Jury Awards $353 Million in Death of Champion Cyclist Gwen Inglis

Inglis Family Hopes Verdict Will Deter Impaired Driving

Left to Right - Rich Kaudy, Megan Hottman, Mike Inglis, Julie Erffmeyer, and Keith Erffmeyer

A Jefferson County jury awarded Gwen Inglis’ family a $353 million verdict on December 6, 2022 as a result of a wrongful death civil lawsuit. Megan Hottman and Rich Kaudy of The Kaudy Firm, Megan’s mentor and trial partner, represented Gwen’s husband, Michael, and her Estate.

The six-person jury heard evidence and testimony for a day and a half before reaching its verdict. The verdict breaks down as follows:

  • $100 million in non-economic damages, for pain and suffering,

  • $3 million in economic damages, for the loss of Gwen’s income, and

  • $250 million in punitive damages.

It is important to note that this was not a settlement. A settlement occurs when both parties agree to a resolution before trial. This was a verdict reached by a jury following evidence and witness testimony presented at trial. It is very uncommon to see a verdict of this size in JeffCo or Colorado.

We are hoping this verdict is used as a precedent in future cycling cases and that other lawyers representing injured or killed cyclists will point to this verdict in their cases and say—this is what you should do here as well. We want all drivers who hit cyclists getting hit with these kinds of verdicts and monetary consequences. 

Megan Hottman

Although there is no amount of money that will bring Gwen back, we hope that this verdict will send a message to drivers that driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not acceptable. In the words of Gwen’s husband, "No amount can bring back Gwennie, but $350 million is a tribute to Gwen's amazing character."

Gwen Erffmeyer Inglis

Gwen, a 2019 US Masters road race champion in the 45-49 age group, was just 46 years old at the time of her death. On May 16, 2021, she and her husband were out on a training ride in Lakewood, CO and were riding in a designated bike lane on Alameda Parkway. It was a Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. when Ryan Montoya, the driver, struck Gwen from behind after drifting into the bike lane with his vehicle. Montoya nearly hit Michael, who was riding behind his wife, just seconds before the crash. According to witness testimony, both Gwen and her bike were catapulted in the air landing about twenty feet from where she was hit. The forensic pathologist ruled the cause of death multiple blunt force injuries. Montoya was coming back from Blackhawk and driving under the influence of alcohol as well as methamphetamine, Xanax and marijuana. He was also sleep-deprived and had been driving back and forth to Blackhawk since that Friday.

Montoya pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide-driving under the influence in April 2022 as the result of a plea deal. In June 2022, a judge sentenced him to eight years in prison which was the maximum sentence the Judge could hand down based on the plea deal. Montoya will be eligible for parole in 2025.

Prior to killing Gwen, Montoya was convicted of possession and distribution of a controlled substance and a 2014 DUI. Just ten days before Gwen’s death, Montoya was charged with DUI in Gilpin County.

Photo by Natalie Starr

What's in a Waiver?

“A waiver or release gives up a right, such as releasing one from his/her liability for harm or damage that may occur from performing under a contract, or participating in an activity. Some activities are considered inherently dangerous, and those who participate in such activities may be required to sign a release form, acknowledging that they are assuming the responsibility for their voluntary participation in such activities. The release acts as an assurance to the person requesting the release that they will not be subjected to litigation resulting from the signing party’s informed and consensual acts.”
— https://definitions.uslegal.com/w/waiver-and-release-from-liability/

We’ve been approached by numerous companies who rent bikes or host events, and they’ve asked us to review their waivers. In so doing, it brought to mind the issues surrounding waivers we cyclists are often signing, or creating for our own endeavors. Here is a primer meant to inform and educate you about waivers.

***This is NOT legal advice - as these laws change and evolve often, be sure to consult an attorney for the most up-to-date information.

Please note, this blog is oriented towards Colorado law for purposes of this discussion. Waiver laws and cases vary drastically from state to state.

A release of liability waiver is an agreement that you will not hold someone else liable for your bodily injuries or property damage. Liability waivers are often used by companies who provide services such as rental bikes or bike tours, or run events such as a bike race or triathlon. Liability waivers are used as evidence that you were warned of the risks of participation, and that you agreed to assume those risks.

Signing a liability waiver is often a condition of participating in an activity or event. If you don’t sign it, you don’t get to participate.

Exculpatory agreements are construed strictly against the party seeking to limit its liability. Heil Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Simkin, 784 P.2d 781, 784 (Colo.1989). However, the validity of such waivers is a question of law. Jones, 623 P.2d at 376; Stanley v. Creighton Co., 911 P.2d 7405, 707 (Colo.App.1996).

In determining whether an exculpatory agreement is valid in Colorado, there are four factors which a court must consider: (1) the existence of a duty to the public; (2) the nature of the service performed; (3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language. Jones v. Dressel, 623 P. 2d 370 (Colo. 1981).

Waivers should be carefully scrutinized to see that the “intent of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language and that the circumstances and the nature of the service involved indicate the contract was fairly entered into.” Chadwick v. Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., 100 P.3d 465 (Colo. 2004). Chadwick involved equine activities- specifically, an incident that occurred during a hunting expedition, guided by Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., in which Chadwick was thrown from a mule and sustained severe injuries. The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the Court of Appeals in finding that (1) the release agreement was not void as against public policy; (2) the language of the agreement reflected a clear and unambiguous intent to release the Outfitter from all liability for any injury resulting from Chadwick's participation in activities of the guided hunt; (3) that the agreement contained the warnings expressly required by section 13-21-119, 5 C.R.S. (2003); and (4) that riding a mule fell within the statutory definition of equine activities, as well as the broad language of the agreement concerning the use of animals while participating in the activities of the hunt.

Colorado courts have consistently upheld broad waivers for equine activities.

Courts will often review the length/legal complicatedness of the release or waiver in assessing factor number 4 above. In Hamill v. Cheley Colorado Camps, Inc., 262 P.3d 945 (2011) the Court stated, “the agreement here is not inordinately long-three and a half pages. The legal jargon is minimal.”

So, keep your waivers short and simple, easy to read and understand.

It is reasonable to interpret the broad language of a release to cover claims based on negligence; otherwise the agreement would be essentially meaningless. It is not necessary to describe in detail each specific risk that might be encountered. Lahey v. Covington, 964 F. Supp. 1440 (D. Colo. 1996).

What about minors?

A court will use the four-part test articulated in Jones listed above, 628 P.2d at 376, AND will look at whether the parent made an informed decision under section C.R.S. 18-22-107 to release his/her child’s prospective negligence claims. That statute states that "so long as [a parent's] decision to waive the child's claims is voluntary and informed, the decision should be given the same dignity as decisions regarding schooling, medical treatment, and religious education." C.R.S. § 18-22-107(I)(a)(V).

For a thorough review of the 4 factors as well as releases involving minors, consider reviewing the Hamill case here.

Public or Essential Services

A liability waiver can be unenforceable if you have to sign it in order to use a public or essential service. Courts have told us that certain activities are not public or essential, including: Skydiving, Whitewater rafting, Horseback riding, Mountain biking, Skiing, Snowmobiling tours. Some factors that may make a service public or essential include: regulated by the government, important necessity for a lot of people, service provider says they allow anyone to use the service. An example of a public or essential service is commercial airlines. x (See Jones v. Dressel).

Willful and Wanton?

In no event will an exculpatory agreement be permitted to shield against a claim of willful and wanton negligence. Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo.1981), citing Barker v. Colorado Region, 35 Colo.App. 73, 532 P.2d 372 (1974); Kansas City Power & Light Company v. United Telephone Company of Kansas, Inc., 458 F.2d 177 (1972); Ciofalo v. Vic Tanney Gyms, Inc., 10 N.Y.2d 294, 220 N.Y.S.2d 962, 177 N.E.2d 925 (N.Y. 1961).

What is willful and wanton behavior? In Brooks v. Timberline Tours, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that in Colorado, willful and wanton behavior requires “a mental state of the actor consonant with purpose, intent, and voluntary choice,” citing Potter, 849 F.Supp. at 1411. It is “conduct which an actor realizes is highly hazardous and poses a strong probability of injury to another but nevertheless knowingly and voluntarily chooses to engage in.” (citations omitted).

In Rowan v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 889 (D. Colo. 1998), the Court found sufficient evidence for a claim of willful and wanton conduct to go to the jury. There, several prior skiers had close calls with an unprotected picnic deck before Rowan died by skiing into it.

Our book devotes an entire chapter to waivers/releases of liability. Order your copy HERE.

For more, consider this Colorado Lawyer Article HERE. Another great resource is Sportwaiver.com.

Is it Legal for a Cyclist to Cross the Center Yellow Line to Pass a Car?

A few days ago we got this inquiry from a law enforcement friend who wanted our take on this issue:

“Hey Megan - quick ? if I may on something we were debating: If a motorist can cross a double-yellow (when safe) to pass a slower bicyclist, can a bicyclist cross a double-yellow to pass (when safe) a slower motorist? Example, Going down Lookout Mountain, and a car slows at the speedbump, and the bicyclist behind the car takes the opportunity to pass the car but crosses the double-yellow to do so.”

That’s a negative, ghost-rider.

