Union Township sees its fair share of bicycle traffic, from cyclists commuting along Chestnut Street to families riding near Galloping Hill Road and Warinanco Park. Unfortunately, busy corridors like Route 22 and Morris Avenue put cyclists at real risk, especially when distracted drivers and heavy intersections are involved.
When a car strikes a bike, injuries are rarely minor because a cyclist struck by a vehicle has no protection. New Jersey law treats cyclists differently in several ways that work in the injured cyclist's favor.
If you or a loved one was hurt while biking in Union Township or anywhere in Union County, The Law Offices of Sander Budanitsky, L.L.C. has experience handling these claims and offers honest guidance to those injured. Call our Roselle office at (908) 241-3445 or (908) 241-4595 for a free consultation.
Under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8, New Jersey's verbal threshold confines a car driver's right to recover pain-and-suffering damages to injuries that fall within one of six statutory categories. That restriction is tied to the no-fault automobile coverage drivers must carry.
In New Jersey, a bicycle is not an ‘automobile,’ and a cyclist struck by a car is treated as a pedestrian under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(h). That cuts both ways. It means the cyclist can collect PIP medical benefits under his own auto policy, or under the policy of a relative he lives with.
It also means the verbal threshold can apply: N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) binds anyone who has a right to receive PIP under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4, and the tort option a named insured selects governs that insured and a spouse or child living in the household. So if you, or the relative you live with, chose the Limitation on Lawsuit option, you must still prove a threshold injury even though you were on a bicycle.
A cyclist who owns no car and lives with no one carrying New Jersey auto insurance is generally outside the threshold and can pursue the full range of noneconomic damages. Which of those two situations applies is the first thing to establish.
A cyclist’s right to the road is statutory. N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.1 gives a person riding a bicycle on a roadway all the rights and all the duties of the driver of a vehicle. N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.2 asks a cyclist to ride as near the right side as practicable, but it spells out five situations in which moving left is lawful:
When an insurer argues that a rider was too far from the curb, or riding too far out of the door zone, that list is usually the answer.
A bicycle is a legal vehicle on New Jersey roads, and a cyclist generally has the same right to use the road as the driver in a car accident claim, along with corresponding responsibilities. Since March 1, 2022, New Jersey has set that distance by statute.
Under N.J.S.A. 39:4-92.4, a driver approaching a cyclist must move into a lane that is not adjacent to the rider when it is possible to do so. If it is not, the driver must leave at least four feet and hold that distance until safely past. If neither is possible, the driver must slow to 25 miles per hour or the lower posted limit, be prepared to stop, and pass only if doing so does not endanger the rider.
A violation that causes bodily injury carries a $500 fine and two points. In a close-pass case that statute is the measure against which the driver’s conduct is judged, and a violation of it is evidence of negligence the jury may weigh.
With that right come responsibilities: a cyclist must generally obey traffic signals and signs, ride with the flow of traffic, and use reasonable care. The interplay between a cyclist's right to the road and these responsibilities is where a bicycle case is commonly contested, as a driver's insurer argues the cyclist rode unpredictably or violated a rule.
To build a strong claim is to establish that the cyclist was lawfully using the road, and that the driver failed in the duty to share it safely.
Most serious bicycle crashes involve a motor vehicle and follow recognizable patterns: a driver who turns across a cyclist's path, fails to yield, opens a car door into a passing cyclist, or passes too close.
The conflicts follow the roads. Morris Avenue, which is Route 82, carries traffic past Kean University’s main entrance at 1000 Morris Avenue and is where turning movements and cyclists meet most often.
Stuyvesant Avenue through Union Center has on-street parking along a commercial stretch, which is dooring territory. Route 22 and the Garden State Parkway interchanges at Exits 140 and 141 bring highway-speed traffic onto local streets, and the residential grid between them is where riders are least expected and least seen.
The dooring crash, in which someone opens a parked car's door into the path of a cyclist, is a particular danger on streets with on-street parking, and the right-hook, in which a driver passes a cyclist and then turns right across their path, is another common and serious pattern.
Intersections, where turning movements and failures to yield concentrate, are where many crashes occur. The scale is local, and it is not small. In 2026, New Jersey State Police’s preliminary data shows 29 fatal crashes and 30 traffic deaths in Union County, with 8 killed in Union Township alone.
