 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I've deliberately not read this thread, I'm not sure my blood pressure can take it.
Basically people do that because they are MORONS!!!!!!
I think the average throughput is the same no matter what, it's just that people taking advantage of those who merge early don't benefit.
The throughput is but you've just added a kilometre to the size of the blockage for absolutely no reason.
Simple really?! But it seems many just don't get it.....
Totally get it. Just don't get why you should be able to jump ahead of people who don't. Oh, hang on a minute, is it...
... because "you know best"
Is that what it is? 🙂
Pondo, you're not doing anything useful at all, you're just making sure that you're not "beaten" by someone who had a different idea of which point to merge.
And given that you chose your point arbitrarily, and they chose their point as determined by the road layout, decided by highway works planners, who's being the ****?
The throughput is but you've just added a kilometre to the size of the blockage for absolutely no reason.
The speed of the traffic through the blockage hasn't changed whatsoever. The queue of traffic behind may be longer but there is no difference to the speed at which it traverses the obstruction.
Is that what it is?
Nope, it's the Highway Code
The line is where those bright orange cones are. That's what they're for. It's really not difficult.
The trouble is, the cones are brighter than the drivers who block a lane because they think they know best.
As has been said - lots of people choosing their own merge point "because anyone going in the empty lane any further than, errm, let's say *here* would be a *." is going to lead to a lot of disagreement because there are loads of different people choosing their own point. The point at which [b]they[/b] feel anyone would be a bit of a * to continue beyond.
A [b]really[/b] obvious way of negating all of this ill-feeling is for everyone to use the same point. Ideally this would be really easy point to choose that everyone could agree on, that would be utterly objective.
Any ideas?
Pondo, you're not doing anything useful at all...
Not to the people in the unblocked lane, no. But to the people in the other two lanes, they've all getting through the blockage quicker.
exactly:
you're just making sure that you're not "beaten" by someone who had a different idea of which point to merge
people who've picked the point determined by highways works planners rather than any number of self-righteous "here's about right"ers.
And given that you chose your point arbitrarily, and they chose their point as determined by the road layout, decided by highway works planners, who's being the ****?
I merge at the merge point - I just don't sprint past as many cars as I possibly can before I get there. Sorry.
Totally get it. Just don't get why you should be able to jump ahead of people who don't.
How strange.
Totally get it. Just don't get why you should be able to jump ahead of people who don't. Oh, hang on a minute, is it...
... because "you know best"
Is that what it is?
No. Not in the slightest.
I get to the pinch point and then I merge, the reason I do that ? Because I can read and I've looked at the Highway Code, and understood it.
As it happens, if it were just me and you, talking about this subject... then yes, it would appear I do know best.
But that's just a happy coincidence.
I merge at the merge point - I just don't sprint past as many cars as I possibly can before I get there. Sorry.
No, I'm sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you blocked traffic to stop people merging at the merge point, rather than at some point further away? honestly, I think I've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere, probably not read the whole thread carefully.
If you merge at the merge point, and travel at an appropriate speed for the road conditions ahead until you get there, I don't know why there's been a disagreement?
How fast is "sprinting" in a car on the motorway?
I get to the pinch point and then I merge
Heeeey, me too! 🙂
pondo - Member
The throughput is but you've just added a kilometre to the size of the blockage for absolutely no reason.The speed of the traffic through the blockage hasn't changed whatsoever. The queue of traffic behind may be longer but there is no difference to the speed at which it traverses the obstruction.
This kind of response sums it up really. It's point scoring pedantry. It really isn't anything to do with efficiency of traffic flow, it's about whether someone is one car ahead of you or not. And instead of admitting they're irritated by someone 'beating' them (cos that would make them look like a winging dick) they try and argue a point of semantics. Pathetic.
This happens regularly on the way to work, with some arsewipe blocking the outside lane a mile before the merge point causing a tail back across two other roundabouts, therefore affecting people who don't even want to go down the sodding road they're blocking anyway. Bellends.
