Does Pennsylvania's Four Foot Safe Passing Law Actually Make Cycling Any Safer? Is More Required?

In April, 2012, a new law went into effect in Pennsylvania requiring a driver overtaking a bicyclist to provide at least four feet of space between their car and the bicycle.  The "safe passing" law, which can be found at 75 Pa.C.S. § 3303, states that drivers must also pass at a careful and prudent reduced speed.  Drivers are permitted to cross the center line, even in a no passing zone, if it is safe to do so and necessary to overtake a cyclist while providing the necessary buffer zone.  (See 75 Pa.C.S.§ 3307.)  Violation of the law is a summary offense that carries a whopping $25.00 fine.

With the enactment of the safe passing law, Pennsylvania became one of 34 states to have enacted "safe passing" legislation.  Pennsylvania's four foot buffer zone is the largest among all of the "buffer zones" created by states' safe passing laws.  Many states require only three feet, while some other state's laws simply provide that a motorist must pass at a safe distance and speed.  But, those laws do not define what is a "safe" distance or speed.  To read more about the different states' safe passing laws, click here.    

The enactment of a safe passing law in Pennsylvania is a great idea and a nice step towards rider safety.  Indeed, I believe that it's absolutely necessary.  But, is the passage of a safe passing law, alone, enough?  I don't think so.    


One reason that the enactment of the safe passing law, alone, is not sufficient to curb accidents between bicycles and cars is that the law is virtually impossible to enforce.  Out on the road, there is nearly no way to accurately analyze how much distance exists between two moving vehicles.  Sure, you can eyeball it.  But a police officer would need to be sitting in the perfect location, at the perfect time, in order to actually observe a violation of this law.  And, if a motorist knows that an officer is nearby, he or she is unlikely to attempt an unlawful pass.

According to an article published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, over one year after the safe passing law was enacted, police in the City of Pittsburgh had yet to issue even a single citation!  In the first 13 months after the law was passed, there were only 15 citations in the entire state of Pennsylvania - with none being issued in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia.  A cyclist quoted in the Post-Gazette's article stated that she collected helmet camera footage of a vehicle failing to safely pass.  She took the footage to the police and the charges discussed included harassment and endangering a person with a vehicle.  She claimed that the police did not even discuss the driver's alleged failure to pass at a safe distance.  This example highlights one of the other problems associated with safe passing laws: lack of awareness.         

After a law is newly enacted, it takes time for people (and police) to become aware of the law and its application.  You may not even know that you have violated a traffic law until you are pulled over and issued a citation.  Ignorance of the law is no defense to a criminal citation.  But that fact does not help to prevent the incident from occurring in the first place.  Thus, the key to the effectiveness of any law is informing the public about its existence and application.

Too many motorists do not even know about the four foot law and, worse, think that cyclists do not belong on the road!  There are no signs on the roads advising of the four foot law and no postings. Until recently, Pittsburgh barely had any bike culture to speak of.  Organizations like Bike Pittsburgh are helping to improve cycling awareness in the City.  But, until drivers and cyclists learn to respect each other and understand the interplay of the Rules of the Road, the safe passing law is not likely to have much effect.  To read more about Pennsylvania's Bike Laws, click here.

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("PennDOT"), the number of bicycle crashes and injuries actually increased in the year following enactment of the safe passing law.  Statistics regarding bike crashes can be deceiving, though, as police are only required to disclose to PennDOT reported crashes that involve death, injury, and/or damage to a vehicle requiring a tow.  To read more about crash reporting, click here.

Since damaged or destroyed bicycles are not capable of being towed, an accident that destroys a bicycle, but not the car, may not generate a report that will be published to PennDOT.  Rather, only an accident involving serious injury will generate a report.  In any event, the take home message here is that there needs to be greater education of motorists and police regarding the enactment and application of Pennsylvania's four-foot safe passing law.

Also, in order to have any impact, the safe passing law must carry a stiffer penalty.  A $25.00 fine and summary offense is simply insufficient.  As noted by Pittsburgh Police Commander Scott Schubert in the Post-Gazette article, officers are not inclined to enforce the safe passing law because they are "busy with more serious matters."  Until this law gets some real teeth, it is not worth an officer's time to make a stop and issue a citation.  Likewise, a summary offense is not worth the District Attorney's time to prosecute.  So, many violations of the safe passing law may simply be ignored.  

