He knew the Volvo was there and he knew what the Volvo was trying to do. He admits so
At the point that he knows the Volvo is not giving him space to merge he's guilty of not giving way to avoid an incident. Yes, the Volvo is guilty of the same fault too but so what - two wrongs don't make him innocent - he is still also at fault
As in the previous comment where you state that he's not on the other side of the road when it's obvious from the video he is, you're deliberately mis-characterising the scenario. It's your style - the use of form (exaggeration, mis-characterisation, hyperbole) to argue a point rather than content. I.e. rhetoric.
Your claims are that the Volvo ran him off the road, that there is only one other option available to him (stopping) and that if he does stop he is literally breaking every single rule of the road. Those three things are untrue.
The Volvo didn't run him off the road, he just didn't allow him to merge into his lane, which is the lane OP had to merge into. Yes, that does mean the Volvo is also at fault (not giving way to avoid an incident) but no, it does not mean the Volvo ran him off the road. OP chose a route that left him no more road. There were other options available that would have left him with plenty of road.
His only other option wasn't stopping. He accepts he knew that the Volvo was not leaving him space to merge. The obvious option for a rational, safe driver was to slow down and merge behind the Volvo. You will claim that he didn't have space to do so because he ran out of road (actually you will claim the Volvo ran him off the road) but that's not true. OP did have space but made a decision to fight the Volvo which then resulted him in having to space at the end of the merging point.
If he did slow down (or even stop) he has not broken literally every other rule of the road. I won't even bother explaining why this is the case as it's trivially obvious that you cannot break every rule simultaneously. The hyperbole is obvious enough not to have to address it.