Just don't get why you should be able to jump ahead of people who don't.
Because those people have as vague a grasp of The Highway Code as you do. Nothing's stopping them, or you, from using the other lane other than their own ignorance and sheer bloody-minded belief that everyone else is queue-jumping.
THC rule 134 if you want to look it up.
How fast is "sprinting" in a car on the motorway?
I'd say any car in an empty lane trying to "beat" the cars in two blocked lanes to the merge point is sprinting. But I guess it's a matter of personal opinion.
I'd say any car in an empty lane trying to "beat" the cars in two blocked lanes to the merge point is sprinting. But I guess it's a matter of personal opinion.
It's not though. It's a matter of the Highway Code.
But I guess it's a matter of personal opinion.
Which is perfect and we should be grateful that we're allowed to have differing opinions.
What I don't understand is why you think you have the authority to lay down a "law" that you have invented by pulling out and blocking traffic that is otherwise moving freely.
Are there any other situations that you will do your own thing because you believe it to be right?
I'd say any car in an empty lane trying to "beat" the cars in two blocked lanes to the merge point is sprinting. But I guess it's a matter of personal opinion.
Oh please, you can't really believe this surely? Are you serious suggesting the outside lane should be empty? For how far back? Where is acceptable to start pulling in? Utter nonsense.
Blockers and tutterers are annoyed that they haven't got the sense to stick to the emptier lane. Lorry drivers often move into the lane they need to be in early when they get the chance rather than risk getting stuck - then in these merging lanes decide to be Judge Dredd and block the way for others. Anyway, long may all this last as saves me quite a bit of time some journeys.
Pondo> The queue of traffic behind may be longer but there is no difference to the speed at which it traverses the obstruction.
Yeah and it may back onto a slip road with a roundabout or a roundabout directly where the closure is on a dual carriageway in which case you're now causing inconvenience to other people who have NO intention of even going your way (even those going in the opposite direction). Selfish git.
Of course all those disagreeing on merging properly who read this have the chance to change their ways and benefit - if they can deal with the frowns from those they pass?!
Don't know if anyone has done this analogy but,
Imagine your on the London underground, the 'merge point' is a ticket gate thingy at the top of an escalator. The way it works (as far as I know) is you can 'queue' patiently on one side while others rush down the other side to get there before you. Now imagine stepping to the left and standing still to block the people 'pushing in'? you'd last a matter of seconds before someone has challenged it. This process is accepted by millions on the underground, what is it with these morons that can't manage it on the road?
I've you don't want anyone passing you, get in the other 'lane' and start moving until you get to the merge point!! It's not a difficult concept.
Unless of course you want to make it difficult purely for the purposes of arguing about it.
Not to the people in the unblocked lane, no. But to the people in the other two lanes, they've all getting through the blockage quicker.
Except, they're not, because they've chosen to all pack into one lane miles earlier than they need to rather than use the available road.
Traffic flows better, smoother and faster when there's more space around vehicles. If that wasn't the case, motorways would only need one lane. By artificially reducing the width of the road unnecessarily early you're causing even more congestion. In effect, you're increasing the length of the roadworks / obstruction and adding to the overall congestion.
You need to get away from the idea that these are separate queues of traffic and people are pushing in to the front of one queue from another. That's not what's happening. It's [i]one[/i] queue [i]two[/i] (or more) lanes wide. You can and should use both lanes (though not at the same time, nobby 🙂 ).
If the two lanes were going to different places then you'd be absolutely right, then they're two separate queues and people steaming down the outside would be queue-jumping. But they're not, so you aren't.
Doesn't always work though
Maybe he should have waited until the very last moment then he would have just hit a car.
or maybe we should adopt the Russian method
Merging only works when all parties participate. Matching speeds, allowing space for the merging car to enter and not leaving it until the last moment to get to the front of the queue.
I get to the pinch point and then I mergeHeeeey, me too!
But before you get there, you cause an obstruction to an otherwise free flowing lane.
You are no better than a lane 2-3 hogger.
