How Massachusetts Is Updating Driver Training to Prevent Bicycle Accidents

Massachusetts Is Putting Bicycle Safety Into the Driver Education Classroom

Massachusetts has given driver education instructors new tools to help prevent bicycle accidents before young drivers get behind the wheel. The Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) released the classroom resources in August 2026, developed with input from MassBike and LivableStreets Alliance. The materials focus on the state’s four-foot passing law, safe turning near cyclists, and the dangers of dooring. Dooring happens when a driver or passenger opens a vehicle door into a passing cyclist’s path.

“Every new driver should graduate from driver education knowing how to safely share the road with people who bike,” said Galen Mook, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition. “These resources are designed to catch the attention of new drivers, and give instructors practical tools to build awareness, reduce conflicts, and help create safer streets for everyone.”

Our bicycle accident attorneys at the Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone see what happens when a driver doesn’t leave enough room, turns across a cyclist’s path, opens a door without checking, or simply fails to notice a rider. The new materials may help prevent some of those crashes, but they don’t replace the safety duties Massachusetts drivers already have under state law.

What Do the New Driver Training Resources Teach?

The new classroom materials give driving instructors practical tools, not just talking points. According to the RMV, the resources include instructional videos, presentation slides, lesson plans, discussion prompts, and one-page reference materials that can be incorporated into existing driver education courses.

• The Four-Foot Passing Law – Drivers learn that they must leave at least four feet of space when passing a cyclist and travel at a reasonable and proper speed.
• Safe Turning Near Cyclists – New drivers learn to check for bicycles before turning across a rider’s path at an intersection or bike lane.
• Preventing “Dooring” – Instructors reinforce the need to check for approaching cyclists before opening a vehicle door into traffic.
• Recognizing Cyclist Behavior – The module covers how riders may move through intersections, respond to obstacles, and position themselves on the roadway.
• Understanding Bicyclists’ Rights – New drivers learn that people riding bicycles have legal rights and responsibilities when using Massachusetts roads.

None of these lessons replaces real-world driving experience. They do give instructors more ways to make bicycle safety visible and memorable before inexperienced drivers begin making split-second decisions around riders on actual roads.

Why Are Massachusetts Regulators Focusing on This Now?

Bicycling continues to grow across Massachusetts as both transportation and recreation, while e-bikes and other micromobility devices have put even more vulnerable road users into traffic. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health reports that, on average, about 1,400 bicyclists are treated for nonfatal injuries in Massachusetts hospitals each year, while roughly 10 bicyclists are killed annually in motor vehicle crashes.

State officials partnered with MassBike and LivableStreets Alliance to build the new materials, with federal funding support identified by the RMV through the National Safety Council. That effort reflects a broader recognition that roadway design can only do so much if drivers don’t understand how to behave around cyclists.

Boston has also continued investing in physical bicycle-safety improvements. The city has replaced some flexible bike-lane posts with more substantial barriers, but even protected bicycle infrastructure still depends on drivers checking for cyclists before turning, merging, parking, or opening a door.

Why Does the New Training Put So Much Emphasis on Dooring?

Dooring may sound like a narrow bicycle-safety issue, but Boston’s own crash history shows why it deserves attention.

In an analysis of 1,813 bicycle crashes reported to the Boston Police Department from 2009 through 2012, the Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone found that a vehicle operator or occupant extending a door was the most frequently cited listed behavior, appearing in 197 crashes. Drivers failing to see bicyclists were cited 156 times.

Those figures are historical and shouldn’t be treated as a picture of current Boston crash rates. They do show that opening a vehicle door into a cyclist’s path has been a documented Boston safety problem for years, which helps explain why the RMV included dooring prevention in its new classroom materials.

What Does Massachusetts Law Already Require of Drivers Around Cyclists?

Long before these new resources existed, Massachusetts law already imposed specific duties on drivers sharing the road with cyclists. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, Section 14, a driver passing a vulnerable road user must leave a safe distance of at least four feet and travel at a reasonable and proper speed.

The same statute also prohibits opening a vehicle door unless it is reasonably safe to do so without interfering with other traffic, including bicyclists and pedestrians. The dooring provision carries a fine of up to $100.

There is an important legal distinction here. Breaking a traffic-safety law doesn’t automatically make a driver negligent in a Massachusetts civil case. The state’s civil model jury instructions provide that a violation of an applicable safety law may be considered as some evidence of negligence when the crash is the kind of harm the law was designed to prevent.

That means a four-foot passing violation or illegal door opening can become an important part of the fault analysis, but the entire crash still matters. Video, witness accounts, vehicle position, road layout, damage, and the actions of both the driver and cyclist can all become relevant.

What Could Prove a Driver Passed a Cyclist Too Closely?

A four-foot rule sounds simple until the driver and cyclist disagree about how much space actually existed. There usually isn’t a measuring tape stretched across the roadway at the moment of impact.

