• Home
  • Offices
  • About Us
    • Our Firm
    • Client Testimonials
    • Extraordinary Successes
    • Legal Guides
    • Legal Definitions
    • Press Center
    • Referrals
    • Scholarship
    • Staff
  • Attorneys
  • Cases
    • Car, Bike & Motorcycle Crashes
    • Civil Rights Attorney
    • Elder Abuse & Neglect Attorney
    • Employment Attorney
    • San Francisco Personal Injury Attorney | Dolan Law Firm, PC
    • Uber Accidents & Lyft Crashes
    • California Fire Law
  • Blog
  • COVID-19 Guide
  • Espanol
  • Contact Us
Free Case Review415-421-2800

Bicycle Accidents

Home
/
Bicycle Accidents

What are the Rules and Regulations for Electric Scooters?

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Cioffi Remmer

Dom in San Francisco asks: Electric Scooter are everywhere. I see them on the street. I see them on the sidewalk. I see them on bike lanes. Some people ride alone, and others ride in pairs. Some people wear helmets while others don’t even bother. It all seems dangerous and arbitrary to me. What are the rules and regulations for electric scooters? Whatever they are. I have a feeling people are not following them. 

Dear Dom,

Thank you for your question. With the popularity of alternative transportation, residents of San Francisco and other metropolitan areas are taking to bicycles, electric bicycles (e-bikes), and even faster growth – electric scooters (e-scooters) as their preferred mode of transportation. California has not been slow with recognizing the trend and implementing regulations to protect the public by passing legislation identifying the responsibilities of e-scooter riders and operators. 

When e-scooters first hit the scene, riders, pedestrians, and motorists were confused about whether these speedy two-wheel people-movers were to be treated like bicycles or motorcycles in terms of roadway restrictions and rider safety. For example, before introducing e-scooters on city streets, California Vehicle Code section 21200–21213 concerned operation of bicycles. These sections regulated issues such as physical characteristics of bicycles, e.g., height of handlebar), safety attributes, e.g., brake requirements, lamp requirements, location of operation, e.g., bike lanes, roadway, etc., and operator safety apparel, e.g., helmets for riders under 18 years old.  

The main issues that riders, motorists, and pedestrians alike want to know are:

  1. Are e-scooters are allowed to ride on sidewalks (which may pose a safety risk to pedestrians)? 
  2. Are they restricted to bike lanes? Can they ride in the traffic lanes? and 
  3. Are helmets required?  

These are all similar issues that have been previously decided by the legislature in regulating bicycles. 

For bicycles, it has been well established in California that individual cities or counties control rules regarding riding bicycles on sidewalks, pursuant to CVC 21206. For example, in San Francisco, the city made it illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk if you are over the age of 13. (San Francisco Transportation Code Sec. 7.2.12).  The City of Los Angeles only prohibits bike-riding on a sidewalk “in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” (Los Angeles Municipal Code section 56.15). 

Cyclists may ride in the traffic lanes, and must obey the traffic laws; however, they must use the bicycle lane if they are moving at less than the normal speed of traffic in the same direction, according to section 21208 of the Vehicle Code. As for helmets, Vehicle Code section 21202 requires a helmet for any bicycle rider under the age of 18.

Instead of dropping e-scooters into these multiple vehicle code sections along with bicycles, the legislature has specified and codified rules relating to e-scooters in a separate Vehicle Code section 21235. According to the Vehicle Code, e-scooters may not be operated on the sidewalk except as is necessary to enter or leave adjacent property. As we can see, the legislators did not leave this decision up to the different counties, cities, or municipalities.  

The code becomes tricky when regulating the speed e-scooters may operate, and which types of highways or roadways e-scooters may be operated. E-scooters are limited to a maximum speed of 15mph, no matter what type of highway it is ridden on, pursuant to Vehicle Code sections 21235(b) and 22411. Regarding traffic lanes and bike lanes, e-scooters are permitted to be ridden in bike lanes and traffic lanes on roadways with a speed limit of up to 25 mile per hour. The legislator leaves it up to local authorities to authorize the operation of an e-scooter on Class II or Class IV bikeways on highways with a speed limit of up to 35 miles per hour. This means that in no circumstances are e-scooters allowed to be operated on highways with a speed limit above 35 miles per hour.  

As for helmets, riders under the age of 18 years old must wear a helmet.  Moreover, unlike bicycles, riders must have a valid driver’s license or instruction permit to operate an e-scooter. Undoubtedly, riders should familiarize themselves with California Vehicle Code and their local laws regarding riding e-scooters. Moreover, even though it may not be required by law if you are an adult, riders should always practice good safety and utilize a helmet.   

read more

Distracted Drivers Increase the Changes of Deaths and Injuries in California and U.S. Roads

Written By Christopher Dolan and Jeremy Jessup

This week’s question comes from M. from Daly City who asks: I recently received a call from my son, saying he was involved in an “accident.” Luckily, he is fine. He went on to say that the other driver was looking down at their phone, not paying attention and rear-ended him. I always thought of “accidents” as being unavoidable; this seems like the driver could have avoided it. Was it really an accident?  