A cyclist has none of the protection a car provides, which is why a crash that would be a fender bender between two cars can result in a hospital admission for a rider.
Consider a cyclist riding near Kean University struck by a driver turning across a bike's path, or a rider doored by someone exiting a parked car on a local street. The driver may argue that the cyclist rode unpredictably, ran a signal, or came out of nowhere, the familiar attempt to shift blame onto the cyclist.
The injuries in a vehicle-versus-bicycle crash are typically severe, and a seriously hurt cyclist is transported to University Hospital in Newark, the regional Level I trauma center, because Union County has no trauma center of its own.
Answering the driver's version depends on objective evidence: the point of impact, the damage to the vehicle and bicycle, the roadway evidence, any video from nearby businesses or homes, and independent witnesses who saw the driver turn, fail to yield, or open a door into the cyclist's path.
Because the cyclist is often seriously injured and unable to gather this proof, and because it is perishable, a prompt investigation on the cyclist's behalf is what allows a fair reconstruction. The dynamics of these local streets and the Kean University area are particular to the area, and so is the evidence that ultimately resolves a disputed bicycle crash.
One caution specific to this area. Kean University is a State university, which makes it a public entity, and a crash on a campus roadway or involving a university vehicle is governed by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act rather than the ordinary two-year rule. A written notice of claim is due within ninety days. The same is true of a crash caused by a defect in a township, county or state road, or involving an NJ Transit bus.
A cyclist's recovery is governed by the same comparative-negligence rule as other claims, the 51 percent bar at N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1. A cyclist recovers as long as their share of fault is not greater than the other parties' combined fault, meaning fifty percent or less, with the recovery reduced by that share. At fifty-one percent, recovery is barred.
Cyclists, like motorcyclists, face a bias, the assumption that a cyclist must have been riding carelessly or unpredictably, and the defense leans on that assumption to shift fault onto the rider. Even a cyclist found partly at fault still recovers as long as their share does not exceed fifty percent.
Physical proof, witness accounts, and reconstruction can help overcome that blame and show what actually happened. Answering the assumption with proof, rather than letting it stand, is central to protecting the value of a bicycle claim.
Dooring occurs when a person in a parked car opens a door into the path of a passing cyclist, who has no time to avoid it and strikes the door or is thrown into traffic. New Jersey has no statute that specifically prohibits opening a car door into a cyclist’s path. A dooring claim rests instead on ordinary negligence, the duty every person has to look before opening a door into a lane of travel, and, where the person who opened the door was the driver, potentially on careless driving under N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.
Under New Jersey law, a violation of a motor vehicle statute is evidence a jury may weigh on the question of negligence, rather than negligence itself, with careless driving the recognized exception, because that statute incorporates the common-law standard of care.
These crashes are especially dangerous because the cyclist can be thrown into the travel lane and struck by another vehicle, compounding the injuries. The defense may argue the cyclist rode too close to parked cars, but a cyclist riding lawfully is entitled to expect that doors will not be flung open into their path.
In a dooring claim, it’s critical to establish where the cyclist was lawfully riding and how the door was suddenly opened, and witness accounts and the position of the damage are key evidence in proving it.
Two turning-conflict patterns account for many serious bicycle crashes, and both involve a driver failing to account for a cyclist. In the right-hook, a driver passes a cyclist and then turns right across the cyclist's path, cutting them off, often because the driver misjudged the cyclist's speed or forgot they were there. In the left-cross, a driver turning left fails to yield to an oncoming cyclist, turning across their path.
In both patterns, the driver's failure to see or account for a lawfully traveling cyclist is the cause, much as in comparable motorcycle crashes. The driver may claim the cyclist appeared suddenly or was riding too fast, but a driver turning across traffic has a duty to look for and yield to oncoming and adjacent traffic, including cyclists.
Establishing that the cyclist was plainly visible and lawfully positioned on the road, and that the driver failed in the duty to yield or to complete the turn safely, is central to these turning-conflict claims.
A cyclist has no protective structure, which is why crashes with motor vehicles so often result in serious injuries. A cyclist struck by a vehicle absorbs the force directly and may be thrown onto the pavement or into traffic, and even a low-speed collision can cause significant harm. That exposure influences both the severity of the injuries and how these claims must be built.