A motorist is given the right to cross the center yellow line to overtake a cyclist in the context of the 3-foot law. C.R.S. 42-4-1005 describes limitations on overtaking on the left, and states that its mandates do NOT apply:

(d) To the driver of a vehicle passing a bicyclist moving the same direction and in the same lane when such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with, impeding, or endangering other traffic lawfully using the highway.

In other words… when read together with Colorado’s 3-foot law (C.R.S. 42-4-1003 , see more here or here), the law allows a driver to give a cyclist three feet when overtaking them to their left, which means they MAY cross the center yellow line - WHEN SAFE TO DO SO- in order to provide the cyclist a minimum of three feet.

This is not a speed issue, it is a safe-passing-buffer issue.

Compare that to a cyclist crossing a center yellow line to pass a vehicle on the left …. here, we do not have a 3-foot buffer concern…. and the rider is simply passing a motor vehicle as a result of speed, overtaking a slower-moving car, such as in the example cited above when a driver slows the vehicle down for a speed bump (or any other slowing reason, such as heavy traffic, wildlife, you name it).

In addition —the law reads that if your motor vehicle speed is such that it is impeding traffic, you are required to pull to the shoulder (or right lane) and let others pass you -C.R.S. 42-4-1103(3)(a)(b). However, we don’t see that a motor vehicle momentarily slowing down for a speed bump coming down the mountain constitutes "impeding traffic.”

As such, we conclude that cyclists are not legally permitted to overtake vehicles by crossing over the center yellow line.

It is also notable that on places like Lookout Mountain Road, Golden Gate Canyon road, or any other number of canyon or mountain roads where a cyclist can easily reach or exceed the posted speed limit, riders may be tempted to overtake vehicles doing the speed limit. This is a NO-GO. It is not only incredibly dangerous, it is illegal. At the speed limit, cyclists may take the lane and descend in the middle of the traffic lane. But if they come up on the back of a vehicle doing a slower speed, they need to wait behind the vehicle. This is safest, and it’s the legal maneuver. **Also-remember that you can be cited for speeding, and be subject to the same fines and penalties on your bike as in your car (except for driving points -you cannot be docked driving points when you’re operating a bicycle).

Please — don’t ever cross a center yellow line while you’re descending down a canyon or mountain road and don’t overtake motorists on their left by crossing the center line. Be safe. Ride in your traffic lane, at the speed limit, and arrive home safely.

Distracted Driving is 100% Preventable

Make the Pledge to End Distracted Driving


“Driving is not a multitasking activity. It takes visual, physical and cognitive awareness.The visual is your eyes on the road, the physical is your hands on the wheel, and the cognitive is your awareness of what’s going on around you, and if you’re messing with an electronic device while you’re driving, probably all three of those are off the table.” (CDOT Victim Testimonials)

Let’s face it; we have all been distracted drivers at some point in our driving careers. Recognizing the behaviors that lead to distracted driving are the beginning of putting an end to it, and hopefully, a decline in collisions and injuries to vulnerable road users. Distracted driving is 100% preventable. 

While distracted driving is most often associated with cell phone use such as texting, reading messages or talking on a hand-held phone while driving, distracted driving behavior is also looking down from the road while changing radio stations, eating or drinking, having a conversation with a passenger, or even admiring the landscape. When you take your focus away from the road and your attention is diverted away from other cars, bicycles, or pedestrians, you are distracted. It just takes a second for a distracted driver to change someone’s life permanently.  Sadly, distracted drivers have struck far too many of our clients.      

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

In Colorado, forty two crashes per day involve distracted driving according to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Despite a rising number in injuries and crashes, a survey of Colorado drivers in 2020 revealed that 92% admitted to driving distracted on a weekly basis, which is an increase from the 90% reported in 2019. CDOT also reported that drivers ages 21-30 make up the largest category for at-fault distracted drivers in Colorado.

We joined/are joining CDOT as well as other safety partners in conjunction with April Distracted Driving Awareness Month (and beyond!) to help raise awareness of the dangers of distracted driving and to share CDOT’s messages..  

As part of its Distraction Reactions campaign, CDOT is asking drivers to reconsider their behavior behind the wheel. Forty eight coffee shops throughout the state will serve coffee in cups warning about the dangers of distracted driving.

CDOT’s distracted driving safety messages on social media are urging Coloradans to #DropTheDistraction and #JustDrive. When you are behind the wheel, all other tasks can wait. It’s not worth the risk. 

As a reminder, the laws in Colorado are:

  • No text messaging while driving for any age group.

  • Only adults are allowed to make voice calls.

  • Anyone under the age of 18 is not allowed to use a cell phone while driving.

There are, of course, exceptions to the law under certain circumstances. Drivers, regardless of age, are allowed to use a cell phone to either call or send/receive text messages to a public safety entity or during an emergency. 

Current penalties for the misuse of a wireless device are as follows:

Adult Driver Penalties.png
Minor Driver Penalties.jpg

According to CDOT, deterrents to distracted driving include:

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

  • Hands-free features,

  • Safety concerns,

  • Expectation of getting a ticket, and

  • Blocking calls and messages.

However, in a recent survey from CDOT, a majority of respondents reported having a “Do Not Disturb While Driving” feature on their phone, but half had never used it.  If you would like to learn how to activate the “Do Not Disturb” option on your phone, please visit DISTRACTED.CODOT.GOV.

Here's our Call to Action for Cyclists:

If cyclists driving cars cannot put down their own phones, how can we ask motorists who ARE NOT cyclists to do so?  We cannot lambaste "those motorists" for driving distracted while exhibiting the same behaviors. It always helps our causes and battles when we can say cyclists are doing everything we can as a group to improve our own conduct.

We have more information on distracted driving and what you can do to make the roads safer for all users in our blog post Take the Pledge:  April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month. Don’t put others at risk. Put your mobile electronic devices down while driving or just turn them off.

Visit CDOT's distracted driving page for more information about the campaign and to view testimonials given by victims of distracted driving.

Are Bike Helmets Required?

Answer: … it depends (says every lawyer, ever, about any question asked). ;)

This is a wonderful review of this topic thanks to our Content & Communications Manager, Maureen. We hope you find it helpful and that you’ll share it with any new(er) cyclists you may know!

Bike ridership across the country is up, as many people are looking for alternative ways to stay fit with many gyms and fitness centers closed due to COVID-19.  Biking has also become an acceptable social distancing activity and an alternative mode to public transportation. Many families are turning to the bike to get outdoors with their kids, as many pools are closed and playgrounds have been roped off.  People are dusting off their bikes, fixing them up, and heading outside. 

Bike shops can hardly keep up with the demand for new bikes. “Basic adult bicycles, known in the industry as ‘leisure’ bicycles, have seen double and triple-digit sales increases,” according to The NDP Group, a market research company in Port Washington, New York.  Adult leisure bike sales were up 121% in March. 

Denver has seen a significant increase in bicyclists on trails. South Platte Park reported a 93% increase in bikes on the South Platte River Trail.  It is incredible, truly a dream come true for cycling.  We are excited to see so many more bicyclists.

If you are new to biking or getting on the bike again after a long hiatus (welcome back!), it is important to know the bicycling laws in your state. Even if you are an experienced cyclist, you might need a refresher or learn about recently passed laws (SB20-061) that make biking safer.  Check out the Bicycling Manual - A Guide to Safe Bicycling from the Colorado Department of Transportation for rules of the road. You can also get more information on state and local laws for Colorado and Arizona on our website under Cycling Laws. If you live outside of Colorado, visit your motor vehicle department’s website. 

Kids with Helmets.jpg

Recently, we got a question about helmet laws, specifically for children in Colorado:

“Could you tell me what the Colorado laws are for young children and bikes? In the Netherlands, they start biking with their children in trailers at six to eight weeks, but in the US the general consensus seems to be to wait until your child is a year old. I am wondering what the laws are around biking and helmets for young children.”

There is no federal law in the U.S. requiring bicycle helmets for any cyclist. Helmet laws vary by state and even local jurisdiction and are mostly limited to children, usually under the age of 18 in many states.  In 21 states and the District of Columbia, bicyclists are required to wear a helmet depending on their age. For example, in Pennsylvania, it is a state law that all cyclists under the age of 12 must wear a helmet, while in Delaware, the age requirement is 18. Twenty nine states do not have a statewide law regarding helmet use. Colorado is one of these states with one exception:

Bicycle Helmet Laws by State - www.iihs.org

Bicycle Helmet Laws by State - www.iihs.org

Currently, the law in Colorado (C.R.S. § 42-4-1412(15)(b)) only requires bicycle helmets when a cyclist is operating a class 3 electric bike, which is defined as “an electric bike offering motor assistance only while the rider pedals, up to 28 miles per hour.” All riders or passengers on a class 3 electric bike under the age of 18 must wear a protective helmet specifically designed for bicyclists. The law goes on to say that the protective helmet must conform to the design and specifications set by the United States consumer product safety commission or the American Society for Testing and Materials and must be properly secured on the cyclist’s or passenger’s head with a chin strap while the class 3 electrical assisted bicycle is in motion.

