if I see someone cheating I'm not letting them in. Why shouldn't they have to queue up? We all did. What makes them special?

        • Euphemistic on 11/04/2018 - 19:53
          +1

          @lostn: your example isn’t a merge nor an intended use of the lane. It is not really applicable to the discussion of blocking a merging lane.

  • whooah1979 on 08/04/2018 - 08:30
    -1

    obviously blocking queue jumpers by sort of being (lagging?)

    Please don’t block traffic in this manner. Some motorists may feel good about themselves for 30 sec while they block traffic, but may not realise that their behaviour is petty.

    Queue jumpers that motorists like to call them are using the roads as it is designed.

    • mskeggs on 08/04/2018 - 10:12
      +9

      I merge at the end of the lane, but the shoulder extends all the way to the intersection. The mergers who do the wrong thing cross the terminating solid lines and merge at the last possible point. They are both inconsiderate, as they make everyone who did the right thing wait a little longer so they can jump ten car spaces, and breaking the law.
      If I see this happening while I am waiting to merge, I will delay completing my merge so they can’t come past me, as the OP suggests. I risk a fine for having a couple of wheels over the line, but I’ll live with it.

      The flip side, which is also annoying, is people who merge far too early, adding traffic delay unfairly to the continuing lane. I don’t know why this happens except I suppose people get sick of waiting and see a crack.

      The best thing would be if everybody zipper merges where the lane ends, every time.

      • whooah1979 on 08/04/2018 - 10:19
        +2

        I will delay completing my merge so they can’t come past me, as the OP suggests.

        There is nothing wrong in what you’re doing. Op is referring to motorists that drive on the line to block traffic. Their vehicle will in effect block two lanes.

        That how I read op’s comment.

        obviously blocking queue jumpers by sort of being (lagging?) in 1.5 lanes for the duration of a long stretch that came into a single lane.

        • RockyRaccoon on 08/04/2018 - 11:44
          +1

          Correct, also if you read carefully. The OP says "a long stretch" so its not the same as mskeggs is talking about.

          I read mskeggs as talking about, those who when the lane ends, continue on the shoulder.

          In that case moving over to block is a different situation.

          The OP by stating it was a long stretch before the lane ended, is in my opinion telling us that the blocking driver was being real (profanity), not the car that was travelling legally down the left lane.

          Just because the blocking driver had made the decision move into the right lane that was slower at some point well before the actual merging of the lanes, does mean that others have to follow their action.

          You cold liken this to those who drive in the right lane at stopping others from passing on a freeway, because they are doing the speed limit.

          BTW look at this for some interesting variations

          https://www.lawanswers.com.au/threads/car-accident-and-unusu…

  • John Kimble on 08/04/2018 - 08:36
    +6

    Love it. Have done it myself a few times in the past. Wife hates it, thinks only a matter of time when one person snaps and I'm a victim of road rage one day, so have stopped doing it and just accepted that there will always be (profanity) queue jumpers.

    • mskeggs on 08/04/2018 - 10:14
      +5

      There is an intersection I use where this is visible all day.
      If I am ever terminally ill, I will get a pistol and patrol that intersection for civility until the police reluctantly drag me away. I expect the grainy news copter footage to describe me as crazed traffic hero.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 08/04/2018 - 18:18
        +1

        So is the threat of long lasting repercussions the only factor which precludes you from violence?

        • mskeggs on 08/04/2018 - 19:09
          +4

          Sometimes.
          There are decisions society makes that I disagree with, but go along with because I value the other things society delivers.
          I sometimes daydream of a situation where I could flout society's rules or conventions without repercussions.
          And without the moral concerns I would hold for myself.

          So I can think about robbing a bank, spending the money on buying a Caribbean island and gathering a bevy of beautiful women.
          But I don't rob the bank because it is the wrong thing to do, and there would be very likely negatives.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 08/04/2018 - 19:38

          @mskeggs:

          I sometimes daydream of a situation where I could flout society's rules or conventions without repercussions.

