At Law Offices of Sander Budanitsky, L.L.C., we see firsthand the risks that cyclists face on Westfield’s busy streets and in nearby neighborhoods. Our team lives and works in this community, so we understand the unique challenges cyclists encounter, whether commuting, running errands, or enjoying a ride with family. Bicycle accidents can be life-changing, and the injuries are often severe because a cyclist has little protection against a vehicle.
We’ve helped cyclists from Westfield and across Union County navigate the aftermath of a crash, from understanding how insurance and New Jersey’s no-fault laws apply to gathering evidence and dealing with the complexities of local roads and traffic. Our experience means we know the common crash patterns, the importance of prompt investigation, and how to counter insurance arguments that try to shift blame onto the cyclist.
If you or a loved one has been hurt in a bicycle accident in Westfield, you don’t have to face the process alone. Our team is here to answer your questions, explain your options, and help you protect your rights.
Whether the verbal threshold applies in a pedestrian accident depends on the individual's own auto insurance, not on the bicycle. If you own an insured car or live with a spouse or parent whose policy covers you, the tort option on that policy follows you onto the bicycle. Under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8.1, a policyholder who never chose an option in writing is treated as having the limitation-on-lawsuit option. Therefore, many New Jersey cyclists must demonstrate an injury in one of the six statutory categories to recover for pain and suffering. A cyclist without an auto policy of their own, and who is not covered as an immediate family member under a household policy, is generally not subject to the threshold under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8.
This is a meaningful advantage, because the threshold is so often the central battleground in a car-occupant's claim. For a cyclist, the focus shifts to proving the driver's fault and the full extent of the personal injury claim rather than clearing a statutory hurdle. The interaction between a cyclist's own PIP coverage, which may pay initial medical bills, and the unrestricted right to pursue the at-fault driver is worth understanding early, because it shapes how the claim is built and reassures an injured cyclist that the threshold will not narrow the claim.
Does the verbal threshold limit a cyclist's claim in New Jersey?
Whether the verbal threshold applies depends on your own auto insurance. If you own an insured car or live with a spouse or parent whose policy covers you, the tort option on that policy follows you onto your bicycle. Most policyholders are deemed to have the limitation-on-lawsuit option unless they opted out in writing, so many cyclists must show their injury meets one of the statute’s six categories to recover for pain and suffering. Cyclists with no policy, and who are not covered as immediate family members, are generally not limited by the threshold.
Westfield's walkable, bike-friendly downtown puts cyclists in close contact with traffic, and certain crash patterns recur. In 2025, Westfield recorded 1 traffic death and 104 injury crashes, and Union County recorded 29 traffic deaths and 4,912 injury crashes (NJDOT crash data). These totals cover all crash types, not bicycle crashes alone.
The East Broad Street and Central Avenue corridors, the downtown grid, and the area around the Raritan Valley Line train station, where commuters ride to and from trains, all bring bicycles into conflict with turning cars, opening doors, and vehicles pulling from parking. The mix of cyclists, shoppers, and commuter traffic in the downtown is where many crashes occur.
Two crash types deserve particular mention because they are both common and clearly the driver's fault. The dooring crash, in which a parked car's occupant opens a door into the path of a passing cyclist, is a recurring downtown hazard where cars park along streets with bicycle traffic. The right-hook crash, in which a driver turns right across a cyclist proceeding straight, often after passing the cyclist moments before, is another. Identifying exactly how a crash happened is the starting point for establishing the driver's fault.
Under N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.1, a cyclist on the roadway has the rights and duties of a vehicle driver. New Jersey's Safe Passing Law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-92.4, requires a driver passing a cyclist to change lanes when possible, otherwise to leave at least four feet, and if neither is possible, to slow to 25 mph and pass only when it is safe. Drivers owe cyclists a duty of reasonable care, so a driver must not turn across a cyclist's path, pass too closely, or otherwise fail to account for a cyclist who is lawfully riding. A driver who does so breaches the duty owed.
Westfield's walkable, bike-friendly downtown is an inviting space for cyclists, but it also comes with heightened risks of accidents. Various factors contribute to these incidents, including dooring scenarios, where a cyclist collides with a car door that suddenly opens, and right-hook crashes, which occur when a vehicle turns right in front of a cyclist without yielding. The frequency of such accidents can be highlighted by State Police crash data, which reveal concerning trends in the area.
