Los Angeles Bicycle Accident Lawyers

Yes, you can absolutely still file a claim and pursue compensation. California law requires those under 18 to wear a bicycle helmet, but adults 18 and over are not legally required to wear one (though it’s strongly recommended for safety). If you are an adult cyclist and weren’t wearing a helmet, the defense might try to argue that you were partly responsible for your injuries, especially if you sustained a head injury. However, since it’s not mandated by law for adults, not wearing a helmet is not negligence per se or a legal violation for an adult. It could factor into comparative negligence if, for example, you have a brain injury that might have been prevented by a helmet – they could argue your damages for head injury should be reduced. But they have the burden to prove that. We often counter this by bringing up that failure to wear a helmet doesn’t cause an accident; the crash happened due to the driver’s negligence.

Also, if your injuries are not head-related (say broken bones, or even a concussion can happen with a helmet too), then the helmet is a non-issue. If you’re under 18, not wearing a helmet is a violation, but even then, it doesn’t bar a claim; it may just be considered under comparative fault for head injuries. In any case, we can still pursue the claim vigorously. We may enlist medical experts to say, for instance, that the force of impact was such that even a helmet wouldn’t fully prevent a concussion (if that’s true) or to separate which injuries are unrelated to helmet use.

Bottom line: not wearing a helmet does not prevent you from recovering damages, especially for everything except possibly head injuries, and even for head injuries, we fight to ensure you’re compensated to the extent possible. The primary fault lies with the driver who hit you. We focus the case on that wrongdoing.

Not necessarily. Cyclists are generally expected to ride in a bike lane if one is present and it’s safe to do so, but there are many lawful reasons a cyclist might leave a bike lane. California Vehicle Code §21208 lists exceptions when you can move out of a bike lane, such as: to avoid debris or hazards, to pass another cyclist or pedestrian, to prepare for a left turn, or when approaching a place where a right turn is allowed (to avoid being cut off by right-turning cars). If you left the bike lane for a legitimate reason (e.g., to avoid glass on the road, parked cars encroaching, etc.), that’s within your rights.

Also, sometimes staying in the bike lane isn’t safe if cars are turning across it; experienced cyclists may “take the lane” for visibility or safety. We will investigate why you were outside the bike lane. The insurance claiming you’re at fault is likely a knee-jerk attempt to deny liability. We will counter by citing the law and showing your actions were reasonable.

Importantly, even if you weren’t strictly within a bike lane, drivers still owe you a duty of care. They can’t just hit you because you weren’t in the lane. We’ve handled cases where a cyclist had to move into the travel lane due to an obstruction, and a driver hit them – we proved the obstruction and that the driver should have been cautious regardless. Also note, if the bike lane was ending or you needed to make a turn, you’re allowed to merge out. The insurance might be trying to pin blame wrongly. We’ll also examine if the bike lane was even safe: sometimes they abruptly end or are positioned in ways that drivers turning don’t see cyclists. We could bring in an accident reconstruction or cycling safety expert if needed to explain that your positioning was proper.

The bottom line: being outside a bike lane does not automatically put you at fault. We will defend your rights. Under comparative fault, even if they argue you partially contributed, we’ll minimize that. Frequently, upon pushing back, insurers drop these weak arguments when faced with an attorney who knows bike laws.

Being the victim of a hit-and-run is incredibly frustrating, but you may still have options for compensation. If the driver is never identified, you obviously can’t make a claim against their insurance. However, if you have auto insurance with Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage, that coverage typically applies when you are hit by an unidentified (hit-and-run) motorist while you’re a pedestrian or cyclist.

So, your own insurance could step in as if it were the at-fault driver’s. You need to have reported the incident to police (which hit-and-run victims usually do) and notify your insurer promptly. Providence Law can help you file a UM claim with your insurer. People sometimes worry making a claim will hike their premiums, but UM claims generally should not count against you as it’s not your fault. We will advocate with your insurance just as we would with another’s – sometimes your own insurer might try to minimize the payout too, but remember they owe you a duty of good faith. We will ensure they treat you fairly and pay what’s owed under your policy. If you don’t have auto UM coverage, or if you don’t own a car, another possibility: if you live with a relative who has auto insurance, you might be covered under their UM policy (some policies cover resident relatives). We investigate those avenues.