          You mean like an attractive woman, wearing a bra, no top, walking around in broad daylight?

          So I can think about robbing a bank, spending the money on buying a Caribbean island and gathering a bevy of beautiful women.

          What if you felt guilt for traumatising the individuals and stealing from the stakeholders in the bank?

          What if you felt apathy for the ease at which you acquired a substantial property and a lack of future challenge?

          What if you felt unloved and exploited by the women you attracted with money?

        • mskeggs on 08/04/2018 - 21:49

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          Indeed.

          there is a reason most things remain daydreams.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 08/04/2018 - 22:39

          @mskeggs:

          So even when motivated solely by self-interest, one can make choices which do not harm others.

        • mskeggs on 09/04/2018 - 09:39

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Ultimately, everyone is motivated by self interest, even if it isn't clear at the first degree. If you follow the bible, it is because you believe god wants you to do so, with accompanying rewards and punishments aimed at your self interest.
          If you follow a philosophy like stoicism or hedonism, you are aiming to maximise your tranquility or pleasures, because they produce positive intrinsic rewards.
          If you buy flowers for a pretty girl, at the least you feel pleasure from the pleasure they give her.
          If you spend money it is the utility you seek that rewards the self.

          All the things you do via coercion because they bring you no individual joy - queuing at the ticket barrier, paying airport prices for a drink, not turning right when it is safe but sign-posted against - ultimately flow from self interest derived from either the satisfaction of being part of a well ordered society or the fear of unpleasantness should you get caught.

          Sometimes, though, people poorly judge their self interest, either over estimating immediate rewards and discounting longer term drawbacks (interest free deals, committing crimes, having affairs), or maybe I am wrong, and they are happily behind bars, paying off 6yr old TVs and having a fling.

          So my original comment, had the day dream carefully structured so that I could break the law with little prospect of severe punishment, because I was already at death's door, allowing my self interested satisfaction at stopping people breaking the rules to overcome my self interested avoidance of punishment.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 12:46

          @mskeggs:

          Most vices can be boiled down to either over valuing the short-term versus the long-term/an inability to delay gratification, or sheer stupidity. And the former boils down to the latter.

        • belongsinforums on 10/04/2018 - 13:37

          @mskeggs: like the guy who killed his friend, mother, posted a confession on Facebook then offed himself yesterday

    • John Kimble on 08/04/2018 - 10:50

      To clarify I don't do it to the lanes that end, that's different and acceptable. I do it to people going straight in a left turn only lane.

    • papachris on 08/04/2018 - 20:55
      +4

      +1 - have done it before too at certain merging places in Sydney. I see it as "Etiquette Enforcement" rather than Morals Enforcement…

  • RockyRaccoon on 08/04/2018 - 08:40
    +8

    So some road vigilante decides to enforce their own stupidity on the rest.

    Obviously we weren't at the actual scene but as others above have noted, some merge too early, then want others behind to do the same. Now the traffic banks up behind traffic lights and the traffic gets even worse.

    At what point do these merge vigilanties start. Should you go back to when the traffic first slows down? or the car in front merges?

    I have these idiots block both lanes well before one of the lanes on a freeway exits, because after the exit, there is a merge back, so in the attempt to stop the car that merges back it also stops the cars that intend to exit.

    In essence when Merging and the lane ends and you have to cross LANE LINES you give way to the car in the other lane, even if it is behind you. (how far behind is another point)
    If you are merging and there are no broken lines , the car in front gets the right of way.

    See NSW example for pictures

    http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/lane…

    An issue is, if you dont normally travel the road then what type of merge will you find at the end.

    Merging early in most cases means crossing the broken lane lines, so ironically you are forcing your way into traffic and the car in the other lane doesnt need to let you in.

    Unfortunately while one or two here might realise to makes more sense to merge when the lanes merge, as the road planners designed, most dont understand.

    As our roads get more congested, so do the rules.

    • whooah1979 on 08/04/2018 - 08:48
      +1

      Merging can be tricky for school run or Sunday drivers. This link may help.
      https://www.rsc.wa.gov.au/Rules-Penalties/Browse/Merging

      • RockyRaccoon on 08/04/2018 - 08:57

        Yes thats a better explanation than the link I used.

        Another advantage of your link is that in the animation, you can see that the point of merge where the left lane has "right" of being the first car, is when the lane markings dont exist. Thats where the lanes themsleves merge. where is you "merge" early you have to cross the broken lines, and as such will need to give way to the car in the right lane.

        However like all circumstances, if everyone is truly in a "hurry" have an accident even though you might be "right" slows you down somewhat.

  • tranter on 08/04/2018 - 09:16
    -2

    Don't know why people get so upset about queue jumpers and such little matters in life. I think the use of the words "egotistical/self-absorbed" might be misdirected.

    • Hardlyworkin on 08/04/2018 - 10:15
      +6

      Because it comes down to simple manners, waiting until it's your turn. I hate bad manners!

      • tranter on 08/04/2018 - 11:32
        +2

        People who take trivial things so personally on the road need to ask themselves: Why is it that I respond with such strong feelings? Why do you respond so strongly to what you call simply bad manners?

        I guarantee if these people take a trip to a place such as the Philippines and drive around for a week, very little will bother them on Australian roads ever again.

        • outlander on 08/04/2018 - 11:50
          +10

          One type of negative behavior is often taken as general indicator of a 'bad' person. The same person who roars past in you the queue like you're an a$$hole you can also imagine taking up two seats on the train, talking on their phone at the cinema, borrowing money from friends and never paying it back, driving drunk then doing a hit and run..

          Why wouldn't you want to make that guys life as hard as possible?

        • Hardlyworkin on 08/04/2018 - 11:59
          +4

          Because getting annoyed is a normal human reaction. I am not a robot. I've driven on plenty of roads in developing countries, that doesn't prevent me from getting annoyed by drivers when I'm living in Australia. I adjust accordingly to the conditions I encounter.

          I get annoyed by people with bad manners though don't react in any road rage type way as I'm a decent citizen.

          I also get annoyed by people who don't offer their seat on the train to people in need and by fellow pedestrians who look at their phone instead of where they are walking.

          I see a big difference between being annoyed and overreacting.

        • tranter on 08/04/2018 - 12:00

          Why wouldn't you want to make that guys life as hard as possible?

          Go for it if that's what you aspire to. I've got other priorities where I wish to channel my energy and time.

        • tranter on 08/04/2018 - 12:03
          +1

          @Hardlyworkin:

          Fair enough. I do think in general people need to look at the bigger picture. People do take things too personally on the road for whatever reason.

          Since driving overseas, a lot less bothers me on Australian roads these days.

        • Penalty boxer on 09/04/2018 - 11:10
          +1

          @tranter:

          After my experiences of traffic in various countries in Asia (China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand), I have become very appreciative of Australian/Western road etiquette. As someone who was born in China, I think the way we drive in Asia is just ridiculous. We're not nearly as good as drivers in Germany, but I prefer Australia road etiquette over the road etiquette in Asia.

        • R-Man on 09/04/2018 - 16:48

          @lostix: What's actually wrong Asian road etiquette though?

          I haven't experienced China but I have visited a south asian country last month and many times before. Their traffic and road etiquette is what Western countries would describe as mad. No one consistently keeps in their lane, no one uses indicator, no one gives way (only takes way), because over there every driver is trying to get to their destination as selfishly as possible.

          Guess what the result is? there are no accidents because everyone is on alert and knows the exact dimensions of their vehicles, there are barely any periods of stand still traffic because every driver takes their opportunities to get ahead, and there are no road ragers nor are there sensitive ego's like we have here demanding "manners". I loved it. In contrast it makes Melbourne drivers seem so, so petty to me.

        • tranter on 09/04/2018 - 17:34
          +2

          @R-Man:

          Loved your comment R-Man. I experienced the same in Southeast Asia and you summed it up perfectly. Driver's are so sensitive over here, I just don't get it.

