Traffic challenge

valhalla360 wrote:


As I said, states can override sections of the code but most follow it.

Worst case senario if there is an accident and you were clearly not holding a steady speed, you can still be held accountable for intentionally blocking the merging vehicle at that point it won't matter.

I'm not trying to be a pest, but I don't want too much misinformation to be out there. First, there is no legal requirement to maintain a set speed while someone is trying to merge from the right. Not in the Uniform Vehicle Code and not in the California Vehicle code (and probably in no state vehicle code). As we have explored in this thread, maintaining a speed is often a good idea for predictability, but it is not always the best idea.

If someone already on a highway (who legally has the right of way) speeds up to prevent a safe merge for a vehicle entering the road, then they would likely have some liability in any accident despite the fact that they have the right of way. Having the right of way is one thing, but stubbornly preserving that right in the face of an impending collision is another. Sometimes the best course is to yield to let an ignorant merger ahead of you. Other times it is better to edge ahead so the person knows to get behind you. And finally, if a driver is unsure what to do, then keeping the steady speed could be the best choice.

However, I can see a case in our hypothetical where someone who could have slowed down to prevent an accident in but didn't can be held liable as much as someone who sped up to prevent a merge could be liable. In both instances, the driver on the highway had the right of way but could have prevented a collision and is obligated to do so.

In any case, please don't tell people they are "required" to maintain a set speed by law. Not true. It is also not true that a person that hits you while merging is always at fault, as another poster wrote. The law is in the non-merging driver's favor, but in terms of liability there are always exceptions.