If a violation of the safe passing law carried a felony charge, subject to a hefty fine and a prison sentence, then it might become a "more serious matter" worthy of the attention of motorists and police.

Some states have passed "vulnerable road user laws."  According to the League of American Bicyclists, vulnerable road user laws seek to "raise the legal stakes for a motorist who injures or kills a bicyclist or pedestrian."  Such laws increase the penalty if a motorist carelessly strikes and either kills or injures a vulnerable user of the road.  Some examples of vulnerable users include cyclists, runners, walkers, skate boarders, highway construction workers, and horse-drawn carriage riders. A violation of the vulnerable road user law could result in the suspension of driving privileges, heavier fines (than a summary offense), and jail time.

Here is the text of the League of American Bicyclists proposed legislation:

     Vulnerable Road User Law

     INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH TO VULNERABLE ROAD USERS

     Section 1: As used herein, the term “vulnerable road user” includes:
        (a) a pedestrian, including those persons actually engaged in work upon a highway, or in work upon utility facilities along a highway, or engaged in the provision of emergency services within the right-of-way; or
        (b) a person riding an animal; or
        (c) a person lawfully operating any of the following on a public right-of-way, crosswalk, or shoulder of the highway:
            1. A bicycle;
            2. A farm tractor or similar vehicle designed primarily for farm use;
            3. A skateboard;
            4. Roller skates;
            5. In-line skates;
            6. A scooter;
            7. A moped;
            8. Motorcyclists;
            9. Horse-drawn carriage drivers;
           10. a person on an electric personal assistive mobility device; or
           11. a person in a wheelchair.

     Section 2: A person who operates a motor vehicle in a careless or distracted manner and causes serious physical injury or death to a vulnerable road user shall be guilty of infliction of serious physical injury or death to a vulnerable user.

     Section 3: A person issued a citation under this section shall be required to attend a hearing before a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

     Section 4: A person found to have committed an offense under this statute shall be required to
        (a) have his or her driving privileged suspended for a period of no less than 6 months; and one or more of the following:
        (b) pay a monetary penalty of not more than two thousand dollars; or
        (c) serve a period of incarceration which may not exceed thirty days; or
        (d) participate in a motor vehicle accident prevention course; or
        (e) perform community service for a number of hours to be determined by the court, which may not exceed two hundred hours.

Pennsylvania has not enacted any vulnerable road user laws, yet.

Do you believe that the safe passing law, alone, is sufficient to deter accidents with cyclists?  Should Pennsylvania enact vulnerable road user laws, too?  


Until Pennsylvania passes such legislation, be safe out there and please obey all of the traffic laws. Thank you for reading.

Matthew F. Dolfi
Dolfi Law PC 
1100 Washington Avenue, Suite 206
Carnegie, Pennsylvania 15106
412-227-9724

www.dolfilawpc.com

https://www.facebook.com/PghBikeLawyer

Search terms: Bicycle accident cases and lawsuits, Bicycle collisions, Bicycle safety, Bike accident lawsuits, Bike accidents, Bike collisions, Risks for bicycle riders, accident attorney, accident lawyer, bicycle, bicycle accident laws, bicycle accident, bicycle accident attorney, bicycle risks, bicycle safety, bike accident, cycling, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Matthew F. Dolfi, Matt Dolfi, Pittsburgh Bike Lawyer, Pittsburgh Bike Accident, lawyer-cyclist, The Lawyer Cyclist 

Dangerous and Unrestrained Dogs - What should a cyclist do?

Recently, I was riding my bike with a group of experienced cyclists on a quiet farm road (on the other side of a quaint, covered bridged) when we encountered a highly-aggressive, unrestrained pit bull and an intimidating (albeit, much more passive, but equally unrestrained) Akita.  Please note that I am not disparaging pit bulls, Akitas, or any other breeds.  I only mention the breed here to provide detail to the story.  Anyway, we were climbing up a hill so, naturally, I was in the back of the pack, about 50 yards behind the two leaders of the ride.  From that position, I observed the pit bull rush down from his yard, approach our lead rider, and bite him on the foot! 

I immediately pulled up and straddled my bike.  I was joined by another of the riders.  Together, we watched as the pit bull continued to chase our friends up the road for about 30 yards.  Thankfully, they rode free without another incident.  But, as the dog lost interest in them, it turned back around and refocused its attention on us! 

As the pit bull approached at a full sprint, I imagined the worst.  I didn't know whether to turn around and race down the hill or to prepare to fight.  I tried to stay calm.  My buddy hopped off his bike and placed it between himself and the dog.  So, I did the same.  

As the dog got close, we both yelled (loudly) for him to stop and sit.  Thankfully, the dog listened.  But he did not retreat.  I still did not know whether to turn around and flee or try to walk past his yard.  Our friends were now at least 100 yards down the road.  My buddy made the decision to walk on, so I (reluctantly) followed.  

We were able to walk our bikes up the hill to our friends, but not without the pit bull staying within 10 yards of our every step.  Every time we tried to remount our bikes, he would come closer!  We yelled at him and he would retreat a little bit each time.  The Akita kept a watchful eye on us, but (thankfully) never got to the road.  Once we were about 50 yards down the road, the pit bull finally let us go.  The rider who was bitten was wearing thick shoes and booties to protect his feet.  So, he wasn't injured.  I'm not sure if he will ever ride that road again, but I will definitely think twice about it.     

Incidents with dogs (on or off the bike) are frightening.  Even the best, well-trained dogs can be unpredictable.  They can bite, knock you down, or injure you while you attempt to flee from an attack.  You might suffer a puncture wound, a broken bone, or a head injury.  An encounter with a vicious dog may even leave you with post-traumatic stress.  The encounter I had with the pit bull will not be forgotten any time soon. 

If you have suffered an encounter with a vicious dog (or other animal), it is important that you protect your rights.  You should immediately:

1. Seek medical attention;
2. Notify local animal control;
3. Take photographs of your injuries;
4. Gather information, including the location of the dog's residence and the names and addresses of any witnesses; and
5. Consult a lawyer. 

In Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, you can report a dog bite or attack incident to the Dog Warden at (412) 418-2163.  In Pittsburgh, attack victims and medical personnel may also report the incident to the Bureau of Animal Care and Control.  A police officer or Animal Care and Control Officer will then investigate the incident.  For more on what to do in the event of a dog bite or attack, see here. 


If you were injured and need to seek recovery for your pain and suffering, it is not enough to show that the dog was an allegedly "vicious breed."  Rather, the critical question is whether or not the dog exhibited vicious tendencies, i.e., a history of aggressive behavior and attacks, and whether or not its owner knew about those tendencies. 

In Pennsylvania, vicious propensities can be exhibited by the dog's conduct on the day in question.  In other words, the dog (and its owner) are not entitled to "one free bite."  Further, it must also be shown that the dog's owner failed to properly restrain the animal.  Pennsylvania has leash laws that prevent owners from permitting dogs to leave the owner's premises while uncontrolled.  An owner can claim that his/her dog escaped.  In that case, the question for the jury will be whether or not the owner took reasonable steps to restrain the dog.  For example, if a dog can jump a six foot fence, then (clearly) a four foot fence is not sufficient to restrain that dog. 


Avoiding an incident in the first place is always better than dealing with the aftermath.  For some tips on what to do in the event of an encounter, see here and here.  If you are involved in a dog attack, please do not hesitate to contact me for a free consultation and to discuss your case.

In the meantime, be safe out there and thank you for reading. 

Matthew F. Dolfi

Dolfi Law PC 
1100 Washington Avenue 
Suite 206
Carnegie, Pennsylvania 15106
412-227-9724

www.dolfilawpc.com

https://www.facebook.com/PghBikeLawyer

Search terms: dog bites, dog law, dangerous dogs, vicious propensities, Pennsylvania dog law, Pittsburgh dog law, dog bite accident, aggressive dogs, homeowner liability, leash laws, unrestrained dogs, Bicycle accident cases and lawsuits, Bicycle collisions, Bicycle safety, Bike accident lawsuits, Bike accidents, Bike collisions, Risks for bicycle riders, accident attorney, accident lawyer, bicycle, bicycle accident laws, bicycle accident, bicycle accident attorney, bicycle risks, bicycle safety, bike accident, cycling, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Matthew F. Dolfi, Matt Dolfi, Pittsburgh Bike Lawyer, Pittsburgh Bike Accident, lawyer-cyclist, The Lawyer Cyclist

Are you receiving treatment following an accident that is "medically necessary?" If not, your insurance company can deny coverage.

