PERSONAL INJURY BLOG

Although motorcycle riding has become more commonplace in the last couple of decades, there are still persistent, unfortunate, and untrue perceptions held about motorcyclists. Part of the job of a lawyer representing an injured motorcyclist is dispelling myths and misunderstandings about motorcycle riding and challenging the unspoken prejudices that are commonly held about bikers. Here, we discuss just a few of these myths, which motorcycle accident attorneys are responsible for debunking.

Riding a motorcycle is basically like driving

When a non-rider attempts to understand motorcycling through the lens of his experience driving a car, it invariably leads to a distorted picture, one that misses some important realities about the physics of motorcycles. For example, motorcycles are more responsive to the rider’s movements than cars. Another is that they are more susceptible to poor road conditions. However, they are also more maneuverable, which gives bikers more agility—and more of a chance to avoid an accident they see coming. The view that riding a motorcycle is basically like driving also obscures the many advantages of riding a bike over driving a car. Some of the following advantages benefit the motorcycle rider, but many benefit society as a whole.

Motorcycles…

• are far more fuel-efficient than cars and produce much less emissions.
• cut down on traffic.
• are less expensive to own and maintain.
• are easier to find parking for and take up less space.
• give their riders a sense of freedom, independence, excitement and focused relaxation, all of which amount to a meaningful psychological benefit.

Motorcyclists “come out of nowhere”

This is a line that one hears again and again in motorcycle accident cases. It’s typically uttered by the negligent driver who simply failed to see the rider and is trying to claim that, rather than being in plain view, the motorcyclist magically appeared all of a sudden, not giving the driver enough time to correct the mistake. Motorcycles don’t “come out of nowhere,” but it is true that, because drivers don’t see them, it can often seem as though this is the case.

One of the most common accident scenarios between cars and motorcycles is the “left turn,” in which a driver makes a left turn into an oncoming motorcycle. These accidents occur because the driver either doesn’t see the motorcycle at all, or decides that there is enough time to complete the turn.

The motorcyclist is almost always at fault

If one were to believe the mistaken assumptions we’ve discussed so far, what do you think would be the conclusion one would reach about motorcycle accidents in general? Unfortunately for accident victims, it’s what lawyers call a “presumption of guilt.” The motorcyclist is guilty until proven innocent. Even the judgment of police officers is not immune from this prejudice. It’s common knowledge among attorneys that motorcycle accidents very often yield police reports that are overtly slanted in favor of the driver and against the biker. In these situations, a qualified, experienced personal injury attorney should do his or her own investigation into the accident and may consult with experts in the reconstruction of motorcycle collisions in order to determine what really happened and with whom the responsibility rests. The result of this kind of investigation often reveals that the injured biker, if not for the driver’s lack of attention and familiarity with motorcycles, would have ridden away unscathed.

Many motorcycle crash attorneys are missing a key piece of knowledge that can help their clients get the compensation they deserve. There are numerous misunderstandings about motorcycling and prejudices about motorcycle riders that are all too common among the four-wheeled public, who comprise the majority of people in this country, a group to which the influential people in your personal injury case—the jurors, judge and insurance adjusters—are likely to belong.

Part of the job of a lawyer representing an injured motorcyclist—a critical part, often neglected, unfortunately—is dispelling these myths and misunderstandings about motorcycle riding and challenging the unspoken prejudices that are commonly held about bikers.

Consulting with an attorney who understands the biases and ignorance that the injured rider is up against can go a long way towards determining the outcome of your case. Below you will find just a couple of examples, which are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the number of these myths.

Motorcycle riders are aggressive and anti-social

Public attitude about motorcycling has thankfully improved over the last several decades. Not that long ago, bikers were almost universally assumed to be dangerous outcasts or criminals. Nonetheless, this prejudice still remains, albeit in a typically weaker form. Many people still assume, though sometimes subconsciously, that riding a motorcycle is equivalent to possessing certain personality traits that makes one dangerous companion on the road.

