Articles Posted in Bicycle Accidents

California’s legal framework for e-bikes is nuanced, designed primarily to promote safety while accommodating the growing popularity of electric bicycles. This framework fits best for urban riders who frequently navigate busy streets and require clarity on their rights and responsibilities.

A significant limitation of California’s e-bike laws is their complexity, particularly regarding classifications. E-bikes are categorized into three classes based on their speed and motor assistance, which can confuse riders about where they can legally operate. Misunderstanding these classifications can lead to fines or accidents.

For instance, an e-bike classified as Class 3 allows speeds up to 28 mph but cannot be used on bike paths unless local regulations permit it. A rider unaware of this might inadvertently ride in a prohibited area, exposing themselves to legal repercussions and potential liability in case of an accident.

Electric bikes (e-bikes) are everywhere in California — they’re fun, efficient, and an affordable way to get around dense cities and long coastal commutes. But with growing popularity comes more crashes, injuries, and complicated legal questions. If you or a loved one were hurt in an e-bike accident in California, this guide explains what to do, how claims work, who can be responsible, and why legal representation can meaningfully improve your recovery and outcome.

This post is written for California riders and victims, and includes practical, step-by-step advice on evidence preservation, interacting with insurers, common legal theories (negligence, product liability, premises liability), the timeline for claims, and what damages you can recover. For more resources and to speak with experienced personal injury counsel, visit Victimslawyer.com.

Quick overview: What makes e-bike claims different?

A recent jury verdict in Santa Cruz County shows how bicycle accidents may involve more than one vehicle, and if the second driver fails to take action to avoid hitting the cyclist, the second driver may be held to be civilly liable and ordered to pay damage for his or her percentage of fault.

Background of the case

The case involved a wrongful death case in which a farmworker who was riding his bicycle to work was first struck by a car. After landing in the middle of the lane, the man was reportedly talking and moaning. He was then run over by a Ford F-150 that crushed his head and his chest with its tires. The driver of the first car said that the bicyclist had veered in front of him, making the initial collision unavoidable. People who stopped in an effort to help the man after the first crash reported that they had tried to direct traffic away from the man in order to alert other drivers that he was lying in the roadway before the truck hit him. The man’s wife and adult children filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit against the driver of the Ford F-150.

The first U.S. state to require bike helmets for adult riders could be California. The bill that Senator Carol Liu introduced would impose a $25 fine on adults who ride their bicycles without helmets.

As reported by the various local news stations, a jury in San Francisco California last week awarded the family of a bicyclist killed by a commercial truck a verdict of $4 Million.  While this may seem like a lot to many, I’m sure it is a paltry sum for the loss of a daughter to the two plaintiffs (the cyclists’ mother and father).  The victim was Amelie Le Moullac, a 24 year old woman who was riding as her normal commute to work and was struck and killed when a large truck made an abrupt right hand turn in front of her on a busy intersection in downtown San Francisco.  As a California bicycle rider’s attorney and advocate, I thought I would try to find some lessons out of this terrible tragedy that may be of use for persons like Amelie who use busy city streets in California for cycling.  My thoughts are as follows:

• Intersection Collisions Between Motor Vehicles and Bikes Are The Most Common Type of Accident Scenario: In urban areas like S.F., Los Angeles, San Diego or other large cities in California or the U.S. as a whole, more bicycle accidents occur in and around busy intersections than just about anywhere else.  This makes is extremely important to be extra cautious and “defensive” as a cyclist approaching or traveling through an intersection of any type but, especially one where there is a high volume of vehicular traffic.  The scenario in this particular case is all too common.  A cyclist is traveling straight along the ride hand edge of the roadway as proscribed and allowed by the California Vehicle Code, a larger vehicle fails to observe the cyclist and makes an abrupt right hand turn and a collision occurs.   At a minimum, this results in a broadside collision and can result in the biker being dragged underneath the vehicle and crushed.  There are several Cal. Vehicle Code (“CVC”) sections that come into play here including the following: (1) CVC 21200 and following, defines a bicycle as a ‘vehicle’ with the rights to use the roadway like any other; (2) CVC 22107, provides a duty on the part of a driver attempting to turn right to make sure that traffic traveling in the same direction of travel is a safe enough distance away to make the turn without coming into contact with any other vehicles.
• Inability/Unwillingness of Criminal Justice System to Deal With Bicycle Crashes: In this case, like many others, the local District Attorney’s office and police were reluctant to charge the driver with any type of criminal offense including but, not limited to reckless driving or vehicular manslaughter.  They initially stated there was not enough “evidence” against the driver.  The attorney for the victim’s family had to obtain footage from a local surveillance camera to show that the truck never even slowed down and never appeared to look in its side view mirrors prior to turning in front of the cyclist.  This was impactful evidence that was very effective in the civil trial for wrongful death and could have certainly been used in a criminal prosecution of the driver.