San Francisco Injury Attorney Blog

All of us who ride know that defensive bike riding is our key means to avoid an accident. Recently I ran across an interesting column on bike safety discussing use the use of mirrors on bikes, or on cyclists' helmets. The author became a convert after adding a mirror, despite continuing to feel geeky about having one. He found that the helmet mirror was better, because it can move to look around a broader area than one mounted on a handlebar.

From what I see, few cyclists use mirrors now. Looking on the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition's website, I saw little about mirrors, but I did find a 2001 letter to the editor they received from another rider who swears by his mirror.

It makes sense that if cars motorcycles need mirrors, we cyclists could benefit from them as well. Of course, California law requires motor vehicles to have mirrors, and both cars and motorcycles pose an enormously larger threat of harming others than those of us on bikes. Thus, a bike mirror law would be more akin to a helmet law, Vehicle Code §21201, which requires cyclists to use a light when it's dark: designed to protect the rider, rather than others. Also, there is a sense of freedom and simplicity in biking that I think is impaired by adding lots of required extra equipment.

We have seen helmet use skyrocket in the U.S. in a relatively short time, and I have written previously on bike helmet laws, which some communities have adopted. It will be interesting to see if mirrors can likewise break through from something perceived as geeky or quirky to a typical piece of cycling equipment.

Continue reading "Avoiding Bike Accidents in the San Francisco Bay Area: Should You Use a Mirror?" »

A very sad story: a young bicylist was killed by in an accident with a San Francisco Muni bus when he crossed a street in the Richmond District, while riding on the sidewalk. Although this cyclist was actually in a crosswalk when he was hit, he had just ridden there from a sidewalk. The Muni bus driver said that this bike accident happened when the cyclist rode directly into his path.

Although I don't think there is enough information in the first news reports to determine fault in this accident yet, it does raise the issue of whether it's OK to ride on the sidewalk. The answer varies by city, as there is no provision in the California Vehicle Code on the subject. In San Francisco, the Transportation Code prohibits riding a bike on the sidewalk by anyone over age 13, and even for kids under 13 in areas where a ban is posted. In Los Angeles, biking on the sidewalk is permitted, but nearby West Hollywood and Santa Monica ban it. Clearly this is not a cut-and-dried issue. At a bicycle safety training I attended, I was told that the San Francisco police have a policy of tolerance of biking on the sidewalks on Market Street; yet just recently I saw a cyclist being stopped by police on a Market Street sidewalk.

I can see both sides of this divide. As a San Francisco cyclist, I am occasionally tempted to retreat to the sidewalk when I find a tight street with heavy traffic. As a pedestrian, I definitely do not want to contend with bikes coming my way. The San Francisco Bicylcle Coalition has a web page discussing bikes on sidewalks.

There is one aspect of this that I think is crystal-clear: it's very unsafe to enter a crosswalk on a bike (or on foot) at any significant speed. With most San Francisco corners occupied by building that are fully built out to the sidewalks, drivers have limited ability to see upcoming sidewalk traffic. Drivers expect that a pedestrian could step out, but they often are not able to deal with a bike shooting out into their path along a crosswalk. This same concept applies to someone running across a street.

Continue reading "San Francisco Bike Accident: Cyclist Killed Crossing Street From Sidewalk" »

The San Francisco Examiner reports that the San Francisco Fire Department has announced that it will soon begin charging cleanup fees for car accidents. The fees, of up to $500 would be charged to the driver at fault, according to the Fire Department spokesperson.

The idea of car accident cleanup fees has been around for some time, as has the idea to charge a fee simply for responding to an accident. Polling shows that a majority of Californians oppose such fees, and even more oppose them when they are told that the fees would be paid by drivers' insurance companies.

Given the budget problems we're facing in California, it's not surprising to see government looking for every chance it can get to increase the types and amounts of fees. This one has some appeal: if a person caused an accident, why should taxpayers have to foot some of the costs? This is consistent with some of the "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco, designed to make the purchasers help defray the societal costs of the health care costs associated with the products. But I think that this one is a bad idea.

For one thing, deciding who's at fault in a San Francisco car accident is often not so simple. We have taken on numerous cases where a police report stated that our client was completely at fault. (We have two such cases open as I write this.) Often the reporting officers do not interview all witnesses, or have all the facts. In many cases, the police do not even generate a report for a San Francisco car accident. Over the years, the San Francisco police have become more and more selective about the accidents where they are willing to come out and prepare a report.

Another issue to consider is where to draw the line between societal costs that we all share, and those for which we make people pay. Even if someone is careless in causing a fire at home, for example, the firefighters' services are "free." I think that we could set a bad precedent by starting down the road to charging people every time they avail themselves of emergency response service.

Continue reading "San Francisco Car Accidents: City To Begin Charging Drivers Cleanup Fees" »