Advocacy & Safety - Insurance for cyclist: your opinion

An interesting question came up during conversation with a friend of mine: what kind of insurance a cyclist should have? In case of an accident, for example. Should it be something car insuranse style or medical/disability insurance is enough?

Medical for SURE. Not sure what else you can get.

I got hit in August ... pelvis fractures ... long story ... bills are about $66k now. Out of pocket has been about $1K so far.

John Wilke
Milwaukee

If you also own a car, you should already have the liability coverage, and possibly medical. Do you have medical through your employer?

Some kind of medical insurance is necessary, cyclist or not. Liability coverage would not generally be available to a cyclist. It's provided under most auto policies, and perhaps under some personal liability umbrella policies, but not by itself.

If you also own a car, you should already have the liability coverage, and possibly medical. Do you have medical through your employer?

Some kind of medical insurance is necessary, cyclist or not. Liability coverage would not generally be available to a cyclist. It's provided under most auto policies, and perhaps under some personal liability umbrella policies, but not by itself.

hmm, does my car insurance cover me while I'm riding a bicycle? in other words, in case of an accident (I'm on a bike, not in my car), can I call my insurance and report it? something tells me that insurance may listen but won't do anything (unless I was at fault and they want some money :) ).

I do have medical through my employer.

hmm, does my car insurance cover me while I'm riding a bicycle? in other words, in case of an accident (I'm on a bike, not in my car), can I call my insurance and report it? something tells me that insurance may listen but won't do anything (unless I was at fault and they want some money :) ).

I do have medical through my employer.

If you have medical coverage under your auto policy, the answer is yes. Your auto policy covers you in the event of an auto accident. The liability coverage protects you financially if you damage someone's property. It doesn't need to be their car, you can back over your neighbor's fence. That's liability.

Medical coverage works the same way, although there may be a variation in some states. You only need to be in an auto accident. You do not need to be driving your car. You do not need to be a passenger in your car. You can be on a bike, or even on foot. You just need to have a collision with a motor vehicle. Does that make sense?

yup, it does.
Thank you, Expatriate!

You're in Califiornia, so what I just explained applies to you. Some states are funny with "No fault". Make sure you have UMBI coverage on your policy. It's dirt cheap, and if you have an accident with an uninsured motorist, you can count on compensation for any pain and suffering. You do have to be able to ID the other party though. That means getting a name/phone number, license or vehicle registration. If someone hits you and takes off, and you can't provide even the license plate, coverage does not apply. Anything to ID him is good, it's up to the insurance company to track him down.

Actually, that's a big CALLYOUR AGENT!

Better make sure it covers u on a bike, some don't.

In California, it does. I suppose there could be some weird policy that explicitly excludes it, but I've never heard of such a thing.

I have automatic third party insurance through my membership of the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) for up to £1 million. (I'm still working on a way to destroy £1m of SUVs in one fell swoop and make it look like an accident in which no people were hurt. Not as easy as it might sound.)

I then have theft and accident insurance through a specialist broker for the LCC which is pretty good. I've not claimed for any of the bumps and nudges that I've had resulting in minor repairs but I have claimed for two bikes that were stolen. They paid up without too much quibble. Quite handy as bike thieves in London would be prepared to enter an active nuclear reactor on half a chance of nicking front wheel.

Insurance in countries other than the US is always more interesting.

Membership of the Cylists Touring Club also brings free 3rd party bike insurance.
In the UK we dont need private medical ensurance.
Bike damage insurance is often more expensive than it is worth, esp if you ride a second hand/beater style bike.

In the UK we dont need private medical ensurance.

True, but you might want to consider a policy that includes provision for private care. Specialised physio can make quite a difference in terms of recovery speed.

I don't have it at the moment but would consider it for a future policy given some recent incidents.

I'd pay for a policy, or a rider on my auto insurance that would provide coverage for 1) me damaging another person or property while biking 2)theft of bike 3)medical coverage for injuries sustained while biking.

I know about medical attached to my auto insurance and property damage covered by my renters insurance, but it would be nice to have bike specific coverage.

Generally speaking, when someone worries about insurance claims, I find it's usually claims against them. Liability insurance. It's pretty rare that cyclists cause much damage to others, so liability insurance for cycing in specific is pretty rare. Much more common is liability insurance (like in an auto or home owners plan) sold as a blanket policy.

