Minor RTC on lane merging to left

notanewuser

Tok3d wrote: »

By the time he was parallel with my drivers door he wouldn't of had time to merge in ahead of me. I believe now looking back that if I had actually slowed right down to let him carry on he would of probably gone into the railings anyway and caused an even bigger accident.

Thanks for calling me pigheaded though

Wouldn't HAVE

Would HAVE

Sloppiness like that makes me question your driving even more TBH.

Altarf

forgotmyname wrote: »

Its one of those it could be either vehicle at fault.

No it isn't.

The car on the right was changing lanes to the lane on their left, as the right hand lane disappeared. The arrows in *their* lane indicate that *they* need to merge in with the traffic to their left, not crash into it.

They were the ones making the manoeuvre, so 100% their fault.

facade

You are actually obliged to take action to avoid a collision when you can see one is imminent, rather than drive straight into things because it is "their fault"

So I would expect the liability to be split, no idea of percentages though.

matttye

Unless the cars behind you were tailgating you so closely that slowing down would've caused an accident, you should have slowed down.

When I know there's a merge coming up I always leave a gap in front anyway and I've never had this problem.

George_Michael

Altarf wrote: »

They were the ones making the manoeuvre, so 100% their fault.

Utter rubbish.
If you were driving along and a car pulled out in front of you and despite your having plenty of time to avoid the collision happening by simply lifting off the accelerator a bit, you decided to continue at the same speed and direction and drove into the other car.
Would you honestly say that you were totally blameless as it was the other vehicle making the manoeuvre?

The OP clearly stated that they knew that there was a vehicle beside them that the vehicle was in the merging lane but as the driver was attempting to intimidate him, he decided to continue in the same lane and at the same speed.
This attitude of "I'm in the right so why should I give way" was a major factor in why the coming together happened.

I passed the stationary driver on the right hand merge lane but near the end of the merge he had sped up and was parallel with my drivers door, myself and my girlfriend said what the hell is he doing, I thought he was trying to intimidate me so I just continued on at roughly 30mph in my lane.

matttye

George_Michael wrote: »

Utter rubbish.
If you were driving along and a car pulled out in front of you and despite your having plenty of time to avoid the collision happening by simply lifting off the accelerator a bit, you decided to continue at the same speed and direction and drove into the other car.
Would you honestly say that you were totally blameless as it was the other vehicle making the manoeuvre?

The OP clearly stated that they knew that there was a vehicle beside them that the vehicle was in the merging lane but as the driver was attempting to intimidate him, he decided to continue in the same lane and at the same speed.
This attitude of "I'm in the right so why should I give way" was a major factor in why the coming together happened.

Agreed. Whether a road user is right or wrong shouldn't be a factor in how you drive, stick to the facts.

It matters not why someone is driving next to you, wanting to merge, it only matters that they are there. React accordingly.

prowla

From what I see, the OP undertook a car which they knew was in a lane merging from the right.

forgotmyname

Altarf wrote: »

No it isn't.

The car on the right was changing lanes to the lane on their left, as the right hand lane disappeared. The arrows in *their* lane indicate that *they* need to merge in with the traffic to their left, not crash into it.

They were the ones making the manoeuvre, so 100% their fault.

Did you witness the accident?

Ask the other driver....
The OP undertook a vehicle that was already merging as per the road markings.
The OP was undertaking...

Someone posted a link to an angry 4x4 driver. Driver started overtaking an artic on a hill on a bend where it was clearly visible to any normal person that the lorry needed to straddle both lanes. Yet they carried on with the overtake and moaned because the lorry needed the room.

You need to see it from different angles to know what really happened.

Altarf

George_Michael wrote: »

The OP clearly stated that they knew that there was a vehicle beside them that the vehicle was in the merging lane but as the driver was attempting to intimidate him, he decided to continue in the same lane and at the same speed.

So the OP was in a 'non-merge' lane that did not require them to take any action, at or below the speed limit, and someone in a merging lane is trying (but has nowhere near achieved) overtaking them.

Any reasonable person would assume that the merging driver would understand the stupidity and futility in trying to overtake, and would slow down and merge behind the car in the 'non-merge' lane rather than drive into the side of it.

100% fault for the overtaking car who wasn't paying attention, as they were the person who drove into the OP's car.

facade

It doesn't matter what we think, or what The Law says, or what common sense suggests, when the OP reports it (as per the T&Cs of motor insurance) it is down to what an insurance company would do, and they are a law unto themselves when it comes to minimising what they pay out.