If you are in the market for a bike helmet, consider some of the following advice from our Bike Ambassadors:

Fit and Budget -  Fit is definitely important to several of our Bike Ambassadors.  Ben says fit is greater than everything else.  “It's great to have a budget, but the $100 helmet might fit better than the $50 one, even though you were only planning on spending $50.  Vice versa. You might want the coolest, newest, $300 helmet, but the $100 one might fit you better, and that's what you should go with.  Go to a local shop, try a ton on, and pick whatever fits best.”

Marieke agrees and says a helmet that fits well is a helmet that you will wear. “I like to try my helmet on before I buy it, make sure that it doesn’t wobble too much or sits lopsided. What happens when you shake your head? It also should not be too tight because nobody wants a headache. I like a light helmet, so that I notice it as little as possible. There are many helmets out there, and everybody has a different head shape. Try something that works best for you. My experience is that the cheapest deal is not necessarily the best fit (unfortunately), but it is worth spending the extra money so that you will actually wear it.  Another note is that I always hang it on my handlebar, so that I don't forget to put it on when I go out for a ride.” 

Drew says, “Fit is most important. The helmet should be snug, and you should be able to see your skin move when you rotate the helmet - it should still be comfortable.  Make sure to try the helmet on with a cap as well if you wear one when riding.  Every company has a slightly different shape helmet, so give a few a try to find what's most comfortable for you - your local bike shop should be able to help with fitting as well!” Drew recommends splurging on a helmet because your head is the most valuable thing you take riding with you every single time. He says you can always save elsewhere. Finally, make sure you always buckle your helmet, and that the buckle is snug under your chin;  it should not be able to slip up and over your chin.

Safety standards -  Mel emphasizes to make sure your helmet meets safety standards. Many out there do not. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has guidelines.  “Fit is important, but matters not if it won’t protect you in a crash,” explains Mel.

  1. MIPS - Multi-directional Impact Protection System -  Both Megan and Drew brought up this system, which is found inside the helmet, generally between the comfort padding and the EPS (a high-quality foam used to reduce energy). It is a brain protection system. Drew says, “MIPS technology (or Spin with Poc) are really cool and have been shown to have some benefit limiting rotational trauma (which can cause a lot of serious concussions) so it's worth checking out. These helmets are usually more expensive (and MIPS is licensed to a wide range of companies) and is absolutely not necessary, but is a nice feature.”

Screen Shot 2020-05-30 at 3.09.46 PM.png

Learn more about MIPS and see some video demonstrations of this incredible technology, here: https://mipsprotection.com/

Helmet Light - Think about a helmet light if riding at night in addition to any lights on your bikes.  It will make riding more fun and make you more visible.

Helmet Replacement - Replace your helmet frequently. Drew says not to let your helmet languish in your garage for years. Technology improves and various foams break down in the elements. Also, replace your helmet after a crash, even if there are no visible signs of damage.

Consider buying the right helmet for your riding style/discipline. Helmets for mountain biking are different from helmets for road biking. If you’ll mainly be riding on roads, consider a high-visibility helmet.

Check out this helmet fact sheet put together by the Center for Disease Control for information on what to look for and what to avoid when buying a helmet for your child or teenager.

 Cycling is on the rise and soaring in popularity. We hope it stays this way and encourage you to spend as much time on your bikes as possible. There are so many benefits:  biking helps boost mental health, keeps you active and fit, and gets you outdoors. Keep on biking!

Yield To Bicycles In Bicycle Lanes - Law Takes Effect on July 1, 2020

Help Us Spread the Word!

Photo_1.jpg

Senate Bill 20-061, also known as the bike lane bill, is now law in Colorado and takes effect on July 1, 2020. Signed into law by Governor Polis on March 20th, 2020, C.R.S.42-4-714 requires motorists to yield the right-of-way (ROW) to a bicyclist in a bike lane. It also creates a new traffic offense for failing to yield to a bicyclist or other authorized user in a bicycle lane.  Failure to yield will result in a class A traffic offense and is punishable with a $70 fine and three points assessed to the driver’s license.

According to Colorado Revised Statutes 42-1-102 (10.3), a bicycle lane is defined as “a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signage, or pavement markings for the exclusive use of bicyclists and other authorized users of bicycle lanes.”  It is important to note that bicycle lanes do include an intersection if the bicycle lane is marked on the opposite side of the intersection. So yes, motorists must definitely yield to bicyclists riding in the intersection.

By law, bicyclists in Colorado must stop at intersections where there is a stop sign or stoplight regardless whether there is a bike lane or not. Only Aspen, Breckenridge, Dillon, Thornton, and Summit County have adopted the so-called safety stops in Colorado. The safety stop, also known as the Idaho stop, rolling stop, or stop-as-yield, allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. It is up to each municipality to decide whether to adopt Colorado's stop-as-yield legislation.

If a motorist fails to yield to a bicyclist or other authorized user in a bicycle lane and the result is a crash, the motorist should be cited with careless driving, a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense, and punished as described in C.R.S. 42-2-1402 (2)(a).

Furthermore, if a motorist fails to yield to a bicyclist or other authorized user in a bicycle lane and the result is bodily injury to another person, the motorist should be cited with careless driving, a class 1 misdemeanor traffic offense, and punished as described in C.R.S 42-4-1402 (2)(b). 

Prior to this law, there was nothing on the books in Colorado to make it mandatory for motorists to yield to cyclists in bike lanes. We needed legislation that placed the obligation to yield ROW squarely and firmly on motorists about to turn across a bike lane or at an intersection where a bike lane exists. “It has always been my belief that a motorist must yield to a cyclist in a bike lane before turning into the bike lane or crossing through it,” says Megan. 

After handling bike cases for ten years, as well as having a personal interest as the result of her own crash, Megan saw a need for a law to protect cyclists in bike lanes. 

Last fall, Megan reached out to Senator Mike Foote, who in 2019 sponsored Senate Bill 19-175  to protect vulnerable road users, including cyclists. Megan expressed her concern to Senator Foote that there were no laws in Colorado to protect cyclists in bike lanes. Senator Foote, a cyclist himself, agreed. 

Both Megan and Senator Foote also felt that there was an uneven application of the law statewide when it came to how/if drivers are cited. Sometimes the driver gets cited, sometimes the cyclist gets cited, sometimes nobody gets cited. Senator Foote said the goal of this bill was to clear that up.

Hottman Law Office has seen law enforcement and insurance carriers investigating bike lane crashes in varied and inconsistent ways. We have heard crazy arguments such as “Even though the cyclist was riding lawfully in the bike lane,

  • They were going too fast for the conditions (even though well under the speed limit).

  • They were not dressed brightly enough (even though it was broad daylight and they had blinkie lights on).

  • The cyclist still should have made eye contact before proceeding straight.

  • The car made it to the intersection first, so it is the cyclist’s fault.

  • Since traffic was stopped to the left of the bike lane, the cyclist should have stopped as well.

  • Cyclists should have to anticipate and yield to cars turning right across the bike lane to access the driveway.

  • The cyclist should have anticipated they would be overtaken.”

Cyclists are encouraged to use bike lanes instead of riding on sidewalks. They are there for safety reasons. Cities all over Colorado are adding bike lanes to make cycling safer.  In 2017, Denver voters approved a 10-year, $937 million bond, which is called the Elevate Denver Bond Program, to improve Denver’s infrastructure. The program dedicated $18 million to the design and construction of 50 miles of neighborhood bikeways and protected bike lanes, so-called high comfort bikeways.

Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is, cyclists are often injured or killed while riding in the lane that is actually supposed to protect them. 

To add insult to injury, cyclists are often blamed or even cited for causing a crash in the bike lane. There are near misses happening all over the state. Senator Foote has been the victim of those near misses several times. Drivers will accelerate in order to make the right-hand turn, so that they do not have to wait for the cyclist to get through the intersection.The driver misjudges how fast the cyclist is going and cuts off the cyclist. The cyclist has to brake really fast and may end up falling off the bike, or the cyclist runs into the car. 

On Monday, February 3, 2020, Senator Foote, Megan, several of our former clients who had been hit in the bike lane, law enforcement, Bicycle Colorado, AAA Colorado, as well as members of the Colorado cycling community testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee about the need for SB20-061 to make cycling safer in Colorado. 

One of those cyclists hit while riding in the bike lane was Delores Marquez. She was riding in her neighborhood on her way to a bike trail when a driver ran a stop sign. Delores landed on the hood of the car, and her head hit the windshield. The driver accelerated, and Delores’ body continued to be hit by the car. She had a broken sacrum and tailbone, a severe concussion, and several other injuries. Delores went through two surgeries and almost lost her life due to complications during one of the surgeries.

“I thought I would be safe riding in a bike lane because the city put them there for us to ride vs. the traffic lane. If we are going to continue getting bike lanes, then the city needs to protect us in those lanes. Motorists have to watch out for the cyclists,” she said. “I want to empower law enforcement, and I want motorists to know that they will be cited if they don’t yield to cyclists who are lawfully riding in these lanes in Colorado.”

Dennis King was also hit while riding in a bike lane. As a retired law enforcement officer and now a part-time campus police officer at the Colorado School of Mines, he stated that passing the bill into law would help law enforcement officers cite drivers correctly.

“The bill itself, I think, would be a valuable tool as an officer to give us something to do, that when we get into these encounters between a car and a bicycle, you would have a new option, a new tool. You’d have something we didn’t have before,” he said. 

