I think there's a lot of conversation about people out there in the world who are sort of anti-cycling or have a vibe against cyclists. That can kind of appear in a case in a lot of different ways. Let me just share something that happened in one of our cases recently.
I had a cyclist who was going through a major thoroughfare. He had the green light and there's a car turning from the opposite direction trying to go into a shopping center. The driver stopped, our client indicated that I'm going through and he did and the car lurched forward and ran into him. He was accompanied by another cyclist behind him and there was a motorist behind him, all of which said, pretty clearly, he had the right of way and the car cut him off and he couldn't avoid the accident.
But, there was a witness that was a driver behind the vehicle that hit our client. And, that person took it upon themselves to write this long letter to the claims adjuster, explaining why it was the cyclist's fault. When the claims adjuster first expressed that to me, I was thinking how could that be, my client had the green light and what theory could there be for any fault on our client. We actually called this guy and talked to him, and it turns out that every assumption that he could make about why the cyclist was at fault, he made and then some. He actually never saw the bike until immediately before the impact and yet he made all kinds of assumptions why he could have turned left, he could have avoided it, maybe we had the green light and he had a red light. It was amazing.
The problem is these types of witnesses are out there and they can complicate a case when we least expect it. And, this is a problem that we have to deal with and many times this is a good reason to have a lawyer helping you unravel the liability portion of any cycling accident.