This, of course, is nonsense. Though motorcycling still carries the allure of a counterculture, it is thoroughly mainstream today. In 2005, there were in excess of 9 million motorcycles on the road in this country. As an attorney, successfully representing a motorcyclist injured in an accident means making sure that this worn-out stereotype does not color peoples’ judgment in the case.

Motorcycle safety is a contradiction in terms

It’s a well-known fact that riding a motorcycle carries a greater risk of injury and fatality than does driving a car. However, this neutral fact becomes detrimental to one’s case when it is taken to mean that riding a motorcycle safely and responsibly is impossible. Worse still is the assumption that motorcycle riding is inherently irresponsible and that, as a result, the injured rider should bear ultimate responsibility for any injuries he or she sustains on the road. This is a version of what lawyers call an “assumption of the risk” argument—the idea that, merely by riding a motorcycle, one accepts responsibility for any harm that arises out of the inherent risks of the activity. In other words, if you lie down with dogs…. For most people who think this way, however, it’s less a rational argument than a negative attitude towards motorcycling.

What the increased risk inherent in motorcycling actually means is that riding safely simply requires more attention, precautions and skill. It means that the safe rider, as a necessity, is more responsible than a safe driver.

In most accidents involving bad weather, the driving conditions in themselves were not the cause of the accident. Rather, the drivers’ failure to take the weather into account is the more common culprit, as any good car accident injury attorney knows. Inclement weather usually results in, among other things, poor visibility and slippery roads. First, the issue of visibility: the question is not whether we can see, but how much. The less we are able to see, the quicker our reaction time needs to be. Even on a clear night, for example, our visibility is diminished—our headlights cannot follow the curves of the road. What we can see is limited to the angle and range of the beams, giving us visual access to far less of our environment than we get during the day. And it goes without saying that rain, snow and fog significantly limit visibility.

Next, the question of driving surface. A slippery road means uncertain breaks and maneuverability, a dependable recipe for a crash. Contrary to what most people assume, rain and snow are often the most dangerous just after they begin to fall—the oil and dust that has not yet been washed away combines with water to form a slick layer on the road.

Of course, the best thing is to avoid driving in bad weather, but we know from experience that it not always possible to do so. If you have to drive come rain, sleet or snow—or, for that matter, fog or dark of night—drive cautiously and take the appropriate measures. Respecting the weather also means driving far below the speed limit on occasion.

In the snow, defrost your windshield before driving, put chains on your tires, and slow way down. In the rain, check your windshield wipers, defrost your windshield and, again, reduce your speed. According to the California Driver Handbook, “in a heavy rainstorm or snowstorm, you may not be able to see more than 100 feet ahead, and when you can’t see any farther than that, you cannot safely drive faster than 30 mph.” In fog, many drivers make the mistake of turning on their high beams in the hopes that they’ll be able to see better. In actuality, the intense light of one’s high beams reflects off the water droplets in the air, bouncing back into the driver’s eyes, further obscuring the scene around them. If you have to drive in bad fog, use your low beams and—you guessed it—slow way down.

A set minimum amount of liability insurance is required by California law, and in many other states. The important question is whether merely buying the minimum amount is enough. A good attorney for car accidents will tell you the answer—absolutely not! California’s legally required bodily injury insurance limits of $15,000 (one claimant) and $30,000 (all claimants) are woefully inadequate to protect your financial assets or pay for the possible medical expenses of an injured party. These limits have gone unchanged for the past 30 years, while medical costs have grown exponentially.

Let’s say…

You run a stop sign and crash into another car. The driver is taken to the hospital for surgery where she stays for over a month. She undergoes rehabilitation and physical therapy, and is unable to work for two years. Even if the driver earns less than $50,000 a year, the total claim could easily hit $1,000,000. Now compare this to the $15,000 of liability insurance required by law.

