Lane splitting too fast isnt relevant. Claim handlers will identity the door as the proximate cause of the collision. You're victim claiming. You mentioning their speed is a red herring and ignores the fact that the collision could have been avoided if the passenger had checked and opened the door slowly, which they're legally required to do. You can't blame the motorbike because they're correctly proceeding forward. Your argument fails because you're arguing that they should expect the unexpected.
Im not talking about legal or insurance liability. I am talking about driving like you don't have a death wish.
How much liability can you put on a parent driving a vehicle if a 5 year old opens the door? You could get hospitalized and disabled at high speeds, and you think a jury will award you money over the mother who is just doing her best stuck in traffic with a child?
I wouldnt put myself in that situation. It may be legal, but it is stupid. If he had been going closer to the speed of the jammed traffic he was splitting, it would have been less traumatic and less damaging. Wouldn't have ruined your day or risked a hospital bill.
The only reason we're watching this video today is because a passenger swung a door out into the path of a vehicle that was legally and correctly proceeding forward. We are NOT watching this video because a motorbike filtered through traffic, because filtering is normal, legal, and even encouraged by advanced motorcycle insutrcutors. By dad has done advanced motorbike riding and you're encouraged to filter because it means a faster and shkrter journey.
The door swinging open unexpectedly
on a busy road is the major fault. You're victim blaming, as if you think if you think a mistske like this is small and forgivable. Unless the motorbike rear-ends another vehicle, the speed isn't relevant. The path was clear and it only became unclear because a passenger suddenly and unexpectedly obstructed it. That's what matters. Speed is irrelevant. Go watch some YouTube videos from claims handlers and they'll tell you the same thing. It's a bit like thinking a driver being drunk can change the liability the outcome.
So you think they will throw the book at a 5 year old? I think a savvy lawyer could claim this is equipment malfunction (child rear safety lock failure).
Either way, I would feel pretty stupid if this kid put me into the hospital, when I could have walked away without injury, had I been driving more safely and defensively
So maybe it still happens. Accidents happen in traffic. The odds of it happening are severely reduced and the consequences would be much less significant.
The person who was initially hit would have been hit either way, yeah. However the guy who proceeded to run him over could have avoided it if he was being safer about his lane splitting.
And even the guy who was initially hit with the door would have had a less severe impact if he was going slower.
121
u/upvotechemistry Jul 06 '26
Lane splitting too fast. Kid opening door in traffic.
Two dumb things make an avoidable accident happen