Skyler McKinley, Director of Public Relations and Government Affairs at AAA Colorado, testified on behalf of AAA in support of the bill. He explained why both motorists and cyclists should want the bill, as it clears up what is an oversight in the law.

“It clarifies how bicyclists and motorists are required to act when bicycle lanes are present. Specifically, it gives drivers more information about what they are supposed to do when they see a bicycle lane. They don’t have that information right now, and that’s what creates conflict, and it creates tension,” explained Skyler Mckinley.  “That oversight has really burdened drivers at the safety expense of people on bicycles.”

Teri Vogel, whose husband Chuck Vogel was hit and killed by a driver on July 4, 2019 while riding his bike, encouraged lawmakers to pass the bill due to the need for clarity for law enforcement. Terri advocated not only in support of the bill for bicyclist safety but also for motorist behavior.

“I feel that if there are laws put into place and guidelines that help both the motorist understand their duty, their ownership, their responsibility while also helping law enforcement officers know how to act and what to enforce, then everybody comes out better.”

The bill passed with a vote of 3-2 in the committee and then in the Senate.

On February 20, 2020, we were back at the State Capitol testifying, this time before the House Judiciary Committee along with the bill’s co-sponsor Representative KC Becker. It passed 11-2 in the committee and then passed in the House.

Now, we are asking you to spread the word about this new law. Tell anyone and everyone, even if they are not cyclists, because, most likely, they are motorists who need to know! It is time to educate your neighbors, co-workers, family, and friends. If you have a teenager who is learning to drive, let them know that they must yield to bicyclists in bike lanes. If you know a law enforcement officer, update them on the new law. Share the news to your social media sites. Let’s get the word out!



 

 

More Protection for Cyclists in Bike Lanes

Lawmaker Proposes Legislation - Cyclists Advocate for Protected Bike Lanes

On Monday, February 3, 2020, Senator Mike Foote will address the Senate Judiciary Committee about legislation he is sponsoring to require drivers to yield to bicyclists in bike lanes. Senate Bill 20-061 will make it possible for law enforcement to cite drivers who fail to yield to a bicyclist in a bike lane. Failure to yield would result in a class A traffic offense and would be punishable with a $70 fine. The law would take effect on July 1, 2020, if passed.

If the driver fails to yield to a bicyclist in a bike lane, and this results in a crash or in bodily injury, then this is considered careless driving and punished under the careless driving offense.

Senator Foote also sponsored SB19-175 (Serious Bodily Injury Vulnerable Road User Penalties) in March 2019 which was then signed into law by Governor Polis on May 29, 2019. That same day, Megan was seriously injured when a 19-year old driver crashed into her while she was riding in a bike lane in Arvada. (More HERE).

After handling bike cases for ten years, as well as having a personal interest as the result of her crash and her investment in bike advocacy/activism, Megan saw a need for a law to protect cyclists in bike lanes and to give law enforcement something to work with when it comes time to cite a driver who hits a cyclist riding in a bike lane: “It has always been my belief that a motorist must yield to a cyclist in a bike lane before turning into the bike lane or crossing through it,” says Megan. 

Last year, Megan reached out to Senator Mike Foote and expressed what she saw as a really big hole in the law, not just in Colorado but in most states, where we have the addition of bike lanes for cyclists to use but no laws to protect them.  

Senator Foote agreed, so he and Megan partnered to draft SB20-061. She will be at the Capitol to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the need for this bill to be passed into law to protect cyclists. Alongside her will be Ali Clerkin, who was hit by a driver on May 9, 2016, while biking in the bike lane on Marion Street at E. Bayaud Avenue. It was around 8:00 am, and Ali was wearing a helmet, normal street clothes, and white athletic jacket, making her clearly visible. The street curves to intersect with Downing Street and the bike lane follows this curvature. 

Ali was following this curve of the road in the bike lane; there is also a dotted line where cars can cross over to continue straight to a smaller intersection.

It was at this point that a pick-up truck went through the dotted bike lane line to cross over to the other side and hit Ali on her left-hand side.

“I was just beginning to ride with the curve when a green truck came barreling through the bike lane to move straight through to the smaller intersection (Marion and Bayaud). The truck hit me around the front passenger side. I felt my head and left side of my body hit the car. I fell to my left and hit the ground, where I immediately felt the pain in my left arm,” explains Ali. Since she landed on her left side, most of the ‘blow’ was to that side only.

An ambulance transported Ali to the hospital where doctors told her that she would need surgery. Her shoulder was dislocated, and her upper left arm, elbow, and hand were broken:

  • Humerus fracture (in at least 2 places) - x-ray, CT scan, surgery

  • Elbow fracture - x-ray, CT scan, sling and brace for isolation

  • Wrist (carpal) fracture - x-ray, CT scan, stint for isolation.

According to the police report, the driver was not cited due to conflicting statements and no witnesses. The driver stated that he saw Ali in the bike lane but that she swerved over into the side of the truck all of a sudden. However, the driver indicated to police that he “was probably crowding the bike lane a little bit” and saw Ali in the bike lane and “probably should have moved over a bit.” 

Ali was very disappointed to learn that although she had been severely injured, the driver would not be punished. “There essentially was no accountability placed on him,” she says. “This is mostly because there was no further investigation completed by the Denver Police Department. When the police officer got to the scene, the driver already had his story fabricated that I swerved into his truck and that I only had a dislocated shoulder.” Ali firmly believes that a follow-up investigation should always be done as mental/psychological injury cannot be seen right away regardless if there is serious bodily injury or not.

When Ali followed up with the officer, he asserted that he could not undeniably prove what occurred in the crash in a court but believed the driver to be at fault and thus assigned the driver as Traffic Unit #1 in the report and cited other incriminating comments that the driver told him.

Since the driver did not have to appear in court, Ali was deprived of the chance to seek justice in a traffic case and never had a chance to see the driver punished. Ali was clearly in the right and the driver at fault. Our firm obtained the driver's full policy limits and then also made a substantial recovery from Ali’s own auto insurer as well—all indicative that the insurers accepted fault on behalf of the driver and did not apportion fault to Ali.

As a result of her injuries, Ali had to take sick time, go on short-term disability at 70 percent pay, and was not able to return at a full time capacity immediately. Her husband became her caretaker and accompanied her to all doctors’ visits and the surgery. He woke her up every four hours throughout the day and night to administer pain medication for the first two weeks, ran errands, did all the cooking and cleaning, and drove her to her appointments. He also did physical therapy with her two to three times a day. 

Beyond the physical injuries, the crash took an emotional toll on Ali. The missed work and specifically the timing inhibited her career growth; the position above her was vacated, and she was filling the role and attempting to prove herself worthy of the promotion when this crash happened. 

It has also been difficult for Ali to get back on a bike again. The first time riding her bike was on the two-year anniversary of the crash. “I truly have lost my appetite to ride because overcoming the anxiety does not outweigh the joy I once felt when riding,” she says.  She has only ridden a handful of times, more as a mental health initiative. She rode on dedicated paths without cars or on the sidewalk. (Read more HERE).

Ali is also more afraid to drive in a car. Since the car hit her from behind/in her blindspot, she is constantly afraid that she will miss seeing someone and hit a person, biker, or car. 

One of the main things that Ali learned is that simply riding in the bike lane does not provide an impermeable shield from cars to bicyclists. She believes that in order to make cycling safer, physically separated bike lanes are necessary to make it harder for cars to impede the bike lane.

Community volunteer and bike advocate Amy Kenreich agrees. She has been involved with the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee (MBAC) since 2017 and has been speaking to both residents and cyclists in support of the S. Marion Street Parkway Improvements project. The city is currently finalizing designs, and construction of a protected bike lane is planned for 2020. Although Amy heard a lot of positive feedback from part of the population, there are many people, especially residents, who oppose adding a protected bike lane. Amy says that most of the arguments against the protected bike lane stemmed from one theme: “Not In My Back Yard.” “Sometimes people are simply opposed to change,” she says.

“I had a really difficult time understanding why anyone would oppose a protected bike lane in front of an elementary school. I live four blocks away from this project. I take my kids to the playground at Steele Elementary often, and I also ride this street to reach the Cherry Creek Trail. When Alexis Bounds was struck and killed, it made me mad and terrified me. Because I have been on the MBAC and because I know about Vision Zero, I just couldn’t sit by and do nothing,” says Amy. 

Amy encourages people in Denver to follow the Bicycling in Denver page and to check out “News and Updates” for a list of upcoming public meetings.

“One of the best things you can do is attend these meetings and make your voice heard.  Another way you can help is to submit feedback on the same site. DOTI (Department of Transportation and Infrastructure) really does read and tally up all comments that come in on a project. For the Marion project, the city showed a slide of all the types of feedback that came in, and it clearly showed that the #1 priority was the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Your voice matters, and it doesn’t take much time to make sure it’s heard,” emphasizes Amy.

Another site to watch is the Denver Bicycle Lobby. They post the Denver bike lane public meeting dates on their site and also host meet-ups and organize efforts to support bicycle advocacy in Denver. 

Please advocate for safer cycling with us on February 3rd at the State Capitol in supporting this bill. Here are the details:

State Capitol

200 E. Colfax

Denver, CO 80203 

The hearing will be on the third floor in room 352 - Senate Judiciary.  

Time: 1:30 pm. 

How to Get a Serious Bodily Injury Charge Filed

Colorado Cyclists Can Push for Application of New Vulnerable Road User Law in Their Cases


Have you been the victim of a crash after May 29, 2019, involving serious bodily injury (SBI)? If so, here is what you need to know in order to get the charges that the driver will face elevated to Careless Driving Involving Serious Bodily Injury (SBI) to a Vulnerable Road User (VRU).

First, Governor Polis signed Senate Bill 19-175 into law on May 29, 2019, which increases the penalties for careless driving resulting in SBI to a VRU. The bill also provided a definition of a VRU which does include cyclists. Senator Mike Foote and Representative Dylan Robert sponsored the bill which was strongly supported by bike advocates, such as Bicycle Colorado, who worked directly alongside lawmakers to draft the bill.  Bike advocates who pushed for this bill believed it would be an automatic sentence and added tools to district attorneys’ tool boxes in terms of sentencing recommendations/options in addition to assessing points to the driver’s license.  

The new law, C.R.S. 42-4-1402.5, makes careless driving causing SBI to a VRU a class 1 traffic misdemeanor according to Jennifer Tibbitts Knudsen, Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor with the Colorado District Attorneys' Council. It allows the court to require a convicted driver:

  • To attend a driver improvement course.

  • To perform useful public service not to exceed 320 hours.

  • To pay restitution.

Upon a conviction of the VRU charge, the Department of Motor Vehicles must assess 12 points against the privilege to drive, says Jennifer. 

Second, according to C.R.S. 42-2-1601 (4)(b), SBI is defined as “injury that involves, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time, a substantial risk of death, a substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, or a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, or breaks, fractures, or burns of the second or third degree.”

Next, Jennifer explains that if there are felony charges in cases of careless driving causing serious bodily injury to a vulnerable road user, the following language would be used in the charging documents: 

Defendant unlawfully drove a motor vehicle in a careless and imprudent manner without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and use of the streets or highways and all other attendant circumstances and the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of serious bodily injury to a vulnerable road user; in violation of sections 42-4-1402.5(2) and 42-4-1402, C.R.S.

When law enforcement officers write a ticket, both sections (42-4-1402.5(2) and 42-4-1402) of the statute must appear as follows:

Infliction of Serious Bodily Injury to a Vulnerable Road User 42-4-1402.5(2) and 42-4-1402, C.R.S.

Now that we have gone over the law and explained SBI and VRU, what can you as the injured cyclist do to get the new law applied to your case if you sustained serious bodily injury as the result of a careless driver? Here is a guide with steps we recommend in order to get the local city attorney or DA to refile the summons using the new VRU law:

  1. You will need to provide police with a signed SBI form from your doctor proving that you sustained SBI. Often, the police officer will ask the ER doctor to sign the form if injuries warrant SBI. Police will sometimes follow up with the victim and ask for provider information or even medical authority. If this is not the case, then you need to contact the police officer/department for a blank SBI form. It will usually have the police letterhead on it. You will need to push for it, as the police department often does not pursue the SBI form once the ticket is written. You may need to get your SBI form signed by one or more doctors.  Once you have the form from your doctor, ask police to reissue the ticket and cite the driver with the new VRU law. Ask police to send you the updated summons and then look up the next court date in the case. To look up when the case is next set for hearing use this link: https://www.courts.state.co.us/dockets/

  2. Now that you know when and where the case will be heard, you need to find out which DA is handling the case and get in contact with him/her ASAP. Tell them you do not want them offering any plea deal, and that you want the driver to plead guilty to the VRU charge (and lose their license), or that the DA needs to take the case to trial if the driver refuses to plead guilty to the VRU charge.

  3. If the DA indicates any intent to offer a plea deal, like reckless driving at eight points or careless driving at four points, speak up. As the victim, you get to speak up about your wants and desires for justice.

  4. Several court hearings/continuances may then take place, moving the case out a few months—this is normal. The driver may elect to hire an attorney to represent him/her. The attorney will discuss the case with the DA and see if a deal can be made.

  5. Eventually, there will be a sentencing hearing (unless the DA loses at trial and the driver gets off "not guilty"). You need to attend the sentencing hearing and tell the judge what you want. Usually, you can ask for community service hours, or say you want their license revoked—as a few examples. If you end up negotiating settlements with the driver's insurance company for your bike equipment and bills, etc. then you cannot also pursue restitution as part of the sentence (you cannot double dip).

    Honestly, we care most about the driver's license revocation and a lot of community service. A bike-friendly driver course with Bicycle Colorado is also a priority.

    HERE IS A REAL-LIFE, RECENT EXAMPLE:

    Dan Collier was recently seriously injured in a crash and has been fighting to have the charges against the driver who hit him elevated.  An avid cyclist, Dan has ridden tens of thousands of miles.  He has crashed before, been hurt, and has gotten back up each time. He would spray his wounds with his water bottle, do trailside repairs to his bike, and always ride home.  Dan says that this crash did not seem different until later.  

    On Sunday, September 8, 2019, at about 3:39 pm, Dan left home to ride the Santa Fe Trail north to the Greenland Open Space, do a lap around Kipp's Loop, and return home.  At 5:35 pm, he was on the return trip and stopped at the intersection of Second Street and the Santa Fe Trail in Monument, CO. 

    At the crosswalk, Dan pressed the button to cross the street. The cars to the left of him came to a full stop at the red light, and he was given the go signal by his light. Dan started crossing as a gold-colored Subaru to the right in the distance appeared to be slowing down. As he got halfway across the street, Dan saw that the Subaru was not stopping. He banked hard left to try and get away from him, but it was too late, and Dan was hit. The driver did not slow down at all. Dan is quite certain that the driver was entirely unaware of him until the moment of impact.  The driver made no effort to brake or swerve.

    Dan hit somewhere between the front quarter panel and side mirror. The car grabbed his front wheel, shoved him parallel, and he rode the side of the car until quickly being slapped forward into a sharper left turn by the side mirror.  The bike then kept rotating hard left without him banking with it. He was forced 90 degrees left by the force of the hit, and the bike rotated perhaps 180 left. This wheeled him a few feet away from the car before slamming him onto the pavement.  The driver said that he "took Dan out with his side mirror."

    For several minutes after the initial impact, Dan was sitting in the street with the wind knocked out of him, trying to catch his breath.  After he stood back up, Dan really thought that he was going to just ride home. “Shock can do that, and that is what the responding officer saw.  I was not visibly injured, and I might have even said that I wasn't badly injured, and that is why the driver was originally charged with just running the red light,” he says.

    Dan had pain on his right side and under his right arm that very well could be the mirror smacking him followed by the impact with asphalt. He landed on his right side, because that was where all of the injuries were (palm-sized bruise on his right hip, road rash on his right elbow, and fractured ribs on his right side). 

    An ambulance transported Dan to the hospital where he stayed for four days. It was in the ambulance that the pain really started to set in, and Dan realized this time was more serious than any other.  In the ER, he found it more comfortable to stand, so he stood for the IV, walked to his X-ray, and walked to and from the CT. It was almost an hour later when he passed out. Then that night, Dan was convulsing in pain as each of the nine or more rib fractures triggered muscle spasms that fed off each other's pain signals, clamping down tighter and tighter and producing new pain and tighter clamping.

    Police originally charged the driver with "failure to obey traffic control signal," because they did not realize the seriousness of Dan’s injuries. The driver admitted that he had been fiddling with his radio, was not watching, and that was the reason he ran a red light and hit Dan in the marked pedestrian crosswalk. The driver continued for at least 30 feet before stopping.

    After leaving the hospital, Dan wrote to the responding officer for help in getting a copy of the incident report.  Dan felt that the officer’s initial attitude was that his part, in this case, was done. He had filed his report and moved on.  

    Dan had been looking around for a personal injury attorney to help with his case since every aspect was brand new to him.  He says, “I was not interested in the vengeance motivation advertised by some and was turned off by the lack of passion the others had.  Then I found ‘The Cyclist Lawyer’ via an Internet search. Megan Hottman herself was willing to talk to me on the phone and provide a lot of basic information.  This included the reference to the Colorado Vulnerable Road User Law that neither I nor the other attorneys had heard of.”

    Dan went to his next available point of contact since he felt that the officer had washed his hands of the case.  “Monument is a small town, and their website offered the email address of the police chief. I wasn't planning on going that high up, but that was the point of contact I had available, so I sent an email there with an apology in case I was overreaching,” Dan says.

    Quickly thereafter, the original officer called Dan.  He stated that they had never heard of the Colorado Vulnerable Road User Law that Dan had cited. However, he and his sergeant reviewed it and concluded that this new law was entirely applicable here, that the driver would  receive a new summons with the upgraded charges, and they would add this law to their FAQ sheet so that this is more commonly known to their department.

    Monument Police asked Dan to provide them with an SBI statement signed by a physician as part of their investigation. He requested this from the records team at Memorial Hospital and later from his primary care physician, as Memorial Hospital took several weeks to provide him a statement. On November 8, Dan submitted a statement from his physician to Monument Police.  Coincidentally, Memorial Hospital came through that same week with their SBI statement explaining that he had at least nine fractures across six ribs and a hemopneumothorax.