The injuries reflect this exposure. Cyclists commonly suffer traumatic brain injuries, even when wearing a helmet, along with spinal injuries, fractures, internal injuries, and severe road-rash wounds. Because Union County has no trauma center of its own, a seriously injured Union Township cyclist is transported to University Hospital in Newark, the regional Level I trauma center, for the specialized care these injuries require.
The severity of the typical bicycle injury is one reason these claims must account for far more than the initial emergency treatment.
When a bicycle crash is fatal, the family’s claim is different in kind and in timing. A wrongful death action must be filed within two years of the date of death, which is not always the same date as the crash, and it runs alongside a survival claim for what the cyclist endured before death. The two are valued differently, and both should be evaluated together.
A catastrophic injury can require surgery, extended rehabilitation, and ongoing therapy, and some injuries leave permanent impairment that affects the person's ability to work and to live as before. Valuing the claim accurately means projecting future costs rather than settling based on the bills received so far.
The lost earning capacity of a seriously injured cyclist can be substantial, particularly where the injury prevents a return to work and the costs of future care and the value of lost function and independence are included in the analysis.
Cyclists are generally free of the verbal threshold, so the full measure of these long-term consequences can be recovered without a threshold fight, which makes thorough documentation of the lasting impact all the more important for a fair recovery.
A serious bicycle crash raises insurance questions that surprise many cyclists, since the injured person was not driving a car. The at-fault driver’s liability policy is the first source of recovery, and New Jersey’s minimum limits are low against a serious injury: for policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, $35,000 for one person and $70,000 for an accident, and policies not yet renewed since then carry as little as $25,000 per person.
A cyclist who carries a Standard auto policy of their own may be able to turn to its uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage and, in some circumstances, to a resident relative’s policy. A New Jersey Basic Policy, by contrast, carries no uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage at all, which is when the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund becomes the route to recovery.
A cyclist who owns no car and lives with no one who carries auto insurance is not without a remedy after a hit-and-run or an uninsured driver. New Jersey’s Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund, administered by the Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association, exists for exactly that situation, and Fund pedestrian PIP can cover the medical bills.
The Fund has its own deadline, much shorter than the two-year filing period: a notice of intention to make a claim must be given within 180 days of the accident under N.J.S.A. 39:6-65, and it is a condition of the right to claim at all. The Fund pays only when no other coverage is available, so identifying all other policies first is part of the same exercise.
The investigation of a bicycle crash must be built on evidence that counters the assumption that a cyclist rode carelessly. The point of impact, the damage to the bicycle and the vehicle, the resting positions, the roadway evidence, and any available video together allow a reconstruction of what actually happened, independent of either party's account.
This objective record is what rebuts the reflexive blame. A reconstruction can show that a driver turned into the cyclist's path, opened a door into the cyclist, or failed to yield, contradicting the claim that the cyclist rode unpredictably or appeared from nowhere.
Independent witnesses who watched the driver turn, merge, or open a door carry particular weight for that reason. Because much of this evidence degrades quickly, the scene is cleared, vehicles are moved, and video is overwritten, gathering it promptly is what allows the cyclist's version, supported by proof, to prevail over the assumption.
Children ride bicycles throughout Union Township's neighborhoods, and a child cyclist injured by a vehicle brings particular considerations to a claim. Drivers owe special vigilance where children are likely to be riding, near schools, parks, and residential streets, and must anticipate that a child on a bicycle may behave less predictably than an adult.
A young child's conduct is evaluated very differently from an adult's in comparative-fault analysis, reflecting their limited capacity to judge traffic conditions. The law also provides protection on timing, since the two-year filing deadline is generally tolled until an injured child turns eighteen.
The timing protection reaches public claims too, though by a different route. When a child’s claim is against a public entity (a school or university roadway, a township road defect, an NJ Transit bus), the Tort Claims Act’s own savings provision tolls the ninety-day notice until the child turns eighteen, at which point notice is due within ninety days.
A parent’s own related claim is tolled to match. None of that is a reason to wait: the evidence that decides these cases does not survive the delay.