Dear M.,

I am glad to read that your son is fine, and that is the most important thing. But you are correct. Over the years, we as a society seem to have found a way to excuse peoples’ negligence by classifying them as an “accident.” Using a cell phone while driving creates the potential for deaths and injuries on California and U.S. roads. The underlying thought is that “they didn’t mean for it to happen,” so it was an “accident.”  As a society, we need to get away from alleviating someone’s fault by classifying their actions as a an “accident” and look more closely at the underlying conditions. 

Accident has two meanings:

  1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, resulting in harm, and
  2. an event that happens by chance.

In the situation involving your son, people would say that the first definition would apply to the driver that caused the collision; but let’s think about that. The cause of the crash was an inattentive driver who was intentionally using their phone and not paying attention. Though they may not have intentionally struck your son’s vehicle, everything else leading up to that was intentional. Therefore, the outcome should not have been unexpected. Why would we consider this to be an accident?

Secondly, accidents are supposed to happen by chance or be random. But studies are finding this not to be the case. 

In a recent interview with Marin Cogan, Jessie Singer, author of the new book There Are No Accidents, talks about the term “accident” and explains “[t]here are a lot of problems with it. Accidents are supposed to be random, right? And unpredictable. If that were true, then accidental death would be randomly distributed across the country, but it’s not. When we look at the data, we see that Black and Indigenous people and people living in poverty die by accident most often.”

The Governors Highway Safety Association proved this statement to be true. They published an Analysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity in June of 2021. In that analysis, several studies were reviewed and cited to, some of which were: 

  • Motor Vehicle Traffic-Related Pedestrian Deaths – U.S., 2001–2010 (Naumann and Beck, 2013), wherein the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which analyzed 2001–2010 data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). 
  • Socioeconomic Differences in Road Traffic Injuries During Childhood and Youth: A Closer Look at Different Kinds of Road Users (Hasselberg, et al, 2001) a Swedish Study. 
  • Vision Zero Chicago: Action Plan 2017-2019 (City of Chicago, 2017) and  
  • 2015-2019 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS data). 

They found that Blacks, Indigenous and People of Color are disproportionately represented in fatal traffic crashes. Key findings from the research indicated that: 

  • When measured against all causes of death, motor vehicle traffic crashes account for disproportionately large percentages of fatalities, particularly among Native American and Hispanic persons. 
  • Black children ages 4–15 had the highest fatalities involving pedestrians and other people not in vehicles as a percentage of all motor vehicle traffic fatalities. 
  • American Indian/Alaskan Native persons have the highest annualized, age-adjusted traffic-related pedestrian death rates of all races/ethnicities. 
  • Census tracts where low-income and minority populations are more concentrated have measurably higher levels of vehicle traffic and higher speed arterials. 
  • A Swedish study found the injury risk for pedestrians and bicyclists was 20% to 30% higher among the children of manual workers than those of intermediate and high-level salaried employees, indicating socioeconomic status can influence the risk of motor vehicle crash involvement. 

Beyond race, socioeconomic status can influence the risk of motor vehicle crash involvement. The City of Chicago’s 2017 Vision Zero Action Plan included a reference to public health data that show traffic crashes affect Chicago communities unequally. Chicagoans who live in areas of high economic hardship have an increased risk of being in a severe crash and die in traffic crashes more often and at a higher rate than other city residents.

The key findings from the analysis of 2015-2019 FARS data: 

  • Compared with all other racial groups, American Indian/Alaskan Native persons had a substantially higher per-capita rate of total traffic fatalities. 
  • Black persons had the second-highest rate of total traffic deaths. This rate was true for total traffic deaths, pedestrian traffic deaths and bicyclist traffic deaths.

When interpreting the disproportionate representation of race and ethnicity in motor vehicle crashes and traffic fatalities, we must recognize that ethnicity and race, to a certain degree, are intertwined with other factors that affect crash risk. Risks include as socioeconomic status and overall investments in crash prevention where people live. These investments include roadway infrastructure, traffic enforcement, community engagement and traffic safety education. None of which is random nor unexpected.

At the end of the day, as Jessie Singer has indicated, “[w]hen we say “it was an accident,” we’re saying it wasn’t my fault. It wasn’t their fault. In doing that, we’re almost always focusing on the wrong thing and setting up the same accident to happen again.” 

We as a society need to start focusing on right thing; we can start by not calling everything an accident.

 

read more

Will Bicycle Accidents Increase as E-bikes Get Popular?

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Nancy A. Villatoro

This week’s question comes from Anonymous who asks:  As gas prices continue to soar, I am thinking of getting an e-bike to get around and commute to work. I have noticed more cyclists on the roads, many of them riding e-bikes. Some of them seem to be going faster than their pedaling indicates and as they overtake other cyclists. Some riders don’t even seem to be pedaling, yet they are moving faster than other cyclists around them. I am still on the fence on getting an e-bike since I do not know which bike to get. Do you think bicycle accidents will increase as more e-bikes join the traditional pedal bikes?  