    After Dan submitted the SBI statements, Monument Police assured him that they had issued a new summons and, indeed, charged the driver under the new VRU law. The driver picked up the revised summons.

    The next step for Dan will be to look up the new court hearing date and get in touch with the DA handling the case. He will need to tell him/her that he does not want any plea offer, and that he wants the driver to plead guilty to the VRU charge (and lose his license). Another option would be that the DA needs to take the case to trial if the driver refuses to plead guilty to the VRU charge.   

    Dan’s life is very different now than before the crash. He cannot bike, lift anything substantial, or generally be of much use around the house. He used to race competitively back in the 1990s (before getting married, kids, and job), and biking is still essential to his well-being.  Now, he goes to work and then needs to come home and rest (heating pad and over-the-counter pain relief). On the day of the crash, Dan was out for a 25-mile ride at a vigorous intensity, because that is the minimum that he needs to not feel sick from lack of activity. “Walking around the block just doesn't cut it, and that's about all that I can do now,” he says.

    We will keep an eye on this case and provide updates.

A sample SBI form.

A sample SBI form.

Nebraska Needs Stiffer Penalties for Drivers Who Injure Cyclists

$100 Fine for Careless Driving Lets Drivers Off Easy 

A driver’s poor decisions and careless driving could have cost Gary Little his life. It could have left a wife without her husband and children without their father. Gary came within inches of dying because a 17-year old driver “decided to get high and drive a 4,000-pound instrument of death,” he says.

It was the night of August 18, 2018, in Lincoln, Nebraska, when the driver of an SUV crashed into him. He was riding south on a bike path around 10:00 pm when the driver going northbound turned into him as he was crossing the intersection. Gary was wearing a helmet and using properly working lights. It was dark, but street lights lit up the area. 

A witness, who was also driving north, stated that the driver of the SUV pulled out in front of her from a parking lot with no turn signals and was inches away from hitting the witness’ car. The driver sped out of the parking lot and turned right onto the next road at about 40 mph with no turn signals. The witness also explained that the SUV traveled so fast that it drifted around the corner. 

Gary was not able to stop quickly enough. He was thrown to the side of the road and landed in the grass after colliding with the SUV. He was unconscious and not moving.

According to the witness, the SUV stopped, and the driver got out and started screaming. She then got back into her car and tried to leave. By this time, the witness and others, who had gathered at the scene, stood in front of the SUV to block the driver from taking off. 

The driver called someone, and another female arrived a few minutes later. She started going through the SUV and grabbing things. She then attempted to run away from the scene. By this time, the police had arrived. The witness yelled at police officers to chase the other female down. When police caught up to her, they found marijuana in her possession.  The witness stated that the SUV driver moved very slowly, appeared intoxicated, and seemed not to know what was going on. 

The witness checked Gary’s pulse. He woke up about four minutes later and was not aware of what had happened. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance.

Gary’s injuries required surgery for a torn rotator cuff in his right shoulder.  Both knees had deep bruising, and he had abrasions to his forehead. 

He went through three months of physical therapy and could not ride his bike for six months.  Now for someone who has been riding bikes for over 45 years, commutes by bike every day, and is a competitive gravel racer, not being able to ride his bike was tough for Gary. His recovery is ongoing, but he says it feels great to be back on his bike!

Citation: Negligent Driving, amended to Careless Driving and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Marijuana.

Fines/Penalties:  Total - $149.00. $100 fine plus $49 in court costs for the traffic violation. The driver was assessed four points against her license. 

We reached out to a local DA in Nebraska to help us understand why the driver was not punished more severely. 

First, Nebraska currently does not have any vulnerable road user (VRU) laws on the books.

Second, in this case, the police officer cited the driver for negligent driving. “If a ticket is issued, the cop decides what offense they believe has been committed.  Whatever they put on a ticket is just a recommendation to us. We might disagree and not charge anything, we might add charges, we might charge a less serious offense, or we might charge a more serious offense,” explains the local DA.  

 Rather than going to the City Attorney’s Office, the ticket went to the County Attorney’s Office.  According to the DA, there is no negligent driving charge under state laws. Instead, there is a careless driving charge (Nebraska Revised Statute 60-6, 212), which is the exact same thing except that a careless driving offense adds four points to the driver’s record compared to three points for negligent driving. This is the reason the ticket was amended from negligent driving to careless driving.

 Careless driving under Nebraska law is a traffic infraction rather than a misdemeanor. The maximum fine for a first offense is $100. A second offense within a year can cost up to $200, while a third offense would be $300. The Nebraska Supreme Court has set the waiver fine schedule for any fines that are not set by statute. 

 The DA explained that after the charging decision is made, it gets filed with the court.  He goes on to say that not everyone who gets a ticket must go to court. Most low-level traffic offenses, such as speeding, failure to yield, and expired registration, are given the option of paying by waiver and skipping court. A defendant can still have a trial by telling the clerk that they wish to have their case set for trial.

 However, most people who get a traffic ticket never appear in court.  Once the ticket is signed, no one in the County Attorney’s Office will look at it again unless it is being contested.  

 “In this case, careless driving is a waiver eligible offense.  The fine was preset at $100, and the defendant opted to pay the fine rather than have a trial,” says the DA. The driver was assessed four points against her license. The points are all set out by a schedule in the statutes, so neither the judge nor the prosecutor really have any control over how many points a person gets on their license. The judge can’t revoke a license for a careless driving charge, and the maximum penalty is already being imposed.

 The next step up from careless driving would be reckless driving which requires an element of intent behind operating a vehicle poorly.  “In this case, there was no intentional bad driving, she should have seen Gary but just didn’t,” says the DA. For reckless driving, you usually are looking for speed, location (highway v. residential), weaving, unsafe passing, violating traffic control devices, etc.  Failing to see someone would not rise to the level of reckless driving.

 “The example I often give is if you have someone cleaning a loaded gun and it goes off and hits someone, that would be negligent.  Yes, they shouldn’t have been cleaning a loaded gun, but there was never any intention of putting someone at risk. Compared to a situation where someone is trying to scare a group of people and intends to fire a shot over their heads but accidentally hits someone instead.  There they had the intent to discharge the gun, might not have intended the result, but intended the action. That would be reckless,” says the DA.  

 People often want to draw a distinction between someone who fails to yield and causes serious bodily injury, and a crash that involves property damage.  “As the law sits now, there are no distinctions in the law, all cases where someone fails to yield are treated the same regardless of the outcome (excluding death),” he says.

 This begs the question if the law should treat the situations as different?  Do you punish someone more severely for negligent driving if someone is hurt? Are they any more negligent than someone who wrecks a car? Gary would most likely argue for more severe punishment after what he has been through!

 If you are a VRU in Nebraska, whether a cyclist, pedestrian, scooter rider, road construction worker, etc. and would like to see drivers face harsher penalties for negligent or careless driving, consider one of the following: 

Arizona Legal System Failing Injured Cyclists

No consequences = No Changes.

With its natural landscapes, bike infrastructure, and perfect weather for year-round cycling, Arizona is considered by many as a cycling paradise. Every year, cyclists head to Arizona to cities such as Scottsdale, Phoenix, or Tucson to enjoy miles of cycling routes and open roads. It is also home to many professional cyclists, endurance athletes, and bike commuters. The conditions are honestly, ideal.

Yet, law enforcement and city attorneys are dropping the ball when it comes to protecting cyclists and holding motorists who injure them accountable. Several of our Arizona-based clients saw the at-fault drivers minimally charged and even more minimally punished with paltry five-hour classes. Some even got the charges against them dismissed!  Drivers are simply not punished severely enough for causing injury to cyclists. 

In 2017, 32 bicyclist fatalities were reported in Arizona with 1,371 cyclists injured. That made Arizona the 5th most dangerous state for cyclists. According to the People Powered Movement, Tucson ranked second and Phoenix fourth as the most dangerous cities nationwide for cyclists in 2015. People For Bikes gives Scottsdale a low score of 1.7, and gives Phoenix a score of 1.5.

Based on our recent experiences, it seems that traffic violations involving cyclists in Phoenix and Scottsdale rarely make it to court, and the fines/penalties are minimal. Drivers may end up getting off with a $250 fine and no jail time. If a motorist seriously injures or kills a cyclist when violating Arizona's 3-foot passing rule (§28-735), the financial penalty would increase to $500 and $1,000 respectively. 

There is no specific statute in Arizona that addresses vehicular manslaughter, and only certain traffic violations may lead to a manslaughter charge if they involve the death of a person while driving. These include driving under the influence, excessive speed, aggressive driving, and racing. (See Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) §13-1103).

Currently, Arizona does not have any laws to protect vulnerable road users (VRU), which in addition to cyclists also include pedestrians, motorcyclists, children, elderly and disabled people.  VRU applies to those groups most at risk in traffic. Additionally, “Arizona is still one of two states that has failed, yet to adopt any prohibition on texting while driving,” according to Arizona-Look Save a Life.

