Bicycle Accidents

A cyclist on a California road has the rights and the duties of a driver. What a cyclist does not have is two thousand pounds of steel, and the injury numbers follow from that.

Road position is the argument, and it is usually winnable

The defence version of a bicycle collision is almost always about where the rider was. That framing is worth resisting, because the law gives a cyclist the same rights as a driver in the same place, and because California's comparative fault rule does not cut off recovery at any percentage.

Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804: damages are

"diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering."

Reduced, not barred. An adjuster who says "you were partly at fault so there is nothing here" is describing a rule California abandoned in 1975.

Proposition 213 and the definition of a vehicle

This is the argument most often conceded too early.

Civil Code § 3333.4(a) bars non-economic damages for exactly three people: a driver convicted under Vehicle Code § 23152 or § 23153; the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident that was uninsured; and an operator of a vehicle involved who cannot establish financial responsibility.

A person on a bicycle is not operating a motor vehicle, and a bicycle is not the uninsured vehicle involved. In Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, the Supreme Court described the section as operating

"against only a plaintiff who is the uninsured owner or operator"

of the vehicle involved in the accident.

Insurers nevertheless raise Proposition 213 against cyclists whose personal car happened to be uninsured and parked at home. Do not treat that as settled against you. Say early and clearly that you were riding a bicycle.

Who the defendant is

The driver, and their employer where the driver was working — agency, and therefore outside the $15,000 cap of Vehicle Code § 17151(a).

A delivery or rideshare company, where the driver was on a platform at the time. That fact is recoverable from the platform's own data and is worth pursuing.

A public entity, for a dangerous condition: a bike lane that ends without warning, a grate oriented with the direction of travel, unrepaired pavement, or a signal that does not detect a bicycle. Six months to present the claim under Government Code § 911.2(a) — not two years.

A property owner, where a driveway or hedge blocked the sight line, under Civil Code § 1714 and Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108.

And a dog owner. Dog-versus-cyclist is a real and under-recognised category, and California imposes strict liability. How § 3342 works.

If you were riding for work

Couriers, food-delivery riders, and bike messengers are workers, and Labor Code § 3852(a) keeps the compensation claim and the civil claim alive at the same time. Under Labor Code § 3856(b) your fees and costs come out of a judgment before the employer's lien, in an amount the court fixes under § 3856(d).

Worker classification is frequently contested in delivery work, and it is worth contesting. Getting a claim started.

What to do this week

Do not repair the bicycle. Wheel damage, frame deformation and component position record the direction and force of impact.

Photograph the road surface, the lane markings, and anything that ends abruptly. Municipal repaving erases the condition that caused the crash.

Keep the helmet, damaged, exactly as it is.

Identify whether the driver was working, including for a delivery platform. It changes the size of the case.

And if a city, county, or the state may have contributed — a lane, a grate, a signal, a pavement defect — start the six-month clock in your mind today.

Common questions