By now, you will have read the relevant part of the Highway Code no doubt, and realised you are wrong, but will more than likely continue to argue otherwise, which would be typical of the sort of driver who feels the need to incorrectly "police" other people in the first place.
Merging in turn is only a recommendation in the highway code, perhaps this is part of the problem. The highway code also tells us what lane dividers are and that we should keep between them and that if you cross broken white lines to change lanes you should give way to traffic in the other lane. This gives the impression to the queuers that they have the power over those in the closing lane whether or not to 'let' them in.
Compulsory merge in turn signs for such roadworks and a redesign of how a lane closure ahead is displayed on gantry message signs etc would go a long way to ease the problem for all. Quite simple really, I do not know why it hasn't been standardised as of yet.
Signs don't solve the problem because people think they know better. I've seen the queue vigilantes doing their thing as they crawl past a sign the height of a double-decker with letters 2 feet high saying USE BOTH LANES YOU BELLENDS (I made up the last bit but it should've done)
Merge in turn is what the highway code says. It doesn't say where to merge, but it does say "in turn". You can't merge a moving lane and a stationary lane. If everyone merged at the end, fine, but once a queue has built up, you can't merge at the end. So you merge, in turn, where you can. Then, when you've already merged, in turn, you get drivers who passed the point where others were merging, and are trying to merge OUT of turn. Why is is surprising that people get frustrated?
Roadworks near me has signs saying use both lanes (fine) - then 400m from the end (not AT the end), has signs saying "merge in turn". And again 300m from the end. Which just adds to the confusion. If there were clear signs saying "merge HERE" it would fix the problem.
I can see both sides - but the most telling point to me is the abusive language which nearly all the posters who support merging at the end apply to those who would like to take turns. Calling other people names is the usual approach taken by people who know they have a weak argument, or are just plain aggressive. And as bike riders we know that aggressive driving is bad.
The cones are the sign.
I think that is the only bit of what you wrote that I agree with.Merge in turn is what the highway code says
Pondo, instead of sitting there frothing about other drivers using a clear lane, why don't you just use the clear lane? If everyone who moaned just joined the other lane, the problem would be instantly resolved as both queues would be roughly the same length.
He's had you lot over. Gotta be a troll 😀
I hope you are right but there really are people out there like this with a driving licence.Gotta be a troll
He's had you lot over. Gotta be a troll
Is blocking a lane like he advocates the driving equivalent of trolling?
More like real life Big Hitting jambo, your first post was another great example.
You only get kudos for doing it online tho.
Got to do something to liven up the 303.
Signs don't solve the problem because people think they know better. I've seen the queue vigilantes doing their thing as they crawl past a sign the height of a double-decker with letters 2 feet high saying USE BOTH LANES YOU BELLENDS (I made up the last bit but it should've done)
But that's exactly what they're doing, using both lanes. Simultaneously. (-:
Merge in turn is what the highway code says. It doesn't say where to merge, but it does say "in turn". You can't merge a moving lane and a stationary lane. If everyone merged at the end, fine, but once a queue has built up, you can't merge at the end. So you merge, in turn, where you can
Both lanes are near-stationary next to the cones. Even if a queue has built up in one lane and not the other, at those cones both lanes are the same. Further back however, it's often exactly what you describe; a stationary lane and a moving one. I'm glad you agree that merging there is a bad idea.
Except, they're not, because they've chosen to all pack into one lane miles earlier than they need to rather than use the available road.
Chosen to, or were in the far lane anyway, or are in a vehicle not allowed in the open lane (for my theoretical example, I'm using the outside lane of a three lane motorway as the closed lane - obviously, LGVs and towing cars can't go in it). Pedantry, I know, but... 🙂
By artificially reducing the width of the road unnecessarily early you're causing even more congestion. In effect, you're increasing the length of the roadworks / obstruction and adding to the overall congestion.
