cut in lane or move over lane

[brown poodle]

Does cut in lane and move over lane have the same or similar meaning and can be used interchangeably ?

( when he drives)
He always follows the car in front very closely because he doesn't want no one cut in his lane/or he doesn't want no one move over into his lane .

 

[The Newt]

He always follows the car in front [of him] very closely because he doesn't want anyone to cut into his lane / to cut in front of him.

 

[Keith Bradford]

That's not how we use "cut in".

It can be used absolutely (= with no object): He always follows the car in front very closely because he doesn't want anyone to cut in.
OR It can be used with a prepositional phrase following it, as: He always follows the car in front very closely because he doesn't want anyone to cut in in front of him/to cut in on him/to cut in into his lane.

Since all the last three have in + preposition they might sound odd. So your idea ... he doesn't want anyone to move over into his lane is a good one, and so is Newt's #2.

 

[Rover_KE]

... he doesn't want anyone to pull in in front of him.

 

[PaulQ]

Does cut in lane and move over lane have the same or similar meaning

The meanings are similar, but not the same.

To cut in implies that the movement is intentionally aggressive and/or rude or impolite.
To move (the "over" is not required) is neutral.

(As has been pointed out, your examples have multiple errors.)

 

[zaffy]

he doesn't want anyone to cut into his lane

he doesn't want anyone to cut in.

So Americans "cut into someone's lane" while Brits simply "cut in", correct?

 

[anthox]

So Americans "cut into someone's lane" while Brits simply "cut in", correct?

By itself, "cut in" is fine, but when used transitively, I think "into" sounds better, as your examples suggest: This guy's trying to cut in. = I am in my car watching a guy trying to cut into my lane. I don't think it's a BE vs. AE thing.