Because a child's injuries can affect development and carry long-term consequences, a bicycle claim involving a child requires careful attention to both the immediate harm and its lasting effects, including the cost of future treatment. The driver's heightened duty to anticipate and avoid child cyclists is often a central theme in these cases.
The rise of electric bicycles and scooters has raised new questions in this area, and anyone injured on one should understand how the rules apply.
New Jersey gives class 1 and class 2 low-speed electric bicycles and low-speed electric scooters the same rights and duties as ordinary bicycles, with no registration, insurance, or license required. A device that can be powered past twenty miles an hour is not in that group: it is a ‘motorized bicycle’ and is regulated like a moped, which means a license, registration, and insurance.
The classification also decides insurance benefits. A cyclist is a ‘pedestrian’ under the No-Fault Act and can collect PIP, but the Supreme Court held in Goyco v. Progressive in 2024 that a low-speed electric scooter rider is not, and so has no PIP under that Act. And as with a bicycle, whether the verbal threshold applies depends on the rider’s own auto policy, not on what they were riding.
The defense may raise arguments specific to the device's speed or classification, but these do not change the driver's underlying duty to share the road safely.
Suppose a cyclist is found to have been slightly outside the proper lane position, assigned twenty percent of the fault, while a driver who turned right across the cyclist's path is assigned eighty percent. Under the 51 percent bar, the cyclist recovers because their share does not exceed 51 percent, with the award reduced by their 20 percent share, so a $100,000 award yields $80,000.
The example shows why the defense fights to push a cyclist's share past 50 percent, since at 51 percent the recovery disappears entirely. It also shows why addressing bias against cyclists with objective evidence matters so directly: every percentage point of fault shifted onto the cyclist reduces recovery, and pushing the cyclist over the line eliminates it.
Holding the fault allocation where the facts place it, through the physical evidence and the reconstruction, protects both the existence and the size of the recovery.
New Jersey requires a helmet for any rider under seventeen. For an adult rider, it is not required, and it is worth being straight about what that means in an injury claim: New Jersey’s bicycle helmet law, unlike the statute covering roller skates and skateboards, contains no provision barring a defendant from raising helmet use at all.
Whether it can be raised, and to what effect, is a contested and fact-specific question that should be discussed with a lawyer early rather than assumed either way.
After a bicycle crash, it’s necessary to take steps that can protect your health and the claim, though serious injuries often make this difficult for the cyclist. Prompt medical care treats the injury and creates the record linking it to the crash, while a police response and a documented scene produce an official account that can later rebut the driver's version.
When the cyclist is able, or when a bystander can help, photographs of the scene, the vehicles, and the roadway capture details that fade. In the days that follow, it’s important to identify any witnesses who saw the driver's movements, preserve the bicycle without repairing it, and be cautious about recorded statements and early settlement offers.
The bicycle itself is evidence, and its damage can support the reconstruction. The two-year deadline is approaching, and evidence of bias against cyclists can fade quickly. That is why the injured cyclist should act promptly, or have someone act on their behalf.
Failing to yield at intersections, turning across a cyclist's path in a right-hook or left-cross, passing too closely, opening a door into a cyclist, and simply failing to see a cyclist who was there to be seen account for many bike crashes. Distracted driving compounds all of these, as a driver looking at a phone is even less likely to notice a cyclist.
Road conditions also contribute, and hazards a car would shrug off can cause a cyclist to crash. Potholes, broken pavement, debris, gravel, drainage grates, and the edges where pavement meets a gutter can all unseat a cyclist or force a sudden swerve into traffic.
When a road defect caused or contributed to a crash, the entity responsible for the roadway may be liable. A road-defect claim against a public entity is a harder claim than a claim against a driver, and it is worth being plain about why.
Under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2, the cyclist must show that the property was in a dangerous condition, that the condition caused the injury, that it created a foreseeable risk of that kind of harm, and either that a public employee created it or that the entity knew or should have known about it in time to do something.
Even then, the entity is liable only if what it did, or failed to do, was palpably unreasonable. That is why photographing the hazard before it is repaired and finding evidence of prior complaints or work orders matter so much in these cases.
Some bicycle crashes involve a public vehicle or a dangerous road condition for which a public entity is responsible, and these claims carry a much shorter deadline. If a public vehicle, such as a transit bus, struck the cyclist, or if a road defect a public entity should have maintained contributed to the crash, the New Jersey Tort Claims Act requires a written notice of claim within ninety days under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, far sooner than the two-year deadline.
