http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1156542610478&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851

A fair decision that makes sense. The type of insurance involved in no fault insurance, which pays no matter who is at fault, as long as a motor vehicle is involved. So I don't understand the talk about him being at fault, which he was to a degree.

And if the no fault policies in Canada are like the ones here, it was probably a $10k policy, which pays only for medical, lost wages and rehab. This kid or his family probably ended up owing tens of thousands in unpaid medical bills alone. I take that back, I forgot were talking about a civilized country here, Canada, that has universal health insurance, like most of the rest of the first world except, of course, for the US. So the kid doesn't owe anything.

Great, Wawanesa carries the insurance on my car, house and bikes. Guess I will be seeing some sort of an increase now from those guys.

Wonder if he learned to use a light when riding at night so as not to plow into things. Like parked cars. :roflmao:

A fair decision that makes sense. The type of insurance involved in no fault insurance, which pays no matter who is at fault, as long as a motor vehicle is involved. So I don't understand the talk about him being at fault, which he was to a degree.

And if the no fault policies in Canada are like the ones here, it was probably a $10k policy, which pays only for medical, lost wages and rehab. This kid or his family probably ended up owing tens of thousands in unpaid medical bills alone. I take that back, I forgot were talking about a civilized country here, Canada, that has universal health insurance, like most of the rest of the first world except, of course, for the US. So the kid doesn't owe anything.

He might be on the hook for part of it, dental isn't covered by health care in Ontario, and some teeth were involved. No fault really should be called all fault, in that if you make a claim, your insurance rates go up, even if it was someone else hitting your car. So the question becomes, gee do I claim the $1,500 for the fender, and have my rates go up $50 a month for the next 5 years, or do I pay the $1,500 out of my pocket, and end up only paying the $1,500.:rolleyes:

A fair decision that makes sense. The type of insurance involved in no fault insurance, which pays no matter who is at fault, as long as a motor vehicle is involved. So I don't understand the talk about him being at fault, which he was to a degree.

And if the no fault policies in Canada are like the ones here, it was probably a $10k policy, which pays only for medical, lost wages and rehab. This kid or his family probably ended up owing tens of thousands in unpaid medical bills alone. I take that back, I forgot were talking about a civilized country here, Canada, that has universal health insurance, like most of the rest of the first world except, of course, for the US. So the kid doesn't owe anything.

I believe this is precedent setting because the boy wasn't using a motor vehicle, and the insurance company now has to pay. At first I thought it was the insurance company for the car's owner, but apparently it's the company that insures the boy's family vehicles. I would wonder if this means that when a bicycle is now stolen in Canada, the lower deductible for the auto insurance would apply, instead of the high deductible of a homeowner's policy.

As the story says, a legally parked vehicle. Parked folks, not moving. And the other vehicle operator runs into it. The insurance company was an idiot to accept arbitration. See also arbitrary. Back to lawsuits and courts again.

Wow, what an outrageous decision! A legally parked vehicle is run into by a cretin and it's the vehicle's fault? How about holding the tire company libel for manufacturing the tires that allowed the vehicle to be driven on the street and parked legally. Makes just as much sense. I wonder if the kid did any damage to the trailer and who paid for that?

No fault really should be called all fault, in that if you make a claim, your insurance rates go up, even if it was someone else hitting your car. So the question becomes, gee do I claim the $1,500 for the fender, and have my rates go up $50 a month for the next 5 years, or do I pay the $1,500 out of my pocket, and end up only paying the $1,500

You either got a crappy insurance company or a crappy record. My wife recently totalled out her vehicle when it slid off the road. When I enquired as to the possible rate increase I was told that with our claim record, no increase would result.

In Quebec the gornement automobile insurance board pays medical costs, lost wages, and damage to clothing for cyclists and pedestrians involved in accidents with motor vehicles. The premium is included in the cost of the driver's licence. I believe the Ontario health scheme doesnt include drugs, which are often parially covered through employers group schemes.

Wow, what an outrageous decision! A legally parked vehicle is run into by a cretin and it's the vehicle's fault? How about holding the tire company libel for manufacturing the tires that allowed the vehicle to be driven on the street and parked legally. Makes just as much sense. I wonder if the kid did any damage to the trailer and who paid for that?

You're misunderstanding. It's no-fault insurance.

In Ontario if two cars get messed up, it doesn't really matter who hit who etc. etc.. Each car is insured and your insurance company pays for your car and the other guy's insurance company pays for his car. Eventually, if you had multiple accidents and all of them were not your fault, your insurance will be higher.

It's a precedent setting case etc. etc., but the young man's family will see an increase in their premiums for all their cars, forever! (yeah, they don't forget!).