I.  Introduction.

First, here are some basics.  If someone is injured in an accident involving a motor vehicle in Pennsylvania, the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (or, "MVFRL") establishes the manner in which the individual must seek reimbursement for medical bills.  The MVFRL states that if you are a "named insured" on an automobile insurance policy, you must look first to that policy to cover your expenses.  This kind of coverage is known as "first party" insurance. 

The next place you might look to recover medical bills is any policy under which you are an insured (as opposed to a "named insured").  A "named insured" is someone who is actually named on the policy.  An "insured," by contrast, is a spouse, child, or other relative living in the same house as the "named insured."  

If you are not a named insured or an insured, but you were occupying an insured vehicle at the time of an accident, you can recover under the insurance policy for that vehicle.  Cyclists are not considered to be occupying a vehicle for purposes of recovering "first party" benefits.  

Finally, if you are not a named insured, an insured, or were not the occupant of a motor vehicle (e.g., a pedestrian or cyclist), then you can seek to recover from the policy of any vehicle involved in the accident (not including parked or unoccupied vehicles).    

All of these sources of benefits come before you may seek to recover from a negligent driver who injured you.  The insurance coverage of another responsible person is called "third party" insurance coverage (I'm still not sure who the "second party" is).

II.  Medical Treatment Must be Reasonable and Necessary.       

The MVFRL was designed to reduce the costs associated with automobile accidents.  As such, section 1797 of the MVFRL limits the amount that medical providers (e.g., physicians, chiropractors, and physical/occupational therapists) may charge for treatment, accommodations, products, or services rendered to patients injured in automobile accidents where the injury is covered by an automobile insurance policy.  The MFVRL also requires providers to seek reimbursement of their bills from an insurer and prevents providers from seeking any payment from the patient with regard to the difference between the provider’s ordinary charges and those paid by an insurance company.  So, as long as you have coverage, your provider must submit your medical bills to your insurance carrier.    

In furtherance of reducing costs associated with motor vehicle accidents, the MVFRL permits an insurance company to contest its obligation to pay for ongoing medical treatment by submitting a patient’s treatment to a peer review organization, or “PRO.”  If, upon a timely challenge, a PRO determines that treatment is unreasonable or unnecessary, the provider may not collect (or must return with interest) any related payments.  That means that your expenses for ongoing (or, even, past) medical treatment will no longer be covered by insurance!  In that case, you will be responsible for the payment of any additional treatment charges.    

An injured person (or their provider) can challenge a PRO determination that treatment was unreasonable or unnecessary by: (1) requesting reconsideration of the PRO; or (2) by filing an appeal to the court.  If a court finds that the treatment provided was reasonable or necessary, the insurer must pay to the provider any outstanding fees for treatment, plus 12% annual interest.  If the insurer’s conduct is found to be wanton (i.e., totally unreasonable), the insurer can be subject to a payment of treble (or, triple) damages.  Likewise, if the insurer is found to have acted with no reasonable foundation in refusing to pay benefits, they may be subjected to an award of attorneys fees for the time expended to recover the medical bills.  

If an insurer denies payment for medical or rehabilitation treatment without first seeking a peer review through a PRO, and if a court finds that the treatment rendered was reasonable or necessary, then the insurer must pay to the provider all outstanding amounts, plus interest at 12%, as well as the costs of the challenge and all attorney fees. 

Attorneys’ fees and costs are hotly contested in these types of cases and are typically only recoverable in the event that an insurance company fails to challenge the treatment through a PRO (i.e., acts wantonly).  If an insurance company timely challenges treatment before a proper PRO, attorneys’ fees and costs will generally be “off the table,” even if the treatment is ultimately found to have been reasonable or necessary.  If a court finds that the treatment was unreasonable or unnecessary, then the provider may not recover for those services and must return any unreturned payments, with interest.    

