According to the law in Alberta, the driver of a motor vehicle that hits a rider on a bicycle is assumed to be negligent, unless he or she can prove that the driver’s actions were not the sole cause of the damaging accident. The bike rider might have been partially responsible, if he or she were not following all the rules laid down in Alberta’s Traffic Safety Act. That Act contains a Vehicle Equipment Regulation.
What does that Regulation say about the wearing of a helmet?
It says that a helmet must be worn by a rider under the age of 18. The term “rider” applies to both the person operating the bicycle and to any passengers. Adults are also encouraged to wear a helmet. The helmet must be certified. It needs to feature a hard-outer surface. By the same token, it must be able to absorb the energy created by an impact. Personal injury lawyer in Spruce Grove knows that all permissible helmets fasten under the rider’s chin, and each of them remains free of any damage.
What does the Regulation say about other equipment for the bicycle?
If a bicycle rider wants to remain free of blame, after being hit by a motor vehicle. That rider’s bike must have a brake. In addition, it needs to have at least one headlamp and one tail lamp. It is not allowed to have more than 2 tail lamps. In addition to the tail lamp, it needs to have a reflector on the bike’s rear.
There are no rules about using certified headlamps or tail lamps. There are rules about how to handle a bicycle with such equipment. A rider with a properly-equipped bicycle should make a point of staying close to the right curb. At the same time, the smart bicycle rider should join a single line, when riding with a group of cyclists.
The bike rider is expected to follow the rules that the driver of a motor vehicle must obey. The one exception to that rule would come if the bike rider got off of that 2-wheeled vehicle, before crossing the street. In that case, the rider-turned –pedestrian could follow the rules that apply to a pedestrian.
Possible defenses for the driver of a motor vehicle that has hit a rider on a bicycle.
It could be that the cyclist was wearing a dull or dark outfit, and that the incident happened on a cloudy day. Those facts could be used to back-up a claim that the driver had not seen the rider on that 2-wheeled vehicle. It could be that the cyclist was wearing ear phones and listening to music when he or she got hit. That would suggest a failure to pay attention.