Classic lane change/merging situation

[Mr305WorldWide]

Jurisdiction

Missouri

Hi all.

I had incident the other day where I was trying to make a lane change almost getting into an accident.

Here's the situation:

1. Construction zone.
2. Very low speed.
2. Two lane turns into one lane due to construction.
3. I drive in the ending lane all the way up to the end point.
4. I don't recall if the other driver was directly next to me or near my rear quarter panel(I recall him speeding up)
4. I try to merge by putting on my blinkers and slowly creeping over but the driver would not let me over and instead speeds up.
5. Driver drives past me and gives me the finger.
6. I stop and someone "lets me" merge.

Who would be at fault here if he ended up hitting my rear side? It would make no that it would be my fault because this was a construction zone and people needed to merge into one lane. He did not use due diligence to avoid causing an accident and showed very aggressive driving behavior. My vehicle was already ahead of his, otherwise I would not have tried to creep into his lane. This is basic merging.

I consider myself to be a VERY good driver as I take safety as a very high driving priority. So this was a very interesting situation.

 

[adjusterjack]

Who would be at fault here if he ended up hitting my rear side?

Yours.

The other driver had control of the lane and no "legal" duty to let you in.

Your "legal" duty was to yield and merge when it was safe to do so. If you had gotten hit, it would have meant that it wasn't safe to merge.

The other driver's rudeness is irrelevant.

Very lucky that it was an "almost."

Even the best drivers can make mistakes.

 

[Mr305WorldWide]

Yours.

The other driver had control of the lane and no "legal" duty to let you in.

Your "legal" duty was to yield and merge when it was safe to do so. If you had gotten hit, it would have meant that it wasn't safe to merge.

The other driver's rudeness is irrelevant.

Very lucky that it was an "almost."

Even the best drivers can make mistakes.

I just don't agree with that.

If we had gotten into an accident, I think the fault would be 50/50.

He had the legal duty to avoid an accident if he was able to do so, even if another vehicle was in the "wrong". Speeding up or not slowing down cannot be more clear of this

My lane was coming to an end and I needed to merge. If others had no duty to let others merge, how does traffic move? It doesn't.

 

[adjusterjack]

I write from 35 years in the insurance industry.

Where does your opinion come from?

 

[Mr305WorldWide]

I write from 35 years in the insurance industry.

Where does your opinion come from?

• 15 years of driving.
• Clean record.
• Zero accidents.

Oh and btw, I think insurance is a scam.

 

[adjusterjack]

Then why come here with the question since you already "know" the answer?

 

[Mr305WorldWide]

Then why come here with the question since you already "know" the answer?

Confirmation and/or explanations.

Like I said, I'm a good driver. I'm not going to make that claim and get into an accident where I'm at fault.

 

[adjusterjack]

But not for a contrary opinion?

 

[Mr305WorldWide]

But not for a contrary opinion?

I'm all for it. But it wasn't correct.

Like I said, I did everything correct on my part. If the other driver did not let people merge in a low speed situation, traffic would never move and only one lane would be able to move.

 

[Zigner]

I'm all for it. But it wasn't correct.

Like I said, I did everything correct on my part. If the other driver did not let people merge in a low speed situation, traffic would never move and only one lane would be able to move.

You are wrong. You cannot force your way into a lane. If there had been an accident, it would have been your fault.

This comes from over 37 years of driving during which I've never caused an accident.

I would like to point out that you are, apparently, one of the idiot drivers who waits until the last second to merge and then relies on other folks to get out of your way instead of properly merging, per the law.

 

[adjusterjack]

I'm all for it. But it wasn't correct.

Like I said, I did everything correct on my part. If the other driver did not let people merge in a low speed situation, traffic would never move and only one lane would be able to move.

Then there is nothing more we can do for you here.

Thread locked.

 

[army judge]

Just an observation of an old man, take it with a 25 pound bag of salt.

