Special issues for bicycles & motorcycles

            If you had an accident while riding a bicycle or motorcycle, you must consider all the factors that release to drivers of four-wheeled vehicles. But because you were driving a two-wheeler, other things may also be important in pursuing your injury claim. These may include certain rules of the road or other legal issues that pertain only to bicycles or motorcycles. And there are certain road conditions that may present legally unacceptable hazards to drivers of two-wheelers, especially bicyclist, through they do not normally affect four-wheel vehicles. Just as important are the attitudes of insurance adjusters toward motorcycle & bicycle & riders.

Helmets & Helmet Laws

            Many states have enacted laws requiring helmets on motorcycle riders. Some require helmets for all riders; others require helmets only for riders under a certain age. Some states have also enacted mandatory bicycle helmet laws, through only for younger rider.

            Whether you were wearing a helmet at the time of your accident may or may not be a deciding factor in your clam. It depends on your type of injury. If you suffered injuries to your head or neck, then whether you were wearing a helmet is very important.

            Helmet, no head injury. - If you were wearing a helmet & did not suffer head or neck injuries, the helmet has no legal significance in other words, even if you had one on, your ability to collect on your claim is not helped, & even so, wearing a helmet may be worth mentioning during your claim, because it paints you as a responsible person.

            Helmet, head injury. - If you were wearing a helmet & still suffered head or neck injuries, the helmet is very important to your claim. It shows that you were not “comparatively negligent,” at least as to this aspect of your claim. That is, it shows that your injuries were not made worse by your own carelessness. And it shows how much worse the injury might have been & therefore how dangerous the other driver’s conduct was had you not been wearing a helmet.

            No helmet, no helmet law, head injury. - If you were not wearing a helmet & you suffered head or neck injuries, you may face difficult opposition in your claim even if the law in your state does not require you to wear a helmet. That is because helmets are known to significantly reduce or prevent head & neck injuries. So, your failure to wear a helmet can amount to a kind of “comparative negligence” on your part.

Bicyclist may still be able to make a successful claim in these circumstances. The protection afforded by bicycle helmets is not as obvious or well documented as it is for motorcyclist. As a results are not required for adult bicyclists in any state. If a no helmet bicyclist sustains head injuries, it is up to the insurance company to produce convincing evidence that a commonly available bicycle helmet would have prevented or diminished the specific injury that occurred. If an insurance adjuster makes this argument, it simply becomes another part of the negotiating process. It may weaken the bicyclist’s claim, but it does not end the claim altogether. And it does not affect the bicyclist’s claim for injuries to other parts of the body.

            For a motorcyclist without a helmet, a claim for head or neck injuries is much more difficult to pursuer. There is overwhelming documentation which an insurance adjuster has no trouble producing that a helmet usually significantly reduces head injuries. It then becomes the job of the claimant to persuade the insurance adjuster that the injury would have happened even with a helmet. The negotiations will revolve around the extent to which the injury would have been reduced by worn a helmet, & therefore how much compensation for the injury should be reduced.

            No helmet, helmet law, head injury. - If either a bicyclist or a motorcyclist is required by law to wear a helmet & sustains a head injury while riding without one, it is extremely difficult to obtain any compensation for the head injury. (A claim may still be successful, however, for other injuries). The existence of the law automatically establishes the rider’s comparative negligence. To obtain any compensation, the cyclist would have occurred even if he or she had been wearing a helmet. This is a very tough task, & if it is possible at all almost certainly requires the services of an experienced personal injury lawyer.

Accidents involving cell phones & similar devices

       Love them or hate them, cell phones & other messaging devices, such as the BlackBerry, are a fact of life. Unfortunately, they are also a fact of driving. According to the phone industry’s own figures, there are more than 150 million cell phones in use, with 85% of users saying they use the phone while driving. These are disturbing numbers & the amount of time each user is on the phone, including while driving, is rising dramatically. & text messaging devices have recently added greatly to the amount of time people spend being electronically distracted while driving.

      Talking on the phone while driving increases the risk of an accident significantly. A number of studies have now shown beyond any doubt that a phone conversation is a major distraction. In a landmark study, University of Toronto researchers found that using a phone while driving quadruples the risk of an accident & using a speaker or headset instead of your hands makes no difference in the risk. This is the same risk factor as driving while intoxicated. Another experiment by the University of Utah showed that cell phone use reduces reaction time even more than a legally prohibited blood alcohol level. The University of Toronto findings were confirmed by the insurance institute for highway safety, which published its report of cell phones use accidents in the British medical journal in July 2005.

      The explanation for the heightened risk is that there’s dramatic drop in your concentration while you are talking on the phone. When a person performs two tasks at once, the brain has a reduced ability to perform either one. The national transportation safety board has found that a distracted driver responds up to 1.5 seconds more slowly to a road hazard than a focused driver & that’s an eternity behind the wheel.

     A 2008 study by Carnegie Mellon University scientists emphasized that the act of listening itself even without dialing, holding a phone, or even talking is a major culprit, the study showed that merely listening to someone talk to you while you drive reduces by 37% the amount your brain can devote to driving tasks.

A landmark 2006 study by the national highway traffic safety administration & the Virginia tech transportation institute revealed that nearly 80% of all traffic accidents involve some form of driver inattention, with cell phones & text message devices the most rapidly increasing form of distraction.

     If you have had a traffic accident with someone who was on the phone or texting, you have a powerful argument that using the device, by itself, means that the other person was at fault. You can make the other driver’s phone or text use a central part of your demand for compensation. If the accident occurred in a state, country, or city where phone use or texting is illegal, your argument is even stronger.

      Some insurance adjusters reply to arguments that cell phone use is unsafe by citing a University of North Carolina study sponsored by the American Automobile Association. This study looked at 1995-1998 accident reports in North Carolina. It found that of drivers who admitted that some distraction contributed to their accidents, only 1.5% named cell phones use. The cell phone industry claims this shows phone use is not a significant driving danger. In fact, it does no such thing. The study includes no date about the number of cell phones in North Carolina in the mid 1990s. As relatively poor & rural state, & in years before cell phone use hit its stride, it is likely that cell phone use in North Carolina was not that widespread. The small number of cell phones involved makes the study scientifically meaningless it is like saying that the low number of alcohol related accidents in Saudi Arabia (where alcohol is prohibited) proves that driving while intoxicated is not dangerous.

      Of course, making an argument about the dangers of cell phones use or texting depends on being able to show that the other driver really was using the phone or other device. The police report might so indicate. Or a witness in your vehicle, in another vehicle, or on the street may say so. Even if you have no support, but you truly did see the other driver on the phone or texting, you should raise the point in your demand for compensation. You may find that the other driver does not deny being on the phone or texting, particularly if you remind the insurance adjuster that if the matter goes to court, you will be permitted to see the other driver’s cell phone records for the accident day.