Insurance adjusters are typically not experienced in dealing with bicycle accidents. Sometimes they are provided with a list of questions to address when evaluating bicycle claim, but they don't typically seem to be familiar with laws that apply to cyclists in Illinois. One of the questions insurance adjusters always ask me about my bicycle cases is, "Was he/she wearing a helmet?"
Consider the example set by headlight laws. Current Illinois and Chicago laws require cyclists to use a white headlight and red rear reflector, but since there is no enforcement of this law in Chicago cyclists are largely unaware of the legal requirements for proper lighting equipment. If a headlight lacking cyclist is involved in a collision with an inattentive driver the cyclist is often found to be at fault. Lack of proper lighting equipment provides a tremendously effective defense for negligent drivers. In my experience the no-headlight defense kills more bicycle claims than any other single factor.
Once a law is on the books in Illinois it is a person's duty to comply with that law regardless of whether or not the law is actually enforced by the police. If one is found to be in violation of a law, the violation itself is considered to be evidence of negligence on it's face. The defense goes like this:
The driver says, "I didn't see the cyclist, and they didn't have a headlight as required by law. If they had a headlight I would have seen them."
Their attorney then argues that the accident is actually the bicyclists fault. "You wouldn't drive a car without headlights would you?"
I'm not concerned about cyclists getting ticket, rather I'm concerned about them not getting tickets. If CPD just handed out occasional tickets for headlight violations everyone would be aware of the requirements and many people would comply.
Helmet laws would provide a similar defense to negligent drivers. If a driver negligently hits a cyclist they would be allowed to point out that the cyclist was in violation of a statute that required helmet use. In cases where the cyclist suffers a head injury this would be a tremendous defense toward the injury aspect of the claim, and allow the driver to shirk responsibility for injuries he/she caused.
There are other ways of promoting helmet use. In my opinions education is the key to promoting proper helmet use. By educating cyclists about the dangers of cycling without proper equipment and the benifits of helmet use more people will choose to wear helmets. The last thing we need is another unenforced law on the books that will only be used to protect negligent people who injure bicyclists.
1 comments:
You make a good point about ticketing as a means of letting people know about the law. In Portland, OR pretty much every rider has a front and back light. You get way more respect from vehicles if you have emitters (lights) on than if you have simply reflectors (which are pretty much useless).
An even better way of dealing with it, in my opinion, is to regulate the sale and manufacture of bicycles in much the way cars are regulated. Something like a "If you want to see bicycles in Chicago, they must comply with all local laws at the time of sale."
The reason I think this is a better way to deal with it is because aftermarket lights that work are ridiculously expensive and no one wants to shell out an additional $50-60 US on lights, after dropping 500 to 2K or a bike. It feels like upcharge salesmanship to the end user.
Post a Comment