How can either of them be considered to be in the right?
- Renault driver changes lane in front of a faster moving car, causing the other car to brake. Renault driver is in the wrong.
- Having braked and avoided an accident, the Merc driver then attempts to use the hard shoulder to overtake. Merc driver is in the wrong.
- Renault driver moves into hard shoulder to block the Merc. Renault driver is in the wrong.
It's all very well people pointing out that they understand how merge in turn should work and that it's very efficient when done correctly. But when the inside lane is moving considerably more quickly than the outside lane (because too many people moved into that lane early), then anyone 'taking advantage' of the empty lane actually then contributes to the reduced throughput.
Once the above problem has started, the only way to improve the throughput is for the inside lane to artificially match speed with the outside lane. The outside lane will then begin to move more quickly (as reduced merging goes on ahead) and the inside lane can then increase speed to match (using the empty space ahead) to then establish increased throughput as the cars merge into the gaps between matched-speed lanes (as per Freefaller's diagram in post #38).
Had the Renault driver not changed lanes to 'block' other drivers and instead just been someone in the inside lane who began slowing to start reducing the speed differential between the lanes, then he'd have been right - in the sense that it would begin a process which should then increase the overall throughput and speed of both lanes.
'Flying' down an empty inside lane and correctly merging at the end, is not the wrong thing to do, but it does nothing to resolve a problem which already exists.
Attempting to artificially slow the inside lane and then correctly merge at the end, should result in improved throughput and reduce delays overall. But changing lanes and deliberately swerving to block drivers attempting to take advantage of the faster empty lane, is wrong.