Hi Anonymous,

Thanks for your question. In the United States, AAA reported that the average national price for a gallon of regular gasoline hit $4.33, in March of 2022, which is the highest national average ever, not accounting for inflation. Similarly, in California, the highest recorded gasoline price for a gallon of regular unleaded hit $5.91 on March 29, 2022. By the time you read this, it is likely that prices will be higher. With gas prices rising, people across the state and country are turning to alternative wallet-friendly ways to get around town through carpooling, public transportation, electric vehicles, or more popular today and electric bicycles.

Electric bicycles, or e-bikes, are selling faster than expected for the first quarter of the year, above the already high expectations set by the pandemic boom. While many factors may be affecting the boom, such as eased pandemic restricts and workers returning to the office, many merchants point to fuel prices as a contributing factor.

In California, an e-bike is a conventional bicycle with operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts. It must also not exceed 28 mph on leveled ground. The e-bike motor must cease to function when brakes are applied. The e-bike law prohibits users from modifying electric bicycles to change the speed limit. The law defines electric bikes into three-tier classifications: Class 1, 2, and 3.

Slow-Speed Rechargeable Bicycles Are Comparable to Regular Bikes – Class 1 and 2 e-bikes (with maximum supported speeds of 20 miles per hour) are typically allowed any place regular bicycles are permitted unless there is a posted sign that specifically bans e-bikes. The difference between Class 1 and Class 2 is that Class 2 e-bikes come with a motor controlled by a throttle, which allows the e-bike to be powered without pedaling. 

The Exception of High-Speed Vehicles – Class 3 bicycles have top supported speeds of 28 miles per hour. They cannot be utilized on bike paths or trails unless it is permissible by local municipalities. (California Vehicle Code §21207.5.) These types of e-bikes could be used on bike lanes and/or detached bikeways next to a road unless otherwise regulated by local municipalities. Additionally, these also require the use of helmets and cannot be used by riders under the age of 16. 

Severe injury accidents increase with higher driving speeds and more people on the road. As detailed in our previous article on March 25, 2021, “Have fun and stay safe on an electric bike,” riders can stay safe on the road by obeying all applicable traffic laws designed to keep those on the road safe. Riders should maintain a safe speed, which means not always reaching the maximum speed allowed by the particular e-bike they ride. E-bikers should always be vigilant of their surroundings, including weather conditions, road conditions, pedestrians, vehicles on the road, and other cyclists. E-bikers should err on the side of caution and wear helmets, even though that might not be required. They should consider wearing brightly colored clothing, making them more visible to others on the road. Riders should use a bell when passing other cyclists or pedestrians to ensure that their presence is known.

Riders should familiarize themselves with their e-bikes before jumping onto the road confidently. Users should take their time, perhaps practicing in an empty parking lot before venturing onto a busy road at high speed. Riders should become familiar with the different pedal-assist settings that many e-bikes have. E-bikes can accelerate rapidly, which can be dangerous for riders not used to sudden momentum changes. A lower pedal-assist setting could help users adjust to the e-bike’s increased acceleration. E-bikers should practice braking from high and low speeds, which may also be a new experience for those accustomed to traditional bicycles. And finally, if riders plan to ride where others are present don’t forget to use your helmets and have fun. For more bike safety tips see our Dolan Law Firm bike safety guide tips. 

read more

Are My Therapy Records Protected in a Lawsuit?

Written By Christopher Dolan and Emile Davis

This week’s question comes from an anonymous writer who asks: I was recently in a bad car accident. I was in the hospital and required surgery to put some screws and a plate in my shin. I am in therapy for some very private and personal issues arising from an abusive relationship. I don’t want to share that information with anyone, but, I have also been talking to my therapist about the difficulties in recovering from the accident and being so limited with my leg while I heal. It wasn’t my fault, but I am scared to bring a lawsuit.

Is there anything I can do to get compensated but not let the driver who hit me or the insurance companies know my personal business from my therapist even though I talked to her about the accident?

Dear Anonymous, 

You have raised an interesting dilemma that affects many people who file a lawsuit and are in litigation. What you describe is at the heart of many privacy laws in California- the conflict between a litigant’s privacy and the need for information to get to the truth of a matter. 

We need to start at the most basic level to understand how this conflict plays. First, every person has a privacy right to their medical records. The California constitution expressly provides that all people have an “inalienable” right to privacy. This clause has created a zone of privacy that protects against unwarranted compelled disclosure of certain private information, including medical records.

However, this privacy right is not absolute. As your question understands, certain medical privacy rights are waived by bringing a lawsuit. Clearly, in evaluating a leg injury like the one you have suffered, prior injuries to that leg would help inform a clear understanding of the damage this accident caused. Defendants sometimes litigate and argue that all privacy in medical records is waived by bringing a lawsuit. Courts have held the line well, limiting physical records to the body parts in question in the litigation or if the body parts are directly implicated.

Mental health records follow a similar analysis, but there is a more transparent and absolute way to protect therapy records from being disclosed. Part of the damages a Plaintiff in a civil lawsuit arising from an auto accident generally includes what is referred to as non-economic damages: pain and suffering, emotional distress, fear, and anxiety.