Arizona as a touted cycling mecca, needs to do a LOT more to protect its resident cyclists and the hundreds of cyclists who flock there in the winter for warm riding. Cycling is a profitable subset of tourism for this state, and while bike lanes are very common and prevalent (which is a good start), the state needs stronger, harsher laws and intentional enforcement. It is time for law enforcement, city/district attorneys, and lawmakers to cite drivers properly, enforce harsher penalties, and enact legislation to make cycling safer and protect all VRUs.

Despite serious bodily injuries to our clients, two of the drivers were allowed to take a five-hour defensive driving class, had their tickets dismissed, and received no points or fines. In one case, the driver's ticket was dismissed even before the class was required. None of these drivers even had to appear in court! 

Scottsdale - Our client Ryan Hardy (above) was riding in a marked bike lane around 7:30 pm on February 26, 2019 when he was right-hooked at a T intersection where he had the right of way. He was riding with a bright front light and a flashing rear light and was wearing a helmet and a kit with reflective bands. The driver told police that he “didn’t see the man on the bike” when he turned.

Instead of waiting behind Ryan to safely make it across the intersection, the driver accelerated, passed Ryan, and then made a right-hand turn directly in front of him. The impact of the collision threw Ryan in front of the car into the intersection. He was transported to the hospital for his injuries.

Citation: 

Violation of 28-754 - Unsafe Turning Movement to the Right 

Fines/Penalties:  

A minor traffic violation in which the driver took online traffic school ($200), and all charges were dropped. 

How does Ryan feel about the outcome? In no way, shape, or form does he feel that the outcome was just or fair. “It’s pathetic and insulting because about six months later, I still have several problems on a daily basis and still cannot work out in almost any capacity. I still have to see physical therapists, concussion specialists, neurologists, a therapist, and have never taken so many prescription drugs to control problems in my entire life,” he says.

Ryan believes that a law similar to the strictest DUI laws in the country, applied to making any and all contact with a person/cyclist while driving, could change a lot. Like those extreme DUI laws, major monetary consequences, a very high level of culpability, and, maybe most importantly, the highest/strictest level of enforcement of this law and its consequences would help to bring about change.

If he had the chance to talk to the driver about cyclists and safety, Ryan would point out that the majority of outcomes when hitting a person/cyclist with a car is that a human being is killed. He believes that most collisions with cyclists could be avoided by simply slowing down and or waiting a mere 1-30 seconds. “I ask people who think those few seconds are so important, ‘Are you willing to knowingly kill somebody to save that time or just drive faster?’”

Scottsdale again - Our client Eric Marcotte (above) was knocked unconscious on November 20, 2018, when a driver failed to yield the right of way at an intersection and drove straight into him. He was thrown from his bike and landed on the roadway. Eric was also riding in the bike lane and had the right of way. 

Eric is a professional cyclist who rides between 350-500 miles per week. He knows this stretch of road and area very well, having ridden it thousands of times over the last decade of living in Arizona. At the time of the collision, he was wearing his team sponsor’s kit, which is a blue and white combination, and was riding with blinking lights. The driver claimed that Eric “just came out of nowhere.”  Eric maintains that the driver had a visible line of sight looking south well over a mile with the road being straight.

Citation: 

Violation of 28-773, Failure to Yield Right of Way

Fines/Penalties:  

$250 fine and defensive driving class for the driver, which he and his lawyer argued against for months before accepting.

Eric wants motorists to understand how important it is to be aware and attentive while taking the responsibility of driving a vehicle and believes that the system enables motorists to be negligent. “Drivers will have someone fighting for them to not be responsible. So that enables poor drivers and doesn’t help change actions,” says Eric. 

He wishes he knew how important it is that police officers and district attorneys do their job as well. He says they need to step up and set a precedent by setting the consequences for negligent/inattentive/distracted drivers in a way that has consequences great enough to change actions. Suspending licenses, implementing substantial fines, as well as raising insurance rates will make motorists more aware—a $250 fine will not.

Eric recommends riding with a camera because it can keep everyone accountable. “Then you will see how drivers treat cyclists—you can keep compiling those clips and send/share to law enforcement to show them what’s happening—and will also show you, as a cyclist, are following the law.”  

Phoenix - Our client Melissa Lemke, was out for a ride on her bike on March 10, 2019, around 11:30 am when she was struck by a driver who failed to yield to her at a four-way stop. She was wearing a white helmet and her cycling kit which was green, white, and black. It had high-visibility striping on the legs and high-vis patches on the front and back of her jersey. 

Melissa had stopped at the intersection, yielded to the driver on her right and then proceeded into the intersection once that car had passed through. This is when she was struck by a second vehicle also coming from the right who failed to yield. Melissa’s injuries included a broken elbow and a broken left wrist that required surgery. A large plate was put in her left wrist, and she had to wear a splint for her broken elbow. At first,  Melissa was dependent on her husband for almost everything: getting dressed, bathing, personal hygiene, preparing food, etc. Even now, nearly six months later, her left wrist often aches and many actions of daily living incite burning and pain in her right wrist. Melissa ordered a new bicycle but had thoughts about returning it and not riding again.

Citation: 

Violation of 28-773, Failure to Yield Right of Way

Fines/Penalties:  

Driver's ticket was dismissed by going to traffic school.

That’s right! The ticket was dismissed because of the type of ticket he was given: Failure to Yield Right of Way.  The driver now has a clean driving record while Melissa continues to deal with the physical impact of the crash. Even though the police officer came to the hospital and eventually learned that Melissa needed surgery, the driver was given a ticket that could be dismissed by attending traffic school, not a ticket that indicated he had caused serious bodily injury to Melissa from which she has not yet completely recovered.  

When she first learned of the ticket dismissal, about a month after the crash, Melissa was truly devastated.  Up to that point, she had taken a small comfort in knowing that the driver incurred a serious consequence for his actions. Finding out that the driver was able to wipe his driving record clean, while she was still seeing a surgeon and a physical therapist for her injuries, was shocking. 

“This dismissal speaks to the lack of protection we cyclists have on the road. If drivers are not penalized in a meaningful way for running down a cyclist, we are simply moving targets out there. I really don’t know when or if I will fully recover, and the driver does not even have a black mark against his driving record,” says Melissa.

She wishes cyclists knew how they may have to start fighting for their rights at the scene of the crash and that they need to know the laws so they can ask the right questions. She also wishes that she had been able to take photos and had thought to record the driver saying over and over that he did not see her. “I wish I would have questioned the officer about the type of ticket, but I did not know he had choices to make.  I thought he was at the hospital verifying my injuries so he would have evidence to support a serious charge against the driver,” says Melissa.

She thought she could depend on the police. Although she was conscious after her crash, many cyclists are not or are so injured that they cannot not possibly stand up for themselves at the scene.  “We should be able to depend on law enforcement to protect both drivers and cyclists,” she says. 

So, what can you do to bring about change? Here are some suggestions:

  • Get involved with a bicycle advocacy group (PeopleForBikes, either at the national, state, or local level).

  • Contact your local state legislator to advocate for laws to make cycling safer.

  • Know the laws in your state, especially those pertaining to Vulnerable Road Users.

  • Support cyclists who have been injured by showing up at the driver’s sentencing hearing.

  • Talk to your friends, family, and cyclists about your experiences or close encounters with motorists. Spread the word about how to make cycling safer.

For more information about cycling laws in Arizona and municipal codes for Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tucson, visit our website. Would you like to get involved in Arizona bike advocacy, specifically? Then please consider joining local groups working hard to make positive changes, like the Rob Dollar Foundation, and Look Save a Life Arizona.

Lumber Truck Driver Cited with Careless Driving As Result of Cyclist's Video

But -Plea Deal Results in Defective Vehicle Charge…

A missed opportunity for justice—that is how cyclist Jonathan Wirth feels about the plea deal offered to the driver of a tractor trailer who violated the three-foot rule. The initial charge of careless driving was dismissed in Lafayette Municipal Court. Instead, the prosecutor reached a plea deal with the defendant on the lesser charge of a defective vehicle, which is a two-point violation. “How was that justice?” asks Jonathan.

This is why our office advocates to district and city attorneys to stop offering plea deals. Both Boulder and Jefferson County DA Offices have shown their commitment to holding drivers accountable and have been getting positive results for cyclists. Find out more about how DAs in Boulder and Jefferson Counties are handling cycling cases.

Here’s what happened to Jonathan. On April 9, 2019, he was commuting to work in Boulder County when the truck driver buzzed him within twelve inches of his rear pannier, coming even closer to his left shoulder. The wind created by the truck pushed Jonathan to the left and right and eventually forced him off the road into the dirt. He was not injured but was fearful for his life and felt the driver completely disregarded his safety.

Jonathan is not new to cycling. It was not his first time on a bike or even riding this stretch of State Highway 7 (East Baseline Road) in Lafayette, CO. He used to race both road and mountain bikes and is currently a level 3 National Interscholastic Cycling Association mountain bike coach at the high school where he teaches. He understands the rules of the road and strategies to stay safe. Jonathan wears a neon yellow jacket while riding his bike and is very visible.

As Jonathan was going to work that day, the paved shoulder he was riding on ended. Before taking the lane, he looked over his shoulder and saw a tractor trailer approaching. With his left arm, Jonathan signaled a downward swinging arm motion indicating to the driver to move over into the empty left-turn lane. He even made eye contact with the driver. 

