On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 19:02:39 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 16:57, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 14:13:57 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 20/04/2021 12:38, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 04:09:03 -0700 (PDT), fred
wrote:

Two lanes merging into one. Arrows clearly define which lane merges
into which. At the merge point who has the right of way ?
I only ask because in certain parts of the country if a lane is
closing and prior warning is being given all the sheep immediately
abandon the about to be closed lane. Same sheep take great umbrage if
one tries to merge at the head of the queue as recommended. (i..e)
Zip merge as opposed to a comb merge)
To me the obvious choice should be a one to one merge at the merge
point but lots of pillocks take offence.
I am one of these pillocks. I don't expect you to push past a queue
at the supermarket so why should you do so on the road?

Because at least round here on major roadworks it says:
"Use *both* lanes, merge in turn"

It is one of the very few things driving wise that Americans do better.

"Right turn on red" is another

This seems to me unacceptable for pedestrians, particularly anyone
with vulnerabilities or disabilities who expect to be able to cross
the road without worrying about moving vehicles.

It would be easy enough to add a marker to any lights where (left for
the UK) turn on Red would be allowed and to define in law, that while
doing so, the road you are turning into must be treated as a Zebra crossing.

It can be done by a filter of course but the red man would be red.

After decades of the green man meaning it is the turn of the
pedestrians, I think many pedestrians, particularly older people,
would be find the idea of cars driving at them highly alarming. Human
nature being as it is, some drivers would inevitably interpret the
rule as meaning stop if you absolutely have to but keep going if you
can in the expectation the pedestrians will get out of the way.