So I was asleep! How... disturbing. I did have the radio on, although it was some bloody tedious late nite talk show as I recall.
Anyway, I buy this whole Microsleep business but with one exception. Normally when I drive without inputting any steering on the wheel (I've tried this), a curve or bend causes me to approach a hazard within about three seconds - even on motorways.
To have avoided crashing for more than about five seconds I must have been responding to some signal from the road.
Presumably I was doing the bare minimum but my response speed was way down or something like that. What a strange phenomenon. Gav's right, it was after a long day, so I was probably tired already yet didn't feel it.
Weird thing happened while driving
I've experienced the same thing on routine journeys. I don't think I've ever been asleep, but I have let my mind wander from time to time. It's hard to avoid on familiar routes as there is very little to keep you alert and focussed in the same way you would be when driving an unfamiliar route. The same thing also sometimes happens when I'm watching TV - for instance, I may 'space out' during a boring news report but as soon as the next item is on, I 're-awake'. I think that's what happens when driving - it's not that you weren't aware of what was happening on the road - your mind has just wandered for a few moments. You still observed the situation around you, as you managed to negotiate bends etc., just not fully consciously.
Thanks for the responses 
In return for your troubles I have another question.
Namely, suppose there are two lanes merging into one, as in this charming Mocks-Forum-worthy MSPaint effort below:
As you can see, cars are warned far in advance (often repeatedly) that the lanes are merging, at Merge Point A. I have noticed most people merge at or soon after this point.
However, there is also Merge Point B, some distance up the road - the last opportunity, i.e. where the cones actually appear.
I have always been a dutiful "Merge as soon as possible" driver, eager to join the Non-Ending Lane as soon as possible. However, I have always resented the fact that there is empty road to the left of me for ages when I do that.
Today this situation came up and I had a sudden change of heart. I scooted down the empty road on the left lane, presumably to the ire of the drivers to my right; and then joined (albeit with some reluctance from my fellow rightward drivers who did a lot of close bumper following) at Merge Point B.
So, what is the correct way to do this? It strikes me that waiting until the last minute is more efficient. A) More of the road capacity is being used by cars (=faster journeys for everyone), and B) it’s far more efficient and fair for everyone to stay in lane until the last moment, and then alternate cars fairly, instead of having multiple merge points.
Hence I plan to continue this trend unless the metroConsensus points otherwise!
In return for your troubles I have another question.Namely, suppose there are two lanes merging into one, as in this charming Mocks-Forum-worthy MSPaint effort below:
As you can see, cars are warned far in advance (often repeatedly) that the lanes are merging, at Merge Point A. I have noticed most people merge at or soon after this point.
However, there is also Merge Point B, some distance up the road - the last opportunity, i.e. where the cones actually appear.
I have always been a dutiful "Merge as soon as possible" driver, eager to join the Non-Ending Lane as soon as possible. However, I have always resented the fact that there is empty road to the left of me for ages when I do that.
Today this situation came up and I had a sudden change of heart. I scooted down the empty road on the left lane, presumably to the ire of the drivers to my right; and then joined (albeit with some reluctance from my fellow rightward drivers who did a lot of close bumper following) at Merge Point B.
So, what is the correct way to do this? It strikes me that waiting until the last minute is more efficient. A) More of the road capacity is being used by cars (=faster journeys for everyone), and B) it’s far more efficient and fair for everyone to stay in lane until the last moment, and then alternate cars fairly, instead of having multiple merge points.
Hence I plan to continue this trend unless the metroConsensus points otherwise!
That would be me. And if you think you're getting past me, I promise, you're not.nodnirG kraM wrote:On a point of Britishness, it seems that it is not the done thing to merge at a later point, as this is of course jumping the queue. In fact I have known drivers who, when waiting patiently for a long time at roadworks that are clearly going to take a while to clear, pull into the closing lane but stay with the gap next to them, in order to block any more cars from jumping the remaining 800 yards of closed lane.
Traffic flow has very little to do with this (though if there is more than one merge, which is what you'd be causing, then traffic flow would be adversely affected). The issue is that you're queue jumping if you speed on up the inside, just as you would be if you sneaked round the zig-zag barriers in the post office.cdd wrote:Well in that case, Marksi, it's your opinion I'm after!
Why do you think that forcing an artificial one lane queue earlier than necessary improves traffic flow?
Quite, but my argument is that there shouldn't be an 'empty stretch of road' until the constriction point. Those drivers who merge before the last minute are bringing the unfairness upon themselves.
As an analogy, suppose you were told to merge 30 miles before it was necessary. Clearly that's a greatly magnified version of the existing sitaution where merging takes place about a mile before necesary, but if the former is wrong and illogical, why isn't the latter?
As an analogy, suppose you were told to merge 30 miles before it was necessary. Clearly that's a greatly magnified version of the existing sitaution where merging takes place about a mile before necesary, but if the former is wrong and illogical, why isn't the latter?
I assume that it's to do with having room to sort it all out without stopping. I mean, if you had only the final point to merge at, then the bollards started, you've got the left hand lane stopping and so in order to let them into the right hand lane, that too has to stop. I suspect it's a flow thing rather than enforced britishness marksi
Oh shit, I always put my foot in it with Northern Irish people. I mean enforced britishness in terms of queuing etiquette, not a comment on sovereignty!
Oh shit, I always put my foot in it with Northern Irish people. I mean enforced britishness in terms of queuing etiquette, not a comment on sovereignty!
Knight knight
But the "one-for-one" merging I describe requires no stopping at all. It simply requires the lane to the right of hte closing one to drive 'loosely', with additional space from the car in front, with each car letting one car go in front. In fact it's the people who don't let those from the left merge who force those in the left lane to merge from 0 mph, that are to blame for causing this stopping, both of the lefthand mergers and those on the right.Sput wrote:I assume that it's to do with having room to sort it all out without stopping.