|
|
|
|
Is there anything unique about the issues of available damages in a bicycle accident compared to other kinds of accidents or injuries?
Bicycling is a popular activity in the United States. About 30% of the US population owns a bike and 45% are occasionally ridden. Bicycles are less stable and less visible than cars. For that reason, they are more likely to be in a crash.
Bicyclists are obviously more exposed, both to general bodily injury and to head injury, and their injuries are often more serious (i.e., ejection) than a comparable impact involving vehicles which have more weight and bulk than a bike, not to mention seatbelts and airbags and doors.
Added to the mix are road surfaces and obstructions in the road, which can be far more devastating to a bicyclist. Uneven payment transitions and poor surface create hazardous risks. Bad road design and hazards (street lights, blind corners, low curbing, barrier curing, cobble stones, ruts, debris, uncovered drainage pits) are all perils.
There is also the emotional trauma of the event itself, especially if one flies over the handlebars.
For the above reasons, bike injuries are expensive because they tend to be very serious (i.e., broken bones, head injuries, separations, dislocations, spine, torn cartilage, back, neck) and are typically awarded higher damages for pain and suffering, where that is allowed by law, beyond damages for actual medical costs or lost wages.
Despite the validity of your claim, bicyclists have a “P.R.” problem. Many motorists do not respect the bicyclists' rights to share the roads. Moreover, there is a general attitude that labels cyclists as dangerous, wild, and irresponsible. Refrains of “they came out of nowhere” are common by witnesses and drivers. It is important to address (and overcome) these negative prejudices. An insurance adjuster or opposing attorney may try to suggest that you at least share liability in causing the accident, and may try to put you on the defensive. In other words, they may try to paint a picture of you as being careless and contributing to your injuries.
Even if you did not sustain a head injury, they could argue that risk-taking behavior, as evidenced by not wearing a helmet, suggests that you might have contributed to your accident in some way. So in addition to tackling the liability issue it is incumbent to overcome this bias. Does your style of moving through traffic give any basis to their otherwise unsubstantiated hypothesis? If possible, demonstrate an excellent driving record or give other evidence that you are law-abiding and responsible rider.
The laws vary from place to place, not only about wearing helmets, but also about rules of the road, for instance, whether it is legitimate to travel between lanes (i.e., land splitting), and when it considered safe to do so. |
Free Case Evaluation From An Experienced Personal Injury Attorney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free
Injury Case Evaluation |
|
Reviewed by an Experienced Attorney |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State Law Center
|
Legal Resource Directory
|
Legal Articles
|
Insurance Advice and Quotes
|
FreeAdvice Answers
|
Community Forums
