Fault determination

[HalfEvil]

Situation:
8am rush hour, two lanes merge into one. marked very clearly. business district. same day commuters only around this area.
90% of all cars backup in left lane, bc merge is short. 10% of drivers fly up in right lane, and park it in front of someone and force themselves in.

Now assume you have a Dodge 6.7L quad cab with a front replacement bumper, and are in the left lane. Another car comes flying up in the right lane, and doesn't have enough space to get in left lane, and right lane is ending. They start forcing their way in. you hold your ground, and they strike your car, expecting you would give way by entering suicide lane.
Take in mind impact is front right of truck, and driver door of the car.

Blue dots are polite drivers flowing in traffic. Red dots are the guys that come up trying to save 2 mins getting to work.

Please let me know your thoughts. Also, does it matter how far ahead the car on the right made it before they swooped into the left lane?

 

[SLOWREX03]

it is the red dot lane's responsibility to safely merge into the blue lane. any collision occurring from the situation you described would be their fault because of an unsafe lane change or unsafe turning movement.

cool looking GSD by the way.

 

[HalfEvil]

BTW this is the truck... I don't know what people are thinking when they don't have a clear lane to merge into, and just decide to gas it & merge anyways.

 

[KwikAG.]

Assuming the facts you presented are accurate as described, and the other vehicle is being directed (by signs indicating "Merge Right" and painted arrows on the ground) then that vehicle has the responsibility to merge safely.

My interpretation is that the other vehicle is being "forced" to move (or engage in a "turning" movement within the language of the Vehicle Code) and you have control of the main traveled portion of the roadway. Also not quoted below are signaling requirements and the other side of the coin, namely that most VC sections have a flip side to them where if the first vehicle has satisfied the requirements of indication and ensuring right of way, the second vehicle must allow that movement to be made.

21755. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass another
vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement
in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off
the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.

21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more
clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following
rules apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely
within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such
movement can be made with reasonable safety.

22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement.

 

[}Dragon{]

The red dot driver could have picked a better vehicle to play "bumper cars" with. Lemme guess who won? :laughing

 

[Tharkûn]

Given the damage and the merge, car is at fault.

 

[monkeythumpa]

The only mitigating factor would be if you had reasonable time to avoid the accident. Just because you have the right of way, doesn't mean you are not responsible for avoiding contact, if you have the wherewithal to prevent it.

There is no "polite" and "rude" in the CVC.

 

[HalfEvil]

The only mitigating factor would be if you had reasonable time to avoid the accident. Just because you have the right of way, doesn't mean you are not responsible for avoiding contact, if you have the wherewithal to prevent it.

Yes this is exactly my thinking. Day in and day out, they force their way in on other poor souls who have to brake to avoid an accident.
The aggressive drivers have almost made it a culture on this particular intersection that they will pull this move, and expect the defensive driver to take action to avoid an accident.
In this case, yea, an accident could have been avoided by slamming on brakes, possibly forcing the driver behind me to crash...

I don't care at all about the insurance/financial ramifications, I was just curious about legally, can I hold my lane position and speed, or do I have to slam brakes/ take action against a driver that does this, everyday?

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Ask yourself this:

If a pedestrian enters a crosswalk at the last second right in front of you, can you just plow them over because they didn't have the right of way in the first place?

The reality is the other car is probably going to be held at fault, but you can't just driving around forcing people to either collide into you or slam on their brakes when you could have otherwise avoided the collision, just because they were "rude."

No, I can't quote you a CVC off the top of my head but I could sure as shit find one if I really had to in the field.

 

[}Dragon{]

I don't care at all about the insurance/financial ramifications, I was just curious about legally, can I hold my lane position and speed, or do I have to slam brakes/ take action against a driver that does this, everyday?

Read this:

.
http://www.safemotorist.com/articles/right_of_way.aspx

- Drivers should try to anticipate other driver’s actions as well as yielding whenever needed or required by law. Giving up the right of way to other drivers also helps to avoid crashes, as does gaining eye contact with all operators of motor vehicles that come directly into conflict with you. Drivers should attempt to be both courteous and conscientious toward other drivers.

When you make eye contact, wave nicely (with all fingers, not just one or two ) and wish them a nice day.

 

[HalfEvil]

you can't just driving around forcing people to either collide into you or slam on their brakes when you could have otherwise avoided the collision

That is very true. I hate aggressive drivers. My question I guess is, person A was driving in a lane that continues, and person B drove around forcing others to brake, swerve, etc... when they could have merged back a ways. So when their actions force someone else to make that split second decision of "brake/avoid", or make contact with them, who legally wins?

Let me also say that the road starts out as one lane before the light, turns into two, and then back into one. So all the people pulling this swoop maneuver are passing probably 50 cars at least (on the right), and then shutting the door on someone on the last possible second.
See larger view:

 

[LongGoneJohn]

As said above: It is the responsibility of the person MERGING into the lane of traffic to do so safely.

 

[monkeythumpa]

... who legally wins?

No one wins in a collision. Even if you are found 100% not at fault you have to take your truck in to be fixed and either take public transportation or rent a car, if you don't fix the damage you have to explain it to a buyer...it is a pain.

When I was younger and more self-righteous I took a hit from a car that changed lanes in an while turning left in an intersection while I was next to them. It happened in the blink of an eye, but my spidey senses got a whiff of the impending action and I could have slammed on the brakes and avoided contact.

Best case scenario is that the person pays you what it costs to fix your vehicle. More likely, you will have to hound the person until they eventually pay. If you have to deal with insurance, they will try to fuck you every way possible. There is a good chance that they have no insurance and can't pay at all. It is just not worth it, just to teach a lesson.

 

[HalfEvil]

No one wins in a collision. It is just not worth it, just to teach a lesson.

Yea I agree with you. In my particular case, I am not worried about financial impact, or not having extra cars to get around in, or even worried about there being enough damage to contact my insurance. I just don't ever want points on my record. I think from the responses here, we all agree each case is unique and that split second decision should be your best one to avoid an accident.

 

[NorCalBusa]

And once they make contact- you're golden to floor that truck, swing to the right and put the bastid into the weeds.

 

[Junkie]

or this:

youtu.be/lze88sU9IGg

 

[aram]

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/late-lane-mergers-do-all-drivers-favor-book-says

Nothing wrong with late merging. If you didn't speed up to hit the other car after they had already made there way over you probably weren't at fault, but you probably could have just let the person in and could have gone on with the day without worrying about anything.

 

[Mr Pepsi]

I don't think its something he did, I think he was looking for info the next time it happens. Seems like this thread could be evidence of intent. Just a thought.

 

[aram]

I don't think its something he did, I think he was looking for info the next time it happens. Seems like this thread could be evidence of intent. Just a thought.

If that is the case the OP is like those people that squeeze lane splitting motorcyles because they "aren't playing by the rules like everyone else" and "are trying to save 2 minutes getting to work". :rofl

 

[wazzuFreddo]

the type of behavior that the guy merging and the OP are engaging in is what backs up traffic in the first place :|