Raising awareness about these common crash types is crucial for improving safety. By understanding the risks and adhering to safety practices, cyclists can better protect themselves while navigating Westfield’s streets.
The dooring crash is among the most common bicycle crashes in a town with on-street parking and downtown bike traffic, and it is one of the clearest examples of driver-side fault. It happens when the occupant of a parked car opens a door into the path of a passing cyclist, who has no time to stop or swerve and strikes the door or is thrown into the travel lane, sometimes into the path of moving traffic. The consequences of a dooring crash can be severe, especially when the cyclist is thrown into moving traffic.
New Jersey has no specific statute on opening car doors into traffic, but anyone opening a door owes other road users a duty of reasonable care, which includes checking for approaching cyclists first. A door opened into a cyclist's path without that check is generally negligent, and a cyclist on the roadway has the rights of a vehicle driver under N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.1. The recurring nature of dooring along the downtown corridors, where cars park beside lanes used by cyclists, makes it a frequent fact pattern. Establishing that a door was opened into the cyclist's path without a proper check is usually the heart of a dooring claim.
Two turning crashes injure cyclists with particular frequency, and both stem from a driver's failure to account for a cyclist's presence and path. The right-hook crash occurs when a driver passes a cyclist and then turns right across the cyclist's path, or turns right from a position to the cyclist's left, cutting off a rider who is proceeding straight with the right of way. The driver, having just passed or paralleled the cyclist, turns as if the bicycle were not there.
The left-cross crash mirrors the dangerous left-turn motorcycle collision: an oncoming driver turns left across the path of a cyclist proceeding straight through an intersection, misjudging the cyclist's speed or failing to see them. In both crashes, the turning driver bears primary responsibility, because a driver turning across traffic must yield to a cyclist with the right of way and must look for cyclists before turning. Establishing the turning driver's failure to yield to a cyclist with the right of way is central to these claims, and the objective evidence of the crash geometry and the point of impact usually tells the story.
Drivers and their insurers frequently argue that the cyclist was at fault for riding in the wrong place, failing to signal, or not being sufficiently visible, and New Jersey's 51 percent bar under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1 provides the framework for that argument. A cyclist recovers as long as their share of fault does not exceed fifty percent, with recovery reduced by that share, and is barred only at fifty-one percent or more.
Like motorcyclists, cyclists sometimes face the assumption that they must have done something wrong, and responding with the facts is essential. Objective evidence of how the crash happened, such as the opened door, the right-hook turn, and the driver's failure to yield, usually establishes that the driver bore primary responsibility. A cyclist's lawful presence on the road is a starting point in their favor. Building the claim on that evidence, rather than letting an overstated blame argument stand, is what protects the recovery.
A cyclist struck by a vehicle has little protection, and the injuries reflect that exposure. Head injuries, including traumatic brain injury even when a helmet is worn, are a leading concern, as are spinal injuries, broken bones, facial injuries, and severe abrasions from contact with the road. Being thrown from a bicycle into the roadway can also expose a cyclist to a second impact in a car accident with another vehicle, compounding the harm.
If you are not bound by the verbal threshold, the full range of these injuries can support a claim for both economic and non-economic damages without the statutory hurdle a car driver would face. If you are bound by the threshold, you must show your injury fits one of the six statutory categories to recover for pain and suffering.
A seriously injured cyclist from a Westfield crash is typically taken to University Hospital in Newark, the state-designated Level I trauma center nearest Westfield, about 13 miles away, or to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Rahway, about 5 miles away, a nearer hospital for less severe injuries. Documenting the complete, long-term picture of these injuries, including any permanent effects, is essential to valuing a bicycle claim fairly.
A point of frequent confusion is who pays a cyclist's medical bills, and New Jersey's no-fault system supplies an answer that mirrors the pedestrian rule. A cyclist struck by a car generally looks first to their own auto PIP coverage for medical expenses, if they have a policy, and to a resident family member's policy if they do not, because PIP follows the person rather than only the car. Only when no such policy exists does the at-fault driver's PIP coverage typically step in for the cyclist.
This means a cyclist's medical bills are often handled early through PIP, regardless of fault, while the claim against the at-fault driver addresses the broader losses, including the pain-and-suffering damages the cyclist is generally free to pursue. Understanding this division, PIP for early medical bills, the liability claim for the full harm, helps an injured cyclist see how the pieces fit and why the unrestricted right to pursue the driver is so valuable. It is the same favorable structure that benefits pedestrians.