Missing the 90-day notice is serious, but it is not always the end. N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 allows a judge of the Superior Court to permit a late notice of claim at any time within one year of the date the claim accrued, on a motion supported by affidavits showing extraordinary circumstances for the delay, and only where the public entity has not been substantially prejudiced by it.
That relief is discretionary, and the standard is demanding, so the motion should be made as soon as the problem is recognized. In no event may a suit against a public entity be filed more than two years after the claim accrued.
Different damage rules also apply. Against a public entity, N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d) allows no recovery for pain and suffering at all unless the injury is a permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment, and medical treatment expenses exceed $3,600.
A cyclist who faces no verbal threshold in a claim against a private driver still faces a threshold when the defendant is a public entity, and the medical proof has to be built for it from the start.
The insurer for the driver who struck a cyclist approaches the claim with the same goal as in any case, limiting what it pays, but it has a cultural bias against cyclists to draw on.
An insurer may lean on the assumption that the cyclist rode recklessly or unpredictably, press the cyclist for a recorded statement, hoping to elicit something useful, and dispute fault more aggressively than the evidence warrants, counting on the bias to do some of its work.
Awareness of these tactics is the first defense against them. The reconstruction of how the crash actually unfolded counters efforts to shift fault, while a thorough medical record refutes any attempt to downplay the injuries.
Any early settlement offer is best weighed only once the full extent of a serious injury is known, because accepting it too soon can cut off recovery for harm that surfaces later. A claim built on objective proof and complete documentation is what keeps the bias against cyclists from determining the outcome.
A contested Union Township claim is normally tried at the Union County Courthouse, 2 Broad Street in Elizabeth, in the Union Vicinage. Union Township borders Irvington, Maplewood, Millburn, and Newark, though, and a crash close to that line, or a defendant who lives in Essex County, can put the case before the Essex Vicinage in Newark instead. Which vicinage hears the case is worth settling early, because it affects scheduling and the jury pool.
Generally yes. Because a bicycle is not subject to the verbal threshold, a cyclist can usually recover noneconomic damages without meeting the six-category test that applies to car drivers.
Yes. A bicycle is a legal vehicle, and a cyclist generally has the same right to use the road as a driver, along with the responsibility to obey traffic laws.
That is a common attempt to shift blame. The objective evidence, the physical proof, and witness accounts establish what actually happened and whether the driver failed to share the road safely.
You can still recover as long as your share of fault is not more than fifty percent. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault.
Generally two years from the crash under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. A claim involving a public vehicle requires written notice within ninety days.
At The Law Offices of Sander Budanitsky, L.L.C., we handle bicycle accident claims by first investigating the crash scene and preserving evidence before it disappears, then building a case that counters the driver's account with independent proof, such as witness statements, police reports, physical evidence, and, when available, surveillance or dashcam footage.
Then, our team manages communications with insurance adjusters, calculates the full scope of a client's losses, and pursues a settlement or files suit within New Jersey's two-year statute of limitations, all while the client focuses on recovery.
A free initial consultation costs nothing, and it makes sense to have one soon: the evidence that would contradict a driver's version of events doesn't last forever, and the two-year filing deadline already runs from the date of the crash. Reaching out early gives our firm the best chance to gather what's needed and walk you through how New Jersey's laws apply to your specific situation.
Our staff can speak Spanish, Russian, and other languages common in the community, so clients can discuss their case comfortably in their own language. Attorney Sander Budanitsky has represented injured New Jersey clients since 1996 and is licensed to practice in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Last reviewed: September 2026. This page was reviewed by Sander Budanitsky, licensed in New Jersey since 1996. It is provided for general information and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed New Jersey attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
The Law Offices of Sander Budanitsky, L.L.C. welcomes calls from potential clients and from attorneys looking to refer or co-counsel a matter. Whether it is an injury claim, a civil dispute, a criminal charge, or an immigration question, the first conversation is free and there is no obligation to hire the firm afterward.
Call the Roselle, New Jersey office at (908) 241-3445 or the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office at (215) 545-2300. You can also send the details through the contact form and someone from the office will get back to you. Calls are answered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
