I’m a big believer in making sure the city pictured is actually the city discussed in the article. However, Philadelphia and Toronto do have a lot in common; love/dislike of Joe Carter aside.

Wonder what she was 21% at fault for?

That is totally Toronto. Corner of Dundas and Spadina, with the CN Tower in the background. Other than that, a good piece.

May not matter if Pennsylvania is a joint and several liability state

So many drivers think the law works in the exact opposite way — i.e. that it’s the cyclist’s responsibility to avoid opening doors, rather then the driver’s responsibility to check for traffic before opening. At least this’ll give me a good anecdote next time I have a close call with a doorer — “someone in Philly was successfully sued for over $2 million for doing exactly what you just did”

The insurance companies of both drivers will pay up to their policy limits. She could also pursue their assets (houses, cars, bank accounts) and/or request garnishment of their future earnings. It’s unlikely that she’ll get the full amount, but does give her several avenues to get at least some of the judgement fulfilled over time.

More filming leaving the USA and going to Canada!?! Why Streetsblog, why?

😉

First I am thankful the individual is alive. I enjoy a good bike ride and feel terrible for what happened.

Separate thought here however: This is ridiculous and quite frankly, beyond belief. The bicyclist was found to be partially at fault but received more than $2M! What? How much $ did the person who did the dooring receive? How much $ did the person following too closely receive? This makes me never want to drive in a large city. If bicyclists who zip through just inches away from cars can get multiple millions if dollars in crashes they are partially responsible for, that is an absolutely terrifying thought as a driver. Ridiculous!

All I’m trying to say is, if there were a bunch of pictures of female cyclists riding through Philadelphia in the public domain, I wouldn’t have used one from Toronto. You’d be surprised how few photos of cyclists, and buses and parking there are available for free use at all, much less in every city.

No photo would have been better than one that was obviously NOT Philly.

Why does the person with the dooring need money? Was the door damaged? Grow a brain.

Andy, I rest my case. ‘Her fault was likely for not riding out of the door zone’ as you say is exactly why I made my comment. If the bicyclist was at fault for riding in an area where she should not have been riding, how does anyone justify this massive payout? The crash would never have happened if, as you say, she had been out if the door zone. Take your emotions out if it, I specifically wrote in the beginning of my post that I feel terrible for what happened. It’s awful. But what’s worse is two million dollars being given to someone who has legally been declared to have played a role in the incident happening!

Ummmm…. Riding in the door zone is NOT a moving violation but opening a door into traffic and following too closely behind a vehicle that you can’t avoid crashing into it when it stops suddenly both are.

There is really no emotion involved in my reasoning and obviously a court of law that had much more of the facts in front of them thought that, while she could have done more to protect herself, she was more a victim of the actions of the others than her own.

RTFA – If she’s under 50% responsible, she collects. In this case she was badly damaged — and that is not too surprising, cars and vans are capable of doing a lot of damage, and if that possibility makes you less enthusiastic about driving, that’s okay. I see how people driver, clearly this possibility is not considered often enough.

That said, there’s no explanation for the “21%” figure — I’d like to know what traffic law she broke, or what due care she failed to exercise. Being tailgated by a van is kinda intimidating, and might have caused her to ride further into the door zone than is prudent.

And “hopefully drivers and bicyclists will all be more careful” — check the stats on harm done to others, like pedestrians. Bicyclists already ARE more careful, far more careful. They’re about 15x less likely to kill a pedestrian, and similarly less likely to maim someone else in a horrible accident like this. Car drivers bring the danger, the harm is overwhelmingly a result of their actions, not anyone else. This is not equal blame or equal responsibility or both-sides-do-it.

I didn’t dispute it, I said I was curious. How can we learn from these things if they are not explained? How does someone obey the law (not get cited, at least) yet still end up 21% responsible? I’d normally imagine a bike rider would be a little curious about that. If this is really about the door zone, this indicates that we should be even more aggressive about staying out of it, lest we be found partly at fault for our own injuries. If it’s not about the door zone, what other things is it that we should not be doing? But the legal document does not say.