Geico (Partially) Blames Cyclist for Getting Doored
#26
The Left Coast, USA
You mean Moore, representing herself, was told by a mega insurance company that the victim is to blame and not their insured? Gosh, that's amazing, never heard of such a thing. And they have such cute commercials...maybe she should right a letter to that Gecko with the accent! He seems nice....
#27
Senior Member
My expectation is that the passing vehicle would not be blamed, since otherwise every car in every city would have to move to the opposing lane just to drive down any street if they wanted to avoid the door zone. ;-)
__________________
Knows the weight of my bike to the nearest 10 pounds.
Knows the weight of my bike to the nearest 10 pounds.
#28
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,664 Times
in
2,497 Posts
if you observe motorists, they stay way out of the door zone. If they are forced to drive in the door zone by a narrow street, they go very slowly. I have never seen a driver speeding through the door zone, although I'm sure it happens
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,970
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2475 Post(s)
Liked 722 Times
in
513 Posts
H
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 4,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Opening a door into the path of traffic is ILLEGAL.
Parking in bike lane = ILLEGAL.
The cyclist is 100% the victim and deserves every penny she gets.
If you really think you can tell her 100% of the time exactly how far to stay from a car to avoid the door, and exactly when and where a car door can open, you're being nearly as ignorant as the driver in the story.
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Central PA
Posts: 972
Bikes: Cannondale Slate 105 and T2 tandem, 2008 Scott Addict R4, Raleigh SC drop bar tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Looks to me like the driver opened the door INTO the cyclist, not in front of. In that scenario, the cyclist would not have time or ability to take any evasive action. Car is in the wrong in several ways stated above and the driver did not take due care before entering a traffic lane with the door. The cyclist should have expected it though, that's how I ride. I don't think it is technically her fault at all but I try to give cars a wide berth. I look at every drivers side mirror as I approach just to see if anyone is in the vehicle.
Some two door cars have very very long doors too. I try never to park next to one in a parking lot.
Some two door cars have very very long doors too. I try never to park next to one in a parking lot.
#32
Old, but not really wise
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fairfax, VA commuting to Washington DC
Posts: 814
Bikes: 2010 Kona Dew Drop (the daily driver),'07 Specialized Roubaix (the sports car), '99 ish Kona NuNu MTB (the SUV), Schwinn High Plains (circa 1992?) (the beater)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
First: From the camera angle, it appears that she moved as far to the left as she could without entering the oncoming lane, and out of what most would have anticipated as the primary 'door zone'.
Second, there is a huge difference from saying "the cyclist could have done more to prevent" and "the cyclist shares some of the legal fault"
E.G. In most 'rear end' type accidents, the front car is likely to have been able to do things to prevent being rear ended. They may have shared some role in the prevent-ability of the accident (signaling their intent, using less than 100% of braking force, if the situation allowed, moving left or right as they braked if possible, etc...) yet the law does not REQUIRE these actions.
Likewise, this cyclist may have been able to take additional actions to prevent the harm, but it does not seem reasonable that she was legally required to do so. She was proceeding lawfully, and the driver's actions (parking in the bike lane, opening his door without looking IMMEDIATELY AFTER he passed the cyclist) would seem to be 100% of the legal cause of the accident.
Second, there is a huge difference from saying "the cyclist could have done more to prevent" and "the cyclist shares some of the legal fault"
E.G. In most 'rear end' type accidents, the front car is likely to have been able to do things to prevent being rear ended. They may have shared some role in the prevent-ability of the accident (signaling their intent, using less than 100% of braking force, if the situation allowed, moving left or right as they braked if possible, etc...) yet the law does not REQUIRE these actions.
Likewise, this cyclist may have been able to take additional actions to prevent the harm, but it does not seem reasonable that she was legally required to do so. She was proceeding lawfully, and the driver's actions (parking in the bike lane, opening his door without looking IMMEDIATELY AFTER he passed the cyclist) would seem to be 100% of the legal cause of the accident.
#33
Old, but not really wise
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fairfax, VA commuting to Washington DC
Posts: 814
Bikes: 2010 Kona Dew Drop (the daily driver),'07 Specialized Roubaix (the sports car), '99 ish Kona NuNu MTB (the SUV), Schwinn High Plains (circa 1992?) (the beater)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If this were true, no car would ever hit another car's door and tear it off. This is simply not true. Rare, sure, but it happens. Watch enough youtube 'fail' videos, and you'll see many.
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 4,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
First: From the camera angle, it appears that she moved as far to the left as she could without entering the oncoming lane, and out of what most would have anticipated as the primary 'door zone'.
Second, there is a huge difference from saying "the cyclist could have done more to prevent" and "the cyclist shares some of the legal fault"
E.G. In most 'rear end' type accidents, the front car is likely to have been able to do things to prevent being rear ended. They may have shared some role in the prevent-ability of the accident (signaling their intent, using less than 100% of braking force, if the situation allowed, moving left or right as they braked if possible, etc...) yet the law does not REQUIRE these actions.
