Bicycle accidents create complications that don’t exist in typical car-versus-car collisions. Cyclists lack the insurance coverage and physical protection that motor vehicle operators have, making injury claims more complex from both a liability and compensation standpoint. Understanding these differences helps you protect your rights when a vehicle strikes you while riding.
Our friends at Blaszkow Legal, PLLC handling cycling collision cases know that anti-cyclist bias and insurance coverage gaps require different strategies than standard auto accidents. A bicycle accident lawyer experienced with bicycle claims can counter common defenses and identify all available sources of compensation when drivers injure cyclists.
Insurance Coverage Challenges For Cyclists
The most significant difference between bicycle and car accident claims involves insurance. Motor vehicle operators carry liability insurance that covers injuries they cause to others. Cyclists typically don’t have dedicated bicycle liability insurance, and more importantly, they’re not covered by their own auto policy when riding bikes in most situations.
When a car hits a cyclist, the driver’s auto insurance should cover the cyclist’s injuries. However, if you’re injured in a bicycle-versus-bicycle crash or you hit a pedestrian while cycling, you may lack insurance coverage for the incident entirely. Some homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policies provide limited liability coverage for bicycle accidents, but many people don’t realize this or don’t have such policies.
Uninsured Motorist Coverage Complications
Your own uninsured motorist coverage typically doesn’t apply when you’re on a bicycle unless you purchased specific endorsements. Most auto policies cover you only while occupying a motor vehicle. According to the Insurance Information Institute, this gap leaves many cyclists without coverage options when hit by uninsured drivers.
Some states now allow or require insurers to offer uninsured motorist coverage that extends to cyclists, but adoption varies widely. Many cyclists don’t know to ask about this coverage or assume their regular auto policy protects them while biking.
Anti-Cyclist Bias In Claims
Insurance adjusters and juries often approach bicycle accident claims with preexisting bias against cyclists. Many people view cyclists as road obstacles who don’t belong on streets or assume cyclists routinely violate traffic laws. This bias affects how claims are evaluated and what settlement offers insurers make.
Adjusters quickly blame cyclists for accidents even when drivers clearly caused the collision. They assume the cyclist must have done something wrong or could have avoided the crash by riding somewhere else. Overcoming this bias requires strong evidence and clear presentation of traffic laws granting cyclists road access rights.
Comparative Negligence Arguments
Defendants in bicycle cases almost always raise comparative negligence defenses, arguing the cyclist shares fault for the accident. Common arguments include claims that cyclists should have used sidewalks instead of roads, should have worn brighter clothing, or contributed to the crash by positioning themselves poorly in traffic lanes.
These arguments ignore that cyclists have legal rights to use roadways and that many of the supposed “mistakes” cyclists make are actually lawful riding practices. We counter these defenses by demonstrating the driver’s traffic violations and the cyclist’s compliance with applicable laws.
Unique Liability Issues In Cycling Crashes
Traffic laws applying to bicycles differ from those governing motor vehicles, creating confusion about rights and responsibilities. Cyclists must follow most traffic rules that apply to cars, but specific statutes address bicycle-specific situations like bike lanes, sidewalk riding, and lighting requirements.
Determining liability requires understanding these bicycle-specific regulations. A cyclist using a bike lane properly has a strong claim against a driver who turns across the lane without yielding. However, cyclists riding against traffic or failing to signal turns may face legitimate comparative negligence arguments.
Dooring Accidents
One collision type unique to bicycle accidents involves car doors opened into cyclists’ paths. Parked car occupants who open doors without checking for approaching cyclists cause serious injuries when riders strike the doors or swerve into traffic to avoid them.
These dooring accidents create clear liability in most cases. The door-opening occupant violated their duty to check for traffic before exiting. However, insurance companies still fight these claims by arguing cyclists rode too close to parked cars or could have avoided the door with proper attention.
Severity Of Bicycle Accident Injuries
Cyclists suffer more severe injuries than car occupants in comparable crashes. The lack of physical protection means even low-speed collisions can cause broken bones, head trauma, road rash, and permanent scarring. Higher-speed impacts frequently result in catastrophic injuries or death.