Since the non-economic damages are likely discussed in therapy records, as it is in your case where you have explained the difficulties of the recovery process with your therapist, they would be directly relevant to the litigation. However, the law has developed a mechanism to allow protections and allow the maintenance a litigant’s privacy.

The Plaintiff can make an election between what is known as a “garden variety” claim for emotional distress damages or what is called a “special claim”.

When making a “garden variety” claim, the Plaintiff indicates that “no claim is being made for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed.”  If the emotional distress suffered is of the type expected from the physical injuries, a Plaintiff’s therapy records would not likely be at issue and could be kept from disclosure.

A special claim is the opposite. It is where the emotional injuries exceed what would be expected from the physical injuries. An example would be when someone had a severe emotional reaction and sought psychological treatment to deal with the emotional injures from the accident. 

With the bit of information, we have from your question, it seems that a garden variety claim would accomplish your goals of moving forward with a lawsuit while, at the same time, likely keeping your therapy records private. Please understand that there is no half-measure; if some of the records from a therapist are disclosed to prove how difficult your recovery has been, that will often open up the rest of the therapy records.

If you choose to move forward with a lawsuit, make sure to find an attorney who is knowledgeable about these things and can advise you regarding these important issues. 

read more

The Difference Between Personal Injury and Workers’ Compensation

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Megan Irish

This week’s question comes from Kisha J. from San Francisco who asks: Hi, my friend Angelino is a garage door repair man, and he recently got hurt while on a job. While he was up on the ladder working on the overhead door opener, the homeowner put several boxes behind his ladder. He fell on them when he came down the ladder and broke his ankle. He said he has been off work for a couple of weeks now and is making a worker’s compensation claim. I think the homeowner has some responsibility too, because he would not have fallen and broken his ankle if he hadn’t put boxes behind him.  Is the homeowner responsible too?

Dear Kisha,

Your friend’s claim may be both a workers compensation claim and a third-party personal injury claim. The two types of claims are compatible and can be made simultaneously. In the most basic sense, a worker’s compensation claim is more limited in the compensation available, but it is often very quickly awarded, and there is no consideration of the injured party’s fault. Third-party personal injury claims often yield more compensation, but usually take longer and will examine the injured party’s own role in the cause of the injury and harm.  

The worker’s compensation system is a “no fault” system. So long as the injury occurred while a person was at work, it does not matter who caused the injury. One does not need to prove that the employer or co-workers did anything wrong. Even if the injured party did something wrong, they are still usually covered. The workers compensation system has limited coverage though and is only available to cover medical costs and replace a person’s lost wages. Workers’ compensation claims do not cover general damages.  

In a third-party action, when someone is at fault for doing something wrong, the harmed person can seek to recover both special and general damages. In a third-party action the injured party must prove that a third party was negligent, and that the third party’s negligence caused the injury. For example, failing to stop at a red light causing a vehicle collision would likely qualify as negligence by another that caused harm to the injured party. In such a case, special damages are available and cover, in very general terms, things the injured person has receipts for, such as medical bill and lost wages. Moreover, in a third-party action one can also seek to recover general damages, which are typically referred to as pain and suffering. The law includes physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress as elements of general damages. 

Generally speaking, third-party cases, are brought when someone other than the employer or coworker was negligent. The most common instances where an employee will bring a third-party action for injuries that occurred when they were working, are for defective products (action where a claim is made against the manufacturer of the product used to do a job), the injury was caused by a toxic or illegal substance, the employer did not carry worker’s compensation insurance, or the injury was caused by a third-party who was not a part of the company.

Workers Compensation and third-party personal injury claims can be brought at the same time. When they are, then the third-party claim may be required to reimburse the workers compensation claim. For example, if all of your friend’s medical bills have been covered in his workers compensation action and he makes a claim for the medical special damages in his third-party action, the worker’s compensation matter may seek reimbursement for what has paid out to your friend as replacement wages. The idea here being that the injured party should only recover his lost wages once. If he receives wage replacement from workers compensation, that is also later paid by the third party, it is only fair that the compensation system be reimbursed.  

While most jobs have worker’s compensation coverage, there are two categories of employees who do not receive coverage for injuries at work under a workers compensation plan. Those two special categories are interstate railroad workers and crew members on boats. The railway workers can bring an injury claim under the Federal Employers Liability Act, and vessel crew members can bring injury claims under the Jones Act.  

In this situation you’ve talked about the homeowner could face a claim as a third-party defendant. To bring a matter against the homeowner, the homeowner’s actions would need to be evaluated to establish if the actions were negligent. An attorney would need to evaluate the circumstances of your friend’s fall and see if there is a cause of action against the homeowner.  We wish your friend a speedy recovery.

read more

Who is responsible for Dangerous Conditions on Roadways?