III.  Clarification from the Supreme Court on an Award of Attorney's Fees.

Some courts have awarded attorneys fees to providers where an insurance company improperly uses the PRO process.  In one case, the court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to a provider because the insurance company did not submit the charges to a PRO in a timely manner (i.e., within 90 days of receipt of the bills for treatment).  Also, the court in that case found that an independent medical examination (or, an “IME”) was not the equivalent of a PRO.  Rather, because the purpose of an IME is to determine whether or not treatment is causally related to an accident and/or whether a patient has reached maximum medical improvement, an IME does not necessarily address the issue of whether or not a provider’s treatment was reasonable or necessary.  Thus, where the insurance company relied upon an IME to refuse payment of the provider’s medical bills, the court held that the insurer did not properly avail itself of the PRO process.  Therefore, the court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the provider after it also found that the provider’s treatments were reasonable and necessary.       

In another case, a trial court awarded attorney’s fees and costs because it found that the insurance company – who did utilize the PRO process – did not follow certain accepted peer review processes.  In other words, the court found that the insurance company’s PRO was “invalid.”  On December 31, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the insurance company’s appeal of the trial court’s decision.  On appeal, the Supreme Court will examine, among other things, whether or not the lower court improperly awarded attorneys fees even though the insurer utilized the peer review process. 

IV.  Conclusion.

If you are injured in an accident involving a motor vehicle in Pittsburgh or Western Pennsylvania, your medical expenses may be covered from a variety of "first-party" sources.  If you do receive "first-party" insurance coverage, the insurance company can challenge whether your treatment is reasonable or necessary.  If they do - and if they obtain a PRO report stating that your treatment is no longer reasonable or necessary - then you may need to fight back in order continue receiving benefits.  An experienced insurance attorney can help you (or, your provider) resolve these issues.         

Thanks for reading and, as always, keep the rubber side down.

Matthew F. Dolfi

Dolfi Law PC

1100 Washington Avenue, Suite 206
Carnegie, Pennsylvania 15106

412-227-9724  

Getting the word out - The Lawyer-Cyclist appears on the New York Bike Accident Blog!

Many thanks to Jim Reed and

the New York Bike Accident Blog for passing the message along!

I recently posted an article discussing the implications of the “full tort" and "limited tort” options on car insurance in Pennsylvania and what they can mean for insured bicyclists who are injured by motorists.  (Read the article here).   

On January 6, 2015, New York and Pennsylvania bike accident lawyer, Jim Reed, re-posted the Lawyer-Cyclist's article as a guest post on his blog, the New York Bike Accident Blog.  (Read the guest post here). 

Jim is an exceptional bike lawyer and advocate, a member of Bike Law USA (a National network of Bike Law attorneys), and a friend of the Lawyer-Cyclist.  Learn more about Jim and his practice here. 

Jim Reed

I am proud to have been recognized by Jim and the New York Bike Accident Blog!  I also appreciate the opportunity to appear as a guest blogger on the New York Bike Accident Blog page.
 

Thank you for reading and for your support!   

___________________________________________________________________

Full tort or limited tort - Does a limited tort selection on an automobile insurance policy apply in a bicycle accident?

The short answer is - no.  If you are injured by a motorist while riding a bicycle, your ability to recover for pain and suffering is not affected by a limited tort selection on your motor vehicle insurance policy. 

In Pennsylvania, all motorists are required to carry motor vehicle insurance.  The law that requires automobile insurance in Pennsylvania is known as the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, or the MVFRL.  Under the MVFRL, you must choose between the "limited tort" option and the "full tort" option on your own insurance policy.  Under the full tort option, if you are injured in a motor vehicle accident while you are occupying or operating a motor vehicle, you may recover from a negligent driver your economic damages (e.g., medical and wage loss expenses) plus non-economic damages (e.g., pain, suffering, and inconvenience).  But, if you have chosen the limited tort option, you may recover economic damages, but you may not recover damages for pain and suffering unless you have suffered a "serious injury."  

A "serious injury" is defined as an injury resulting in death, serious impairment of a body function, or a permanent disfigurement.  Thus, if you do not suffer a serious injury in a motor vehicle accident - and if you have chosen the limited tort option on your automobile insurance policy - you cannot recover any damages for pain and suffering! 

Many people believe that if they are involved in a bicycle accident with a motor vehicle (car, truck, bus, etc.), their limited tort insurance selection applies and precludes recovery for pain and suffering in the absence of a serious injury.  But, that is not the case.  Instead, because you are not occupying or operating a motor vehicle at the time of a bicycle accident, your limited tort selection does not apply. 

