I have been representing cyclists since 2010, and since then the technology for capturing video while riding has improved dramatically. Cameras are smaller, cheaper, and the images are much clearer. Put it all together and you have a pretty compelling case for riding with a “dashcam.”

Why does this matter? Because video is a great way to prove who was at fault for a crash. In my practice I can think of dozens of cases that we would have surely lost if not for the surveillance footage from a random thrift store across the street, or the camera system on an MBTA bus. I’ve found that a couple seconds of grainy video can sometimes make all the difference for my clients. Now just imagine how useful a camera could be if it’s actually mounted to the bike that got hit!

So, how can you protect yourself while you ride? The simplest way is with a bike light that has an integrated camera. While there used to be only a few pricy options, you can now find plenty of companies selling perfectly adequate units for around $50. They’re still waterproof and seem to have a decent battery, though they don’t record video in 4k. However, for our purposes, 1080p is more than sufficient. The key to the setup is that it these cameras record continuously over themselves like a dashcam—no need to delete old files to make room for new ones. You can treat it just like your existing bike light: as long as you keep it charged and turn it on it will do its job.

Both front and rear camera/lights are available, but if you have to pick one, I’d say that video from the front will nearly always be more valuable than rear-facing video. Everyone worries about being hit from behind, but in my experience that’s almost never how a crash occurs. A front-facing camera will capture your perspective as a rider. This is almost always more useful than seeing what was going on behind you.

The only times I’ve found video from rear-facing cameras to be useful is when someone is hit from behind (again, quite rare, but it happens), or when they happen to record someone behind you getting hit. That brings me to my next point: if you ride with cameras (front or rear), you have a real opportunity to help your fellow cyclists if they get hit. That’s why if anyone ever crashes anywhere near you, you should insist that they take your contact information and preserve the video.

I’ve written before about how we have an obligation to speak up and be a witness if we see a crash, but when you’re riding with video that responsibility attaches even if you didn’t actually see what happened. Even if you are 100% certain that your camera was pointing in a different direction at the time of the impact and you don't think you caught anything useful, you should still provide your contact information and preserve the video. That’s because you never know what a camera saw or heard. I can think of multiple cases where video/audio evidence was enormously valuable, even though it did not show the crash itself.

For example: I had a client who was hit by a driver who ran a red light while she was crossing an intersection. She was taken by ambulance before the police arrived, so the report only had his account of what happened. As you can imagine, this driver swore up and down that he had a green light, and that the biker “came out of nowhere.” The police did eventually get my client’s statement, and the report was amended to include it. However, she had a concussion and couldn’t remember anything about what happened. Thankfully, there was a convenience store on the corner that had cameras. None of them caught the crash, but there was one angle where you could see part of the roadway. Because this crash happened at night, the light from one of the traffic lights was visible on the pavement. Between that and the fact that the camera also captured the sound of the impact, I was able to show that the driver had indeed run a red light when he hit my client. BPD didn’t care enough to ticket him, but his insurance company promptly rescinded their denial of liability, and we were able to proceed with the claim for damages.

Cases like this don’t happen every day, but I have handled enough of them to convince me that any video can make a big difference, even if it doesn’t show exactly what happened. Now that riding with cameras is a practicable option for cyclists in traffic, it’s easy to see the potential benefits for all of us.

The bottom line is that riding with a camera is no longer a niche thing—it's a practical, affordable step that almost any cyclist can take, and the benefits extend beyond just protecting yourself. When you ride with a camera, you become a potential resource for everyone around you. That's a pretty good return on a $50 investment.

Yours,

Josh

You might wonder, “Is that really necessary? I’m in a separate lane and I’m not blocking the roadway. Stopping and pulling over for emergency vehicles is more of a car thing, right?”

No, I would argue that it’s also the best practice while riding your bike—but for a reason you may not have considered.

Drivers often become erratic and unpredictable when an emergency vehicle is suddenly behind them. This can cause them to panic, leading to impulsive maneuvers that don’t take cyclists into account. I’ve handled several cases where a driver, upon seeing an ambulance in their rearview, immediately jerked the wheel to pull over—directly into a cyclist in the bike lane. We know drivers already consider it an acceptable place to park, so why would they hesitate to pull into the bike lane in an “emergency”?

