Cycling and cycle lanes

[richardfinch]

i cycle to work and the other day, there was stationery traffic and a car was half accross the cycle lane (ie the green painted lane by the kerb) the gap wasnt big enough really and i couldnt stop before i realised and my knee knocked his wing mirror off. He is blaming me, but he was clearly over the cycle lane, so who is at fault? as im sure he should be, for stopping half over a cycle lane and with his attitude i feel like telling him off for causing me bodily damage ie to my knee
regards
richard

[Panic Button]

Was the cycle lane separated from the carriageway by a dotted line or a solid line?

[R1Geezer]

the car should not have been in the cycle lane. However as cyclclists routinely ignore road rules, riding on pavements ignoring red lights etc etc, one could be forgiven for gaffawing when the boots on the other foot!

[Panic Button]

Oh Geezer!

That's as much of a generalisation as if I said all motorcyclists ride like maniacs.

[another-view]

Stationery traffic eh? Was it delivering to WH Smiths?

If you couldn't stop and banged into him, how is it his fault? You were going too fast.

[R1Geezer]

well it's quite rare to see a cyclist not on the pavement round here, congrats panic if you are one of the few!

[tamborine]

If he was in the green lane before you - you are at fault.

he could be in the green lane due to oncoming traffic 'forcing' the driver's stance.

[Androcles]

You have said it all. Basically if road user A runs into another road user B, who is stationary at the time, it is A's fault.

[Twenty20]

Ah, but motorists think, for some reason, they can drive anywhere they like, in cycle lanes, even on the pavement if they feel like it.

[New Judge]

This is quite simple.

If you collide with a stationary vehicle or object it is your fault. It does not matter what you are driving or riding, and it does not matter whether the thing you collided with should have been where it was or not.