It appears to me, that MANY people who STEER motor vehicles BELIEVE the use of their turn signal is EQUAL to the use of emergency lights on a police car, fire truck, ambulance, or vehicles in a presidential motorcade!

Your vehicle's turn signal is nothing more than an alert to others that you propose turning your vehicle LEFT or RIGHT.

Bear in mind, if you drive defensively, you're taught to watch what the vehicle does, not what it MIGHT do.

Once the person STEERING a motor vehicle engages their turn signal, all other vehicles must yield the right of way, heck the entire roadway.

Don't you believe the above sentence, dear reader.

It is nothing more than uninformed hyperbole to illustrate a point.

 

[adjusterjack]

Reopened for additional comments.

 

[Mr305WorldWide]

Reopened for additional comments.

I just feel like I wasn't in the wrong giving my years of driving defensively. That's all. The other driver clearly sped up to prevent me from merging. It wasn't a **** measuring contest either. I've seen too many videos of senseless car wrecks and made an effort to never be one of those folks.

 

[zddoodah]

This is an odd discussion. You gave a set of facts that didn't result in an accident but then asked for opinions about liability if an accident had resulted. However, it kinda seems like you only wanted opinions that are favorable to you and were not interested in contrary opinions. Seems like well-reasoned, contrary opinions would be more valuable, but I guess not.

 

[Mr305WorldWide]

This is an odd discussion. You gave a set of facts that didn't result in an accident but then asked for opinions about liability if an accident had resulted. However, it kinda seems like you only wanted opinions that are favorable to you and were not interested in contrary opinions. Seems like well-reasoned, contrary opinions would be more valuable, but I guess not.

I just haven't read any explanation on the other side's part that would relieve them of their wrongful action that's all.

 

[flyingron]

AdjusterJack is 100% correct. Sorry that you don't agree. I got nailed a similar way once. I can tell you that even my insisting that they should have slowed as the car immediately in front of me (after moving into the lane) was at a dead stop and there was plenty of room for me to move over. Didn't sway the cops or either insurer.

 

[Zigner]

I just haven't read any explanation on the other side's part that would relieve them of their wrongful action that's all.

The problem you are having is that you have already come to the conclusion that any collision in the situation you describe would be caused by some "wrongful action" by the other party. Because you are unable to accept (or even entertain the idea) that your conclusion is incorrect, you are unable to accept the information you are receiving.

 

[adjusterjack]

I just haven't read any explanation on the other side's part that would relieve them of their wrongful action that's all.

Yes, you have, you just refuse to accept it.

The other driver had control of the lane and no "legal" duty to let you in.

Your "legal" duty was to yield and merge when it was safe to do so. If you had gotten hit, it would have meant that it wasn't safe to merge.

However, in all fairness to you, I went to two other sites for comments. At both I presented your original post as written, without making any comments.

You can see the responses at the following links.

This one is where insurance professionals gather.

Lane merge. (insurance-forums.com)

This one is where a personal injury attorney commented.

Lane Merge Fault - Car Insurance -Auto Insurance Topics - City-Data Forum

 

[Red Kayak]

Who would be at fault here if he ended up hitting my rear side? It would make no that it would be my fault because this was a construction zone and people needed to merge into one lane. He did not use due diligence to avoid causing an accident and showed very aggressive driving behavior. My vehicle was already ahead of his, otherwise I would not have tried to creep into his lane. This is basic merging.

Because you are asking on a legal forum, your opinion is irrelevant.

Your state allows for comparative fault, but even then, you would bear most of the legal fault.

Oh and btw, I think insurance is a scam.

Also irrelevant, as your state requires insurance.

Your self assessment of your driving is also irrelevant, as most American drivers think that they are great drivers. The mere absence of accidents on your record might just mean that you're lucky. (I say this as one who has been rear-ended while sitting at a stop light. Twice. On clear sunny days.)

P.S. Thanks, AJ, for the links. I hope OP can learn something from them.