Just checked w/my insurance company... I live in Texas sothis only applies here... my bikes are covered by my homeowner's policy against theft (anywhere.. even off the back of my car) damage while in my house (fire, flood, etc..) and more importantly - damage to someone else's bike in an accident and injury claims due to an accident I cause are covered as well... no special riders required and even though cycles are considered motor vehicles under TX law... auto insurance doesn't apply...

better check with your agent as most states (here in the US) are different... of course.

...cycles are considered motor vehicles under TX law...

Under which law? Driving law says they are vehicles, but not motor-vehicles.

But I do think, with the way things are going and the amount of people choosing bicycles over cars now, they need to have bicycle insurance the same as car insurance: theft, accident, etc., without the hassle of trying to figure out if you should call your homeowner's insurance co. or your car insurance or your boss.

Under which law? Driving law says they are vehicles, but not motor-vehicles.

But I do think, with the way things are going and the amount of people choosing bicycles over cars now, they need to have bicycle insurance the same as car insurance: theft, accident, etc., without the hassle of trying to figure out if you should call your homeowner's insurance co. or your car insurance or your boss.


Oooops.. you're qute right.. sorry for the fox paws

I work in insurance in the US. If you check your auto policies, you will likely see that you MAY be covered under MED or PIP, but that you are almost certainly EXCLUDED coverage under the liability (Bodily Injury & Property Damage) and Physical damage (Collision and Comprehensive) coverages. You will also note that if you check your Homeowner's policy or your renter's policy that there is an exclusion for auto liability, but not bicycle liability, and that your bike is covered against theft in that policy as well. Every company has similar rules but some differ so the only way to answer the question is to READ YOUR POLICY! Don't bother asking the agent, they likely don't know.

There is no reason to have specific bicycle insurance since it is already covered under a renters or homeowners policy. That is unless you want to pay more for bike insurance.... I would fight any attempt to require specific cycling insurance for as long as possible because it would cost us more $$$ for no more coverage.

There is no reason to have specific bicycle insurance since it is already covered under a renters or homeowners policy. That is unless you want to pay more for bike insurance.... I would fight any attempt to require specific cycling insurance for as long as possible because it would cost us more $$$ for no more coverage.I totally disagree with you on that. Your bicycle is only covered against theft if you have renters insurance or homeowners insurance. Your bicycle is only covered against damage if you have renters or homeowners or an auto policy covering damage, or if the motorist has a policy covering damage. Your body is only covered if you have accident coverage or health insurance. If you don't own a car, and you don't have health insurance, you're not covered, unless the car that hits you is insured.

In short, there are plenty of reasons that a cyclist may have for wanting bicycle-specific insurance.

For the original poster, here are some links to articles:

Accidents and Insurance (http://www.stc-law.com/bikeacci.html)

Covering Your Assets (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/4092.0.html)

Verbal Threshold (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/4969.0.html)

A Question of Value (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8141.0.html)

Here's another article:

Biker, Interrupted (http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6678)

Quote:

"Days later, we were still dealing with the uncertainty when we had our first meeting with my attorney, Ray Thomas. We learned that my legal battle with the insurance company of the driver who hit me would take at least a year. And once Thomas secures for me the proceeds of Myrick's liability insurance, most of the check will go toward legal fees and reimbursing my health insurance for more than $30,000 in medical bills."

Auto insurance won't cover in most cases.

And for some good reasons.
Would you need liability to ride street, sidewalk or trail? What about roller blades? Or walking? Not much car damage caused by bikes after all.

At some point we have to give up on the concept that insurance will protect us. It dosn't. If i crash and die no insurance is going to change that. If i bust a leg, insurance may pay for the hospital bill but won't change the nature of the fracture.

What happens when medical bills exceeds the coverage of the policy (either yours or the person that hit you)?

What happens when medical bills exceeds the coverage of the policy (either yours or the person that hit you)?

Let's hope that never happens. Most med pay limits are pretty decent. When limits are exceeded, things get messy. Generally, someone goes to court. Either the liable party gets sued, or you may find yourself filing bankruptcy.

hmm, does my car insurance cover me while I'm riding a bicycle? in other words, in case of an accident (I'm on a bike, not in my car), can I call my insurance and report it? something tells me that insurance may listen but won't do anything (unless I was at fault and they want some money :) ).

I do have medical through my employer.

Not true. If you were involved in an incident with a car, hit & run, you can make a claim on your UM/UIM coverage. That is Uninsured Motorist/Underinsured Insured Motorist in insurance lingo. Your carrier might balk but it is in the coverage. I just sat through 8 hours of CE on that one. You are covered up to the limits of your policy. This is the best reason NOT to get rid of the UM/UIM coverage.