See, I honestly don't think I am - throughput is totally limited by the blockage, for my money the effect I am having is slowing the outside lane down with a corresponding increase in the speed of the inside and middle lanes, so the average speed of the traffic whether I'm there blocking the outside lane or not is exactly the same, the limiting factor is the blockage.
Two points - firstly I totally accept that where the congestion can (or potentially can) back up to effect junctions or roundabouts preceding the congestion, that's a whole different story, I'd only do something like this on a stretch of motorway or dual carriageway. Secondly, I'm not trolling, I don't do it to wind people up and I'm not being obtuse (at least, not deliberately!). I'm not dismissing anyone's argument out of hand, I just haven't been persuaded yet. 🙂
But before you get there, you cause an obstruction to an otherwise free flowing lane.
With a corresponding increase in the speed of two other lanes, yes.
You are no better than a lane 2-3 hogger.
Yeah, well - think that if you will, I ain't gonna waste my time trying to change your mind.
By now, you will have read the relevant part of the Highway Code no doubt, and realised you are wrong, but will more than likely continue to argue otherwise, which would be typical of the sort of driver who feels the need to incorrectly "police" other people in the first place.
If it's that rule 134 you're on about,I had a look at that, it says get into lane as directed (which I do), don't change lanes unnecessarily (which I don't), and merging in turn is recommended (which I agree with). So I'm not sure which bit of that I'm wrong about.
Pondo, instead of sitting there frothing about other drivers using a clear lane, why don't you just use the clear lane? If everyone who moaned just joined the other lane, the problem would be instantly resolved as both queues would be roughly the same length.
I ain't frothing about nothing. 🙂 For sure if everyone merged in turn at the end, it would make life a lot simpler but you know, not everyone does or can use it, just seems a bit rude to go "f*** you" and delay their journey to shorten mine (and I get that it's seconds either way).
That's where you theory breaks down. You are effectively increasing the restriction by making it longer. Surely you can see a 2 mile lane restriction will slow ALL traffic more than a 1 mile restriction?throughput is totally limited by the blockage
Ooo, just seen the end of page 3! 🙂
It's not though. It's a matter of the Highway Code.
The Highway Code specifies what is sprinting in a car on the motorway? Be interested to see the definition.
So I'm not sure which bit of that I'm wrong about.
Code 133 where your lane changing causes another road user to change speed.
A liitle bit of 138 as you move into the overtaking lane and refuse to overtake a bit of 167 where your "overtaking" causes another road user to swerve or slow down and, of course, 169 where your slow moving vehicle is holdingh up others.
You still haven't told me why you think you have the authority to do this or which other areas in life you behave like this.
Selfish drivers take many forms and the selfrighteous are probably the worst as they are unable to learn.
This kind of response sums it up really. It's point scoring pedantry. It really isn't anything to do with efficiency of traffic flow, it's about whether someone is one car ahead of you or not. And instead of admitting they're irritated by someone 'beating' them (cos that would make them look like a winging dick) they try and argue a point of semantics.
well - in this scenario, I'm sitting in an empty lane, if it was about "beating" or "being beaten" I would just drive to the front of the queue and merge, thus "beating" all the cars in the lane behind me.
Pondo - when you go to the supermarket, do you stand in the shortest queue, but refuse to be served until the person at the back of the longest queue is? Or is it just in cars that you act this way?
You still haven't told me why you think you have the authority to do this or which other areas in life you behave like this.
I'm getting to that.... 🙂
Rule 133 - make sure you don't cause another vehicle to change course or speed when you change lane - no, not applicable here...
Rule 138 - keep left when not overtaking - well, I'm alongside another vehicle, so not applicable here...
Rule 167 - don't overtake if this brings you into conflict others - like oncoming or right-turning traffic? Nowt to do with this scenario....
Rule 169 - don't hold up a long queue of traffic. I'll grant you a smidge of relevance to this point but the way it's worded to me (I don't need to ask you to tell me if you think I'm wrong) suggests it's aimed more at single carriageway and vehicles that are unable to make decent progress. I would also say that, as mentioned many times before, as far as I'm concerned I make no change to the average speed of all traffic through the blockage - the outside lane is slowed to the benefit of the middle and inner lanes.