Insurance companies sometimes argue that the lack of vehicle damage proves the collision was minor and couldn’t have caused serious injuries. This argument ignores physics and the vulnerability of unprotected cyclists. We document crash dynamics and use medical evidence to prove that cyclist injuries result from direct impact forces rather than vehicle damage levels.
Long-Term Consequences
Cycling injuries often involve orthopedic trauma requiring multiple surgeries, extended rehabilitation, and permanent hardware implants. Road rash can necessitate skin grafts and leave disfiguring scars. Traumatic brain injuries from impacts even while wearing helmets create cognitive deficits affecting work capacity and quality of life.
These serious injuries demand substantial compensation, but insurers resist paying full value by exploiting anti-cyclist bias and arguing about liability splits.
Common Defenses Against Cyclist Claims
Defendants raise specific arguments in bicycle cases that rarely appear in car accident claims. Understanding these defenses helps you prepare evidence to counter them.
Defense arguments commonly include:
- The cyclist wasn’t visible due to dark clothing or lack of lights
- The cyclist should have used a sidewalk or bike path instead of the road
- The cyclist rode unpredictably or without proper control
- The cyclist failed to signal intentions clearly
- The driver couldn’t avoid the collision despite proper attention
Each defense requires specific evidence to refute. Witness testimony, traffic camera footage, accident reconstruction, and expert analysis of sight lines and reaction times all help establish that the driver could and should have avoided striking the cyclist.
Helmet Use As A Defense
Defense attorneys often argue that cyclists who weren’t wearing helmets contributed to their own injuries. While helmet laws vary by jurisdiction and typically apply only to minors, defendants claim that failure to wear a helmet represents comparative negligence regardless of legal requirements.
These arguments face challenges because helmets primarily protect against head injuries, not the broken bones, internal injuries, or road rash that cyclists commonly suffer. We limit this defense by showing that the specific injuries wouldn’t have been prevented by helmet use or by demonstrating that the collision resulted from the driver’s violation rather than any cyclist conduct.
Property Damage To Bicycles
Bicycle property damage claims involve smaller dollar amounts than vehicle repairs but can still be substantial. High-end road bikes and mountain bikes cost thousands of dollars. Even moderate-quality bicycles represent significant property losses, and insurance companies often undervalue these claims.
We document bicycle value through purchase receipts, manufacturer specifications, and market comparisons. Custom components, recent upgrades, and specialty equipment all factor into replacement costs that exceed what adjusters initially offer.
Proving Bicycle Accident Liability
Strong evidence becomes even more important in bicycle cases given the bias and defense arguments you’ll face. We gather all available documentation showing the driver’s fault, including police reports that note traffic violations, witness statements from people who saw the collision, video footage from traffic cameras or nearby businesses, and photographs of the accident scene showing road configuration and sight lines.
Physical evidence like vehicle damage patterns and road debris helps reconstruct the collision and prove the driver’s negligence. Your cycling equipment may contain GPS data showing your speed and position, providing objective evidence that counters driver claims about your actions.
Multiple Defendants In Cycling Claims
Some bicycle accidents involve liability beyond just the driver who struck you. Municipalities may share fault when poor road maintenance, inadequate signage, or dangerous road design contributed to the crash. Property owners whose landscaping or structures blocked sight lines might be liable. Construction companies that created hazardous conditions in bike lanes could face claims.
Identifying all potentially liable parties increases your chances of full compensation and provides additional insurance coverage to tap when primary defendant policies are insufficient.
Protecting Your Rights After A Cycling Collision
Bicycle accident claims face unique challenges from insurance coverage gaps, anti-cyclist bias, and defenses that rarely appear in standard auto accident cases. The vulnerability of cyclists means injuries tend to be severe even in collisions that cause minimal vehicle damage, requiring substantial compensation that insurance companies resist paying. If a driver injured you while cycling, document the scene thoroughly, preserve your bicycle and equipment as evidence, and gather witness information immediately. Getting legal guidance helps you counter bias against cyclists, identify all available insurance coverage, and build a claim that holds drivers accountable for the serious harm they cause when they fail to share the road safely.