To avoid this, stop and pull over for ambulances just like a car would. Yes, you’re probably not in their way, and they might not even notice your act of courtesy, but it’s the best way to ensure you’re not affected by the negligence of a panicked driver.

Yours,

A crossover is often most helpful when you’re riding in a right-side bike lane, and you see a car ahead that’s planning to take a right. In that situation, I do a quick shoulder check and make sure the coast is clear, and then merge out of the bike lane and position myself on the left side of the car’s lane. Now, legally speaking there are a couple of issues to point out here:

If you’re going straight in the bike lane, and the car is turning right, the driver technically has to yield to you before making their right turn. If you want to roll the dice on that actually happening, be my guest. I have plenty of clients who can testify to the fact that drivers don’t always check the bike lane before turning right. At best, you’ll be able to slam on your brakes and avoid a crash. At worst, you can explain how you had right of way while they load you into the ambulance.

In some states, it is actually prohibited to ride outside the bike lane if you're on a road where one exists. Such laws, referred to as “mandatory sidepath,” mean that if you’re hit while riding outside of a bike lane, you need to justify your position in the roadway before you can recover damages after a crash. The laws usually provide exceptions for when you’re avoiding an obstacle, or preparing to make a left turn, etc., but it’s still bullshit (See: this dumb example from MD). Cyclists should be allowed to use the roads the same as cars do, and should not bear the burden of proving they had a right to be in the roadway after a crash. Thankfully, Massachusetts gives riders a full right to the road, so we don’t have to worry about such nonsense here.

Anyway, I highly recommend you start treating blinkers ahead as an indication to reposition yourself. After a while, you might find that you start doing it without a conscious thought. New safety habit unlocked!

Yours,

When you’re hit by a car, as long as it was the driver’s fault, you’re entitled to compensation. Assuming the driver is insured, their insurance company is responsible for compensating you. That means compensating you for your injuries, as well as paying for damage to your property that occurred as a result of the crash. Many people don’t realize that this includes ANY property that was damaged in the crash, not just your bike! Helmets, glasses, phone screens, backpacks, clothing, water bottles—it’s ALL subject to reimbursement if it was damaged or destroyed in the crash.

DON’T THROW THAT AWAY!

After a bike crash, it’s easy to understand why some people might get the urge to throw out their cracked helmet and bloody clothing. I’ve had clients who dutifully held onto everything for weeks afterwards, and then when I call to ask for additional pictures showing the brand logo, they tell me that they just couldn’t look at that stuff anymore so they got rid of it. And I completely get it.

The problem is, you never know when an adjuster is going to ask to see some specific detail of an item before they’ll issue payment. There’s also the chance that the insurance company will exercise their right to take possession of the damaged property after paying you for it. It’s exceedingly rare—I have only ever had it happen a couple times—but it is their right, since they’re technically “buying” the property.

So, after leaving your mangled bike with your local bike shop for an appraisal, gather up everything else that was damaged in the crash, take a bunch of pictures of each item. Then, put it all in a trash bag and stuff it into the bottom of your closet. You can throw it away once the check is in your hand.

HOW DAMAGED IS DAMAGED?

I often get this question from clients: how badly damaged does an item have to be? My answer is that if the damage will easily buff out to the point that you can’t tell it was there, it’s not damaged enough. Any other type of damage is eligible for compensation.

For example: my brand new cleats have large scuff marks from where I was dragged along the pavement after being left crossed, but they’re still perfectly usable. Even though it doesn’t affect the functionality of the shoes, would you ever buy a scuffed pair at full price? Of course not. Their value has diminished, and you should be compensated for that. The same goes for blood stains, small tears, chipped paint, or scratched lenses.

An important exception to this rule is for helmets. There doesn’t need to be ANY visible damage to a helmet after a crash in order to seek reimbursement for it. I like to say that a helmet is good for exactly one crash, and even if it looks perfectly fine, you should consider it totaled.

