A driver looking at a phone, GPS system, passenger, or dashboard can miss a cyclist until it is too late. Anand Desai Law Firm helps injured California bicyclists investigate distracted-driving crashes, preserve digital evidence, challenge insurance-company blame tactics, and pursue compensation for their injuries and losses. Law Desai’s current bicycle page states that the firm has more than 20 years of legal experience representing injured cyclists.
Get a response within 1 hour.
Verified recovery.
Disputed liability.
Disputed liability.
Disputed liability.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is different.
Distracted-driving bicycle claims often depend on proving something the motorist denies.
The driver may say:
The answer is often found in objective evidence rather than competing recollections.
Law Desai’s broader distracted-driving page currently describes using cellphone records, dashcam footage, surveillance video, social-media timestamps, witness testimony, vehicle information, and digital evidence when investigating distraction.
Potential evidence may include:
The exact records available depend on the case. Law Desai’s current distracted-driving page specifically highlights cellphone records, dashcams, surveillance footage, social-media evidence, and vehicle-system information as potential proof.
Proving that a driver was distracted is only part of the case.
The evidence should also establish how that distraction contributed to the collision.
Important questions can include:
Bay Area Bicycle Law identifies sideswipes, right-turn collisions, left-turn crashes, rear-end impacts, and dooring as common cyclist collisions in which driver distraction may play a role.
Call us or fill out the form. We’ll review your case, explain your options, and answer all your questions — at no cost.
We gather evidence, work with experts, handle the insurance companies, and build your claim for maximum compensation.
We don’t get paid unless you win. 100% contingency fee — no upfront costs, no hidden charges, no risk to you.
Cyclists are especially vulnerable when motorists stop watching the road.
A driver who looks away may fail to notice a bicycle:
NHTSA defines distracted driving broadly as any activity that takes attention away from driving, including texting, phone conversations, eating, drinking, talking with passengers, adjusting entertainment systems, and using navigation systems. In 2024, 3,208 people were killed and 315,167 were injured in crashes involving distracted drivers nationwide.
Cyclists also face significant overall roadway risk. NHTSA reports that 1,103 bicyclists were killed in traffic crashes nationwide in 2024, and nearly three-quarters of cyclist deaths occurred in urban areas.
California’s Office of Traffic Safety reported 145 bicyclist fatalities in California in 2023, the latest statewide figure currently displayed in its traffic-safety scorecard.
Distracted driving is much broader than texting.
NHTSA includes activities such as:
within the broader category of activities that can divert attention from safe driving.
For bicycle cases, distraction may be especially dangerous because cyclists occupy a smaller visual profile than passenger vehicles and can be overlooked during:
Driver distraction is often discussed in three general categories.
The driver takes their eyes away from the road.
Examples include:
The driver takes a hand away from controlling the vehicle.
Examples include:
The driver’s attention is mentally diverted from driving.
Examples can include:
Bay Area Bicycle Law similarly describes distracted driving as activity diverting attention from driving and discusses visual, manual, and cognitive distraction in bicycle-crash cases.
Texting can combine all three forms of distraction because the driver may:
NHTSA states that reading or sending a text can take a driver’s eyes away from the road for approximately five seconds. At 55 mph, that is roughly equivalent to travelling the length of a football field without looking at the roadway.
For a cyclist, five seconds can be enough for a motorist to completely miss:
California Vehicle Code §23123.5 generally prohibits a person from driving while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device unless it is specifically configured for voice-operated and hands-free use and is being used that way.
The statute permits limited hand operation when the device is properly mounted and the driver uses only a single swipe or tap to activate or deactivate a feature or function.
This rule can become important when a cyclist believes the driver was:
The exact conduct must still be established by evidence.
A traffic violation can be highly important, but it is more accurate to describe California negligence-per-se law carefully.
Evidence Code §669 creates a presumption of failure to exercise due care when specified conditions are satisfied, including:
The statute also provides circumstances in which the presumption may be rebutted.
Therefore, it is safer to say:
A proven cellphone-law violation may support a negligence-per-se presumption when all requirements of Evidence Code §669 are met.
It should not be represented as automatically establishing the entire civil case.
A motorist may still be negligent even when no cellphone violation occurred.
Potential non-phone distractions include:
NHTSA’s definition expressly includes several non-phone activities because the core safety concern is diversion of attention from driving.
A cyclist’s claim may therefore be based on ordinary negligence even when Vehicle Code §23123.5 does not apply.
