Pedestrian and Cyclist Collisions in Louisville, KY Priority Coverage and Road Duties

The exception that can lift the tort limitations

KRS 304.39-060(2)(c) provides that the abolition of tort liability in paragraph (a) does not apply to injury to a person who is not an owner, operator, maintainer or user of a motor vehicle within the meaning of the subtitle, and also does not apply to a person injured while a passenger on a motorcycle. Where the exception applies, the medical expense threshold and the abolition provision do not restrict the claim. Its reach is limited by the definitions: KRS 304.39-020(15) defines a user as a person who resides in a household in which any person owns or maintains a motor vehicle, so a pedestrian who lives in a household with a registered car is generally still a user. The exception has to be evaluated against the household facts rather than against the fact that the injured person was walking.

Bicycles and scooters are not motor vehicles for this purpose

KRS 304.39-020(7) defines motor vehicle for the subtitle and expressly excludes mopeds and electric low-speed scooters from the definition. A conventional bicycle is likewise not a vehicle of the kind the definition describes. That has a practical effect on which policy pays: the reparation benefit follows the motor vehicle involved rather than the bicycle, so the analysis proceeds through the priority rules instead of through the cyclist's own vehicle coverage.

Which insurer pays the first bills

KRS 304.39-050(1) states the priority. For a person injured while occupying a motor vehicle the applicable security is the coverage on that vehicle; for a person injured while not making use of a motor vehicle, the applicable security is the coverage on the vehicle that struck them. The subsection defines a pedestrian for its own purposes as any person not making use of a motor vehicle at the time of injury, which is the definition that brings cyclists within the rule. If the obligor does not pay within thirty days of receiving reasonable proof of the fact and amount of loss, the injured person may claim under a policy under which they are an insured, and the paying insurer is entitled to reimbursement. Subsection (2) covers the case where the striking vehicle carried no security, and subsection (3) caps the whole recovery at one obligor and $10,000 for one person in one accident. The Department of Insurance also notes that a policy on which everyone in the household has rejected the tort limitations must include guest coverage that provides these benefits to guest passengers and pedestrians.

Driver duties toward people on foot

KRS 189.570 sets out the rules in both directions. Subsection (4) requires a driver to yield, slowing or stopping if needed, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway where traffic signals are not in place or not in operation. Subsection (5) bars overtaking another vehicle that has already stopped at a crosswalk so someone could walk across. Subsection (6)(d) puts a due care duty on every driver to avoid striking anyone on foot, calls for a horn warning where one is needed, and requires added caution around a child or a person who is plainly confused or incapacitated. Subsection (8) requires a driver emerging from or entering an alley, building, private road or driveway to yield to a pedestrian on a sidewalk.

Pedestrian duties, which become fault arguments

The same statute imposes obligations on the person walking. Subsection (6)(a) requires a pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point other than a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to yield to vehicles on the roadway. Paragraph (c) prohibits crossing between adjacent intersections where traffic control signals are in operation, other than in a marked crosswalk, within the limits of a city. Subsection (9) forbids a pedestrian from suddenly leaving a curb or other place of safety and moving into the path of a vehicle so close that the driver cannot yield. Because Kentucky allocates fault as percentages under KRS 411.182 and no percentage bars recovery, these provisions typically reduce a claim rather than defeat it.

The three-foot rule and other cycling provisions

KRS 189.340(2)(a)2 addresses overtaking a bicycle or an electric low-speed scooter, requiring the operator of the passing vehicle to maintain a distance of at least three feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or scooter. The subsection also addresses when a driver may cross the center line to accomplish that pass. Measurement in a real collision is rarely available, so the provision functions in practice through the physical evidence: point of impact on the vehicle, the position of the bicycle after the collision, and any lane width and marking data for the roadway.

What the statewide numbers show

The Kentucky Transportation Center's five-year crash analysis reports pedestrian-related crashes statewide of 866 in 2020, 876 in 2021, 943 in 2022 and 1,044 in 2023, with a four-year average of 932, and 1,069 in 2024 — a 12.8 percent increase. Pedestrian-related fatal crashes were 95 in 2024 against a four-year average of 98. Bicycle-related crashes were 345, 326, 344 and 352 across those same years, averaging 342, then 439 in 2024, a 22.2 percent increase, with eleven bicycle-related fatal crashes in 2024. Those are statewide figures rather than Jefferson County figures, and they describe a category rising while total fatalities fell. This page is general information about Kentucky statutes and published crash data, not legal advice about any particular collision; the attorney who advertises on this site is the person to consult about an individual pedestrian or bicycle claim.