Automotive

Merging car vs. Motorcycle Lane Change : Who's at fault?

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 19th, 2011 11:06 pm
Newbie
Oct 20, 2008
45 posts
1 upvote
Edmonton

Merging car vs. Motorcycle Lane Change : Who's at fault?

I was just on the DVP southbound right where cars coming off the 401 East merge onto the DVP.

I'm driving in the far right lane which was slow of course as cars merged.

This car merges right in front of me (within a safe distance though) while a woman on a motorcycle proceeds to merge onto the same lane right where the merging lane ends and cars either have to stop or get over. The biker was driving faster than those merging for sure and car drivers know how hard it can be to catch these motorcyclists zipping through traffic.

The woman on the bike honks at the merging car while shaking her head even though she came up on the car's blind spot area AND it's the merging lane. The woman on the bike simply zips up ahead anyway, using the small size of her vehicle to maneuver ahead. The woman on the bike knew that was the spot that cars were merging into yet though that she should have the right away? Wouldn't it have made more sense for her to just wait a few more feet and then change lanes? You know, when the merging cars could see her?

She exited at the next exit (Lawrence west) and I could see the lady in the van cursing her head off.

Now, I'd like to think that had there been a crash it would be 50/50 but I'm thinking the biker girl was wrong. Sure, we're supposed to merge safely but as far as the van was concerned, I was letting her in when the female on the bike came zipping through.

I've seen a lot of this happen (usually in the middle lane; 2 cars on each side coming over) and one sees the other and swerves back into their original lane...or they both do.

What if they made it so that people couldn't drive over to the far right lane along the merging portions of the highway (at problem spots)?

My question is, who would have been at fault?
24 replies
Deal Addict
Aug 21, 2009
1330 posts
74 upvotes
Transient
There seems to be a lot on confusion on this as I've driven across Canada and other countries. I'm thinking the rule varies

Of course common courtesy and sense is to let the merging car in but at least in some places the merging lane must yield. That makes sense to me as a rule, because the highway should not have yield signs IMO and I've never seen one on a highway, while in some places merge lanes do

I still agree the biker is wrong, I let people in and avoid blind spots. Common sense is not the law of the land however
Deal Fanatic
Dec 3, 2007
5962 posts
1066 upvotes
Calgary
That's a interesting scenario. While I think what the bike did was wrong, there are no rules against it.

I was taught merging is a cooperation between 2 vehicles. The car in the lane has to give space to let the merging car come in safely while the merging vehicle has match the speed of the traffic to merge in smoothly.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 4, 2009
7698 posts
794 upvotes
North York
mucat wrote: That's a interesting scenario. While I think what the bike did was wrong, there are no rules against it.

I was taught merging is a cooperation between 2 vehicles. The car in the lane has to give space to let the merging car come in safely while the merging vehicle has match the speed of the traffic to merge in smoothly.

I was taught the car that was originally in the lane has the right of way. The merging vehicle is performing a lane change. A vehicle performing a lane change can only do so if it can be performed safely.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 3, 2007
5962 posts
1066 upvotes
Calgary
Busybuyer888 wrote: I was taught the car that was originally in the lane has the right of way. The merging vehicle is performing a lane change. A vehicle performing a lane change can only do so if it can be performed safely.

Think of it this way, if the car already in the lane has total right of way, it will be a yield sign instead of a merge sign.
Deal Expert
Oct 7, 2010
15536 posts
5790 upvotes
Merging on the highway is completely different from a yield sign on regular roads.

1) When a car is at the merging lane, the lane will disappear. When the car reach the end of the lane, the car has completely the right of way to move into the other lane to keep going. On the highway, it makes no sense for the cars already on the regular lane to have right of way. If it's the case, the car on the merging lane will just all stop on the merging lane during a heavy traffic.