MASSACHUSETTS, LAND OF MEAGER MINIMUMS

The minimum amount of Property Damage Liability Coverage that a driver must carry is dictated by state law. Drivers have the option to pay more for better coverage, but the majority of drivers on the road don’t.

In Massachusetts, the minimum is “$5,000 per accident” [sic]. That amount is shockingly low. Only three other states share such a low minimum: California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The next lowest minimum is $10,000, which is required in 11 states. For reference, the majority of states (22) require a minimum of $25,000 in property coverage.

Even though our Commonwealth’s minimum for property coverage is bafflingly low, I almost never run into it in my clients’ cases. The thing is, while it’s probably not sufficient to cover much more than the bumper on a Tesla, $5k is usually plenty when it comes to paying for a wrecked bike, cracked helmet, and torn backpack.

FANCY BIKES NEED FANCY INSURANCE

The thing is, it does become a problem for fancier bikes. If your bike is worth more than $4,000, there’s a good chance that the property damage settlement will exceed the minimum after adding in your helmet, cleats, jersey, GPS, etc. 

Thankfully, in my 11 years of handling bike cases, I’ve only had one case where there wasn’t enough property insurance to cover the full cost of a client’s bike. That’s not to say that I haven’t gotten clients more than $5,000 for their property, just that those clients have been lucky enough to have been hit by drivers who decided to opt for more than the minimum coverage.

Still, the odds are not in your favor if you’re hit. More than 50% of drivers on the road carry the minimum, as do 100% of taxis. I’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating: every taxi on the road carries the cheapest possible insurance.

So what do you do if you have a fancy bike and you don’t like those odds? Get yourself a policy of your own! I know that there are a few companies that write bike insurance policies, but it seems like the best option is Velosurance. In addition to providing property damage coverage, they also offer Underinsurance coverage, which is a big deal. I’ve only dealt with a couple of cases where the client had a Velosurance policy, but each time it worked as expected. If your bike is worth more than $4-5k, I would definitely recommend checking them out.

ANYTHING ELSE?

I’m sure that there are more questions out there about Property Damage claims that I didn’t think of, but I think this covers the basics. If you’re wondering about anything else on the subject, feel free to email me. The same goes for claims related to a specific crash—if you were hit and you need help navigating a property-only claim, I am happy to help even if you were not injured. I provide this assistance free of charge; partially as a service to the bike community, but also because I truly enjoy sticking it to insurance companies. It’s my love language.

Yours,

1.  Any meters, signs, or lampposts that are located next to a handicap parking spot. This is specifically covered by the state law regarding handicap spots (MA General Law Ch. 40 §22D), and there’s usually a sign saying not to do it. However, there’s not always a sign, so be sure to check that it’s not a handicap spot before locking up to a parking meter.

2.  Trees. I don’t think that there’s a state law addressing this, but I know that a few cities have ordinances against it (I believe Cambridge does, not sure about Boston). Generally speaking, it’s not a great place to lock up anyway. Unless you’re out in the countryside, don’t lock up to a tree.

3.  Private property. This is the big one. Usually there will be a sign on private fences if they don’t want you to lock up there, but not always. If you aren’t planning on leaving your bike there for very long (i.e., less than a day) and there’s no sign, it's probably OK. However, make sure you avoid railings and ramps, as your bike could be considered an obstacle to entrance/exit by wheelchair users or the public generally, and the owners could potentially remove it. I had a client years ago who locked up to a railing outside Symphony Hall for 10 minutes when he went to collect his tickets (there were no bike racks there at the time, and as far as I know there still aren’t any). The security guards couldn’t get through his bike lock, so they decided to cut through the seat stay of his bike in order to remove it! There was no sign, but they tried to argue that it was a fire code issue. Whatever. They paid for a new bike, and hopefully they’ll think twice next time.

Boston is doing a lot to increase the prevalence of bike racks around the city, but there’s still quite a way to go. In the meantime, as long as you use your judgement and avoid the spots I’ve listed above, you should be just fine.

Best,

JZ