San Francisco Bicycle Accidents on Sidewalks: Advanced Litigation Strategies and Forensic Insights
by Cyrus Nazarian
Recent data from the 2017–2022 San Francisco Traffic Crashes Report reveal important trends in bicycle-related collisions. Although the report does not explicitly segregate sidewalk incidents, a careful analysis suggests that as cyclists increasingly seek the relative safety of sidewalks to avoid congested streets, a subset of these collisions—especially those involving vehicle encroachment (such as dooring or vehicles exiting parking structures)—presents unique liability challenges. The following insights and updated statistics are intended to highlight effective approaches to prosecuting these cases.
Evolving Context and Regulatory Nuance
San Francisco Transportation Code Section 1007 prohibits bicycling on sidewalks for those aged 13 and older, a rule aimed primarily at protecting pedestrians. Historically, a violation might have been viewed as prima facie evidence of contributory negligence. However, appellate decisions indicate that when a cyclist is struck—particularly by a vehicle emerging abruptly from a parking structure—the regulatory infraction does not necessarily translate into liability if the injury sustained falls outside the harm the statute intended to prevent. Thus, attorneys must reevaluate how they frame causation and fault.
Collision Data: Context for Sidewalk Dynamics
According to the 2017–2022 San Francisco Traffic Crashes Report published by the San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority (“SFMTA”):
- Overall Bicycle Collisions: In 2022, there were 434 reported injury collisions involving bicycle riders—a decline from pre-pandemic figures in the 550–600 range. Fatalities involving bicyclists remain very low (1 fatality in 2022, compared to 2–3 in previous years).
- Collision Types and Contributing Factors:
- Primary Collision Patterns: Among bicycle collisions, broadside impacts constitute 37% of cases, while sideswipes account for 21% and “other” patterns (including dooring incidents) make up 16%.
-
- CVC Violation Factors: When the bicyclist is likely not at fault, the top three contributing factors are unsafe lane changes (18%), opening a vehicle door into moving traffic (12%), and failure to yield when making left or U-turns (11%). In contrast, when the bicyclist is at fault, unsafe speed for conditions (27%) and traffic signal violations (15%) are predominant.
Although the report does not provide a discrete breakdown for collisions occurring specifically on sidewalks, these figures suggest that a meaningful subset—particularly those linked to dooring and unexpected vehicular maneuvers onto pedestrian areas—could be underreported. As cyclists increasingly use sidewalks to avoid roadway hazards, the potential for misclassified or overlooked collisions rises, highlighting an area ripe for forensic investigation.
Litigation Outcomes and Forensic Engineering Advances
Recent litigation trends underscore that cases fortified with robust forensic evidence secure verdicts and settlements significantly higher than those relying on testimonial evidence alone. As juries grow more accustomed to sophisticated accident reconstructions, several advanced tools are now integral to courtroom success:
- 3D Reconstruction and LIDAR Mapping: Forensic engineers now routinely use high-resolution LIDAR and 3D scanning to digitally recreate collision scenes. Such techniques help demonstrate that a vehicle’s acceleration profile was inconsistent with a safe exit from a parking garage—a critical factor when the defendant argues a cyclist’s regulatory violation.
- Computer Simulations and Photogrammetry: Modern simulation software, calibrated using actual deposition testimony and site photographs and measurements, enables precise recreation of collision dynamics. These reconstructions can be crucial when the defense contends that a cyclist’s choice to ride on the sidewalk contributed to their injuries.
- Sensor Data Integration: With the growing use of dashcams, smartphone sensors, advanced driver safety systems, and pedestrian crash avoidance mitigation systems, forensic experts can now quantify impact speeds and visibility conditions at the time of the crash. This granular data is particularly effective in challenging oversimplified defenses that lean on statutory violations.
Strategic Deposition and Evidence Collection
Given these advanced forensic capabilities, attorneys should consider the following strategies when handling sidewalk bicycle accident cases:
- Exhaustive Depositions: Interrogate drivers—especially those emerging from parking structures—with detailed questions regarding stopping behavior, field of vision, and whether any precautionary measures (e.g., signaling, honking, slowing) were taken prior to entering pedestrian zones.
- Demanding Full Forensic Disclosure: Request access to raw data and detailed calibration records for any forensic simulations presented by the defense. Highlight discrepancies in data that could undermine claims of contributory negligence.
- Multi-Modal Evidence Integration: Combine deposition testimony, photographic evidence, sensor data, and computer simulations to build a comprehensive case narrative. This layered approach not only reinforces your client’s position but also preempts potential challenges regarding misclassification of the incident’s location (i.e., street versus sidewalk).
Conclusion
In San Francisco’s dynamic urban environment, the choice of cyclists to navigate sidewalks can inadvertently expose them to a unique set of risks—risks that are increasingly subject to sophisticated forensic scrutiny and evolving judicial interpretations. By updating your practice to incorporate the latest statistical trends and forensic engineering advances, you can effectively transform regulatory challenges into persuasive, data-driven arguments.