California Vehicle Code §21200 generally provides that a person riding a bicycle on a highway has the same rights and is subject to the same provisions applicable to vehicle drivers, except rules that by their nature cannot apply to bicycles.
This is important in distracted-driving cases because an insurance company should not assume a cyclist had fewer roadway rights simply because they were riding a bicycle.
Cyclists also have responsibilities under California traffic laws, and their conduct can be evaluated along with the driver’s conduct.
Vehicle Code §21202 generally requires a cyclist travelling slower than normal traffic to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, but it contains important exceptions.
A cyclist may move farther left when reasonably necessary to:
Therefore, a driver or insurer cannot automatically establish cyclist negligence simply by showing that the rider was not at the extreme edge of the roadway.
Distracted drivers may fail to judge passing distance accurately.
Vehicle Code §21760, known as the Three Feet for Safety Act, generally requires a motorist overtaking a bicycle travelling in the same direction to maintain a safe distance and prohibits passing with less than three feet between the vehicle and bicycle or rider.
The current statute also requires a driver to change into another available same-direction lane before passing when the lane change is practicable, safe, and lawful.
If three feet cannot be provided because of traffic or roadway conditions, the motorist must slow to a reasonable and prudent speed and may pass only when doing so will not endanger the cyclist.
A motorist looking down at a phone may gradually drift toward a bike lane or shoulder.
The vehicle can strike the cyclist with:
or force the cyclist off the roadway.
Steven M. Sweat’s California bicycle page identifies distracted driving and unsafe passing among common causes of cyclist crashes.
In a close-passing case, evidence may include:
A right hook occurs when a driver turns right across the path of a cyclist travelling straight.
A distracted motorist may:
Bay Area Bicycle Law specifically identifies motorists making right turns in front of bicyclists as a common distracted-driving collision scenario.
Law Desai also already maintains a separate right-hook topic within its bicycle-accident cluster, so this section should internally link to:
/bicycle-accident/right-hook/
A driver waiting to turn left may focus on larger approaching vehicles and fail to notice a bicycle.
The motorist may then:
Bay Area Bicycle Law lists motorists turning left in front of cyclists among common distracted-driving bicycle scenarios.
Evidence may include:
A distracted motorist may simply fail to notice a cyclist directly ahead.
A rear-end bicycle crash can occur when the driver is:
Bay Area Bicycle Law identifies cyclists being rear-ended by motorists as another collision type associated with distraction.
Because the cyclist has little physical protection, even a relatively low-speed impact may produce significant injury.
A distracted driver may drift into a designated bicycle lane without realising it.
Potential evidence can include:
The Law Desai bicycle cluster already includes a dedicated bike-lane page, so this section should internally link to:
/bicycle-accident/bike-lane/
Not every distraction occurs while the vehicle is moving.
A driver or passenger may be looking at a phone and open a vehicle door without checking for a cyclist.
Bay Area Bicycle Law identifies dooring as one common bicycle collision that can involve distraction.
Law Desai also has a dedicated dooring URL later in this bicycle cluster:
/bicycle-accident/dooring/
Tell Law Desai:
Law Desai’s current bicycle page offers free case reviews and contingency-fee representation.
Potential evidence may include:
Law Desai’s distracted-driving page currently describes many of these evidence sources as part of its investigative strategy.
After liability, injuries, insurance coverage, and damages are evaluated, the claim can be pursued through settlement negotiations or litigation where appropriate.
Law Desai’s current bicycle page states that the firm charges no upfront attorney fee and is paid if a recovery is obtained under its contingency arrangement.
Distracted-driving cases often require several pieces of evidence working together.
Records may help establish the timing of:
However, the existence of data traffic alone should not automatically be represented as proof that the driver personally used an app at a particular moment. The records must be interpreted in context.
Dashcams may capture:
Nearby businesses, homes, parking structures, and intersections may have cameras.
A witness may have seen the driver:
Depending on the vehicle and systems involved, electronic records may provide information relating to:
The available information varies significantly between vehicles.
Law Desai’s own distracted-driving page currently identifies cellphone records, dashcams, surveillance cameras, witnesses, social-media timestamps, and vehicle systems among possible evidence sources.
A denial does not necessarily end the investigation.
Objective evidence may include:
Law Desai specifically describes using these kinds of records when a driver disputes distraction.
The strongest case usually connects the distraction evidence to the actual crash sequence—for example, showing that the driver failed to brake, drifted into the bicycle lane, or turned without noticing the cyclist.
The fact that a driver was using navigation does not automatically make the conduct lawful.