          I think it's a reflection of the society we live in. People are so wound up they'll beep you for the most petty things on the road, as if it's some sort of personal attack on them.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2018 - 19:09
          +2

          @R-Man: "there are no accidents"

          ..except the road toll per capita/per km travelled is multiples larger than in Australia

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r…

          Some highlights..

          ..road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants: Australia 5.4, Thailand 36.2 (~7x)

          ..per 100,000 motorvehciles: Australia 7.3, Indonesia 36.7 (~5x)

          ..per billion kms travelled: Australia 5.2, Malaysia 12.6 (~2.5x)

          ..total fatalities: Australia 1252, China 261,367 (200x, with ~50x the population)

        • R-Man on 09/04/2018 - 20:03

          @lghulm: what? There actually are more accidents on a macro level empirical basis? My few anecdotes didn't broadly brush all these countries? I for one am flabbergasted ;)

          but you're right of course and I chose my words poorly :) What I am comparing with in my comment is the amount of minor rear end kinda accidents that cause congestion and inconvenience. I know I should have specified that, my bad.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2018 - 23:34

          @R-Man: No - I don't disagree with your sentiment… I have family from Thailand & have spent a fair bit of time in Asia.. I'd chalk up the attentiveness you note as a positive, just more than offset by poor driver training (many "purchase" licenses with no formal training!) & lack of education re:road going consequences of things like speed, drink driving, driving tired etc.

          Whether there are more or less minor (non-lethal) accidents is an interesting question probably insurers have the best stats! Other relevant factors would be road types/conditions, safety barriers..

        • Penalty boxer on 09/04/2018 - 23:48

          @R-Man: I used to think that there were almost no accidents (anecdotal) in Asia, but the stats show that we kill far fewer people in Australia

        • R-Man on 09/04/2018 - 23:52
          +2

          @lghulm: aw yeah very good points - and the cars wouldnt have any roadworthy standards either which might lead to more single vehicle accidents. I know out in rural/mountain roads where dodgy cars' brake failing lead to horrible accidents.

          I guess we can take some lessons from these countries in being attentive and having less petty attitudes to improve our traffic, but still appreciate the standards we have of roadworthiness and licencing that keep us safe.

        • R-Man on 10/04/2018 - 00:01

          @lostix: Yeah, I admit I "enjoyed" one aspect of lawless behaviour (good traffic flow) while forgetting the consequences of widespread lawlessness (like no licencing, overloading cars, no roadworthy).

          Though I still maintain i wish we would learn a little from Asian driving attitudes of being more attentive to the cars around you, not getting personally offended if someone weaved ahead of you, and taking more (safe) weaving opportunities yourself to improve traffic for everyone.

          small example: If a left lane is ending, stay in it until the very end. even if ya feel a bit of discomfort in zip merging. You allow more people behind you to come onto that road and we all get to our destinations quicker. people wanna stay comfy so they just pile up the right lane and leave me stuck behind a traffic light unnecessarily.

        • belongsinforums on 10/04/2018 - 13:40
          +1

          @R-Man: no accidents? Surely you haven't been on asian roads enough.

        • R-Man on 10/04/2018 - 17:30

          @tomkun01: See my other comments.

        • belongsinforums on 10/04/2018 - 18:46

          @R-Man: saw a car cut in half yesterday on a highway in china. Passenger side completely mia. Rip

    • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 13:01

      Don't know why people get so upset about queue jumpers and such little matters in life.

      Because it's quicker and easier to react emotionally rather than after rational thought — an evolutionary shortcut.

      • R-Man on 09/04/2018 - 16:49

        Enjoyed reading your comments here mate. Totally agree.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 21:44
          +1

          Thanks for your feedback. It's nice to be appreciated. :)

  • Ace Ventura on 08/04/2018 - 11:16
    +23

    I take a stretch of open highway to work each day, 110km, free flowing traffic at all hours.
    For a period of time vicroads had multiple large sections of road blocked off down to 1 one lane and 80kmh. They were not ripping up the road, they were installing those road side barriers, so large portions of road blocked off, but unused on the weekends, no workers vehicles stored there.