You still haven't told me why you think you have the authority to do this or which other areas in life you behave like this.
Since I'm not breaking any laws, causing any harm or insult, or damaging anything whatsoever, I don't know that I require any authority to act in a lawful way as I please. Of course, if for such behaviour authority is required, you be sure to let me now.
Selfish drivers take many forms and the selfrighteous are probably the worst as they are unable to learn.
The ironing of being accused of selfishness for acting to improve the speed of two-thirds of the traffic approaching a closed lane.
Pondo - when you go to the supermarket, do you stand in the shortest queue, but refuse to be served until the person at the back of the longest queue is? Or is it just in cars that you act this way?
Honestly, I don't see that as a relevant analogy. If it's a supermarket with three tills, and as I'm halfway down the queue of the outside till and it closes, as people in front of me disperse to other queues I wouldn't walk forward to the front of the middle queue and push in, if that's what you mean.
but the way it's worded to me
That says it all.
That's where you theory breaks down. You are effectively increasing the restriction by making it longer. Surely you can see a 2 mile lane restriction will slow ALL traffic more than a 1 mile restriction?
No, it doesn't IMHO - traffic in before the tailback and traffic out after the blockage is the same, and the speed is limited by the blockage. Like I say, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, and I hope I'm not close-minded, but for me the logic says it doesn't make a difference.
yes you areSince I'm not breaking any laws,
yes you arecausing any harm or insult,
yes you are.or damaging anything whatsoever
That says it all.
Be sure and tell me if I've misunderstood.
Since I'm not breaking any laws,
yes you are
causing any harm or insult,
yes you are
or damaging anything whatsoever
yes you are.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, do tell me where.
seriously?! Lets extend the distances to make it clearer. In your scenario a 100 mile motorway with a 99 mile lane restriction will flow just as fast as a 100 mile motorway with a 100 yard restriction. The longer the restriction the more the traffic is slowed. You are extending the restriction.No, it doesn't IMHO
Be sure and tell me if I've misunderstood.
You're using the any information for your own end and rejecting anything else. It's the Highway Code and I'm doing nothing wrong, it's the same Highway Code and I choose to ignore because it doesn't suit my argument.
Pondo - Just out of interest, what are you views on overtaking long lines of traffic?
Relevant supermarket analogy is a large queueing area in front of a single till.
Because people are people, and end up making individual decisions because they're being polite, and wondering what other people might think, rather than what's most practical for the group as a whole, you end up with the ridiculous situation where the queue ends up tailing away from a largely empty queuing area and winding though the aisles and stopping other people getting where they want to be.
What will usually happen is that someone who works for the store will come along and get everyone moved and queuing in the right place, minimising disruption and cloggage in other areas (i.e. roundabouts further away from the closed lane, if you're struggling with the stretching analogy).
seriously?! Lets extend the distances to make it clearer. In your scenario a 100 mile motorway with a 99 mile lane restriction will flow just as fast as a 100 mile motorway with a 100 yard restriction. The longer the restriction the more the traffic is slowed. You are extending the restriction.
Seriously. I'm not sure I agree that that's a correct analogy either (although again I'm prepared - maybe resigned is the right word... - to be corrected) - now, I'm not very good at maths but I'll try and do a number thing. Imagine a 3 lane motorway running at an arbitrary maximum volume of traffic of 36 cars a minute. There's an accident and the outside lane is blocked - all of a sudden the throughput is reduced to 24 cars a minute on the two open lanes but the input is still 36, so traffic is going to back up. All three lanes can opt to share completely fairly and all other things being equal the average speed of incoming traffic will be 8 cars a minute, but if the outside lane takes advantage of people merging early to improve the input speed to, say, 10 cars a minute, the unavoidable conclusion is that the input speed of the other two lanes is throttled to 7 cars a minute. A massive oversimplification, I know.