This scenario may sound extreme, but it’s not. The above scenario, in fact, is a moderate one—the other driver survived and had no permanent disability. When imagining a car accident, the majority of people envision the kinds of minor fender benders that many of us have experienced and walked away from unscathed: no serious injuries, only mild damage to the vehicles—nothing that would entail hospital bills or lost wages. The reality, however, is often a great deal more severe.

The precise amount of liability insurance you should buy depends largely upon the extent of your assets. Those with extensive wealth are far more likely to be sued for large sums of money. Understanding car insurance means not only peering into the minds of insurance adjusters, but lawyers as well. Personal injury attorneys are far more likely to go after the assets of high net worth individuals, providing them with a greater payoff if they win on behalf of their client, rather than simply advising their clients to settle for the limit of the other driver’s insurance policy.

It is easy to see that the result could be financially catastrophic such an individual. But this result could be avoided with an adequate liability insurance policy. You may have heard that you should buy a liability policy with a limit that more or less equals your total assets, the idea being that you are “covering” your assets in doing so. If your insurance equals or exceeds your net worth, so the thinking goes, you’ll never have to worry about having to pay a lawsuit judgment out of your own pocket. This is nonsense, and it’s based on a complete misunderstanding of how insurance and personal injury law work. There’s nothing that says that someone couldn’t sue you for more than your policy limit, requiring you to pay the difference. Your liability insurance is the first line of defense, and a good one at that, but your personal assets remain vulnerable beyond your policy limits.

There is no secret formula to tell you how much liability coverage is enough, but there is a sound principle that can help you make an informed decision. And the principle is this: within reason, and within the confines of your budget, you want the highest possible ratio between your policy limit and your total assets. The smaller your assets look in comparison to your liability coverage, the more likely an attorney would advise her client to settle for your policy limit, leaving your personal assets untouched.

Although teaching children how to be a safe pedestrian might not prevent every accident, you can teach your children to protect themselves and exercise caution, which can prevent many a child pedestrian accident. Children should learn about street safety as soon as they are able to walk outdoors. Here’s how you can teach children street safety at all ages:

Preschool

• Supervise them at all times. Preschoolers should never be allowed to cross the street alone, and you should always hold their hand while crossing the street.
• Teach by explaining. Explain what you are doing as you do it. For example, if you are crossing the street together, you should say, “When I cross the street, I always stop at the curb. Then I look and listen for cars. First I look left, then right, then left again. If it’s clear, then I can cross, while I keep looking for cars.” If your child can’t tell the difference between left and right, you can say “this way” and “that way.” You can also point out others who are exhibiting safe or unsafe behaviors (quietly, of course).
• Teach by example. Your behavior should be an example for your children. They are watching you to show them how to do the right thing.
• Praise them. Encourage safe behavior by praising them for copying your actions or words.

Children ages 5-10

• Accompany them. Young children should have an adult or older child with them every day until they show they can safely cross the street. Don’t overestimate their abilities.
• Make sure they follow these rules when crossing the street:

STOP at a curb or the edge of the road, and only at a corner or intersection.

LOOK left-right-left for moving cars.

WALK, don’t run, when road is clear or all cars have come to a stop.

STAY ALERT and keep looking for cars as you cross.

• Remind them to use their eyes and ears at all times. Child pedestrians can be at risk not only when crossing the street, but whenever they are near a street. Remind them that cars that appear to be parked may not always be parked, and to exercise caution when walking near driveways and parked cars.
• Teach them to obey all traffic markers. In addition to learning to cross at a WALK signal, children should learn to check for traffic, even if there is a green light or WALK signal.

Children ages 10 and up

• Choose their route to school. Walk to school together to find the most direct, safest route to school. When walking alone, they should follow that route and never use shortcuts.
• Make sure they use the sidewalk. If there is no sidewalk along their route, then they should keep to the left and walk facing oncoming traffic so they can see cars coming.
• Make sure they are visible. Many jackets and backpacks come with reflective materials built-in. You can also add reflective tape to any article of clothing, which is available at hardware or fabric stores.