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Aimee E. Kirby

This week’s question comes from Ashely L.  from San Jose: My uncle Ralph was driving his motorcycle in an unincorporated area of San Jose when he lost control and went down. It appears that the road was unkept. I am trying to help my uncle, who doesn’t even have email and is not good with using the internet, with his case. The police officer said that the road should have had a sign and a barrier, because lots of accidents happen at that location where my uncle lost control. I am not sure how we go about proving the road caused my uncle’s accident. Does whomever own the roadway have insurance, like cars do to pay claims? 

Ashely, I am sorry to hear that your uncle was in the accident. The type of case you are describing is called a Dangerous Condition case. These are very complex legal cases, and they are not the kind of case that I advise that injured victims, or their families tackle alone. To prove a Dangerous Condition case, you must prove that the roadway was a dangerous condition, that the government entity who controlled or owned the road, knew or should have known about the dangerous condition, and that they had time and money to fix the condition, but did not. Your family would also have to prove that the dangerous condition in the roadway caused the accident. Dangerous condition cases can involve motorcyclist, runners on a highway, cars, trucks, or even bicycles. The Defendants in these cases are the cities or counties that own the road. 

It is important to document the scene immediately with photos if the injuries are serious. The first thing our law firm does is go to the roadway in question or use the police report to pull the location up on Google Earth. Often the police reports for accidents, wherein a roadway condition may have contributed to the loss, do not document the scene well, or even mention a dangerous condition that may have contributed to the accident. We have personally litigated a motorcycle collision wherein a pothole caused the crash, yet no pothole was photographed or even mentioned in the police report. In this case, a witness was able to describe what the motorcyclist hit, and what happen to him, as our client had no memory of the crash.  

After visiting the scene, the next thing your attorney should do is research the accident history through the TIMS database maintained by UC Berkley and issue a Public Records request of the county and city the subject roadway is in. The TIMS database allows you to enter in a county and city pull all accident history for the location by way of a map or a list. This can help us get an initial baseline on whether or not a dangerous condition can be proven. The number of accidents at a location, if it is higher than normal, goes to prove notice of the dangerous condition and that the location is dangerous. You want to look for similar accidents, so in your case you are looking for single vehicle accidents, as opposed to a sideswipe collision. This information is then verified with a public records request to Caltrans for the same data. The TIMS database is free, and so are public records requests typically. Remember, a court will only consider similar accidents in considering whether accident history is relevant to your case. 

Another thing you and your attorney should do is get public records request from the entity that owns or controls the subject roadway. These public records requests are usually tailored to government entity claims regarding the location, complaints, roadway work and maintenance, along with evaluations done for repair of the subject roadway such as pavement index reports or permit and bidding documents. Lastly, if the case is near commercial buildings or in a residential area, often our firm will hire a private investigator to conduct additional research. Long term business owners or homeowners may have taken pictures of your alleged dangerous condition. Depending on the type of dangerous condition, these business owners or property owners may have also attended City Council meetings and demanded action or emailed the city. There have even been instances where neighbors complained to the city on social media applications like Nextdoor, which can be used. 

Because these types of cases have strict guidelines regarding claim presentation and pleadings it is also advisable to seek counsel to investigate this for you. An attorney can gather this data and advise you of the likelihood of being successful in a dangerous condition case, very quickly. I hope your family continues to heal and you get answers as to what occurred that day for your uncle. 

read more

Traffic Collision Reports: What information is in them and who can get a copy?

Written By Christopher Dolan and Casey Hultin

This week’s question comes from William from the Bay Area: My friend rides a motorcycle and was recently injured when he was hit by a car. He believes the police officer who arrived at the scene was biased against him and didn’t even take his statement. He is worried that the police officer found him at fault. Is there some type of report he can get a copy of and if so, who writes them? How can he get a copy of his report? If the report puts him at fault, what can he do? Can he submit a supplemental report? 

Great question William. 

A traffic collision report is a form filled out by the investigating police officer at the scene. The form seeks basic information such as where the collision took place, the names of the people involved along with their contact and insurance information, the vehicles involved, any property damage, and any injuries. It will also generally include a summary of any statements taken at the scene or as part of the investigation, as well as the names of any witnesses interviewed about the collision. There may also be other additional scene investigation information, such as the locations of any cameras that may have caught footage of the incident or measurements for any debris or skid marks. 

To obtain a copy of the traffic collision report, you must qualify as a party of interest in the crash. This generally includes drivers, passengers, vehicle owners, or a parent or guardian of an involved minor. You must complete and sign a request form for the information and provide the date of the collision (or approximate date), collision or incident location (as much information as you have if you do not have a specific address), the name of the driver or owner of one of the involved vehicles, and your name and address. There may also be a small fee. If you are represented by an attorney, your attorney can also help you obtain a traffic collision report. 

If the traffic collision report places you at fault, it will likely make your injury claim difficult to resolve without filing a lawsuit. Insurance companies heavily rely on the traffic collision report when determining who is at fault for claim assessment purposes.   