2) I think the bike was also not further ahead of the van as I understand reading the OP's explanation. Therefore the biker chick is an idoit. Even if the rule were that the regular lane having the right of way which is not what I said on the first point. It doesn't matter if she's right, because if the van merged and hit her, she will be right but dead. Obviously, the biker is always thinking the cars are out to get them. So why take the chance to get yourself killed. That's coming from a follow rider. : ).
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 18, 2004
2774 posts
55 upvotes
A good biker rides defensively, doesn't matter who's in the right. If a collision happens between a car and a bike the bike loses. I would never change lanes into the right lane when there's a lane merging into it. When I drive in the states it was common practice to move to the left or middle lane to give way to merging traffic. It makes everyone's lives easier. In toronto it's the opposite, ppl think they own the right lane and will do everything possible to run the merging car off the road.

Was this lady on a scooter? I think scooter riders are mostly clueless hippie types who are anti cars and they were most likely cyclist before they upgraded to a scooter. All the bad habbits from being a cyclist just carries over.
Deal Addict
Aug 21, 2009
1330 posts
74 upvotes
Transient
spike1128 wrote: Merging on the highway is completely different from a yield sign on regular roads.

1) When a car is at the merging lane, the lane will disappear. When the car reach the end of the lane, the car has completely the right of way to move into the other lane to keep going. On the highway, it makes no sense for the cars already on the regular lane to have right of way. If it's the case, the car on the merging lane will just all stop on the merging lane during a heavy traffic.

If merge lanes have "completely" the right of way, then the highway would have to brake if they can't speed up or change lanes, and even stop completely if there's a lineup merging?? It goes both ways, there's no yield on the highway either. In some places I've even seen timed lights to space out the merging lane. It's one for one, think of a grid lock. The merging lane does not have "completely" right of way by any rules.. The lane ends, they can stop or the highway can stop
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 12, 2007
20805 posts
6622 upvotes
London
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/ ... .1.3.shtml

[IMG]http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/engli ... 3-1-53.jpg[/IMG]
Right lane ends ahead. If you are in the right-hand lane you must merge safely with traffic in the lane to the left.

[IMG]http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/engli ... 3-1-56.jpg[/IMG]
Two roads going in the same direction are about to join into one. Drivers on both roads are equally responsible for seeing that traffic merges smoothly and safely.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
35606 posts
18998 upvotes
high_octane wrote: If merge lanes have "completely" the right of way, then the highway would have to brake if they can't speed up or change lanes, and even stop completely if there's a lineup merging??
Merge lanes don't have the right of way but lanes that end (this is different than an actual merging lane) the cars in that lane have the right of way provided the lane that is ending is on the right and there is no yield sign present. If the lane-ending is on the left they don't have the right of way. This is how I read it in the HTA anyway--uncontrolled intersection rules.

Actual merging lanes are not lanes that come onto the highway and then end hundreds of metres down the road. Merge lanes merge right in with another lane, in a very short distance. See the signs posted above, by l69norm. The first indicates a lene that ends, the second indicates a lane that merges.
high_octane wrote: It goes both ways, there's no yield on the highway either.
Yield is implied when someone else has the right of way. That is if the guy that would usually have the right of way does not have a yield sign the other guy will have to yield the right of way. The purpose of a yield sign is to change the right of way from the person that would usually have it to the person that would not, not to always indicate who has the right of way. I.e. it reverses the usual (or understood) right of way.
high_octane wrote: In some places I've even seen timed lights to space out the merging lane.
Yes that's fine because now there is another traffic control mechanism in place. The fact that the light exists (just as if there were a yield or stop sign) now changes the normal course of things and the light dictates when that person can drive. If there is no light the regular rules of the road apply.
Jr. Member
Nov 30, 2010
173 posts
14 upvotes
spike1128 wrote: 1) When a car is at the merging lane, the lane will disappear. When the car reach the end of the lane, the car has completely the right of way to move into the other lane to keep going. On the highway, it makes no sense for the cars already on the regular lane to have right of way. If it's the case, the car on the merging lane will just all stop on the merging lane during a heavy traffic.
Absolutely false. How did you get a licence?