A cyclist struck by a driver who flees faces an added obstacle, but not necessarily a dead end. Uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage may be available through your own auto policy or a household member’s policy. UM can step in after a hit-and-run or when the at-fault driver has no insurance, and UIM may help if the driver’s coverage is too low.
If you have no auto policy in your household, you may be able to make a claim through the New Jersey Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund (PLIGA), but strict notice and eligibility rules apply. For a hit-and-run, you must report the accident to police within 24 hours and follow up promptly. The Fund only covers uncompensated personal injury, not property damage, and only if you have no other coverage. Consult an attorney as soon as possible to protect your rights and meet all deadlines. This coverage is one reason a cyclist's own auto policy matters even when they were on a bicycle.
Tracking down a fleeing driver after the fact is also frequently possible. Video from nearby businesses, traffic cameras, or doorbell cameras, along with witness accounts and physical evidence from the scene, can lead to identification, but this evidence is perishable and disappears within days. A prompt effort to canvass for video and witnesses is frequently what makes identification possible, which is one more reason acting quickly matters after a cyclist is struck. Where the driver remains unknown despite that effort, the uninsured motorist claim becomes the path to recovery.
The evidence establishing a driver's fault in a bicycle case is often abundant at first and gone within days, making prompt action valuable. The physical scene, the point of impact, the position of the bicycle and any opened door, and debris tell part of the story, and photographs taken promptly preserve it. Video is frequently the most powerful evidence because downtown corridors and the station area are covered by business and municipal cameras, but that footage is routinely overwritten within a week or two.
Witnesses are especially valuable in bicycle cases, since the crash often turns on who had the right of way and whether the driver was attentive, and their accounts fade with time. The bicycle itself and the damage to it and to the vehicle can be analyzed to reconstruct the crash, but only if preserved. The police crash report, the driver's own statements, and the medical records of the injury round out the picture. Because so much of this evidence is perishable, a prompt effort to gather it is frequently what allows a fair reconstruction of how a cyclist was struck.
The damages available to an injured cyclist include both economic and non-economic losses. If you are not bound by the verbal threshold, the full range is available without a statutory hurdle. If you are bound by the threshold, you must prove your injury meets one of the six statutory categories to recover for pain and suffering. Economic damages include medical bills, future treatment, and lost income and earning capacity. In serious cases, such as brain or spinal injuries or a long course of orthopedic surgery and rehabilitation, these damages can be substantial and extend well beyond the bills already incurred.
Noneconomic damages compensate for the pain, the disability, the scarring that road contact can cause, and the loss of life's enjoyment, and a cyclist may pursue them without proving the injury fits one of the six categories that bind car occupants. Where a drunk driver acted with actual malice or wanton and willful disregard for others, punitive damages may be available if proven by clear and convincing evidence under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.12; ordinary or even gross negligence is not enough.
Punitive awards are generally capped at five times compensatory damages or $350,000, whichever is greater (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.14(b)), but the cap does not apply when the driver has been convicted of drunk driving or refusal under R.S. 39:4-50 or N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.14(c)). Capturing the full, long-term scope of a cyclist's losses is essential to valuing the claim fairly rather than settling it short.
A bicycle crash is not always the fault of a single driver. Where a dangerous road condition contributed, such as a pavement defect or debris in a bike lane, the town, county, or State may share responsibility, but claims against public entities are limited by the Tort Claims Act.
The entity is liable only if it had notice of the dangerous condition and its failure to fix it was palpably unreasonable (N.J.S.A. 59:4-2); injuries caused by an approved road plan or design are generally immune (N.J.S.A. 59:4-6); and pain-and-suffering damages against a public entity require a permanent loss of bodily function, permanent disfigurement, or dismemberment with medical expenses above $3,600 (N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d)).
A written notice of claim is generally due within 90 days of the crash (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8), although a judge may allow late notice within one year on a showing of extraordinary circumstances (N.J.S.A. 59:8-9). The lawsuit itself must still be filed within the two-year limit. Determining whether a road condition contributed is part of a thorough investigation.