You're using the any information for your own end and rejecting anything else. It's the Highway Code and I'm doing nothing wrong, it's the same Highway Code and I choose to ignore because it doesn't suit my argument.
I can have a discussion with Nick because he says "I think you're wrong because..." then I can say "I think you're wrong because...". There's a difference between you and him.
Pondo - Just out of interest, what are you views on overtaking long lines of traffic?
In free-flowing traffic? Like on a motorway with no restriction where I'm doing 70 and the inside and middle lanes are doing sixty? Got no problem with that. 🙂
I can have a discussion with Nick because he says "I think you're wrong because..." then I can say "I think you're wrong because...". There's a difference between you and him.
That probably sounded good in your head.
I'm oot as I think you're a simple troll.
Relevant supermarket analogy is a large queueing area in front of a single till.Because people are people, and end up making individual decisions because they're being polite, and wondering what other people might think, rather than what's most practical for the group as a whole, you end up with the ridiculous situation where the queue ends up tailing away from a largely empty queuing area and winding though the aisles and stopping other people getting where they want to be.
What will usually happen is that someone who works for the store will come along and get everyone moved and queuing in the right place, minimising disruption and cloggage in other areas (i.e. roundabouts further away from the closed lane, if you're struggling with the stretching analogy).
Yeah, that's accurate if we're talking about the effect of tailbacks on preceding junctions/roundabouts/traffic lights or what have you. I'd been reasonably hopeful that I'd stated plain enough that I consider that to be a different set of circumstances but hey ho.
You haven't been particularly clear all the way through to be honest. Almost like you're deliberately choosing different things to be clear about in order to prolongue the argument.
What's best is to be consistently clear about the best way to approach things, that covers as many eventualities as possible, and is objectively verifiable at the time to anyone approaching the point of contention.
Rather than having different opinions about what's best in what circumstances, which rely on thousands of massively variable, utterly subjective views to miraculously coincide in order to prevent some people throwing a strop (and their weight around) because they feel hard done by.
Your fundamental misunderstanding is that there isn't "a queue and an open lane," there's a queue comprising of two lanes.
Think it through. One lane has stopped, the only merging is those pushing in meaning the queue won't move any quicker. Irrespective of whether the queue should have generated, pushing in doesn't fix it and anyone claiming they're just merging is talking bollocks, they're just rude and not helping at all, in fact making it worse as the queue that formed gets slower and slower as they keep having to let the impatient in.
You haven't been particularly clear all the way through to be honest. Almost like you're deliberately choosing different things to be clear about in order to prolongue the argument.
Seriously? I don't know if I could have been more explicit about the very exact nature of the circumstances of my outside lane blocking.
Pondo- I don't think one more voice will convince you, but just in case- you are wrong.
The cones indicate the merge point.
Like I say, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise,
No, you aren't.
Think it through. One lane has stopped, the only merging is those pushing in meaning the queue won't move any quicker.
No-one is "pushing in." It's not possible. There are two lanes of traffic comprising a single queue, whether they're on the left or the right is irrelevant. It's the same queue.
The only time UK motorists exercise a bit of courtesy and restraint by merging as soon as possible - and it gets this response?
Wow.
If it does an ounce to control impatience then it's the better decision.
Besides the time taken to merge is dictated not by where you merge surely but the rate at which merges takes place. Using two lanes won't necessarily be quicker as this doesn't determine the rate of the merge?
That is a interesting point rone. A lot of motorists are impolite but in this instance they are doing what they consider to be a polite thing and queueing. The problem is that they are wrong. The traffic would move better if more people used both lanes and merged smoothly at the end. So do we encourage the bad driving because they are doing it out of a misguided belief that it is right?
Pondo- I don't think one more voice will convince you, but just in case- you are wrong.
The cones indicate the merge point.
I merge at the merge point, but thanks.
No, you aren't
I am, you just haven't convinced me yet.
No-one is "pushing in." It's not possible. There are two lanes of traffic comprising a single queue, whether they're on the left or the right is irrelevant. It's the same queue.
