Tactic 1: The friendly recorded statement
The adjuster “just needs your version.” For riders, the recording has one purpose: a speed estimate, a lane-position admission, an “I'm mostly okay.” Counter: decline it — you're not obligated — and route everything through documentation. Facts on paper don't freelance.
Tactic 2: Percentage first, questions later
Rider claims open with comparative fault pre-assigned — 20%, 30% — untethered to evidence, because every point is a discount on every dollar. Counter: make them show their work. Percentages built on bias collapse against reconstruction, camera footage, and statutes like §21801 (see the left-turn playbook).
Tactic 3: The gear discount
“No armored jacket — partial fault for the injuries.” California requires a helmet; beyond that, gear choices are argued as injury-mitigation percentages, aggressively and often wrongly. Counter: medical causation. A femur doesn't care about jacket armor; tie each injury to the impact mechanics and the argument starves.
Tactic 4: “That's degenerative, not traumatic”
Rider injuries — spine, shoulders, knees — overlap with what radiologists note in most adults over 30, and adjusters exploit the overlap. Counter: treating-physician causation opinions and before/after function evidence. Asymptomatic-to-symptomatic is a compensable change under California law, even atop degeneration.
Tactic 5: Pricing in the jury they hope you fear
The final lever: settle low because “juries don't like bikers.” Sometimes true, always overpriced — Inland Empire panels respect lawful riders when the riding is SHOWN lawful. Counter: a case built to be tried. Insurers read trial-readiness fluently, and it re-prices everything — the entire reason rider-fluent representation out-earns its fee in these claims. Lane-position law itself is covered in the lane-splitting guide.