However, if the traffic collision report places you at fault, that does not mean any claim to injury is doomed. The conclusions in the traffic collision report are often not admissible at trial, meaning that the judge or the jury cannot consider it when deciding who is at fault for the collision. Further, through the litigation process and depositions (questioning witnesses before trial under oath), it is possible to get the officer to walk back the conclusions in the report. For example, often investigating officers do not have the benefit of canvassing for all possible witnesses at the time of the collision because they are dealing with many other competing interests, including making sure any injured people receive medical care and clearing the area for through traffic.

If you find additional information that the investigating officer failed to consider, you can contact that officer and provide the additional information to them. For example, if there is an additional witness the officer missed, you can call and provide that witness’s information so the witness can give a statement. If there are additional photographs, you can send them in as well. If there are inaccuracies in the report, you can point them out. All of these can lead to the officer amending and our supplementing the traffic collision report. You also have the option to get a formal dispute form from the Department of Motor Vehicles in the event the officer is not responding.  

In practice, if the traffic collision report is inaccurate or comes to the wrong conclusion, while you can try to get the officer to author a supplemental report, you are better off navigating the circumstances through an experienced attorney. Especially because, as discussed above, the traffic collision report conclusion is not determinative of fault in a court of law. 

We wish your friend a speedy recovery.  

 

read more

New Legislation Encourages Bicycle Safety

Weekly Articles | On-The-Go

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Emile A. Davis

This week’s question comes from Danielle T. from San Francisco:

I am a San Francisco resident and bicycle commuter. I ride to work daily and find it frustrating and unsafe to stop at a four way stop when it is clear for me to proceed. Often, when multiple cars are at the intersection, I feel I am slowing things down waiting my turn, and I have to rely on drivers seeing me and “allowing” me to take my turn in order to be safe. I don’t need the hassle of a ticket or people yelling, so I follow the law and stop, even though I am putting myself at risk. I think bicyclists should follow traffic laws, but there should be exceptions, or different rules for cyclists where it makes sense. Are there any changes coming? How can I help push for this type of change? 

Thank you for your thoughtful question, Danielle. As a cyclist myself, I share your concerns and observations that better rules which recognize the way cyclists use the road, particularly as it relates to bicyclists at stop signs. There is a potential solution on the horizon in California. The Safety Stop Bill (AB 122) has made its way through the legislature and is waiting for Governor Newsom to sign.

The Safety Stop Bill would change the requirements of cyclists at a stop sign. It would be lawful for a cyclist to treat a stop sign as yield sign, allowing them to proceed through so long as the intersection is clear. However, if other vehicles are at the intersection, or a pedestrian is in the process of crossing, bike riders must yield the right-of-way. 

California is not the first state to consider this type of law. Idaho was first, adopting a law in 1982 that allowed cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. This “Idaho Stop” stood alone for many years until other states began to see the wisdom of adopting commonsense changes to the vehicle code to appropriately treat the different issues that cyclists bring to the roadway. More recently, Washington, Oregon and Colorado have adopted similar legislation allowing cyclists to proceed through stop signs when it is safe to do so. 

Legislation of this type is often met with a knee-jerk negative reaction from non-cyclists who are not used to the dangers and difficulties cyclists must interact with regularly. There are many reasons that laws of this type, and AB 122 in particular, are grounded in sound policy. Safety may be the most important reason. Studies have shown that where these types of laws go into effect, the rates of bicycle related accidents decrease. These laws just work. Cyclists have a clear view of the intersection without obstruction and, by necessity, have a keen awareness of the proximity of other vehicles. The bill would also conform the law to what is common practice which encourages respect for the law in general. This would have the added benefit of minimizing inequitable enforcement of laws and minimize pretextual stops of minorities for what is common behavior by all. A law of this type would bring us into conformity with our Pacific neighbors, Washington and Oregon, which have already enacted this type of law. 

It is no surprise that this law is supported by the local bicycle coalitions including, Bike East Bay, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, and the Marin Bicycle Coalition. Getting involved with these types of organizations is a good way to help be part of an organized push for cycle friendly legislation. Here, at the Dolan Law Firm, we have a long history of support of these organizations and the work they do on behalf of cyclists. 

 

read more

E-Bikes — How to Stay Safe While Having Fun

Written By: Christopher B. Dolan and Taylor French

At a time when many of us are still stuck at home, socially distanced and trying to stay healthy, we might pick up a new hobby, like hiking, jogging or cycling that allows for escape. While the thought of being outside in the fresh air is certainly appealing, not everyone shares the same desire or ability to endure the physical challenges that come with these types of activities. For those individuals, a new activity has become quite popular: e-biking.  

 E-bikes, or electric bikes, are road or mountain bikes that come equipped with a battery-powered motor and fully operational pedals. There are three basic categories of e-bikes:

Class 1

  • e-bikes are low-speed, pedal-assisted e-bikes, meaning the rider must pedal in order to use the motor. When the rider begins to pedal, the motor kicks in to make the cycling easier. The motor on a Class 1 e-bike provides assistance up to a maximum speed of 20 mph, or miles per hour. 

Class 2

  • e-bikes also have fully functioning pedals, however they come with a motor controlled by a throttle, which allows the e-bike to be powered without pedaling. Class 2 e-bikes likewise provide motor assistance up to 20 mph. 

