Lady on the passenger side opened the door. M I on fault ??

[san2505]

Hi,

On friday, while my back home, I was riding on a 2 lane road. As it was evening time, the road had long queue of cars. On one Red traffic light, there were many cars lined up and waiting for the signal to open up. I was splitting the lanes and was going between the cars waiting. Speed appx 25 mph. Suddenly the passenger in the car front of me, opened front passenger door. The car had no signals on, no turn or any emergency signals.

As I was so close to the door, I tried to stop but hit the door of the car and me and my motorcycle fell between the cars. I was not hurt, but my motorcycle has good amount of damage.

Posting the pic of accident. Can someone tell me who will be considered at fault in this case ?

-San

 

[dkcwenge]

wait... are you sure you were going 25 mph between stopped cars? i think that's a bit too fast for comfort, in my opinion. doesn't really give you enough reaction time if anything happens.

 

[Tim-That CX Guy]

"CVC 22517
No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers."

Now, in the interest of Crash Analysis, if you were truly traveling at 25 miles per hour lane sharing in that situation, you were probably going too fast for conditions.

A 10 mile per hour delta likely would have allowed you to stop.

While the passenger is to blame "legally," this may be mitigated by your speed when an insurance company looks at it.

 

[Tim-That CX Guy]

Again, legally, this is not OP's fault, although a valid argument can easily be made that OP was going too fast for prevailing conditions.

When it comes to the opposing insurance company, you'd better believe that they'll bring up speed.

Since this is Crash Analysis, san2505, what would you have done differently to avoid the collision?

 

[Burning1]

LEO forum is the best place to go if you want to figure out who is at fault. Crash analysis is the place to go to learn how to avoid a problem again in the future.

On a motorcycle it's not enough to not be at fault. No payout is worth the injury.

 

[san2505]

I really don't remember my speed. Its was regular speed that a motorcyclist do when the traffic was still. mostly ard 15-20 mph. It was a regular Red light between two intersection. Also I was pretty careful and not speeding. It was a game day and the accident happened right in front of SF giants stadium.

Accident happened in San Francisco City on Embarcadero and between Townsend and Second street.

After the accident, even the other driver admitted that it was his fault. I am just afraid that his insurance mit deny his fault when it come down to payment of the repair charges and deuctible.

 

[Tim-That CX Guy]

So, you might want to delete the speeds you have listed here.
If you don't know, then it's highly unlikely that it was the initial speed you thought it was.

Still, the question stands, what would you do differently, or what could you have done differently to not get taken out by a door.

 

[DataDan]

On friday, while my back home, I was riding on a 2 lane road. As it was evening time, the road had long queue of cars. On one Red traffic light, there were many cars lined up and waiting for the signal to open up. I was splitting the lanes and was going between the cars waiting. Speed appx 25 mph. Suddenly the passenger in the car front of me, opened front passenger door. The car had no signals on, no turn or any emergency signals.

Oh FFS.

Here's some crash analysis for BARF's lane-splitting cheerleaders: Clearly the Lane Splitting Is Totally Safe and Anyone Can Do It movement has FAILED miserably in getting out a coherent message about the dangers of splitting and countermeasures to prevent them.

You should take very seriously the fact that 1163 crashes in the CMSP study 8/2012-7/2013--15% of all crashes in the study--occurred while lane splitting. That's way out of proportion to any reasonalbe estimate of the splitting proportion of California riding. Instead, the reaction seems to be "Oh, that's not so bad!" Yet in the 900 crashes investigated by Hurt 1976-77, only 5--less than 1%--occurred while splitting (via Ouellet's paper, available at lanesplittingislegal.com).

Less cheerleading. More down-to-earth talk about the how lane-splitting crashes happen and how to prevent them.

 

[Lunch Box]

Oh FFS.
Less cheerleading. More down-to-earth talk about the how lane-splitting crashes happen and how to prevent them.

Posts like this are the reason why so many of us are VERY glad that you still hang out here on BARF now and then. :thumbup

 

[Enchanter]

LEO forum is the best place to go if you want to figure out who is at fault. Crash analysis is the place to go to learn how to avoid a problem again in the future.

On a motorcycle it's not enough to not be at fault. No payout is worth the injury.

Yes, this.

Oh FFS.

Here's some crash analysis for BARF's lane-splitting cheerleaders: Clearly the Lane Splitting Is Totally Safe and Anyone Can Do It movement has FAILED miserably in getting out a coherent message about the dangers of splitting and countermeasures to prevent them.

You should take very seriously the fact that 1163 crashes in the CMSP study 8/2012-7/2013--15% of all crashes in the study--occurred while lane splitting. That's way out of proportion to any reasonalbe estimate of the splitting proportion of California riding. Instead, the reaction seems to be "Oh, that's not so bad!" Yet in the 900 crashes investigated by Hurt 1976-77, only 5--less than 1%--occurred while splitting (via Ouellet's paper, available at lanesplittingislegal.com).

