Parked car opened their door in to my moving car as I drove past. Who's at fault?

Richard53

LadyMcPoundland wrote: »

I believe this is an traffic offence called Opening Door to Danger.

straighttalker wrote: »

There is a lot more rubbish spouted on this thread than usual. The above being the most amusing. I have never heard of such an offence!

Not an offence AFAIK. More likely the title of a public information film that the poster has got confused with reality.

LadyMcPoundland

Thanks straighttalker for those kind words of encouragement for me on my first ever post - thought this was supposed to be friendly!

HappyMJ posted the link before me as I'm still learning the ropes. But there it is for you in black and white. Just because you haven't heard of something - it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Richard53

There is no offence called 'Opening Door To Danger', which is what you stated.


I hope that doesn't sound unfriendly, as it's not meant to be, but people come on this forum asking for specific advice, sometimes in situations which are quite serious, and it helps nobody if people post inaccurate or misleading information, even if well meant. I've been guilty of this myself, so I am not pointing the finger.

straighttalker

HappyMJ wrote: »

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/105/made

I stand most humbly corrected!:beer:

Mojisola

samphe wrote: »

As I was driving along slowly as I had just come around a corner, a passenger in a parked car opened their door in to my car door. The only damage is to the door.

The door opener is lucky that your car was there and not a cyclist who could have been injured by such an inconsiderate action.

Car_54

Mojisola wrote: »

The door opener is lucky that your car was there and not a cyclist who could have been injured by such an inconsiderate action.

And perhaps the OP is lucky that it was a door opening rather than a child running out.

We don't know, we've only got one side of a story.

Zandoni

Even if the door opened and you hit it with the front of your car you are not too blame if you had no time to stop.

shaun_from_Africa

In the end, it probably won't matter in the slightest as who was to blame as all that will matter is what will be the cheapest, quickest and easiest thing for the insurers to do.
Without any independent witnesses or other evidence such as cctv recordings and as it may well be a relatively low value claim, the insurance companies aren't going to spend much time on the matter and I also think it will end up as a 50/50.

londonTiger

zappahey wrote: »

In my experience with a current issue, the insurers will try to go 50-50 if there are no witnesses, even where the case appears cut and dried. In my case, someone reversed into me while I was stationary.

It makes life easier for them and they get more money out of both policy holders at renewal time.

how can it possibly be 50:50, if insurers believe that the other party was involved in this rta at all then the other party is at fault just by virtue that they were a parked vehicle that swung door onto moving vehicle who has right of way.

if the other party rejects it and claims that they were not involved in any accident and have not sustained any damage (their proof of non involvement) then OPs insurance will either make an claim or ask OP to cover all their cost to keep ncb

It's impossible it to be 50:50, a 50:50 is when both parties are equal-ish priority on the road and a collision occured with no idependant witness.

I was involved in a rta, other party pulled out of a parked position, on the wrong side of the road (facing oncoming trafic). the car pulled out from the other side intending to join my side, did 0-20 without looking, straight from park to right in front of me.

they argued that the oncoming vehicle gave way, I was speeding, I should have watched out for them etc. Throwing the whole kitchen sink into the arguement.

It went to insurance, I think their insurance talk some sense into them, and took liability. Insurance aren't going to defend the indefensible.

Mercdriver

arcon5 wrote: »

And in reality that is not possible on pretty much every road i've ever been on

So what do you do when you approach a car with someone in the right hand side leaning towards the window as if they are about to emerge? If you are observing correctly (due care and attention) then you will slow down to take into account the fact that they might open the door. If you aren't expecting someone to do something silly in this circumstance then you are not driving defensively, and could be prone to not giving due care which may open up the 50/50 argument.

i too have been taught to allow a doors width except where it is impractical, and then slow down so able to stop if necessary.

This isn't as clear cut as it may seem. If you fail to see someone about to get out of a car then you simply aren't looking hard enough.