Ok, two lanes queueing - 200 yards from the merge point, car A merges from the blocked lane into the unblocked lane. Car B drives forward 200 yards, overtaking 6 cars in the unblocked lane and merges AT the merge point. From the point of view of car A and those 6 cars, has car B not queue-jumped and pushed in?
3 of the 6 cars B 'overtook' should have been in the right hand lane. The tailback would then be half as long and they can all merge like a zip at the merge point. The traffic as a whole would flow better. Those people merging early are doing it wrong, albeit for what they feel is a good reason. No one is pushing in, there are 2 queues.
^^^
When I'm Transport Minister, I'll be screening Public Information Films in which Mr Cholmondely-Warner instructs the drivers of Britain in sensible & courteous driving such as zip merging. Motorists - know your code!
The tailback would be 200 yards shorter and the difference in time taken to get to the blockage would be negligible.
is that a break through? Are you admitting that in one way two lane queueing is better and in the other it is no worse? Hooray! I would go further and say the time taken to get to the blockage is reduced as cars spend less time in the queue as it is shorter. But even if you don't accept that surely you are now pro 2 lane queueingThe tailback would be 200 yards shorter and the difference in time taken to get to the blockage would be negligible.
In my home town, Stafford, a new extended filter lane has just been opened. The big roundabout used to lead off into a 50 metre stretch of two lane before going down to a single lane by the Sainsburys crossing. The work led to massive delays for weeks as they re-profiled the roundabout, putting a 3rd lane in and widened the road for 200m.
Net result: bugger all. People still queue on the roundabout and behave as if using the new lanes will give them ebola.
Cuts about 5 minutes off your journey if you use it right though, and you can enjoy watching other drivers' heads turning beetroot-coloured.
From the point of view of car A and those 6 cars, has car B not queue-jumped and pushed in?
That's probably their perception, yes. But their "point of view" is erroneous (and irrelevant). Car A is sitting in an avoidably long queue of their own volition.
I've seen this effect at gigs with multiple entry points (Manchester Arena is a good example). Most people choose to queue for the nearest doors, joining a massive queue when a short walk down to a farther door has a queue with just a couple of people waiting. Do you join the shortest queue, or do you join the longest queue and then stand there complaining about all the "queue jumpers" going to the other doors? Happens at bars sometimes too, massive scrum at the nearside of the bar, whilst there's a barman at the far end stood there going "can I help anyone?"
Baa.
Rule 133 - make sure you don't cause another vehicle to change course or speed when you change lane - no, not applicable here...
You're wilfully obstructing an entire lane of traffic, causing them all to slow / stop. How is it not applicable? Are you suggesting you aren't changing lanes? To be honest, it's not exactly clear; over the course of this discussion you've variously asserted that you straddle both lanes, that you are alongside another vehicle, that you merge early and that you somehow still manage to merge in turn. I can only conclude that you're somehow driving three vehicles at once.
Rule 138 - keep left when not overtaking - well, I'm alongside another vehicle, so not applicable here...
Are you overtaking? Yes? Overtake then. No? Keep left. How can this not be applicable on a multi-lane highway, you're either overtaking or you aren't.
Rule 167 - don't overtake if this brings you into conflict others - like oncoming or right-turning traffic? Nowt to do with this scenario....
Agreed. You are deliberately causing conflict, but I don't think that's the thrust of this rule.
Rule 169 - don't hold up a long queue of traffic. I'll grant you a smidge of relevance to this point but the way it's worded to me (I don't need to ask you to tell me if you think I'm wrong) suggests it's aimed more at single carriageway and vehicles that are unable to make decent progress. I would also say that, as mentioned many times before, as far as I'm concerned I make no change to the average speed of all traffic through the blockage - the outside lane is slowed to the benefit of the middle and inner lanes.
You've just reworded that to suit your own ends. "Don't hold up a long queue of traffic" is pretty unambiguous. If you're driving deliberately slowly, there's nothing in front of you and a load of vehicles behind you, what are you doing exactly?