Class 3

  • e-bikes are also pedal-assisted e-bikes, similar to Class 1, but they can reach a maximum of 28 mph. Given the increased maximum speed, Class 3 e-bikes come equipped with a speedometer and require the use of a properly fitted and fastened helmet. Individuals under the age of 16 are allowed to operate Class 1 and Class 2 but not Class 3 e-bikes. 

 An e-bike rider does not need a driver’s license, registration or a license plate but must abide by all existing traffic laws. Unless prohibited by a local ordinance or regulation, Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes can be used on any paved surface where a regular bike is allowed to operate. However, Class 3 e-bikes are prohibited on bicycle paths and trails, in bicycle lanes, on equestrian trails and on hiking/recreational trails unless specifically allowed by local authorities.  

An e-bike motor offers a user the opportunity to experience the thrill of high-speed cycling without the accompanying physical exhaustion, but it is important for users to understand and appreciate the dangers that present themselves when inexperienced riders become too confident, too quickly. A 2019 study, conducted by researchers at New York University’s School of Medicine and published in the journal Injury Prevention, analyzed a national database of emergency room visits, seeking information about accidents involving standard bicycles, motorized scooters, and e-bikes from 2000 to 2017. The alarming revelation from the study was that e-bike injuries were generally the most severe and likely to require hospitalization compared to standard bicycles and motorized scooters. 

Charles DiMaggio, Ph.D., an injury epidemiologist who led this study, presumes that speed likely played a role in the more severe injuries related to e-bikes. E-bikes allow operators to reach significantly higher speeds than most individuals would ever reach on a traditional bicycle. Since riders have likely never traveled as fast as they would on an e-bike, they are likely not prepared for potential dangers associated with such high speeds, which can include the need to brake suddenly for cars, pedestrians or other cyclists. According to Dr. DiMaggio, “We know that increased speed often results in more-severe injuries.”

So what can riders do to stay safe on e-bikes? Of course, e-bikers should obey all applicable traffic laws which are designed to keep those on the road safe. E-bikers should always be vigilant of their surroundings, including weather conditions, road conditions, pedestrians, vehicles on the road and other cyclists. Riders should maintain a safe speed, which means not always reaching the maximum speed allowed by the particular e-bike being used. E-bikers should err on the side of caution and wear helmets, even though that might not be required. They should consider wearing brightly colored clothing, which makes them more visible to others on the road. Riders should use a bell when passing other cyclists or pedestrians to ensure that their presence is known.

Riders should familiarize themselves with their e-bikes before jumping onto the road with full confidence. Users should take their time, perhaps practicing in an empty parking lot before venturing onto a busy road at a high speed. Riders should become familiar with the different pedal-assist settings that many e-bikes have. E-bikes can accelerate rapidly, which can be dangerous for riders not used to sudden momentum changes. Using a lower pedal-assist setting could help users adjust to the e-bike’s increased acceleration. E-bikers should practice braking from high and low speeds, which may also be a new experience for those accustomed to traditional bicycles. And finally, if riders plan to ride where others are present, they should wear a face mask to protect both themselves and those around them. 

read more

Cyclist Deaths Remain High During COVID-19

Written By: Christopher B. Dolan and Cristina Garcia

This week’s question comes from Wendy L. in Hayes Valley who asks: I am an avid bicyclist and enjoy taking leisurely rides through the City. Since San Francisco has enforced lockdowns due to COVID-19, traffic has decreased and downtown areas feel like ghost towns. However, I read news reports stating that despite the decrease in traffic, the number of cyclists’ deaths remains alarmingly high. I would have expected the number of cyclists’ deaths to decrease as fewer cars are on the roadways. If this is true, what are some of the reasons that bicyclists continue to die at high rates?

Dear Wendy: Thank you for your question. You are correct. Although traffic has significantly decreased since the stay-at-home orders were issued, bicyclists’ deaths remain alarmingly high. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 2018 was the deadliest year for bicyclists since 1990, with 857 bicyclists’ deaths. In 2019, there was a slight improvement, but the number of fatalities remained at a high 846 bicyclists’ deaths. Due to the disturbingly large number of bicyclists’ deaths in 2020, the magazine Outside committed to tracking every bicyclist death caused by a vehicle collision.

Outside partnered with the nonprofit BikeMaps.org (“BikeMaps”), founded by Trisalyn Nelson, a professor in geographic information science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. BikeMaps has been collecting crowdsourced information about cyclist involved vehicle collisions and traffic hazards such as potholes and road construction in the United States since 2014. Outside and BikeMaps found that in 2020, there were 697 bicyclists who were killed in car crashes. Although this is a decrease from 2018 and 2019, the number of deaths is concerning because it remained incredibly high despite the COVID-19 lockdowns.

