Cyclists are particularly vulnerable to serious injury, given the ridiculous law that a cyclist cannot travel on a sidewalk, where clearly there is a far reduced risk of injury. Cyclists involved in accidents with motor vehicles, whether it is their fault or not, may still bring an ICBC claim for medical benefits.
Despite the fact that some cyclists breach statutory provisions, this does not necessarily mean that they will be found fully liable for any accident which may occur. The case law is replete with instances of cyclists that do not follow the proper laws, yet are still entitled to bring ICBC claims for their injuries. Much will hinge on whether or not the operator of the motor vehicle exercised reasonable care, and whether the cyclists was “there to be seen” or not.
Section 183 of the Motor Vehicle Act discusses the rights and obligations of cyclists in British Columbia.
If as a cyclist you are forced to take necessary action to avoid colliding with a negligently driven motor vehicle, and you are consequently injured, you may still have a claim for compensation, even though there was no actual contact between you and the negligently driven motor vehicle.
In Ormiston v. ICBC, the Plainitff cyclist was injured when attempting to pass a vehicle on the right, which was originally stationary, but then which all of a sudden veered to the right. The driver of the vehicle fled the scene, and was never identified. The Plaintiff sued ICBC, who acknowledged that there was a collision with an unidentified motorist, but who also argued that the cyclist was fully to blame. At trial, both the cyclist and unidentified driver were found to be responsible, however this finding was reversed by the Court of Appeal, who held that the cyclist was fully to blame for the accident.
 Under the Motor Vehicle Act a cyclist is required to ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway (s. 183(2)(c)). “Highway” is broadly defined to include any right of way designed to be used by the public for the passage of vehicles (s. 1). That, it is said, includes the shoulder such that sometimes cyclists must ride on it to be as near as practicable to the right side of the highway. Vehicles are required to travel on the right-hand half of the roadway (s. 150(1)). “Roadway” is defined as the improved portion of a highway designed for use by vehicular traffic but does not include any shoulder (s. 119). Vehicles cannot travel on the shoulder.
 While I doubt the legislative intention was to create by this somewhat convoluted statutory route what would be thousands of miles of unmarked and ill-defined bicycle lanes across the province, I do not consider s. 158 (1)(b) constitutes an applicable exception to the prohibition against passing on the right in any event. As defined, the exception applies to a laned roadway being a roadway divided into marked lanes for vehicles travelling in the same direction. The markings divide the roadway; the lanes marked are on the roadway. A roadway does not include the shoulder. The shoulder could not be an unobstructed lane on a laned roadway. The “laned roadway” exception has, as the judge said, no application here. It does not permit cyclists to pass vehicles on the right by riding on the shoulder. It must follow the driver of the vehicle would have had no reason to expect a cyclist like Ormiston would attempt to pass on the right by riding on the shoulder. That must be particularly so here when the shoulder was not fit for a bicycle because it was strewn with gravel and Ormiston was riding as far to the right of the highway as he considered practicable.
 Ormiston did a foolish thing. Rather than wait until the driver’s intentions were clear, he decided to do what the Motor Vehicle Act prohibits – pass on the right. He decided to take a chance and he was injured. Had he waited, even a few seconds, there would of course have been no accident because the vehicle drove on after it had moved to the right of its lane.