Op de rechter rijstrook wil een auto mij ineens inhalen.

Because Dutch is a verb-second language in main clauses.

Here, Op de rechter rijstrook is placed first to set the scene. Once that happens, the finite verb must come next:

Op de rechter rijstrook + wil + een auto + mij ineens inhalen

So the subject een auto moves behind the verb.

A more neutral order would be:

Een auto wil mij ineens op de rechter rijstrook inhalen.

Both are grammatical, but the original puts more emphasis on the location first.

Literally, yes: wil means wants to.

But with something like een auto, Dutch often uses willen to describe what the driver seems to be intending or trying to do. So in natural English, this may sound more like:

• A car suddenly wants to overtake me
• A car suddenly tries to overtake me
• A car suddenly seems about to overtake me

So wil can sound a bit more practical and less emotional than English wants to.

This is mostly an idiomatic preposition choice.

In Dutch, roads, lanes, and similar traffic surfaces often use op:

• op de snelweg = on the motorway
• op straat = in/on the street
• op de linker rijstrook = in the left lane

So even if English often says in the right lane, Dutch naturally says op de rechter rijstrook.

Because rechts and rechter are used differently.

• rechts is commonly used as an adverb or standalone direction:
  De auto rijdt rechts = The car is driving on the right
• Before a noun, Dutch often uses rechter and linker:
  de rechter rijstrook = the right lane
  de linker deur = the left door

So de rechter rijstrook is the normal way to say the right lane.

Mij means me.

Dutch has both:

• mij = the fuller, stressed form
• me = the unstressed, very common everyday form

So these are both possible:

• Een auto wil mij ineens inhalen
• Een auto wil me ineens inhalen

In everyday spoken Dutch, me is often more common. Mij can sound a bit more emphatic, careful, or formal.

Ineens means suddenly or all of a sudden.

It shows that the action happens unexpectedly:

een auto wil mij ineens inhalen = a car suddenly wants to overtake me

A close synonym is plotseling. In many contexts, they can be used interchangeably.

That position is very natural in Dutch.

Short object pronouns such as me, mij, je, hem, haar often come relatively early in the middle of the sentence, and adverbs like ineens often follow them:

wil mij ineens inhalen

So the order feels normal and idiomatic.

Dutch word order in the middle of the sentence can be flexible, but not every version sounds equally natural. The original sentence has a very normal rhythm.

Because wil is a modal verb, and the main verb stays in the infinitive at the end of the clause.

So:

• wil = finite/modal verb
• inhalen = infinitive at the end

This is standard Dutch structure:

• Ik wil vertrekken = I want to leave
• Zij wil hem bellen = She wants to call him
• Een auto wil mij ineens inhalen = A car suddenly wants to overtake me

Yes. Inhalen is a separable verb when it means to overtake.

That means in a simple main clause without a modal verb, it splits:

• Een auto haalt mij in = A car overtakes me

With a modal verb like wil, it stays together as an infinitive at the end:

• Een auto wil mij inhalen

You can also see the separation in the past participle:

• ingehaald = overtaken

So this verb behaves like a normal separable Dutch verb.

It can suggest either, depending on context, so there is a little ambiguity.

Usually, in a traffic context, the listener understands the general picture without trouble: there is a car on the right lane, and it suddenly wants to overtake.

If you want to make the meaning clearer, you could say:

• Een auto op de rechter rijstrook wil mij ineens inhalen
  This more clearly describes where the car is.

• Een auto wil mij ineens via de rechter rijstrook inhalen
  This more clearly describes the route of the overtaking.

So the original sentence is natural, but slightly flexible in interpretation.