That said, I'm also of the opinion that IN THE EVENT of an accident caused when a car switches lanes at the moment that a splitting-lanes biker is there, it should automatically be assumed that the biker was driving too fast for safety. The biker knows the risks he's taking by splitting lanes, and it puts far more onus on the auto drivers to keep an eye peeled than it does on the bikers to assume cautiously safe speeds. If bikers wants to keep the privelege, they should be willing to cede legal right-of-way, so to speak, to cars changing lanes, and it should be reflected in deciding who's at fault come insurance-bickering time.
"That said, I'm also of the opinion that IN THE EVENT of an accident caused when a car switches lanes at the moment that a splitting-lanes biker is there, it should automatically be assumed that the biker was driving too fast for safety. The biker knows the risks he's taking by splitting lanes, and it puts far more onus on the auto drivers to keep an eye peeled than it does on the bikers to assume cautiously safe speeds."
________________________________________________________
I would say that in the strictest sense of the word what you described is truly an "accident". If lane splitting is legal where this takes place...and the car driver makes every attempt to detect a biker between lanes then this should be ruled as "no ones fault".
This is just my opinion....