An on ramp to a highway is several hundred feet, plenty of time to merge safely. Before you change lanes you must have room to do so safely.
Jr. Member
May 18, 2011
111 posts
8 upvotes
ORILLIA
A merge lane is not an intersection, so uncontrolled intersection rules do not apply. It is treated as an adjacent lane - any vehicle leaving that lane must yield to traffic already in a through lane. Those of you who think merging vehicles have right-of-way really explain why I see so much idiocy on GTA highways. There are a few on-ramps where the merge lane is ridiculously short - I will give those vehicles right-of-way out of courtesy, not law. Otherwise, I'm staying at my constant speed, at a following distance of three to four car lengths (I'm country, so what! :razz: ), and you can use the go-pedal or the brake to fit yourself in. I won't be braking for merging vehicles if the merge lane is several hundred feet.

In fact, I did have an accident where the driver hit me coming in from the merge lane, no less while I was doing a relaxed 80 km/h on the 401 as traffic was building up. Fault determination only took about a day and a half and I was ruled 0% at fault.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 6, 2010
15881 posts
10565 upvotes
Toronto
And all these reasons are proof as to why the GTA needs stricter licensing pratice. Hard to say whom is at fault, if the bike is moving into blocking position on the lane when a car currently occupies that spot, then the bike would be at fault. If the bike is clear to move into the lane preparing to perform an exit and lane block while a merging car attempts to overtake that spot regardless of blind spot, then the car is at fault. You have to keep your eyes opened when you are on the roads, most people merging tend to just pull out and hope for the best without looking and only signaling. Notice how I didn't say that the bike was responsible becausing merging traffic is always at fault. :)
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 6, 2010
15881 posts
10565 upvotes
Toronto
^ It is up to the driver merging to match the speed of the traffic, signal, find some space, and merge. Not just sit there with your signal on and expect others to move for you. If you get swiped by a merging vehicle, the merging driver is at fault.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 3, 2007
5962 posts
1066 upvotes
Calgary
koffey wrote: ^ It is up to the driver merging to match the speed of the traffic, signal, find some space, and merge. Not just sit there with your signal on and expect others to move for you. If you get swiped by a merging vehicle, the merging driver is at fault.

It is also up to the driver already in the lane to leave enough space (not just 1 car length) for merging vehicles to come in safely.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 6, 2010
15881 posts
10565 upvotes
Toronto
mucat wrote: It is also up to the driver already in the lane to leave enough space (not just 1 car length) for merging vehicles to come in safely.

That is because most GTA drivers are ignorant and do not keep a fairly safe distance from each other, rather to just tail gate and get angry when something goes awray. Unless of course, we are speaking about general congestion during rush hour.
Otherwise, these are traffic coursities, not mandates.
Jr. Member
May 18, 2011
111 posts
8 upvotes
ORILLIA
The specific scenario in the OP is different because neither vehicle had been occupying the right-hand lane. MC was coming in from lane 2 and the car was coming in from lane 4 (the merge lane). Neither had claim to lane 3. I'd say fault was 50/50.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 3, 2007
5962 posts
1066 upvotes
Calgary
koffey wrote: That is because most GTA drivers are ignorant and do not keep a fairly safe distance from each other, rather to just tail gate and get angry when something goes awray. Unless of course, we are speaking about general congestion during rush hour.
Otherwise, these are traffic coursities, not mandates.

Don't worry, it is not exclusively GTA. We from the west are the same.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 3, 2007
5962 posts
1066 upvotes
Calgary
CanadaPanda wrote: The specific scenario in the OP is different because neither vehicle had been occupying the right-hand lane. MC was coming in from lane 2 and the car was coming in from lane 4 (the merge lane). Neither had claim to lane 3. I'd say fault was 50/50.

It would only be 50/50 if the biker survived to tell her side of the story. ;)

Top