According to Outside and BikeMaps, factors contributing to the high rate of bicyclists’ deaths include poorly designed roads, high speed limits, and distracted drivers. For example, they found that the most dangerous road for a cyclist is what Outside and BikeMaps define as an “Arterial Road.” An Arterial road is a busy, multilane street, with traffic signals at intersections and speed limits exceeding 30 miles per hour. Arterial roads account for 65% of the fatal crashes per the data collected and analyzed by Outside and BikeMaps. BikeMaps also noted that cars making unprotected left turns (those with no dedicated left-turn light) are especially dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians because the driver is concerned with oncoming traffic and is not looking out for cyclists or pedestrians.

Another reason for the high number of bicyclists’ deaths in 2020 is that there has been a surge in bicycle sales, which translates to more cyclists on the road. Due to the pandemic, a significant number of people have turned to riding bicycles in order to avoid public transportation and to exercise safely. The NPD Group, Inc., one of the largest market research companies that monitors consumer purchase data, reported that in April of 2020, the cycling industry reported a growth in sales of 75%, generating an unprecedented $1 billion for the month. This surge continued throughout the year. NPD reported that from January through November of 2020, $4.9 billion worth of bikes were sold in the United States. Strava, a popular activity tracking application used by cyclists, reported a 179% increase in membership, further affirming the increasing number of people riding bikes. So, even though there is less traffic, the high number of deaths is impacted by the fact that there are more cyclists on the road.

 Based on the data collected by Outside and BikeMaps, fewer cars on the roads does not mean fewer bicycle collisions. For that reason, we encourage all bicycle riders to wear helmets and continue to exercise and bicycle safety.

If you were injured in a bicycle accident as a result of someone’s negligence, you have the right to seek compensation for your economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages include items such as property damage, medical bills, and lost wages; non-economic damages are commonly known as pain and suffering, physical impairment, and inconvenience. It is important to retain a skilled trial attorney to ensure that you receive full and just compensation for your injuries.

read more

Pages:

1 2 3 … 11 NextLast

Categories

  • Bicycle Accidents (109)
  • Brain Injuries (7)
  • Bus Accidents (18)
  • Car Accidents (203)
  • Case News (11)
  • Civil Rights (82)
  • COVID-19 (45)
  • Dog Bite (1)
  • Elder Abuse (18)
  • Employment Law (99)
  • Fire & Burn Injuries (16)
  • Firm News (94)
  • Free Speech (16)
  • LGBT (12)
  • Motorcycle Accidents (133)
  • MUNI (15)
  • Pedestrian Accidents (118)
  • Personal Injury (90)
  • Police Misconduct (9)
  • Policy (7)
  • Premises Liability (26)
  • Privacy (38)
  • Product Liability (26)
  • Professional Misconduct (16)
  • San Francisco Examiner (18)
  • Self Driving Car (6)
  • Special Needs Students (6)
  • Taxi Cab Crash (4)
  • Tenant/Renter Rights (5)
  • Truck Accidents (18)
  • Uber/Lyft Accidents (24)
  • Uncategorized (15)
  • Whistleblower Law (10)
  • Wrongful Death (21)
Click to Chat
Chris Dolan

About Us

  • About Our Firm
  • Meet Chris Dolan

Bicycle Accident Case Results

  • $2.2 million Settlement A combination of faulty roadwork and improper labeling of hazardous road conditions resulted in a bicyclist crashing and suffering a severe head injury requiring multiple invasive surgeries.
  • $1.24 million Settlement San Francisco bicyclist was struck and run over by a truck making an illegal turn from behind her.
  • $700,000 Judgment Alameda County bicyclist was struck and run over by a commercial driver resulting in multiple fractures and other serious injuries.
  • $365,000 Verdict San Francisco bicyclist was injured when a car door was opened directly into his path, causing spleen removal.
  • $300,000 Settlement Car driver strayed into bike lane in West Portal district of San Francisco, hitting bicyclist from behind, resulting in multiple fractured ribs.
More Success Stories

Recent Posts

  • June 2022
  • 1ST Amendment Right To Peacefully Protest
  • Can Employers be sued for Workplace Injuries?
  • DLF Statement: Roe V. Wade
  • Honoring the Celebration of Juneteenth
Please, enter #hashtag.

  • Click To Call Us
  • Email Us
  • Our Offices
  • About Us

San Francisco 415-421-2800

Oakland 510-486-2800

Los Angeles213-347-3529

Toll-Free 800-339-0352

Dolan Shield

Dolan Law Firm PC
1438 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

415-421-2800
San Francisco Law Office Map

Dolan Law Firm PC
1498 Alice Street
Oakland, CA 94612
510-486-2800
Oakland Law Office Map

Dolan Law Firm PC
145 S. Spring Street, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213-347-3529
Los Angeles Law Office Map

Dolan Law Firm PC
2614 Artesia Blvd
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
310-504-0915
Redondo Beach Law Office Map

Oakland 510-486-2800

Dolan Shield

Dolan Law Firm PC
1498 Alice Street
Oakland, CA 94612
510-486-2800

Oakland Law Office Map

San Francisco 415-421-2800

Dolan Shield

Dolan Law Firm PC
1438 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

415-421-2800

San Francisco Law Office Map

© 2017 by Dolan Law Firm PC. All rights reserved. Blog | Legal Guides | Disclaimer | Privacy | Site Map