Evidence that can help reconstruct the passing distance includes:

• Cyclist or Vehicle Camera Footage – Helmet cameras, bicycle-mounted cameras, dashcams, and onboard vehicle cameras may show how close the vehicle came to the rider.
• Traffic and Business Surveillance Video – Nearby cameras can preserve lane position, vehicle movement, and the moments immediately before impact.
• Damage to the Bicycle and Vehicle – Contact points on a mirror, door, side panel, handlebar, or bicycle frame can help reconstruct how the collision occurred.
• Witness Statements – Another cyclist, pedestrian, driver, or passenger may have seen how closely the vehicle passed.
• Scene Measurements and Photographs – Lane width, parked vehicles, bike-lane markings, road construction, and other physical conditions can help show how much room was available.

That evidence can disappear quickly. Camera systems overwrite files, vehicles get repaired, and witnesses become harder to find. A bicycle accident lawyer can send preservation requests and investigate the roadway before those details are lost.

What Do the New Training Resources Change and What Stays the Same?

The RMV’s new resources may improve driver awareness, but they don’t create a new four-foot rule, a new dooring law, or a new standard for deciding who caused a bicycle crash. Those legal duties already existed.

The practical change is education. A new driver who has watched a dooring scenario, discussed a right-turn conflict, and learned the four-foot rule may be better prepared to recognize those risks on the road.

For an injured cyclist, however, the legal question after a crash remains evidence-based. What did the driver do? What did the cyclist do? Which traffic rule applied? What does the video or physical evidence show? And did the driver’s conduct cause the injuries?

Training can help prevent collisions. It doesn’t replace the investigation when one occurs.

Will Better Driver Training Prevent Bicycle Accidents?

Training alone won’t eliminate bicycle crashes overnight. Distracted driving, speeding, unsafe turning, and simple inattention can still cause serious collisions no matter how clearly a driver once learned the rules.

Even so, better education can change habits before they become ingrained. A driver taught from the beginning to look over a shoulder before turning across a bike lane or opening a door may be more likely to perform that check years later.

For cyclists hurt today, that long-term benefit offers little comfort. Bicycle crashes will continue to happen, and injured riders still need a way to address medical expenses, lost income, pain, and other losses caused by a negligent driver.

What Compensation Can Injured Cyclists Recover After a Crash?

When a driver’s carelessness causes a bicycle accident, an injured cyclist may be entitled to compensation for losses supported by the evidence.

• Medical Expenses – Emergency care, hospitalization, surgery, rehabilitation, physical therapy, medication, and medically supported future treatment.
• Lost Wages and Earning Capacity – Income missed during recovery and, in serious cases, reduced ability to earn income in the future.
• Pain and Suffering – Compensation for physical pain, disability, emotional consequences, and other effects of the injury when Massachusetts law allows those damages.
• Property Damage – The cost of repairing or replacing a damaged bicycle, helmet, equipment, or other property.

Massachusetts has another bicycle-specific insurance wrinkle that injured riders may not expect. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, Section 34A, the definition of a pedestrian for Personal Injury Protection purposes includes someone operating a bicycle. When a motor vehicle strikes a cyclist, PIP coverage can therefore become part of the early medical-expense and wage-loss analysis, subject to the statute’s limits and coordination rules.

Fault still matters for the larger injury claim. Massachusetts follows modified comparative negligence under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, Section 85. A cyclist who is 50% or less responsible can still recover damages, although the award is reduced by the cyclist’s percentage of fault. A cyclist found more than 50% responsible can’t recover under that negligence claim.

That exact percentage can matter enormously in a disputed bicycle crash, which is another reason objective evidence shouldn’t be left for the insurance company to gather on its own.

If You’ve Been Injured in a Bicycle Accident, Our Lawyers Are Here to Help

Even with better driver training, insurance companies can still dispute bicycle claims aggressively. A driver may insist the cyclist swerved, appeared suddenly, wasn’t visible, or was riding too close to parked vehicles. An insurer may use those allegations to argue for a higher percentage of comparative fault and a lower payment.

Our bicycle accident attorneys build these cases from the evidence outward. We can preserve available video, investigate the roadway, obtain police reports, identify witnesses, review the bicycle and vehicle damage, gather medical records, and determine which insurance coverage may apply before accepting the driver’s version of events.

Our Massachusetts case results include a $100,000 bicycle accident recovery reported on Sept. 10, 2026, along with other recent bicycle recoveries. Past results don’t guarantee a similar outcome, but they show the kinds of claims our firm handles. Overall, tour law firm has recovered more than $1 billion for injury victims and their families.

If a driver hit you while you were riding in Boston or elsewhere in Massachusetts, contact us to talk about what happened and the evidence that may still be available. We can explain your legal options and help you pursue the compensation the facts support.

“They took the time to explain legal terms in plain, easy-to-understand language, which I truly appreciated. Beyond their professionalism, they were simply very kind people who made an effort to engage with me personally. I highly recommend them, especially if you have a complicated case—as mine certainly was.” – Kim T., ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