Filter lanes and right of way question.

Unhappy_Camper_2

You know the type,

The 2 lanes usually after traffic lights that merge into one.
Left lane has arrows that say straight on and the right lane has arrows curving to the left directing the traffic into one lane. My question is who has legal right of way?

Say that car a is in the right hand lane and that is just behind a van but in front of car b. Car b is now purposely getting close to the van so not to let car a filter in. Car a is now running out of road so had to start pulling into the left hand lane. Car b has to drop back to allow car a into the left lane but remains very close to car a.

Car a then stops and car b hits the rear of car a off side.

Who is at fault and who would be liable in the event of an insurance claim?

Thanks

spiro

Car b is at fault for being too close.

System

Unhappy_Camper wrote: »

Car a is now running out of road so had to start pulling into the left hand lane.

car A should be braking to find a gap. The right lane is disappearing therefore car A has to change lanes. The onus is on car A to do this safely.

Car B should not have to take avoiding action.

No doubt car A is the same driver that pulls out of slip roads on motorways expecting everybody else to get out of his way.

Lum

And now the rest of this thread will be filled with discussion on whether it's correct to merge in turn or merge 3 miles before the junction.

Anyone got the link to the last thread on this to save everybody some time?

vikingaero

The right of way is dictated by the lane arrows. The straight on arrow has ROW and the curved arrow indicates that the user should merge and it is their responsibility to do so safely.

I'm all for merging in turn in queuing traffic, but in non-queuing traffic you always get one a-hole who thinks it's their divine right to barge in at the last moment when they could have merged in seamlessly.

Tinks74

Unhappy_Camper wrote: »

You know the type,

Car b is now purposely getting close to the van so not to let car a filter in. Car a is now running out of road so had to start pulling into the left hand lane. Car b has to drop back to allow car a into the left lane but remains very close to car a.

Car a did not have to pull in to the left hand lane, car a could have slowed or stopped (presumably it was already signalling its intention) and waited for a suitable gap to become available.

It annoys me that people assume any gap is there to be taken.
If I am driving sensibly and allowing what I consider to be a safe stopping distance and someone forced their way into it then immediately slams on the breaks, why should I be penalised if, what had seconds before been my safe stopping distance, is now occupied by a car that I have little chance to avoid?

Unhappy_Camper_2

Tinks74 wrote: »

Car a did not have to pull in to the left hand lane, car a could have slowed or stopped (presumably it was already signalling its intention) and waited for a suitable gap to become available.

It annoys me that people assume any gap is there to be taken.
If I am driving sensibly and allowing what I consider to be a safe stopping distance and someone forced their way into it then immediately slams on the breaks, why should I be penalised if, what had seconds before been my safe stopping distance, is now occupied by a car that I have little chance to avoid?

That's fair enough and I agree 100% in the senario you have described above.

But what about if car b is purposely closing the gap and in effect pushing car a into the direction of oncoming traffic just because they are not willing to let car a filter in ahead of them.

Would that not be aggressive driving on car b part?

If I have ever been in the left hand land and a car has been infront of my and wants to merge in my lane I have slowed and let the car infront enter my lane. Not purposely closed the gap so the car can't enter my lane.

What should have car a done in this situation?

And thanks to everyones opinions so far.

Unhappy_Camper_2

Also forgot to add car a was fully in the lane and was stationary before it was hit

Tinks74

Yes, I agree that car b would be driving aggressively, however car a obviously noticed this aggresive behaviour, why then would they continue to force their way into the gap and not hold back and find a more suitable space?

How long after the manouevre had been completed were brakes applied and contact made between the vehicles - 2 seconds, 2 minutes?

fivetide

Unhappy_Camper wrote: »

Also forgot to add car a was fully in the lane and was stationary before it was hit

That doesn't quite make sense. If the other car is fully in the lane then surely any smash would be square on front to back, in which case, as said in the first response, the car at the back is responsible and it really wasn't worth trying to be one car further in front.

5t.

System

Unhappy_Camper wrote: »

Also forgot to add car a was fully in the lane and was stationary before it was hit

So car A pulls into the lane in front of car B thus removing any safety gap, and then brakes leaving car B insufficient time or distance to react? It is not always the fault of the car behind in a shunt and in this case I would be inclined to say that the fault still lies with car A.

If car A was hit on the offside does that mean that his intention was to carry on cutting across traffic to the leftmost lane?