Car and Bicycle

CALIFORNIA
A year ago, I was stopped at a 4 way intersection, making a right hand turn. While making a right on red (was a legal turn), a bicyclist came from the right, thru the crosswalk in front of me. We collided and he was thrown from his bike. He landed on his head, and did suffer a cut on his head. He did not have a helmet on. He was moved off to the site of the road and taken to hosp for treatment and released. As far as the details of the accident. He was riding on the left side of the road against traffic on the sidewalk.
There was a sidewalk on all sides of the 4 way intersection. The police did not find me at fault. I was not ticketed for the accident.

My questions:
1) Shouldnt he have been wearing a helmet?
2) Should he have been on the left side of the road? There were no obstrcutions in the road for him to not have continued going straight on the correct (right side) of the road.
3) Can bicylists ride in the crosswalk?
4) My insurance company is tryin to settle with him and offering him my max bodily inj of $15k. He has filed a complaint with his attorney to my insurance for $75k.... What do i do if he doesnt accept?

Thank you in advance!

For purposes of my answers, I am assuming that you came to a complete stop at the red light, started to make a right hand turn near the curb line, the bicyclist came from your right and was riding on the sidewalk without a helmet onto the street in front of you in the middle of what was either a marked or an unmarked crosswalk.

shamrock48 said:

1) Shouldnt he have been wearing a helmet?

Click to expand...

Yes.

2) Should he have been on the left side of the road?

Click to expand...

Left side? No. He was required to ride his biciycle as close to practical to the right hand curb in the same lane of traffic that a motor vehicle would normally be required to travel.

3) Can bicylists ride in the crosswalk?

Click to expand...

In some cases, yes. In a commercial district, generally not. But this depends on local ordinance.

4) My insurance company is tryin to settle with him and offering him my max bodily inj of $15k. He has filed a complaint with his attorney to my insurance for $75k.... What do i do if he doesnt accept?

Click to expand...

Talk to your insurance company.

Was there a police report? If so, what was their conclusion?

One argument against you - and something that will be an associated factor in the police report (or probably shoul;d have been) is that it is apparent that you did not look to your right ... had it been a pedestrian stepping into the crosswalk and not a bicyclist you might be entirely liable. As it is, the bicyclist is likely the cause of the collision for failure to travel in the proper lane.

What does your insurance company say about the $75,000? What are they citing as your culpability?

- Carl

Thanks Carl. yes I was at a complete stop.
As far as my not looking to my right - I did, and i should have mentioned that there is an auto shop on the corner in question that has a chain link fence to the sidewalk, thus obstructing my view past the immediate sidewalk corner (if that makes sense). I do understand the argument of had it been a pedistrian, and if that was the case, the person would have been visible there, versus an unexpected moving bicyclist on the wrong side of the road moving at 10-15 mph.

The police report did not assign any fault.

I do have a call in to my insurance company re: culpability. last I knew, they didnt feel it was a 50/50 based on the police report, but did feel as if "we" did have to assume some liability, hence why they offered out my max bodily of 15k, and even the property damage to his bike.

I am just concerned about this dragging on, as it has been over year, and if they do decide to sue me... I do not have any assests (not $15k worth anyway,...no house, or savings, and even car has a lien under my parents name).

The report did not assign fault?? Did they respond to the scene?

On page two of the CHP 555 (the collision report) there is a box for the PCF (Primary Collision Factor) - this box will contain the party number (in this case "1" or "2") and a code section or narrative cause. SWITRS policy requires a PCF to be assigned in an injury collision or it would likely be kicked back to the agency by Sacramento.

However, fault as assigned by the agency is not necessarily the fault that the insurance companies have to go with. Law enforcement does not assign percentages for blame - insurance aompanies and civil courts can.

As for the obstructed view to your right, sorry - but that won't help you much. You are still required to make a right hand turn from a complete stop only when it is safe to do so. And running into someone in the crosswalk is prima facie proof that the turn was not safe.

In fact, depending on the facts of the matter, it COULD be that your turn was the PCF and not the bicyclist.

In any event, this is something you need to talk to your insurer about.

- Carl

Carl,

When you say helmets should be warn, do you mean it is a legal (criminal) requirment, and / or has consequneces for civil liability? Or just the wisdom of those who value their cranium's structural integrity over their hair staying coifed. (that is not sarcasm...)

Bycycle helmets are dorky. I never wear one.

And I had a skull fracture to prove it... not that 50 grams of styrafoam at $30 (6 times the price of my bike) would have done anything to protect my femur from snapping like a toothpick.

Nothing is going to keep me safe on the roads like a cumbersome, akward, third eye blinding and perception dulling plastic sweat-box on my noggin.

I know, I know... I have seen the ANSI tests showing how strong the helmet is... sorry I have never had an anvil of a precise mass fall on my head from a precise distance at an exact angle.

Sorry.

But I have had a mean case of road rash or too... on the face

If it is California law that it is required to wear a helmet... then I am not going to California... oh wait, I am not likely going to California anytime soon anyway.

Next thing you know and the forces of safety patrol will have us wearing mouthguars, face shields, chaps and lacrose pad just to ride to the store.

YAY. I FOR ONE VOTE FOR THE PUNITIVE NANNY STATE.

Thank you again Carl...
I am looking at the Report right now, and yes i guess there is a PCF...(never noticed that before b/c it was not very explicit as to what it means...

