Cycling into a car parked in a cycle lane and damaging the car.

Bigus wrote: »

I'd say there's contributary factors on both sides , so neither cyclist or driver 100% at fault, but probably driver more at fault , only a court could really decide.

Is this a real answer based on the op?

Was there intent by the cyclist to hit the stationary car? I ask because hitting a stationary object is pretty damn stupid no matter where the object is on the road. If the car was a pedestrian who would be at fault? If a pedestrian was standing in the middle of the road and a car hit them who do you think would be at fault?

Cycle Tracks
Mandatory cycle tracks

For mandatory cycle tracks, no parking or stopping at any time. A mandatory cycle track is indicated by a solid white line.

Non-mandatory cycle tracks

For non-mandatory cycle tracks, you can park for a maximum of 30 minutes while actively loading or unloading a vehicle.. A non mandatory cycle track is indicated by a broken white line

Cycle tracks operate on a 24 hour basis unless otherwise indicated on a time plate.

There are very few scenarios where you can hit a stationary object - be that a vehicle, pole, wall, tree, person - and the other object is at fault rather than you.

"It shouldn't have been there" isn't generally a defence in this country, stationary objects impeding your progress are hazards and you are obliged to react appropriately.

If it was the case that the car was at fault, then by the same logic you could ram someone who's blocking your driveway, and sue them for damages.

The video in question was made as a reaction by a cyclist to being told that they had to stay in the cycle lane all the time; the cyclist simply making the point that staying in the cycle lane all the time isn't an option.

The same obligation doesn't exist in Ireland, so the argument is moot.

Is a pothole not a stationary object and yet people can successfully claim off the council for damages?

seamus wrote: »

Councils will often just pay out rather than deal with the hassle.
Successfully suing in court for this is quite rare because you have to prove that the council actually did something wrong. A pothole on its own is not the council's fault unless they created it.
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/motorist-sues-council-over-pothole-damage-27497687.html

I thought it was that you could sue the council if it was reported and not fixed. If I hit a pothole today and report it to the council I get nothing, if you hit it 2 days later they'll pay compensation as they have left the road in a dangerous condition.

If I was driving around a bend in a road and a car was parked on the road for no reason and I hit it am I at fault? As in, if it would be impossible to have stopped in time.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

You would be - what if it was a cyclist or pedestrian or child?


You need to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

I understand what you mean but I'm thinking that there would be many situations where if someone broke down on a road, particularly some country roads, it would be impossible for an oncoming car to stop in time. Imagine if the cyclist is on a cycle lane with a sharp bend and a large hedge or wall lining it. If someone parked on that bend you'd have very little chance of being able to stop in time. Surely the blame should shift to the driver who didn't take due care to park his car where it was safe to do so rather than the cyclist who was cycling in a lane that should have been free of obstructions. Just seems that it shouldn't be so black and white. (I say shouldn't but I'm also assuming that it is that black and white legally speaking and it's tough luck if you happen to be the cyclist)

deisedevil wrote: »

I understand what you mean but I'm thinking that there would be many situations where if someone broke down on a road, particularly some country roads, it would be impossible for an oncoming car to stop in time. Imagine if the cyclist is on a cycle lane with a sharp bend and a large hedge or wall lining it. If someone parked on that bend you'd have very little chance of being able to stop in time. Surely the blame should shift to the driver who didn't take due care to park his car where it was safe to do so rather than the cyclist who was cycling in a lane that should have been free of obstructions. Just seems that it shouldn't be so black and white. (I say shouldn't but I'm also assuming that it is that black and white legally speaking and it's tough luck if you happen to be the cyclist)

Both cars and bicycles have these things called brakes, they are a legal obligation and use or lack of use removes the grey area when it comes to crashing or not crashing into stationary objects.