You've got to keep this in mind that even if a driver is at fault for hitting/running over you, they may try to raise the cyclist's contributory negligence as a potential defense (e.g., "If he wasn't on the road, I wouldn't have hit him.") Most states use comparative negligence, where a jury can reduce an award by the extent of the plaintiff's comparative negligence (From Wikipedia). That means, that if a driver hits you, is found at fault, and they award you $10,000 for damages, they can determine that you were 10% at fault, and reduce the award by that percentage. (This is why you absolutely need a lawyer when you get hit and injured).

In my state (Virginia) and several others, including Maryland, Alabama, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia, a defendant can claim contributory negligence as a complete defense to negligence.

That means that if a jury finds that you were even 1% at fault, the driver can get off scot-free for damage/injury/death of the cyclist. In some cases, the pedestrian or cyclist has been assigned some level of fault just for legally being on the road or in the crosswalk.......In my situation, I was legally in a crosswalk, and traffic had stopped in both directions....and the guy passed the stopped traffic on the right and hit me. One attorney told me that they will likely try to use contributory negligence as a defense......that even though he broke the law by passing on the right, failing to yield ROW and pled guilty in court, if I didn't try to cross the street in a legal crosswalk with stopped traffic in both directions, he wouldn't have hit me, and that I should be assigned some level of fault. It's BS, but you can bet that a defense attorney WILL try to blame you for getting hit.