Motorcycle Bias and its Effect on Injury Claims

standing by bike on sunny day Everyone has biases, just as everyone has opinions. Unfortunately, peoples’ biases and opinions about motorcycles and motorcycle riders often tend to lean one way. Insurance companies, juries and judges tend to view motorcycles as inherently dangerous and riders as reckless, dangerous individuals.

Sometimes these biases are based on real-world experiences. For example, some people who view motorcycle riders as reckless witnessed a motorcycle crash caused by a rider who was speeding or being reckless in some other way.

Others may have seen statistics showing how dangerous motorcycle crashes can be and cannot understand why people would take the risk.

Insurance companies have their own interests to protect: the bottom line. They are looking for some reason to avoid paying out compensation. They know many people think motorcycles are dangerous. Insurance companies may think judges and juries are likely to favor them if the claim goes to trial.

Below, learn more about how motorcycle bias could impact a claim for compensation. If you have questions after being injured in a motorcycle crash, give Schmidt Kramer a call today. The initial consultation is free and there are no upfront fees for our services.

Common Biases Against Motorcyclists

Motorcycle bias is a term that is used to describe a wide variety of biases people hold about riding motorcycles. A bias is a prejudice in favor of or against a person, thing or group compared to another group.

For example, people often think motorcycle riders are to blame for accidents, no matter the situation. They may think motorcycle riders do not pay enough attention and are not very concerned with safety. People may also think those who ride motorcycles are inherently aggressive, reckless or dangerous, or that riders are involved in a gang or have criminal records.

Another common bias is that motorcycles are difficult to see. However, this bias is inherently illogical. You can see motorcycles in your mirrors, you can see them in front of you and to the side of you. Some may think motorcycles are too loud, but this helps to ensure you can hear them. If motorcycles can be seen and heard, it is tough for a driver to prove he or she could not avoid them.

Many motorcycle crashes are caused by drivers violating riders’ right of way. However, drivers often claim they could not see the motorcyclist. The trouble is: others hold these types of biases.

Motorcycle biases are often based on things that have nothing to do with the riders themselves. People often develop these biases from popular movies and TV shows. Even if depictions of motorcycle riders in some movies and TV shows are based on real life, these depictions should not be used to stereotype all riders.

While riding motorcycles is inherently more dangerous than driving cars, many riders take precautions to avoid crashes and keep themselves safe. Just as all drivers do not want to be stereotyped as speeders or distracted drivers, motorcycle riders should not be stereotyped based on the actions of a few reckless riders.

Can I Do Anything About These Biases as a Rider?

There are steps you can take to demonstrate you are a responsible driver, which may help combat motorcycle bias when you file a claim for compensation. Wearing a helmet and maintaining a safe driving record can go a long way in dispelling assumptions you are a dangerous driver. Eyewitness statements can also be helpful if the witnesses are credible.

However, one of the most important steps you can take is to find an experienced attorney to represent you. He or she can help gather strong evidence to counter the biases of the insurance company and other parties.

At Schmidt Kramer, we know the tricks insurance companies often employ to deny or devalue claims. They may automatically assign fault to riders, regardless of the situation. However, our experienced attorneys know how to counter these strategies and are prepared to go to court to fight for full compensation.

You do not need to take on the insurance company on your own. In fact, that is what they would like you to do. They know you may be desperate for compensation, which may make you more likely to accept a lowball offer.

You need an attorney to keep pressure on them to make a better offer. Schmidt Kramer has a track record of success in the courtroom as well, which often helps to push insurance companies to offer more compensation. They want to avoid the added expense of the courtroom.

Call Today to Discuss Your Motorcycle Crash

Our Harrisburg-based motorcycle accident lawyers are here to help you seek compensation. Call today to schedule a free consultation so we can determine if you may have a valid claim. There are no upfront fees or obligations.

For more than 30 years, our firm has been advocating for injury victims in Harrisburg and throughout Pennsylvania. We have a track record of success.

