Jeez. The only people who will benefit from this will be no win, no fee chancers.
Don't slag off the No win no fee funding arrangement which as respectable law firms we all use and we as consumers are all entitled to use. It after all allows cases to be funded without having to dip your hand in your own pocket thereby making legal representation to everyone accessible unlile the old days when you could only get legal aid and that was means tested so only a few got their cases funded.
A CFA (conditional fee agreement) which is the proper name for a no win no fee and comes complete with proper ATE insurance is still the best way for most to fund legitimate personal injury cases if they do not have legal expenses insurance in place.
However, had you said the sharkster claims management firms who do not carry out proper risk assessments before sending off the letter of claim, or law firms owned by the insurance companies (panel firms) who get a paid a pittance because they work on the cheap, then I would totally agree with you 100%
But back to the orignal post, nothing is really going to change.
Even now, and even in cases where pedestrians (even when drunk) have walked out in front of cars and cylists have come up the blind side and been badly injured, the chances are they will still succeed in many cases in making a claim because there have already been a lot of cases where the driver has been held to ave contributed because the courts have said that in certain location, the driver has a duty of care and should anticipate the possibility of a pedestrian walking out in front of them or a cyclist doing something stupid.
I will even post up an article I did on this very subject I did only a short while ago.
So some things will not change.
As far as the door opening aspect is concerned, we already have an offence of negligently opening a car door. The onus of responsibility is on the occupants of the vehicle.