Less cheerleading. More down-to-earth talk about the how lane-splitting crashes happen and how to prevent them.

A million times THIS.

san2505, what did you do that contributed to this crash? What will you differently now that you've gained experience with this type of situation?

 

[Donelop]

Not entirely in agreement that a larger margin of safety can be created to prevent being doored. you have no control over when the door will open so theres no way to determine an appropriate speed. The only way to avoid being doored is not lane split until you have 3+ feet on both sides.

 

[dravnx]

Not entirely in agreement that a larger margin of safety can be created to prevent being doored. you have no control over when the door will open so theres no way to determine an appropriate speed. The only way to avoid being doored is not lane split until you have 3+ feet on both sides.

Going slower means more reaction time. More reaction time means, well, you figure it out.

 

[Donelop]

Going slower means more reaction time. More reaction time means, well, you figure it out.

lol. I think i made my point pretty clear that unless you know what car is going to be opening their door and when, timing your speed to avoid it isn't something you're capable of doing. Coming safely to a stop has TWO variables: distance and speed. If you can control speed without any clue about the distance, it's out of your control. Take a look at the statistics on cyclists being doored while riding in the bike lane.

 

[tzrider]

lol. I think i made my point pretty clear that unless you know what car is going to be opening their door and when, timing your speed to avoid it isn't something you're capable of doing. Coming safely to a stop has TWO variables: distance and speed. If you can control speed without any clue about the distance, it's out of your control. Take a look at the statistics on cyclists being doored while riding in the bike lane.

You are safer at a lower speed for three reasons off the top of my head.

First, the danger zone is much closer to the car. At 25 mph, your total stopping distance, including reaction time, is about 85 feet. At 10 mph it's less than 30. Given this, when you're going faster, the car's occupant is less likely to know you're coming because you're so much farther away. At 30 feet or less, there is a greater chance they'll realize you're there and not open the door.

Secondly, at lower speeds, you are in the danger zone over a smaller distance and a smaller amount of time, since it takes less time to stop.

The third reason you're safer is that you won't hit the door as hard at a lower speed if the collision is inevitable.

 

[dravnx]

You are safer at a lower speed for three reasons off the top of my head.

First, the danger zone is much closer to the car. At 25 mph, your total stopping distance, including reaction time, is about 85 feet. At 10 mph it's less than 30. Given this, when you're going faster, the car's occupant is less likely to know you're coming because you're so much farther away. At 30 feet or less, there is a greater chance they'll realize you're there and not open the door.

Secondly, at lower speeds, you are in the danger zone over a smaller distance and a smaller amount of time, since it takes less time to stop.

The third reason you're safer is that you won't hit the door as hard at a lower speed if the collision is inevitable.

Thanx, I didn't think this had to be explained. It seems so obvious.

 

[DataDan]

First, the danger zone is much closer to the car. At 25 mph, your total stopping distance, including reaction time, is about 85 feet. At 10 mph it's less than 30. Given this, when you're going faster, the car's occupant is less likely to know you're coming because you're so much farther away. At 30 feet or less, there is a greater chance they'll realize you're there and not open the door.

This may be what you meant in your second point, but it's worth emphasizing anyway:

In addition, at a lower speed differential you can focus your attention over a shorter range. If, at higher speed, you're vulnerable to a potential threat 5 cars ahead, that may be too far away to identify it in time to react. If your threat range is only 2 cars ahead, you're more likely to spot a problem in the making.

 

[tzrider]

This may be what you meant in your second point, but it's worth emphasizing anyway:

In addition, at a lower speed differential you can focus your attention over a shorter range. If, at higher speed, you're vulnerable to a potential threat 5 cars ahead, that may be too far away to identify it in time to react. If your threat range is only 2 cars ahead, you're more likely to spot a problem in the making.

You added a worthwhile fourth point.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, but I wasn't thinking along that line in the second point. The second point speaks more to being exposed to danger for a smaller percentage of your overall riding time.

 

[Donelop]

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying slower isn't safer. I'm saying you cant prevent being doored. It takes all of a second to swing a four and a half foot barrier in your face.

 

[tzrider]

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying slower isn't safer. I'm saying you cant prevent being doored. It takes all of a second to swing a four and a half foot barrier in your face.

I agree with you. The best you can do is reduce the odds. Slowing down does reduce the odds.

 

[latindane]

I agree with you. The best you can do is reduce the odds. Slowing down does reduce the odds.

Plus the extent of the damage if it does happen, as you pointed out. Both lower probability of it happening and less expected damage conditional on it happening.