Call Schmidt Kramer today to learn more. (717) 727-2089

Free Case Review

No Upfront Fees

Free Case Review

No Upfront Fees

Recent Results

$10,043,952.13 Personal Injury
Schmidt Kramer, P.C.partner Gerard C. Kramer won a personal injury action for $10,043,952.13 in Northumberland County on behalf of a volunteer firefighter who was the victim of Intentional Tort. The 50-year-old volunteer firefighter was seriously injured when a barn collapsed, causing a spinal injury which left him a paraplegic. The claim was brought against the arsonist who intentionally started the fire. It is believed that the verdict is the highest ever in Northumberland County.
View Results
$4,034,000.00 Personal Injury
Yesterday a Judge in Union County (Lewisburg, PA) awarded a couple from New Berlin, Pennsylvania, over $4,000,000 because the husband was shot while turkey hunting.You might ask yourself, how does a turkey hunting accident end up with that type of verdict? In order to understand the verdict you would have to know our clients. They are good people who had their life wrecked. Plus, you would have to know the defendant, who should not have been hunting with a gun because he was prohibited after a previous criminal conviction.It is a good verdict, because the Judge was able to do two things with his decision. First, he communicated to two very good people that their losses were something that those of us on the outside could appreciate and value. Mike Hobbins (our client) is a 51 year old guy who lost his sight because a convicted felon --who should not have even possessed a gun-- went hunting illegally, and broke with impunity the most fundamental rule in hunting: identify your target before you pull the trigger. The Judge accepted the financial loss Mr. Hobbins' suffered, but listened closely to the evidence of less tangible losses. When Mike broke down on the stand, because his daughter would end up walking him down the aisle at her wedding, as opposed to how it was supposed to go, the Judge was listening. When Mike could not keep it together, because of how emasculating it was for him not to be able to provide financially for his family, the Judge was listening. It was facts like these that the Judge cited to support the $2,000,000 award for non-economic damages. Second, the Judge wanted to send a message. Union County is a hunting county. Many of the residents hunt there, and people from outside the area come to Union County to hunt. It was my impression, from the Judge's statements as he rendered his decision, that he wanted to send a message to the people in Union County to protect them in their sport. The rules in place to restrict people convicted of crimes not to have a gun are not to be broken. Hunting is serious and you have to identify your target before you shoot. When you turn your back on the rules that are set to provide safety in a sport, you risk being an example. Here, the $1,000,000 punitive damage award sends that message loud and clear.When it really comes down to brass tacks, the right action was taken against a Defendant who may never truly appreciate what kind of impact his reckless choices caused.At Schmidt Kramer, we are injury lawyers. That means we work with people who were hurt in car accidents, who were hurt by the neglect of nursing homes, or those that were seriously injured because of the reckless, thoughtless acts of others. If you or a loved one have been injured in Pennsylvania, we may be able to help. While the verdict yesterday is not one that is representative of every case we do, it does show that serious and dedicated representation can bring good results.Joe ChapmanJanuary 18, 2013
View Results
$2,200,000.00 Auto Accidents
On Monday, January 6, 2014, Schmidt Kramer accident lawyer Scott Cooper obtained a verdict on behalf of his client who is the widow of a man who died in a fiery crash on Interstate 78 in Lebanon County. The awarded verdict of $2.2 million was in a nonjury proceeding before a federal judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That verdict includes $100,000 in punitive damages assessed against the owner of the trucking company.Kamilah Claxton won summary judgment in November after the defendants, Sukhwinder Singh and the trucking company for which he worked, failed to file a brief in opposition to Claxton's motion, which was made in September. The verdict in Claxton v. Singh was issued after the court held a non-jury assessment of damages earlier this month."Mr. Sukhchan Singh, the employer, is liable on the basis of respondent superior, but was also grossly negligent in failing to maintain his vehicle in compliance with state and federal law, particularly with regard to having required safety inspections and correcting defects in its braking equipment," said U.S. District Judge William W. Caldwell of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in his opinion accompanying the verdict."He was also grossly negligent in entrusting his vehicle to Sukhwinder Singh, an inexperienced truck driver who had failed the written test and driving test multiple times before finally earning his commercial driving license," Caldwell said.
View Results
$1,200,000.00 Personal Injury
A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.2012-06-26 10:00:00 AMDate of Verdict: June 19. 2012Court and Case No.: C.P. Dauphin County No. 2009-CV-14003-MMJudge: Scott EvansType of Action: Medical malpracticeInjuries: Anoxic brain injuryPlaintiffs Counsel: Terry S. Hyman, Schmidt Kramer, HarrisburgPlaintiffs Experts: Dr. Anna H. Messner, liability; Lucille Packer, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Palo Alto, Calif.; Terry P. Leslie, vocations and earning capacity, Lancaster; Dr. Hilary B. Berlin, pediatric psychiatry, Great Neck, N.Y.Defense Counsel: Andrew H. Foulkrod, Darlene K. King, Foulkrod Ellis, Camp Hill, PADefense Experts: James C. Reilly, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Wilmington, DEComment: A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.The entire verdict came against Dr. Andrew M. Shapiro, the doctor who plaintiffs Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Metz alleged chose to have the boy monitored at a pediatric ward. The plaintiffs argued Shapiro failed to tell nurses caring for the baby about, and how to care for, the boy's enhanced risk for respiratory failure.The jury came back on June 19 and awarded Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Mets $500,000 in non-economic damages and $686,170 in loss of future earning capacity, according to the plaintiffs counsel.According to the statement, the baby's mother brought him to Shapiro because she was "'afraid that he might stop breathing during his sleep,'" the plaintiffs' pretrial statement said. Shapiro performed a sleep study and observed the baby's Apnea Hypopnea Index to be 43 — four times higher than what's considered severe. A tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy were performed.According to the plaintiffs, the baby's sleep study results put him at an increased risk for post-operative respiratory complications. Despite this, they argued in the statement, Shapiro ordered the pediatric nurses at the Harrisburg Hospital general pediatric ward to observe the boy as they would any other patients — about once every four hours.The pretrial statement said that one in four children who have an AHI in the 40s and oxygen desaturation below 80 have some type of respiratory problem. The younger the child, the greater the risk of a respiratory problem, the statement said.According to the statement, Shapiro took off the child's pulse oximeter, the finger-mounted device used to measure blood oxygen, and ordered a heart and respiratory rate monitor. The child was 11 months old at the time.The plaintiffs pled that the baby was last seen at 4 a.m. There was no record of his oxygen saturation for the next hour and 45 minutes. He stopped breathing a 6:40 a.m., and his brain was without oxygen long enough to cause demonstrable injury on an MRI."Immediately prior to his surgery, [the child] was a normal child, who could say mama, eat finger foods, and was just on the verge of walking," the statement said. "After his code, [he] was like a newborn. He could not lift his head or sit up. He could not talk. He could not move."In his pretrial statement, Shapiro argued that he recognized the child's pre-operative sleep study showed he was driven to breath by decreased blood oxygen saturation, which he said was typical in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.He argued the American Academy of Otolaryngology dictates that admission to the intensive care unit is not the standard of care. In the statement, he said nurses did not observe signs of respiratory distress. No alarms sounded until the child arrested, the statement said.He said the baby likely arrested as a result of hypoglycemia and/or an acute aspiration, which he argued would not have been identified by blood oxygen saturation.— Ben Present, of the Law Weekly
View Results
$1,024,040.80 Auto Accidents
Scott Cooper settled a wrongful death case on behalf of the widow of a police office who was killed in a car accident in the line of duty for $1,024,040.80. The claim against the other driver was amicably resolved before suit was filed for the entire available policy limits for the other driver. The case took place in Adams County, PA.
View Results