In 2004, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held, in L.S., a Minor v. David Eschbach, Jr., Inc., 844 A.2d 1215 (Pa. 2004), that the MVFRL does not apply to pedestrians.  In that case, an eleven year-old girl was struck by a car after she had exited a school bus and was attempting to cross the street.  At the time of the accident, the young girl lived with her mother and was, therefore, an "insured" under her mother's automobile insurance policy.  Her mother had selected the limited tort option on her insurance policy.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that because the young girl was an innocent pedestrian who was not operating or occupying a motor vehicle at the time of the accident, she should not be limited to a recover of economic damages, only.  Rather, she should be able to seek and recover economic and non-economic damages from the defendant-driver. 

The Supreme Court's analysis regarding a pedestrian applies equally to a cyclist because a cyclist is not occupying or operating a motor vehicle at the time of an accident.  Thus, the cyclist is not bound by a limited tort selection on his/her automobile insurance policy. 

If you were injured while riding a bicycle as the result of the negligence of a motorist, you may be entitled to a recovery of medical expenses, wage loss, property damage, and pain, suffering, and inconvenience.  Please contact me for a free initial consultation to discuss your case and explore your rights at (412) 227-9724.

Matthew F. Dolfi, Esquire

Dolfi Law PC
1100 Washington Avenue, Suite 206
Carnegie, PA 15106
412-227-9724

Website:
www.dolfilawpc.com

Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/PghBikeLawyer

https://www.instagram.com/pghbikelaw

Important notice:
The information provided in this blog article is not legal advice.  The information and opinions provided herein are solely for the general interest of the visitors to this website.  The information contained herein is only applicable to general principles of law in Pennsylvania and may not reflect current legal developments or statutory changes in various other jurisdictions.  Therefore, the information and opinions contained in this blog should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal advice.  No aspect of this blog article should be interpreted as establishing an attorney-client relationship between the reader and its author.  Anyone reviewing this article should not act upon any information contained herein without first seeking the advice of legal counsel.  

Search terms: Bicycle accident cases and lawsuits, Bicycle collisions, Bicycle safety, Bike accident lawsuits, Bike accidents, Bike collisions, Risks for bicycle riders, accident attorney, accident lawyer, bicycle, bicycle accident laws, bicycle accident, bicycle accident attorney, bicycle risks, bicycle safety, bike accident, cycling, defective road conditions, dangerous roads, dangerous streets, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Matthew F. Dolfi, Matt Dolfi, Pittsburgh Bike Lawyer, Pittsburgh Bike Accident, lawyer-cyclist, The Lawyer Cyclist, dolfilaw, Dolfi Law PC

Happy New Year.

Wishing you a safe and happy 2015!  Keep those pedals turning 

and stay tuned for helpful legal and safety tips in the new year. 

Thank you for reading and for your support!

Matthew F. Dolfi, Esquire

Dolfi Law PC
BNY Mellon Center
500 Grant Street, Suite 2900
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
412-227-9724

Website:
www.dolfilawpc.com

Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/PghBikeLawyer


Important notice:
The information provided in this blog article is not legal advice.  The information and opinions provided herein are solely for the general interest of the visitors to this website.  The information contained herein is only applicable to general principles of law in Pennsylvania and may not reflect current legal developments or statutory changes in various other jurisdictions.  Therefore, the information and opinions contained in this blog should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal advice.  No aspect of this blog article should be interpreted as establishing an attorney-client relationship between the reader and its author.  Anyone reviewing this article should not act upon any information contained herein without first seeking the advice of legal counsel.  

 

Search terms: Bicycle accident cases and lawsuits, Bicycle collisions, Bicycle safety, Bike accident lawsuits, Bike accidents, Bike collisions, Risks for bicycle riders, accident attorney, accident lawyer, bicycle, bicycle accident laws, bicycle accident, bicycle accident attorney, bicycle risks, bicycle safety, bike accident, cycling, defective road conditions, dangerous roads, dangerous streets, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Matthew F. Dolfi, Matt Dolfi, Pittsburgh Bike Lawyer, Pittsburgh Bike Accident, lawyer-cyclist, The Lawyer Cyclist, dolfilaw, Dolfi Law PC

___________________________________________________________________