    During these works I saw multiple drivers weave between the bollards and drive on the blocked off portion of road so they could over take trucks. On one occassion I was listening to the truckies over the CB talking about a bmw driver doing just this. Said driver then passed me and continued in the closed lane to pass multiple other vehicles.

    After a couple kms, the driver needed to get back into the moving lane to get around a trailer left in the blocked part of the road.

    The chatter over the radio turned to "keep him waiting" "block him in" "what a tool" as all the trucks positioned themselves nose to tail with the next, the few car drivers among them knew what was up and played their part. Couple minutes up the road I passed the bmw still waiting to merge back into the traffic, must have been 30 or 40 vehicles that all ensured he paid the price for being an ignorant twat.

    • Quantumcat on 08/04/2018 - 16:03
      +3

      That's awesome

    • denuto on 08/04/2018 - 21:59
      +1

      treating driving as a team sport is to be encouraged!

  • naplutetium on 08/04/2018 - 11:24
    -3

    I don't understand why people think that blocking traffic is better than flowing traffic?

    There are studies which show that zip-merging (what you call queue jumping) reduces crashes, speeding and congestion. It reduces the length of queue and when nobody has a perceived advantage, the potential for road rage is reduced.

    I would suggest that you Google the subject and hopefully it will change your opinion.

    • Quantumcat on 08/04/2018 - 16:04
      +3

      It isn't zip merging, it's when there's a bunch of people waiting their turn to merge and someone drives past all of them and forces their way in down the end.

    • Cheemeister on 08/04/2018 - 20:36
      +3

      Zip merging is great.

      Queue jumping is not cool.

      • naplutetium on 08/04/2018 - 22:33
        +3

        Don't get me wrong, the situation described above by lowlife is indeed queue jumping and is indeed not cool. I was not responding to that. Cars taking emergency lanes is not cool either.

        I was referring to people trying to merge into another lane which doesn't become a single lane yet for many meters and block one lane doing so. Instead they should zip merge later on. When this car finally merges and the lane becomes unblocked, others who continue to drive on the now empty lane are often seen as queue jumpers.

  • outlander on 08/04/2018 - 11:37
    +4

    Thought about doing this myself, but there's a few problems.

    Number 1 is the lack of information - is there a left turn up ahead that the cars are taking? Some legitimate reason drivers might use that lane without impacting traffic up ahead? With so many SUVs on the road now, its very hard to see whats happening. Unless you know the road well, you might be doing more harm than good.

    Number 2 is the potential repercussions. I'd want to have multiple dashcams running and be prepared for some action. The same people who feel entitled to jump the queue are often the same ones likely to start a fight.

    Really though, when you step back and look and it it's an issue with the system, not the users. These people are jerks, sure, but if the roads where functioning as designed you wouldn't notice them. There's simply too many cars on the road.

  • Cheemeister on 08/04/2018 - 20:40

    There are some situations - thankfully not too common - where there is an obvious queue, and where motorists are forced to make a decision between the a$$hole lane and the looser lane. I hate having to pick between those two options!

    • Scrooge McDuck on 09/04/2018 - 13:08

      So the ones who straddle both have loose assholes?

      • Cheemeister on 09/04/2018 - 15:47

        Yes, and inasmuch as they are the target of much abuse and I wouldn't want to be one, I, like the OP, appreciate their contribution to the greater good.

        Oh, and I should have written loser, sorry!

  • DiscoJango on 08/04/2018 - 21:35
    +10

    was on the monash fwy in peak hour traffic, im in the left lane. i can see in my rear view someone blatantly driving up the emergency lane, so i proceed so take up half the left lane and half the emergency lane. the guy was cursing and flipping me off, i just waved and continued to block him. #FairGo #Straya

    • love2buy on 09/04/2018 - 18:37
      +3

      Maybe it was a real emergency

      • DiscoJango on 09/04/2018 - 20:51
        +1

        nah, can easily tell a douche bag queue skipper from a real emergency.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join