Testimonials

Dear Scott,
Hello there! I’m a little late to the game here, but I wanted to be certain I wrote to you. Oops—sorry for the typo! As you’ve probably gathered, I am writing you from a typewriter. Do you still use these in the office? Back on topic, I wanted to take a moment to express my deep gratitude for your guidance and support throughout the entire legal process for my accident. Can you believe it’s been five years?? Your attention to detail, professionalism, and delicate handling of my case made an incredibly difficult time more manageable for me and my family. We’re forever grateful.
From the moment you stepped foot in that hospital room with me, I felt relieved to have someone in my corner like you and your team. You took the time not only to explain each legal step in a way that made sense but also to acknowledge the emotional weight of what I was going through. That delicate balance—handling the intricacies of my case with precision while also being sensitive to my well-being—is something I will always be grateful for. In many ways, the outcome of the case reflected your dedication, but what has stayed with me even more is how you treated me throughout the process—with patience, respect, and compassion. You listened to my concerns and reassured me in moments of uncertainty. And even now, I feel your compassion each year on my birthday when I receive a text from you!
Thank you, not just for the outcome, but for the way you handled each moment. You are an incredible lawyer, but more importantly, an incredible person, and I was fortunate to have you in my corner.
With heartfelt gratitude,
Ricky D
Definitely were people of their word. Certainly helped me through my whole case
The legal team was very professional and met my needs I would highly recommend them
Monte cargile
Very great experience working with you guys continue the great service timely response communication well understand
jackie duffus
Schmidt Kramer is simply definition of hardworking, they are trustworthy and get best claim you could never think of.

What You Need to Know About Motorcycle Bias and How it Can Affect Injury Claims

Common Biases Against Motorcyclists

Can I Do Anything About These Biases as a Rider?

Call Today to Discuss Your Motorcycle Crash