Agreed, if cyclists want to "share the road" they should be held accountable for their actions as much as regular motorists.

That's what I'm wondering. As I'm still learning to drive, I don't yet know all of the rules of driving... So how is this OP's fault? As a fellow biker, I know cars can purposefully stop at a slant so cyclists can't pass, but if a cyclist hits a car from the rear, can the driver be held accountable because of stopping suddenly? It's a stop sign, so you have to stop... And in which cases can a driver be held accountable for a cyclist hitting the driver from the rear? Lane switching right in front of a cyclist who then hits you? b/c on Fordham rd, and University ave in the Bronx, there are many times when a car just jumps into a lane in front of a cyclist and immediately double parks (making it nearly impossible to stop and impossible to stay in the lane, so the cyclist is forced to switch lanes) but who will be held accountable for that if the cyclist does hit the double parker? Where's the proof if the biker hit the car from the rear?

Ok, and I obviously don't know my car... According to a commenter, fender is the front, so the cyclist hit the car from the front at the side perpendicularly... So OP pulled too far out in the street instead of stopping at the stop sign properly... Different case there... But my above question still stands...

It isn't so much about the fault. It's more like who takes the most damage in the collision is innocent in many cases.

Well if that's the case, a cyclist will always take the most damage... So that means they are never wrong? I ride my bike to wrk and school as I have no far yet, and know to stay in my lane unless a car just decides to completely block it. I look before passing, and hate to go in a middle lane b/c I never go fast enough to not slow drivers down. I stick to the right side of the right lane in the bike lane (with the picture of a bike) and sometimes get honked or so closely passes that I move my left hand off the handle because I fear I'll be hit... But there are some cyclists who just ignore the world and tear through the street like they are stronger than any car that lived and dot even look before crossing intersections, even if it's not their green light... They would surely be at fault, right?

*as I have no car yet*... *Don't even look*

The fender is neither the front or the back... So he wasn't rear ended, and he wasn't hit from the front. The fender is the portion of the car that goes over, and partially covers the wheels. So he was hit from the side. This kind of case can only be determined by details. Of it's how I think it happened. It's OP's fault for not leaving enough room between him and the crossing lane. If it was from the rear tire, then the cyclist was obviously at fault, or OP is a terrible driver. So all you people who're trying to solve this. It's only able to be done with details.

You are wrong. If not I'm taking my truck and start slamming into little rice burners.

Read the FML again. The cyclist hit him.

It's on FML because OP DIDN'T hit the cyclist, but is being charged with it. If anything, OP should sue the cyclist for damages to their fender (if there are any).

The judge could easily believe the cyclist side of the story, so get your head out your ass because the world is not just black and white.

38 - The judge could also believe the driver's story. Take your own advice ;)

Hey 38 you smell that? I think you just got BURNED

Get off my reply area haha lol smily face

16 - You're*

smiley*

Ahh, immaturity.

Lolololol you must be under the age of 15. *rolls eyes at the gratuitous amounts of immaturity*