« bikes at night | Main | Bike Box at SE corner of Lincoln Park, DC »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm not sure that a 41% success rate reflects jury bias--it may reflect optimism by cyclist plaintiff's (or their lawyers).

Cases where the outcome is obvious should settle, so we would normally expect that if the lawyers are all good forecasters, then 50% of cyclists and 50% of motorcyclists should win.

The lawyers quoted seemed to expect a bias against motorcycles which was not borne out, which tells me that defense lawyers are failing to settle motorcyclist cases when they are more likely to lose than win, while bicycle plaintiffs are failing to settle when they are more likely lose than win.

But this is only about 10% of the cases in either event. If we knew that the cyclists had a great case in 100% of the cases, then 41% would reflect a serious anti-cyclist bias. But we don't know that at all More typically there is great ambiguity with both parties exhibiting less than perfect driving and a jury forces to consider whose error was the more serious, or whether the motorist or cyclist is more likely to remember whether the cyclist ran a red light.

Nevertheless, there is probably some anti-cyclist bias out there. It takes many forms and we can only hope that voire dire excludes the more serious forms from juries, about which we can do nothing anyway. I should think that any competent lawyer would ask: "Are cyclists more likely to run red lights than motor vehicle drivers" and strike jurors who said yes in a case where that is an issue, unless persuaded that in spite of that tendency the juror would be open minded in this case.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader