Heal up, remrak. I take it from some of the other posts that there originally was more info on how the crash happened in the OP, but it's gone now (good), so I can't really comment on that. Just on the point where to be, or not, in the lane. In the UK, this is not defined in law at all. This is very unlike the US, where a number of states have 'as far to the right as possible' (sometimes called 'frap' or 'afrap' laws) for cyclists, i.e. riders are required to hug the nearside kerb. Other states have explicit laws that riders may take any general traffic lane up to 14' wide (about 4.2 metres), as they are deemed substandard for safe overtaking of riders by drivers within the lane. While the latter laws are good, the former are not, and I have to say that on balance I prefer the UK situation in which this is not specified.
True, as the UK isn't split up into quite so many different states and regional devolution still seems decades away (hope it isn't), and it's unlikely that even with regional devolution regions would have legislative powers over traffic matters, there might be potential for a good law entitling cyclists to take the lane, but it might as well go the other way, or the law might create other problems. I find it interesting that in the US, the legislation goes either way, e.g. very liberal to cyclists or very restrictive. I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome were an initiative launched to introduce such legislation in the UK.
So, in the UK, it's merely good advice to take the lane/position yourself visibly, etc. Also, the presence or otherwise of cycle tracks or cycle lanes has no bearing on your positioning or liability whatsoever. We still have the freedom, in this country, of choosing not to use 'cycle infrastructure', unlike in the Netherlands and Denmark.
Good luck with the aftermath. Hope the driver's co-operative and it doesn't turn into an adversarial nightmare.
Heal up, remrak. I take it from some of the other posts that there originally was more info on how the crash happened in the OP, but it's gone now (good), so I can't really comment on that. Just on the point where to be, or not, in the lane. In the UK, this is not defined in law at all. This is very unlike the US, where a number of states have 'as far to the right as possible' (sometimes called 'frap' or 'afrap' laws) for cyclists, i.e. riders are required to hug the nearside kerb. Other states have explicit laws that riders may take any general traffic lane up to 14' wide (about 4.2 metres), as they are deemed substandard for safe overtaking of riders by drivers within the lane. While the latter laws are good, the former are not, and I have to say that on balance I prefer the UK situation in which this is not specified.
True, as the UK isn't split up into quite so many different states and regional devolution still seems decades away (hope it isn't), and it's unlikely that even with regional devolution regions would have legislative powers over traffic matters, there might be potential for a good law entitling cyclists to take the lane, but it might as well go the other way, or the law might create other problems. I find it interesting that in the US, the legislation goes either way, e.g. very liberal to cyclists or very restrictive. I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome were an initiative launched to introduce such legislation in the UK.
So, in the UK, it's merely good advice to take the lane/position yourself visibly, etc. Also, the presence or otherwise of cycle tracks or cycle lanes has no bearing on your positioning or liability whatsoever. We still have the freedom, in this country, of choosing not to use 'cycle infrastructure', unlike in the Netherlands and Denmark.
Good luck with the aftermath. Hope the driver's co-operative and it doesn't turn into an adversarial nightmare.