San Francisco Injury Attorney Blog

Recently the Golden Gate Bridge District considered, and tabled, a proposal to set a 10 MPH speed limit for bicycles on the bridge. This became the subject of an episode of the Forum radio show on KQED, which posted listener comments online. In the Bay Area, bikes are normally subject to the same speed limits as cars. Would a lower limit on the crowded sidewalks of the Golden Gate bridge help prevent bike accidents and injuries? Probably so. Setting the limit at 10 MPH would be very unpopular, though, which may be why the measure was tabled, rather than brought to a vote.

As a cyclist, I would not want to be limited to 10 MPH for a span of nearly a mile. I think that there is an inherent unfairness in having a tight speed limit on bikes, most of which do not even have speedometers.

In my experience handling bicycle injury cases, people seem to perceive that bicycles are going faster than they really are, and most riders don't have a clear sense of how fast they are going. Of course, slowing people down, in cars, on bikes, or any other form of transport, is likely to reduce injury accidents. I think that this additional safety, though, should be weighed against the feasability problems, and the individual freedom in letting people choose, within reasonable limits, how fast they want to go.

Continue reading "Bike accident lawyer: Will speed limits on the Golden Gate Bridge reduce bike accidents?" »

Although California law is the same in for cars and bikes at stop signs, most cyclists I see don't stop, and many don't even slow down if they can see that the way is clear. As an attorney, I'll take the fifth about my own biking practices. Clearly it is the exceptional bike rider who is willing to fully stop at every stop sign here in San Francisco, where we seem to have more of them than just about anyplace else in California. Even very careful riders, who want to do everything the can to avoid an injury bike accident, can find it hard to convince themselves to stop when it is obvious that there is no cross traffic.

Among the states, Idaho seems to stand alone in having a law to deal with this problem. Idaho's "Stop as Yield" law provides that cyclists do not need to come to a complete stop at stop signs. They must yield the right-of-way to vehicles in or already at the intersection, and then proceed with caution through the intersection. This law has been on the books since 1982. In 2006, Idaho added another law for cyclists, allowing them to proceed through an intersection against a red light, after coming to a complete stop, and waiting until the way is clear. Although these rules seem to be working in Idaho, it remains to be seen whether they would work in a congested city such as San Francisco. Proponents argue that changing the law would simply acknowledge what's already happening. Others are against the Idaho approach, arguing that kids aren't able to handle yielding at stop signs, and are better off with a bright-line rule. According to a post on the S.F. Streetsblog, an Idaho-style law has been discussed in Sacramento, but was considered too difficult to pass the legislature.

Continue reading "Avoiding San Francisco Bike Accidents: Bikes and Stop Signs" »

We have encountered several bicycle injury cases where we could have gotten a great result for our client, if only he or she had been using a light on their bicycle. Of course, it is possible that those clients would never have needed to call an attorney if they'd had a light, which would have been even better. But in many of the cases, I think the accident was going to happen with or without a bike light, and the cyclist's lack of a light just gave the driver of the car who caused the accident a free pass for an injury claim.

California Vehicle Code Section 21201 requires that any bicycle being operated during a time of "darkness" shall be equipped with a white light on the front of the bicycle, that is visible for 300 feet. Most bike lights meet this standard, even those that are very small, such as a Knog. This same section of the law requires reflectors on the pedals, and on the rear of the bike. "Darkness" is defined by Vehicle Code Section 280 as that time beginning one half hour after sunset. In my experience, this is long after the great majority of people driving cars have turned on their lights. But Section 280 has a second part, defining the time of "darkness," (when lights must be used), to also include "any other time when visibility is not sufficient to render clearly discernible any person or vehicle on the highway at a distance of 1,000 feet." Thus a cyclist can be deemed in violation of the light requirement even before 30 minutes after sundown, if an officer thinks that other factors-trees overhead, fog, etc.-reduce the available light and impair visibility.

I have not heard of the police in San Francisco, Oakland, or any other major cities in the Bay Area ticketing bike riders for lack of a light, but we are so vulnerable when we bike at night, that as a cyclist in San Francisco, I think we should do everything we can to stay visible. The biking pros take it a step further, with additional flashing lights, reflectorized shoes or coats, etc. As a personal injury attorney, I hate to see a client injured in a bike accident lose a case due to the lack of a light.

Continue reading "San Francisco Bicycle Accident Avoidance: Shine A Light" »

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" »

In California, and about half the other states, the law requires minors to wear a helmet when on bikes. Bike accident statistics strongly support the position that helmets save lives for adults as well as kids involved in bike accidents. But no U.S. state requires adult riders to wear helmets, as many do for motorcycle riders. Some cities, though, including El Cerrito, California, require everyone to bike with a helmet. Where you stand on the question of whether adults should also be required to use helmets for biking probably involves not only you views on safety, but also your views on how much the government should tell us what to do when the only person at risk is ourselves. I have found it interesting to see that in Europe, there are lots more adults using bicycles for urban transportation, and the great majority of them are not wearing helmets. Case in point: the man in Amsterdam biking with a tote bag in the photo with this post.

From a safety perspective, there is strong evidence that helmets make a big difference in bike accidents: an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study showed that over 90 percent of the 714 bicyclists killed in 2008 were not wearing helmets. Even a light blow to the head can result in a minor traumatic brain injury (MTBI). Neurologists and neurosurgeons report that those of us over 30 experience some brain shrinkage, which results in more bouncing around in the skull when we strike our heads.

If you are shopping for a helmet, be sure to choose one that is approved by the Federal Products Safety Commission, which does safety testing for bike helmets. Cycling experts agree that helmets should be replaced after an accident, as the foam can lose some of its ability to absorb impact, even when it appears to be undamaged.

Continue reading "San Francisco Bike Accidents: Should the Helmet Law Apply to Adults?" »