Likewise, this cyclist may have been able to take additional actions to prevent the harm, but it does not seem reasonable that she was legally required to do so. She was proceeding lawfully, and the driver's actions (parking in the bike lane, opening his door without looking IMMEDIATELY AFTER he passed the cyclist) would seem to be 100% of the legal cause of the accident.
Second, there is a huge difference from saying "the cyclist could have done more to prevent" and "the cyclist shares some of the legal fault"
E.G. In most 'rear end' type accidents, the front car is likely to have been able to do things to prevent being rear ended. They may have shared some role in the prevent-ability of the accident (signaling their intent, using less than 100% of braking force, if the situation allowed, moving left or right as they braked if possible, etc...) yet the law does not REQUIRE these actions.
Likewise, this cyclist may have been able to take additional actions to prevent the harm, but it does not seem reasonable that she was legally required to do so. She was proceeding lawfully, and the driver's actions (parking in the bike lane, opening his door without looking IMMEDIATELY AFTER he passed the cyclist) would seem to be 100% of the legal cause of the accident.
#35
GATC
Geico's determination of liability is not binding on anyone, by the way, the cyclist is free to get a lawyer and sue the driver and Geico and let a jury decide what Geico's liability should be.
Last edited by HardyWeinberg; 03-13-13 at 10:45 AM.
#36
GATC
That's a good point, a neighbor opened her door into traffic (after parallel parking) and it got smooshed by a car speeding up behind her, and it was entirely her fault for insurance purposes. And traffic ticket purposes.
Last edited by HardyWeinberg; 03-13-13 at 10:44 AM.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville TN
Posts: 794
Bikes: Trek 7.3FX, Diamondback Edgewood hybrid, KHS Montana
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,049
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No death. Thank god.
Edit: Also watched the camera footage a few times. looks like the door was almost opened into the cyclist. Nothing she could have done to avoid the collision short of a full stop. She was already going slow.
Edit: Also watched the camera footage a few times. looks like the door was almost opened into the cyclist. Nothing she could have done to avoid the collision short of a full stop. She was already going slow.
Last edited by CenturionIM; 03-13-13 at 12:14 PM.
#40
Beer and nachos today!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Treaty Seven
Posts: 222
Bikes: Schwinn Peloton, Schwinn Prelude SS, Specialized Sequoia
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This. I can't count the number of times I've almost performed an accidental doorectomy with my truck because the driver couldn't be bothered to look before opening (and usually, jumping out and standing just beyond the end of the door, to boot). I think I've seen a half-dozen or so vehicles over the last few days with the leading edge of the driver's side door bent outward. I wonder how that happened...
#42
Senior Member
I am not talking legally here folks just cycling common sense.
__________________
BMC Roadmachine
Kona Jake the Snake
BMC Roadmachine
Kona Jake the Snake
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 4,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Yup and it amazes that people can disagree with this and are not willing to take any responsibility for there own safety. It is road cycling 101. Do not ride in the door zone. It makes no difference if the car should or should not be there...... just don't do it.
I am not talking legally here folks just cycling common sense.
I am not talking legally here folks just cycling common sense.
#44
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,664 Times
in
2,497 Posts
moved here from commuting
#45
Senior Member
She tried to go around it?? Are we watching the same video? There was no traffic behind her and she had plenty of time to check for that. All she had to do was go out into the lane and there would have been no incident. Is the car at fault.... absolutely! Could it have been avoided... absolutely!
__________________
BMC Roadmachine
Kona Jake the Snake
BMC Roadmachine
Kona Jake the Snake
#46
Señior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 13,749
Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
Since when does the insurance company determine percentage of fault? That should be in the police report.
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 4,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
She tried to go around it?? Are we watching the same video? There was no traffic behind her and she had plenty of time to check for that. All she had to do was go out into the lane and there would have been no incident. Is the car at fault.... absolutely! Could it have been avoided... absolutely!
Perhaps she should have mounted a laser micrometer to ther bike, to accurately measure the length of every car door she passes.
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What an unpleasant bit of video to watch. While it's true that the cyclist should have taken the lane - I certainly would have done so in this situation since there was no interfering traffic (if there had been, I would have slowed down a lot) - I would give all, repeat all, of the blame to the motorist. It is an ABSOLUTE responsibility of drivers to check their mirrors and/or turn their heads to make sure no cyclist is coming along. Motorists should assume that a cyclist is there unless proven otherwise.
To say that the cyclist could have avoided the accident is irrelevant to the question of who was at fault. My sister was doored on Mass Ave in Cambridge in a similar sort of event - very nasty and the fault of the cager.
To say that the cyclist could have avoided the accident is irrelevant to the question of who was at fault. My sister was doored on Mass Ave in Cambridge in a similar sort of event - very nasty and the fault of the cager.
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
Considering a pic of a vet under a truck on the interstate is the lead in another thread right now the risk from being stopped where traffic is normally moving is not the safest option. What is a fender bender for a car may be fatal on a bike.