California §23123.5 generally prohibits holding and operating a handheld wireless device while driving except under its hands-free and properly mounted provisions. A mounted device can be operated by a single swipe or tap when the statutory requirements are met.
Even where the device use complies with that statute, a motorist can still potentially be negligent if navigation use diverted attention and caused unsafe driving.
Eating while driving is not the same statutory issue as handheld cellphone operation, but it can still divert:
from the road.
NHTSA expressly lists eating and drinking among activities that can distract drivers.
If that distraction causes the driver to:
ordinary negligence principles may become relevant.
Talking with passengers is also recognised by NHTSA as a potential driving distraction.
The issue in a civil case would be whether the distraction actually contributed to unsafe driving and the collision.
Evidence might include:
A traffic citation can be useful, but its absence does not necessarily resolve a civil injury claim.
Distracted driving can potentially be established through other evidence such as:
Law Desai’s current distracted-driving page expressly relies on evidence beyond citations when attempting to establish driver distraction.
Insurance companies may argue that the cyclist:
California Vehicle Code §21200 generally gives cyclists roadway rights while also subjecting them to traffic-law duties applicable to vehicle drivers where those laws can reasonably apply.
The conduct of both road users may therefore need to be evaluated.
An allegation that the cyclist was distracted does not automatically establish that the motorist acted reasonably.
That fact alone does not establish fault.
California law recognises several situations where cyclists may lawfully move away from the right-hand edge of the roadway, including:
The reason for the cyclist’s roadway position should therefore be investigated before accepting an insurer’s blame argument.
California’s Three Feet for Safety Act generally prohibits passing a bicycle with less than three feet of separation.
The current statute also requires an available same-direction lane change when that manoeuvre is practicable, safe, and legal.
Distracted drivers may misjudge:
A close-pass collision can therefore involve both distraction evidence and §21760.
Vehicle Code §22107 prohibits turning or moving laterally until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and requires an appropriate signal when another vehicle may be affected.
For a cyclist, this can become important when a distracted driver:
Video showing the vehicle’s position before and during the turn can be especially valuable.
Cyclists have little physical protection when struck by motor vehicles.
Potential injuries include:
Such as:
Commonly involving:
Potential injuries include:
Cyclists may land on an outstretched arm or directly on a shoulder.
Sliding across pavement may cause:
The initial vehicle impact or subsequent fall may cause internal trauma.
Bay Area Bicycle Law notes that distracted-driver bicycle crashes can lead to hospitalisation, surgery, disability, disfigurement, and substantial lost income.
Potential damages depend on the specific injuries, evidence, insurance coverage, and applicable law.
Law Desai’s current bicycle page states that the firm evaluates the full impact of bicycle injuries and insurance-company attempts to minimise losses.
Potential costs may include:
Serious injuries may require:
A cyclist may be unable to work temporarily during recovery.
Permanent injuries may affect future work and income.
A claim may also potentially include damage to:
Where legally recoverable, non-economic damages may address the physical and personal consequences of the injuries.
Injury Attorneys of California similarly notes that bicycle-case valuation can depend on treatment, time away from work, future earning capacity, and both economic and non-economic losses.
Punitive damages should not be promised simply because a driver was distracted.
Law Desai’s broader distracted-driving page currently discusses punitive damages in cases involving particularly extreme conduct, but every such claim requires case-specific legal analysis.
For publication, this page should avoid implying that ordinary:
automatically qualifies.
Attorney review should determine whether the specific evidence could support any heightened damages theory.
If physically able and it is safe to do so:
California distracted-bicycle guidance likewise recommends documenting the collision, gathering driver and witness information, obtaining medical evaluation, and preserving evidence promptly.
In a serious or disputed claim, avoid immediately repairing or disposing of:
These items can help document:
Law Desai’s current bicycle practice emphasises thorough investigation and the use of reconstruction and expert evidence where necessary.
Surveillance footage may not be stored indefinitely.
Potential sources include:
A prompt request may help preserve evidence before routine overwriting occurs.
Law Desai’s current distracted-driving page specifically identifies dashcams and surveillance video as valuable evidence in these claims.
NHTSA’s current national data show that distracted-driving crashes caused:
3,208 deaths in 2024
and
315,167 injuries in 2024.
NHTSA also reports 1,103 bicyclist fatalities in motor-vehicle traffic crashes in 2024, while California’s latest published statewide quick statistics show 145 bicyclist fatalities in 2023.
