First off, I’m not at all sure where this thread belongs; it might be a debate, it might just be opinion, or there might be a factual answer if studies have been done.
On the way to work this morning, I was delayed by a traffic queue backing up from some road works where two lanes were reduced to one.
In the UK, this is typically announced by lane closed ahead signs (NB: this image shows a sign warning the closure of two lanes out of four), repeated at 800, 600, 400, 200 and 100 yards prior to the point of closure.
Typically, the majority of drivers will try to get into the lane which will remain open and they will do so as soon as they see the 800 yard sign - this results in stationary queues and 800 yards of empty road in the lane that will close. A few bold drivers do not try to queue, but drive right up the empty lane and attempt to merge at the point where the lane closes - this behaviour is almost universally resented by the other (queueing) drivers.
Some drivers (particularly those of larger vehicles) attempt to thwart the non-queuers by straddling the central line, others simply refuse to let them merge, resulting in heated tempers all round.
The question:
Would it be better if the warning signs said 'lanes reduced in (x) yards: merge STRICTLY IN TURN". - allowing both lanes to be utilised for queueing? - reducing the tailback length by half and thus reducing the probability that this will back up far enough to interfere with another junction.
Or is it the case that there would be more minor accidents in the case of merge-in-turn?