Jonathan thought that the truck would move over, out of the lane, to safely pass him as all others cars had done on past rides. He was wrong—the driver came dangerously close to him. Jonathan felt like he was being pulled under the truck and was blown off the paved road. After collecting himself, Jonathan followed the truck on his bike and saw it turn into a gas station.  He approached the truck while the driver was inside the station and took photos of the company logo and license plate number. He learned that the truck belonged to a wood supply transfer company located in Lafayette.

The close call was captured on Jonathan’s Cycliq6 HD tail light camera. He is very thankful that he had his camera on his bike and plans to install a front-mounted camera as well to capture traffic in front of him. Since Jonathan had video footage, he decided not to confront the driver.

Following the incident, Jonathan took action. He contacted the company and was informed that they would send the information “up the chain.” On April 10th, the next day, he went to the Lafayette Police Department and filed a police report as well.  Jonathan showed Officer C. Hayford the video footage. In the incident report, Officer Hayford noted her observation of the incident from the footage as a “large semi truck with a trailer driving at a high rate of speed past Wirth.” On April 11th, Officer Hayford spoke to the driver by phone. According to the report, the driver thought that Jonathan was signaling his intention to get into the left-turn lane by sticking his left arm straight out to the side. When it became apparent that this was not the case, the driver started pulling into the left-turn lane. He told Officer Hayford that he thought he had given Jonathan enough room but also stated that he was unable to start moving into the left turn lane until he was nearly next to Jonathan due to oncoming traffic. 

As the video shows, he clearly did not give Jonathan the required three feet when passing as mandated by Colorado law.

3 Feet State Law.jpg

The law (C.R.S 42-4-1003 (1) (b)) states that motorists must give a bicyclist at least a three-foot separation between the right side of the driver’s vehicle, including all mirrors or other projections, and the left side of the bicyclist at all times when passing. 

It is important to remember that in states where there is a 3-foot law, there is likely to be a provision that allows motorists to cross a solid double yellow centerline when passing to give cyclists the minimum required distance—as long as it is safe and clear of oncoming traffic.

Actual signage in Boulder County thanks to Cyclists4Community and Boulder County Government

Actual signage in Boulder County thanks to Cyclists4Community and Boulder County Government

If there is oncoming traffic, drivers must slow down behind the cyclist and wait to pass. Do not attempt to shoot the gap between the cyclist and the oncoming car. You must give the cyclist three feet no matter what!

Following her conversation with the driver, Officer Hayford called Jonathan and informed him that the driver had a different version of what had happened. Jonathan asked for him to be cited anyhow. The driver was summoned to appear in court. 


Jonathan was willing to take a personal day from teaching to attend the court hearing and ask for his rights. As a result of the plea deal, he did not get that opportunity. 


He believes cyclists should be able to ride on all Colorado state roads. Jonathan has contacted the Colorado Department of Transportation the past four years about this section of road. They are currently in the planning stage of widening it.

If you are involved in a similar situation, we encourage you to file a report with local authorities and the Close Call Database. You can sign up for free via STRAVA. You will get notifications when other riders update the database concerning incidents in your area. The mission is also to gather information about repeat offenders in hopes that information can then be provided in comprehensive form to law enforcement.  You can also call the Colorado State Patrol Aggressive Driver hotline or your state’s equivalent. In Colorado, dial *277 (*CSP).  The hotline has been approved for use by motorists to report drunk or erratic drivers, and it has been approved for use by cyclists to report motorist aggression.

IMG_5687.jpg

Check out our blog post for more information on crossing the centerline to pass a cyclist.

You can also get some of our 3-foot law stickers by sending a request with your address to connect@hottmanlawoffice.com.

Jefferson County Taking A Tough Stand Against Drivers Who Injure Cyclists

A collaborative blog by Hottman Law Office, Steven Lykens and the Jefferson County DA’s office

Napa.JPG

Steven Lykens—husband, engineer, competitive cyclist—made a point of attending and speaking at the sentencing hearing of a driver who caused him serious bodily injury.  He wanted to emphasize to the court, the district attorney’s office, and to the driver that the outcome of the case mattered to him and to the cycling community as a whole. 

On May 16, 2019, Steven addressed Jefferson County Court Judge Mark Randall and asked him to order 200 hours of community service as part of the driver’s sentencing. Considering the time that he spent in the hospital, at appointments with doctors, as well as time spent working to heal his injuries, Steven felt 200 hours was fair.

The driver, Miranda Lewin, was sentenced to 120 hours of community service to be completed in 120 days on the charge of careless driving. Her public defender argued for fewer hours, but Judge Randall did not back down. In fact, he told Lewin she is a terrible driver based on her previous (and subsequent) traffic convictions and warned her that she would be back in court if she did not serve her community service. Judge Randall reminded Lewin that drivers have a responsibility to their community, including cyclists. 

Lewin, who was 20 years old at the time of the collision with Steven, was previously convicted of driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol/drugs in 2016, careless driving, and operating a motor vehicle as a minor driver with an unauthorized passenger in 2014. Her driver's license was revoked in 2016 due to the alcohol offense, but it had been reinstated prior to this collision.

On the morning of September 2, 2018, Steven was riding in a bike lane in Lakewood when Lewin turned right, directly in front of him, into a 7-11 parking lot. Steven collided with Lewin’s vehicle and was thrown from his bicycle, landing in the 7-11 parking lot. He was unable to move and yelled for someone to call 911. Lewin remained at the scene and was later cited by Lakewood Police for careless driving causing bodily injury. Steven considers himself “lucky” that he went over the hood of the vehicle instead of under it or into oncoming traffic.

He was transported by ambulance to St. Anthony’s Hospital with lacerations to his right ankle and right elbow, road rash, and an abrasion to his right cheek. Officer Barefoot of the Lakewood Police Department, who responded to the scene, was advised by the emergency room doctor that Steven had sustained a lumbar spine fracture.

As a result, Steven was in a back brace for eight weeks. He now suffers from permanent scoliosis from two fractured vertebrae and is one inch shorter than before the crash. His life and physical body are forever altered, and he is in constant pain. The collision has altered his mental state as well. Driving and cycling are still difficult for him, and he is worried it could happen again. 

During the sentencing hearing, Steven also thanked the Lakewood Police Department, the Jefferson County DA, and the court for holding drivers accountable when cyclists are injured. Often cases involving bodily injury are pled down to minor infractions, leaving victims to feel doubly wronged. 

The Jefferson County DA’s office did a fantastic job handling this case. Jefferson County DA Pete Weir wants the driving public to recognize their obligation to share the road with cyclists.

“We take these cases of careless driving with injury involving cyclists very seriously and treat the victims with the same respect and dignity we treat victims who are covered under Colorado’s Victims’ Rights Amendment (VRA) which protects the rights of victims in violent crimes. Often these injuries are life-changing for victims and their families, and we do everything we can to help them through the criminal justice process.”
— - Pete Weir, Jefferson County DA

In Jefferson County, careless driving/cycling cases causing serious bodily injury are generally treated as VRA cases by the DA’s office, thereby involving the victims throughout the process. Deputy DA Kate Rhodes, who handled this case, believes that the appropriate outcome was reached, and justice was served. 

Steven shown with Deputy DA Kate Rhodes (L), Megan Hottman, and Tracy Drake (R)

Steven shown with Deputy DA Kate Rhodes (L), Megan Hottman, and Tracy Drake (R)

“My goal for this case was to get the defendant to realize the impact she has had on Mr. Lykens’ life and the gravity of his injuries. Mr. Lykens showed incredible patience and professionalism throughout the process.”
— Deputy DA Kate Rhodes

A newly passed law, sponsored by Senator Mike Foote of Boulder and Representative Dylan Roberts of Eagle and Routt Counties, is aimed at making Colorado’s roadways safer for vulnerable road users (VRU), including cyclists, pedestrians, construction workers, scooter riders, and peace officers. Governor Jared Polis signed SB 19-175 into law on May 29, 2019. 

Careless driving that leads to seriously injuring a VRU is now a class 1 traffic misdemeanor. Convicted drivers could face restitution and a one-year suspension of their license. Courts could require drivers to attend a driver improvement course and perform community service.

Many of Steven’s friends have been injured while riding their bikes due to the neglect of a driver of a motor vehicle. He hopes that someday cyclists can ride safely on public roads without having to worry about being injured by a driver. 

“Given the nature and extent of our clients’ injuries, I have always advocated to District Attorneys and City Attorneys that the FULL “careless driving causing SBI” charge needs to stick. NO plea deals, not when the injuries are so serious. Careless causing SBI is only a 4-point violation, with minimal fines. We need the FULL Charge in order to ask the Judge for serious community service hours, restitution, (and now with SB 19-175, for the driver’s license, as well). My request to all DAs and CAs we encounter: Be like Jeffco and Boulder DAs. Treat these cases as VRA cases and please, stop offering plea bargains. ”
— Megan Hottman, The Cyclist Lawyer

Please remember to be cautious around cyclists, or any vulnerable road user, and look for cyclists before turning—whether they are riding in a bike lane or not! 

To read more about the Jeffco DA’s office, click here.

To read more about Judge Randall, click here.