These datasets do not mean that all bicycle fatalities involved distracted driving, but they demonstrate the broader safety burden associated with both distracted driving and cyclist vulnerability.
California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 generally provides a two-year limitations period for an action involving injury or death caused by another person’s wrongful act or neglect.
Different procedures may apply where a government entity is involved.
California Government Code §911.2 generally requires a claim for personal injury or death against a public entity to be presented within six months after accrual.
A public-entity issue might arise, for example, if:
Whether a public entity is actually liable is a separate legal question.
Potentially. If negligent driving caused the collision and your injuries, you may have a California personal injury claim. Distracted driving is one of the driver behaviours Law Desai already identifies in its bicycle practice.
Vehicle Code §23123.5 generally prohibits holding and operating a handheld wireless phone or electronic communications device while driving, subject to its hands-free and mounted-device provisions.
No. NHTSA includes eating, drinking, talking with passengers, entertainment systems, navigation systems, phone use, and other activities that divert attention from driving.
Potential evidence can include cellphone records, dashcam footage, surveillance video, witnesses, social-media timestamps, police reports, and electronic vehicle information. Law Desai currently identifies these evidence sources on its distracted-driving page.
A denial can be compared with objective records and other evidence such as phone activity, video, witnesses, and vehicle information.
Handheld use can potentially implicate §23123.5 depending on how the device was being operated. Even legally configured navigation use can potentially become evidence of negligence if the driver failed to pay reasonable attention to the roadway.
Not automatically. Evidence Code §669 creates a rebuttable presumption of failure to use due care only when its statutory elements—including violation, causation, protected injury type, and protected class—are satisfied.
Vehicle Code §21200 generally gives cyclists on highways the rights and responsibilities applicable to drivers, except provisions that by their nature cannot apply to bicycles.
No. Section 21202 contains exceptions for passing, left turns, avoiding hazards, substandard-width lanes, and approaching places where right turns are authorised.
Vehicle Code §21760 generally requires at least three feet of clearance.
Under the current §21760, when another same-direction lane is available, the driver must change lanes before overtaking when the manoeuvre is practicable, safe, and lawful.
Evidence should establish whether the driver improperly entered the bike lane, drifted into it, or turned across your travel path. This page should internally link to Law Desai’s dedicated /bicycle-accident/bike-lane/ page.
This may be a right-hook bicycle accident. Vehicle Code §22107 requires turning and lateral movements to be made with reasonable safety.
The absence of a citation does not necessarily prevent a civil claim. Distraction and negligence may potentially be established through other evidence, including phone records, video, witnesses, and vehicle data.
Your conduct may become part of the fault analysis. California cyclists have roadway rights but are also subject to applicable traffic laws under §21200.
Yes. Video may show where the cyclist and vehicle were, whether the motorist was looking down, lane drift, braking, turning, passing distance, and the collision itself. Law Desai currently identifies surveillance footage as a key distracted-driving evidence source.
Potentially. Property damage to a bicycle and related equipment may be included where legally recoverable and supported by evidence.
Potentially. Lost income and reduced earning capacity may form part of the damages analysis when supported by documentation and medical evidence. Competitor California bicycle guidance similarly identifies work loss and future earning limitations in serious distracted-driver cases.
California’s general personal-injury statute is two years under CCP §335.1. A qualifying claim against a California public entity generally has a six-month claim-presentation requirement under Government Code §911.2.
Anand Desai is a dedicated personal injury attorney serving Glendale and the greater Los Angeles area. A graduate of Loyola Law School with an undergraduate degree from USC, Anand has been a member of the California State Bar (#249768) since 2007, bringing 20+ years of legal experience to every case he handles.
Anand specializes in personal injury law, with particular expertise in car accidents, motorcycle accidents, truck accidents, and catastrophic injury cases. His deep understanding of California personal injury law, combined with his tenacious negotiation skills, has helped him secure millions of dollars in settlements and verdicts for his clients.
What truly sets Anand apart is his commitment to his community. His firm is one of the only law offices in Glendale that offers services in 11 languages, including Spanish, Armenian, Hindi, Gujarati, Korean, Tagalog, Farsi, Mandarin, Japanese, Vietnamese, and English — reflecting the rich diversity of the communities he serves.
“I fight for every client like they’re family. When you hire me, you’re not just getting a lawyer — you’re getting someone who genuinely cares about your recovery and your future.”
Call (833) 270-7800 to schedule your free consultation with Anand today.
Fill out the form and we will contact you within 24 hours. All consultations are free and confidential.
Or call us directly at (833) 270-7800