The best part about it is that once your insurance company finds out who hit you they'll go after them with a vengance to recover, subrogate, their money. Their attornies will spare no money or ruthlessness trying to recover.

Tim

What happens when medical bills exceeds the coverage of the policy (either yours or the person that hit you)?

If you know who it was then the attornies do what's called an "asset check." We are involved in one right now. Basically, the attorney, yours, finds out exactly what the party at fault owns and leins it or gets the court to freeze it. Then they start to convert it to cash for the injured party, very ugly.

The best thing to do is buy a disability type of policy while you are still young. They are reasonably affordable and would take care of these kind of things. Most young guys laugh and say they are a rip off until they are laying in a hospital bed out of work for 4 months with no money.

Tim

Not true. If you were involved in an incident with a car, hit & run, you can make a claim on your UM/UIM coverage. That is Uninsured Motorist/Underinsured Insured Motorist in insurance lingo. Your carrier might balk but it is in the coverage. I just sat through 8 hours of CE on that one. You are covered up to the limits of your policy. This is the best reason NOT to get rid of the UM/UIM coverage.

The best part about it is that once your insurance company finds out who hit you they'll go after them with a vengance to recover, subrogate, their money. Their attornies will spare no money or ruthlessness trying to recover.

Tim

That's a wee bit off the mark. All insurance companies have claims people that specialize in subrogation. There are 4 basic options available, depending on the situation. They will either try to settle with the other carrier if there's coverage, or try to settle direct with the responsible party if they're uninsured. For uninsured motorists, an asset check may be in order, then the file can either be referred to outside collections, a suit can be filed, or the file may be closed. There's also arbitration or even suits between companies, but those are not the preferred options. The last option is calling in house council, as it's the most expensive.

And yes, UM/UIM is good to have. You sound like you're perhaps on the agency side, rather than the claims side?

Okay. What about coverage for when a cyclist doesn't have a car? Being insured in the case of an auto accident with an uninsured motorist has got to be a very poor reason keep an auto insured. I put thousands of miles on my bikes every year, and my car rusts in the driveway.

What about accidents that are not collisions? Car cuts you off, you rail a guardrail when a truck brushes you off the roadway?

There should be direct liability/medical insurance policies for bicyclists available, especially for people that operate their bike on the roads like a car, with traffic, on a regular basis.

Homeowner's insurance CAN cover a hell of a lot of stuff, depending on your policy. For instance, mine covers theft of my bike even when I'm out riding it around, or theft of stuff from my car. There may be limitations though, so don't assume your $4000 road bike will get replaced.

Every policy is different and everybody should read them carefully to see what is or is not covered. An agent won't have a problem to draft something that fits your needs.

My $2400 mountain bike was replaced (got a brand new one!) under my renter's policy a few years ago. I hit the carport with the bike still on top of the truck... :rolleyes: The nice thing was that I bought it used for $1400 several months earlier. :D

I've basic 3rd party cover. Cost's me £8 extra on my car insurance.
I think ridding without even the most basic of insurance is a bit foolhardy. Even if you're involved in a road accident and cause the car driver to suddenly break they could easily suffer and claim whiplash, loss of earnings etc. Add the cost of car paint, door skins etc. you could end up receiving a bill for thousands.

Okay. What about coverage for when a cyclist doesn't have a car? Being insured in the case of an auto accident with an uninsured motorist has got to be a very poor reason keep an auto insured. I put thousands of miles on my bikes every year, and my car rusts in the driveway.

What about accidents that are not collisions? Car cuts you off, you rail a guardrail when a truck brushes you off the roadway?

There should be direct liability/medical insurance policies for bicyclists available, especially for people that operate their bike on the roads like a car, with traffic, on a regular basis.You've hit the problem square on the head. Whether insuance for cyclists should be mandatory is one thing, but it's a crime that no cyclist insurance whatsoever is available, unless you own a car and keep it insured. In the United States, the only way you're covered is if you own an insured car, or if your employer provides health insurance. If you don't own a car, and if you're one of the 45 million Americans with no health insurance, you're screwed.

Exactly.

Bek, the only thing iun the case you described is coverage for the bike. Either through a homeowner's or renter's policy. I can't see any company issuing a liability policy for cyclists - it just doesn't make financial sense. Liability coverage is to protect your assets. Someone without a car in most cases does not have a lot of assets worth pursuing. Of course, even if you do have assets, how much damage can you do on a bike? Surely you'd be able to make the other party whole somehow.

As far as private medical coverage, it's available, just not cheap. Perhaps Blue Order summed that up best in his last sentence.