OK, so to start with the description of the damage on each vehicle... You wouldn't happen to have taken any pictures? Of either your vehicle (which I assume you can still do) or better yet, yours and his? Simply because the more descriptive you get, the cloudier that it gets. Example, we started out with:
To sort of suggesting that it is nearly impossible to have had any damage to your bumper (you'll see why I used "nearly" in your quote) simply because:
There is no such thing as "nearly higher than his hood"! It is either higher or it is lower. And if his damage was on the front passenger side quarter panel, then your bumper (if that was the point of impact) is LOWER than his hood.
And, not only the bumper, but we also have:
I'm not sure why you're offering such a vague description... Well, I might have an idea but who am I to judge!
And by the way, while in theory, it would be difficult to imagine how your bumper hit his right front quarter panel, - with your car being angled (at a slight angle to the centerline during your attempt to enter his lane, versus the way his car being in line with the centerline, at a zero angle was likely angle - you have stated that twice, once in each of your posts. Now, if you can get your subconscious mind to convince you of reality, you'll be at fault but you'll be OK...
And again, whether he jumped, hopped, trounced, pranced, slid, rolled or mozied his way forward, he had the right of way... here is the Kansas definition:
8-1458: "Right-of-way" defined.
"Right-of-way" means the right of one vehicle or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian approaching under such circumstances of direction, speed and proximity as to give rise to danger of collision unless one grants precedence to the other.
History: L. 1974, ch. 33, § 8-1458; July 1.
That sure is a convoluted way of defining a 'failure to yield" so think of it this way... In simple terms, "Right-of-Way" is the privilege of the exclusive and immediate use of the highway, street or lane.
If this were real estate, and without having the need to put up a fence, not even a "No Trespassing" sign, he has possession and ownership of that lane as if it were his own piece of land and you cannot and should not under any circumstances encroach upon or enter his land until he passes you (but then it becomes under the control and ownership of the driver behind him) or unless he waves you in.
And I know your next question will be "well, how do I merge in?" And the only answer I can give you is; "certainly not by trying to force yourself in because obviously it did not work this time!"
INcorrect. What you did was you "failed to yield"... A quick search of Kansas statutes did not reveal the particular code section you would be cited for... But that does not mean it isn't illegal. Just means I did not find it
You mean "safely" instead of "safety", but even then.... If you did merge "safely" you would not be here asking questions, would you?
I briefly described "proper protocol" for a lane merge un my last post: "Clearly, and to properly merge into the left lane, you were required to signal you intention to change lanes for a reasonable distance as well as yield the right of way to any and all vehicles (all traffic) that was already in that lane until it is safe to merge over".
BIG emphasis on the underlined part, simply because without that, the whole entire thing is a failure.
You have got everything backwards; and in all honesty, I am not sure how long you've been driving, but if this is really descriptive of your understanding of this rule of the road, not only do I wonder what your understanding of other laws is, I am curious as to how many more accidents have you had!!!
He had full possession (and ownership -per our hypothetical-), you had only started to merge over, you saw he sped up and was attempting to prevent you from entering HIS lane -and no, he was not squeezing in - it was you forcing yourself in, this is when you should have backed out. If at that point you were unable to back out because the right lane ended, this was not his fault that you waited that long or that it took you that long to merge over. So if you got stack being a third of the way into that lane and unable to get out, then that is more reason to presume it was all your fault not only for the accident, but the ensuing chaos as well...
So we went from the left lane being "vastly congested" to you "having plenty of room"?
I, obviously, was not there... And I don't know whether the police were called, whether they issued a police report, whether any one was cited or whether you both have insurance and this will boil down to both companies working everything out between themselves, but here is how I see it. You failed to yield and as such, that was the "Primary Collision Factor (PCF)" and you should have been cited for that violation. The other driver gets none of the blame. had you been fully positioned in that left lane, it would be his fault for rear ending you (PCF would be "unsafe speed" or "following too closely"; the way it happened here, you own all the blame!
Whether there were dividing dashes, or not, I can only assume that when congested, the traffic pattern is clearly defined, the way you did described it in your first post, it was obvious that the lane ended at some point, that traffic was backed up in the left lane... And we all know how some people are cordial and would allow you the merge, while others will speed up to prevent you from doing so.
As for your witnesses, think of it this way.... His speed, had ZERO (or VERY little) impact on the accident.... The reason this accident happened is because two cars were trying to occupy the same space at the same time. Physically impossible! So while he was simply exercising his right to move through that lane freely and without obstruction, you were trying to force yourself in his place without permission!
Lastly, insurance companies may/may not follow the normal standard procedure a police report, (as an example) will follow as a far as assigning fault or allocating blame... I still am not clear on the purpose of your inquiry. So... I'm just saying!