It lists "1" (that is stated as party 1 - the bicyclist) and the code is "21650-1" and then what looks to be either "ovc" or "cvc" and No citation. I understand that the 216501 is the CC for the riding with traffic code. but i dont understand what follows.

xylene said:

When you say helmets should be warn, do you mean it is a legal (criminal) requirment, and / or has consequneces for civil liability? Or just the wisdom of those who value their cranium's structural integrity over their hair staying coifed. (that is not sarcasm...)

Click to expand...

Both ... to some extent. The CA Vehicle Code requires that people who are under 18 where a helmet, and not wearing one does often have an effect on civil liability as well. I have known a few cases where by not wearing a helmet, a person's claim against the driver of a vehicle was greatly reduced to the cyclist's own decision not to wear a helmet.

Bycycle helmets are dorky. I never wear one.

Click to expand...

Look at what happen when a skull meets the pavement after even a 10 MPH collision ... that'll change your mind. Picture egg and frying pan ...

And I had a skull fracture to prove it... not that 50 grams of styrafoam at $30 (6 times the price of my bike) would have done anything to protect my femur from snapping like a toothpick.

Click to expand...

They do see good helmets out there. And i can cite quite a number of collisions with cyclists where the helmet was THE factor in their survival.

If it is California law that it is required to wear a helmet... then I am not going to California... oh wait, I am not likely going to California anytime soon anyway.

Click to expand...

If you are 18 or over, you are permitted to risk your neck - and skull - on a bicycle.

Next thing you know and the forces of safety patrol will have us wearing mouthguars, face shields, chaps and lacrose pad just to ride to the store.

Click to expand...

Well, most accidents do happen close to home.

YAY. I FOR ONE VOTE FOR THE PUNITIVE NANNY STATE.

Click to expand...

And you hopped on to this thread just to provide this little ray of sunshine?

- Carl

shamrock48 said:

Thank you again Carl...
I am looking at the Report right now, and yes i guess there is a PCF...(never noticed that before b/c it was not very explicit as to what it means...

It lists "1" (that is stated as party 1 - the bicyclist) and the code is "21650-1" and then what looks to be either "ovc" or "cvc" and No citation. I understand that the 216501 is the CC for the riding with traffic code. but i dont understand what follows.

Click to expand...

CVC 21650 ...

21650. Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right
half of the roadway, except as follows:
(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the
same direction under the rules governing that movement.
(b) When placing a vehicle in a lawful position for, and when the
vehicle is lawfully making, a left turn.
(c) When the right half of a roadway is closed to traffic under
construction or repair.
(d) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
(e) When the roadway is not of sufficient width.
(f) When the vehicle is necessarily traveling so slowly as to
impede the normal movement of traffic, that portion of the highway
adjacent to the right edge of the roadway may be utilized temporarily
when in a condition permitting safe operation.
(g) This section does not prohibit the operation of bicycles on
any shoulder of a highway, where the operation is not otherwise
prohibited by this code or local ordinance.

The cyclist was listed at fault for not riding on the correct side of the roadway as I mentioned.

Look under Associated factors (more checkboxes about mid-page on page 2) and see what it has listed for Party 2 (presumably, you).

- Carl

Inattention

I bet you expected that! hmmm.

So how does this weigh in the whole scenario?

shamrock48 said:

Inattention

I bet you expected that! hmmm.

So how does this weigh in the whole scenario?

Click to expand...

Yep. Inattention was due to not seeing the person on the bike coming from your right hand side. Had he run in to you, you'd likely be okay - but since you pulled in to the cyclist ... well ...

It actually plays out well for you in the long run as it gives you SOMETHING to hang your hat on as to responsibility. But, as I mentioned, the insurance companies and civil courts do not have to adhere to the same rules the police have to use to estiablish fault - but it should help mitigate some damages. His not wearing a helmet may help, too.

Ultimately, the decision as to what to do is going to be that of your insurance company. If I had to guess, they will settle for (at most) the limit of your coverage if less than the $75,000 they are seeking.

- Carl

Thanks

Thanks Carl!

Appreciate all ur insight.

The letter from the cyclists legal rep states "...will execute a full and final release of all claims and demands in exchange for $75719.21 or limit of the policy, whichever is less."

They have not however accepted my insurance company's settlement amount of max $15k...which was offered a few months back.

Sounds like they are going for the policy limit ... it's what I figured. Apparently your company is not buying the claim, or they are not accepting responsibility for the full amount of the claim.

- Carl

CdwJava said:

Sounds like they are going for the policy limit ... it's what I figured. Apparently your company is not buying the claim, or they are not accepting responsibility for the full amount of the claim.

- Carl

Click to expand...

In the original post, it appears that OP only has state minimum coverage of $15k/$30k when s/he refers to the maximum bodily injury limit:

My insurance company is tryin to settle with him and offering him my max bodily inj of $15k.

Click to expand...

OP, if this person wins their lawsuit, YOU will be responsible for any amount that is over the $15k/person that you have purchased insurance for. You said that you don't have assets, but you certainly have a job with wages that can be garnished, right?

I've seen this kind of thing before and very often they will settle for the amount they can squeeze from the insurer. If not, and they have a valid medical claim, you may want to consider what it might cost to fight such a suit and then offer up that amount into the kitty. Cities and counties do this all the time ... if they think fighting a civil action will cost them $20,000 they might offer up $15,000 to settle.

Just something to think about.

- Carl