Which "rules of the road"? Note that bike lanes and most laws governing bike lanes contradict traditional "rules of the road".

I know someone who collided with a van while riding in a bike lane. Legally, the van driver who cut in front of the cyclist in the bike lane was at fault. But from the perspective of traditional "rules of the road", the cyclist was at fault, because he was passing slow and stopped cars to the right of them (in the bike lane). Three lanes of motorist traffic moving in the same direction as the cyclist stopped to let the van driver coming from the opposite direction turn left in front of them to enter a driveway into a commercial area. Meanwhile, unbenownst to any of them, and out of their view, the cyclist was barrelling down the bike lane at 20+ MPH. The van driver turned and crossed the three lanes of traffic, and then the bike lane, right when the cyclist appeared who hardly had time to get his hands on the brake levers before he smashed into the side of the van.

The van driver took 100% of the blame and paid for a new bike and all of the cyclist's medical costs. But was he really at fault here? Is it reasonable for the cyclist to be passing stopped cars on their right going 20mph? To me, that's violating a very important "rule of the road".

Defensive driving courses teach that no collision is 100% the other guy's fault - that every collision is avoidable by anyone involved. This is why a driver's insurance premium is raised even though he may not have been legally "at fault".

Defensive traffic cycling (hmm, maybe I should trademark that phrase) is based on the same principle.

I would be interested in knowing the details of any incidents you (or anyone else) may have had with cars where you think you did nothing wrong, the whole thing was caused by the motorist, and there was nothing you could have done to avoid it.

Serge