In other cases, more than one vehicle is involved, or a defective bicycle component contributed to the crash or the injury. New Jersey's allocation rule, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.3, divides responsibility among the parties found at fault and allows full recovery from any party sixty percent or more responsible. Because a serious cycling injury can exceed the coverage available from one source, and because a public-entity claim carries a short deadline, identifying every responsible party early is an important part of building the claim.
The driver's insurer approaches a bicycle claim with the goal of paying as little as possible, and its methods follow a pattern. It will commonly dispute fault, arguing the cyclist rode unpredictably, ran a sign, or was not visible enough, and dispute the injury, suggesting it is less serious than claimed or unrelated to the crash. It may seek a recorded statement early or extend a quick settlement offer before the full injury is understood.
If you are not bound by the verbal threshold, the insurer cannot use that hurdle to limit your claim, so it will focus on fault and the value of your injuries. If you are bound by the threshold, the insurer may dispute whether your injury meets one of the statute’s six categories. The answer to both is evidence: the objective record of how the crash happened, including video and witness accounts where available, and thorough medical documentation of the injury and its future course. Because a serious cycling injury can require lengthy care, an early offer can fall short of the true cost, which is why evaluating any offer only after the injury has stabilized protects the claim's value.
The steps taken after a bicycle crash protect both health and the claim, though serious injuries can make this impossible for the cyclist at the scene. The first priority is medical attention, which treats the injury and creates the record connecting it to the crash. Having the police respond and document the scene creates an official account, and obtaining the driver's information matters greatly given the risk of a hit-and-run.
Where someone is able, photographing the scene, the bicycle, the vehicle, and any opened door or hazard, and collecting the names of witnesses who saw how the crash happened preserves evidence that disappears quickly. Preserving the bicycle and any damaged gear, rather than discarding them, keeps them available as evidence. Being cautious about recorded statements and early settlement offers from the driver's insurer protects the claim, and recognizing that the deadline is running underscores the value of acting promptly after a cyclist is struck.
Children riding bicycles are among the most vulnerable road users, and crashes involving them carry particular considerations. A child may ride unpredictably, dart from a driveway, or misjudge traffic, and the law accounts for this: a young child's conduct is measured against what is reasonable for a child of that age, not an adult, in the comparative-fault analysis. Drivers are expected to anticipate children on bicycles near schools, parks, and residential streets.
The injuries to a child struck while cycling can be severe and have lifelong consequences, which makes thorough documentation and careful handling especially important. For a child, the two-year deadline generally does not begin until the child turns 18, though acting promptly still preserves the evidence that establishes fault. Recognizing how a young cyclist's age affects both the risk and the legal analysis is part of handling these claims appropriately, particularly in a town with the family-oriented, walkable character of Westfield.
Westfield's identity as a commuter town shapes its cycling patterns, as residents ride to and from the Raritan Valley Line train station to connect to trains, often during busy morning and evening periods. This commuter cycling brings bicycles into the heaviest traffic at the busiest times, near the station, along North Avenue and South Avenue (Route 28), which run alongside the rail line and anchor the commercial district, and through the intersections that feed them, where turning and merging conflicts with cars are most likely.
The setting matters because the same conditions that make a route convenient for a commuting cyclist, such as proximity to the station and downtown access, can also concentrate the conflicts that cause crashes. A cyclist riding to catch a train at rush hour shares the road with drivers who are hurried and may not be watching for bicycles. Understanding the commuter cycling patterns around the station and how they intersect with vehicle traffic helps explain how a particular Westfield bicycle crash happened and where the driver's duty was breached.
New Jersey's no-fault rules and the law governing bicycle claims apply statewide, but when a crash occurs on a specific road and a contested claim is heard in a specific court, familiarity with both adds value. Knowing where cyclists face risk in Westfield, including the dooring hazard along the parked-car corridors, the turning conflicts on East Broad Street and Central Avenue and through the downtown grid, and the commuter cycling around the train station, helps in understanding how a particular crash happened and in countering an attempt to blame the rider.
That familiarity also reaches the institutions a serious case passes through, from University Hospital in Newark, the regional Level I trauma center, and Overlook Medical Center in Summit, to the Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth, where a contested claim is heard in the Union Vicinage. Pairing command of New Jersey's no-fault law, including the cyclist's freedom from the verbal threshold, with attention to the specific facts of a Westfield bicycle crash is what allows the claim to be handled on its full merits.