Also, sometimes, hit-and-run drivers are later found or caught by police. If that happens, we can then pursue them and their insurance or assets. Additionally, California has a Victim Compensation Fund for certain crimes including hit-and-run injuries, but that is usually limited and secondary. The primary way is through insurance. In summary, while hit-and-run cases are more complex, don’t lose hope – your own insurance’s UM coverage is likely available to provide compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering up to your policy limits. We are well-versed in handling UM claims and will make sure you are not shortchanged.

Be very careful. Insurance companies often try to settle quickly and cheaply before you fully understand your injuries or legal rights. They might say “we’ll cover your out-of-pocket medical and throw in a few thousand for your trouble.” This is likely far less than you’re entitled to. Often, early after an accident, you might not even know the extent of your injuries – some injuries get worse or new symptoms arise (for example, a knee injury might show a tear that needs surgery only after swelling goes down, or concussion symptoms might persist). If you sign a release, you can’t ask for more later, even if you discover additional needed treatment.

Also, “paying your medical bills” might sound good, but are they offering to pay the full amount or just co-pays? And what about future rehab? $5,000 for pain and suffering could be very low depending on your injury (even a broken bone often warrants much more). We have to evaluate the full value of your case, including any lost income, future medical, and proper compensation for pain, suffering, and any scarring or life impact. It’s rarely wise to accept the first offer without legal advice. Insurance knows unrepresented people might jump at a quick payout, saving them money in the long run.

Providence Law can provide a free consultation to discuss whether that offer is fair. In our experience, it’s usually not. With our representation, we often secure a substantially higher settlement – even after attorney fees, clients net more because we know how to maximize the claim. Plus, we might find damages you didn’t consider, like damage to your bike or gear, or future costs. If the insurer is pressuring you, tell them you need to consider it or consult a lawyer. Do not sign anything yet. Once we’re involved, they must go through us, and we’ll handle negotiations.

Our strong advice: do not sign a release or accept a payment until you get legal counsel to ensure you’re not settling for pennies on the dollar. Remember, the insurance company’s goal is to settle cheap, not to look out for your best interest – that’s our job.

Yes, if a dangerous road condition caused your accident, you may have a case against the governmental entity responsible for maintaining that roadway (city, county, or state). These are called “premises liability” or specifically public entity liability cases. For example, a deep pothole in a bike lane, a misaligned or slippery railroad crossing, a storm drain with slots that catch bike tires, or even vegetation obscuring a stop sign could be considered negligent maintenance. To succeed, we need to show the public entity either knew or should have known about the hazard and failed to fix or warn in a reasonable time.

Often, we look at whether there were prior complaints or if the hazard existed long enough that they should have discovered it. We might obtain maintenance records or citizen reports via public records requests. Suing a government has special rules: notably, a Government Tort Claim must be filed usually within 6 months of the injury date (in California) as a prerequisite. We are very familiar with this process and will file that timely. If the government denies the claim or offers insufficient compensation, we can then file a lawsuit. Government entities do have certain immunities, but the law does allow claims for dangerous conditions of public property under Govt Code §835. Some examples: we handled a case where a cyclist was injured due to a large pothole on a city street – by documenting that residents had reported it multiple times prior and it hadn’t been fixed, we established city negligence.

These cases can be challenging, but certainly possible. Also, sometimes both a driver and a road condition contribute (say a car forced you into a bad section of road). We can have multiple defendants in such a case. If a private property hazard affected your path (e.g., a business left a hose or cable across a path), that could be a private party claim similar to any premises liability. In summary, yes, you can pursue compensation for road hazards, but acting quickly to meet notice deadlines is crucial. If you suspect a road defect was involved, let us know immediately so we can investigate and file the necessary claims. We will bring in engineering or safety experts if needed to testify how the condition was unsafe for cyclists and caused your crash.

Our ultimate goal is not only to get you compensated but also to encourage authorities to fix these hazards to protect others – and indeed, sometimes a claim or lawsuit spurs a city to repair a dangerous condition.