New Jersey requires bicycle riders and passengers under 17 to wear a helmet (N.J.S.A. 39:4-10.1); there is no helmet requirement for adults. Where a helmet argument is raised, it should be tied to the specific injury a helmet could have affected.
The question of helmet use frequently arises in bicycle claims, and it is worth understanding clearly. A cyclist who was wearing a helmet removes one line of argument the defense might otherwise raise. But even where helmet use is questioned, it does not automatically defeat a claim, and its relevance is limited to the injuries a helmet could actually have affected.
The defense may try to argue that a head injury was worsened by the absence of a helmet, but this argument has limits and must be tied to the specific injury rather than used as a blanket reduction of the whole claim.
Injuries to parts of the body a helmet does not protect, broken bones, road rash, internal injuries, are not diminished by helmet arguments at all, and a head injury sustained despite a helmet is not either. Keeping the helmet question in its proper, narrow place, rather than letting it become a way to shift blame to the cyclist, is part of answering the bias these claims can face.
Two pressures together prompt early action on a bicycle claim: perishable evidence and the tendency to blame the rider. The evidence that establishes the driver's fault, including the scene, video from downtown and station-area cameras, witness accounts, and the position of the bicycle and any open door, fades within days or weeks. At the same time, a claim left undeveloped is vulnerable to an insurer's one-sided account that puts the blame on the cyclist.
Acting promptly answers both pressures at once. A prompt investigation captures the scene, the video, and the witnesses before they are gone, building the objective record that proves the driver failed to yield, opened a door without checking, or turned across the cyclist's path. That record is what overcomes the assumption of cyclist fault. Although the filing deadline is generally two years from the crash, a 90-day notice of claim applies when a public entity may share responsibility, and the evidence that proves a bicycle case can disappear long before either date, which is why these claims reward early attention.
A recurring source of dispute in bicycle claims is the mistaken assumption, sometimes held by drivers and insurers, that a cyclist did not belong on the road. New Jersey law treats a bicycle as a vehicle entitled to use the roadway, with cyclists generally required to follow the same traffic rules as drivers and entitled in turn to the same right to a lane. A cyclist riding lawfully is not an intruder to be blamed but a road user the driver was obligated to respect.
This principle anchors the fault analysis. A driver who passed too closely, turned across a cyclist's path, or failed to yield cannot excuse the crash by suggesting the cyclist should not have been there, because the cyclist had every right to the road. Establishing the cyclist's lawful presence and conduct, and the driver's corresponding duty, reframes the crash correctly: as the driver's failure to share the road safely rather than the cyclist's fault for using it. Holding to that framing is part of answering the bias and proving the claim.
Usually not. A cyclist is generally treated like a pedestrian and is free to pursue pain-and-suffering damages without meeting one of the six statutory categories.
Usually your own auto policy's PIP pays first, or a policy of a relative you live with if you have none. Only if neither exists does the at-fault driver's PIP typically pay. The at-fault driver then answers for your broader losses.
A crash in which a parked car's occupant opens a door into the path of a passing cyclist. It is a common downtown hazard and generally the fault of the person who opened the door.
You can still recover as long as your share of fault is not more than fifty percent. The objective evidence of how the crash happened answers an overstated blame argument.
Generally, two years from the crash under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. If a cyclist is killed, a wrongful death claim generally must be filed within two years of the date of death. If a public entity or public employee may share responsibility, such as a town, county, or State road defect or a public vehicle like an NJ Transit bus, a written notice of claim must be filed within 90 days under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. A judge may allow late notice within one year on a showing of extraordinary circumstances and no substantial prejudice (N.J.S.A. 59:8-9). The lawsuit itself must still be filed within two years. For a child, the two-year clock generally does not start until the child turns 18.
A first conversation about the crash costs nothing, and because the evidence that establishes the driver's fault fades quickly, there is little reason to wait. You can contact the firm to talk through what happened and how the rules above apply to your situation.
The Law Offices of Sander Budanitsky, L.L.C. represents cyclists injured throughout Westfield and Union County, with staff who speak Spanish, Russian, and other languages spoken across the community. Attorney Sander Budanitsky has represented injured New Jersey clients since 1996 and is admitted in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Call us today at 908-241-3445 today and start your legal journey towards recovery.
Last reviewed: June 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.