No fault really should be called all fault, in that if you make a claim, your insurance rates go up, even if it was someone else hitting your car. So the question becomes, gee do I claim the $1,500 for the fender, and have my rates go up $50 a month for the next 5 years, or do I pay the $1,500 out of my pocket, and end up only paying the $1,500.:rolleyes:Yes. :D

The insurance company was an idiot to accept arbitration. See also arbitrary. Back to lawsuits and courts again.The insurance companies insist on arbitration because they believe (and probably quite correctly) that they'll get a lower damages award against them in arbitration than they would if it went to a jury.

Just one more example of not being held accountable for our actions. The idiot rides at night without a light, hits a parked car and it's someone elses fault.

In general, I think motorists get away with a lot when they collide with cyclists, but no light at night?? Give me a break! So is this precedent setting for just Ontario, or other provinces as well?

Just for the record: the person involved was a 14 year old boy, not a cretin, as one poster remarked.

While it was noted by the journalist that the boy was not wearing a helmet at the time and was legally bound to be wearing one, it does not state whether the parents of the boy were fined or not. Only children 15-18 years of age can legally be fined in Ontario for not wearing a helmet.

The article also notes that the boy was not using a light and, again, legally should have been using a light. Were the parents fined for this infraction? The light, however, likely would not have made any difference as it points forward and the boy went sideways into the parked trailer (not the car). Most lights that I see (and use) are blinkies and actually do very little to illuminate the roadway, but certainly make cyclists visible to other vehicles, so it is pure conjecture if the light would have helped prevent the accident or not. Bicycle lights, after all, are not not angled down to the road but straight ahead.

Back in 1979 I had my last crash and that was when I hit the rear of a parked vehicle after being blinded by rain. The police officer who happened to witness the collision plainly advised that the incident was regarded as an accident, no different than if a car had hit the parked car and, therefore, this incident would qualify as a standard traffic accident and all insurable particpants, even if its' only the struck vehicle owner, would have responsibilities. It may seem unfair, but it makes sense.

Whether the insurance coverage is no-fault or not this will not be good for the ratepayers. Since the boy was 14 I presume he wasn't legally able to drive. Therefore the rates being paid by the parents did not reflect this increased level of liability. If the ruling stands it would imply that anyone able to operate a vehicle (bicycle) etc. on a street could potentially file a claim. The rates being paid by the policyholders don't reflect this and some adjustment would have to be made to reflect this added risk.

I don't particularly like insurance companies but I think they got a raw deal here regardless of who was at fault. Their potential liability just went up, and you can bet rates will too.

An unlicensed and therefore uninsured driver of a NON motor vehicle wrecks into a legally parked car and insurance pays? hmpf Sure sounds like a raw deal to me. Seems I pay enough for insurance especially with having to pay extra to insure me against unisured motorists without having to worry about my parked vehicle allowing someone to run into it.

The next step: will cyclists be required to carry liability insurance if this sets a precedent?

The poor kid. If that happened to me when I was seventeen, I couldn't handle everyone at school saying "Find a trailer?" for three years. Yep, including teachers. And then every time there was a real trailer near by everyone would yell "Shawn, look out!" Yep, including teachers.

Actually, I was not surprised by the ruling of the arbitrator. It is a traffic accident and therefore covered by the Insurance Act of Ontario. As such, the boy is entitled to Statuary Accident Benefit under the Insurance Act of Ontario.

Note that the arbitrator did not rule on who was "at fault" - that was defined also by the Insurance Act of Ontario. He merely ruled on whether the collision was a traffic accident or not. Because a bicycle is defined as a vehicle, his ruling is correct.

No fault insurance in Ontario does mean fault is not assigned to any parties. It merely means that you cannot sue the "at fault" party for mega bucks in any accident. It means that if you are involved in a traffic accident, all parties involved will received a standard compensation prescribed by law. So, if you are a doctor and makes two hundred grants a year, you should approach your own automobile insurance company to buy more coverage, in addtion to the staturary compansation in case you are involved in a traffic accident.

In Ontario, if you are involved in a traffic accident, the first thing you should turn to is your own autombile insurance company, even if your car is not involved. For example, if you take public transit, the bus crashes into a truck, and you are injured, the first protection should be your own insurance policy of your family car, not the bus company's insurance company, nor the truck's insurance company. If is not your fault, you will not have to pay the "deductible" and your insurance premium will not go up next year.

If it is "your fault", say, you ride a bike and crash into a bus at a bus stop and hurt a passenger, you will have to pay the "deductible" and your insurance premium for your family car will go up in your next renewal, even though you change insurance company next time. NOTE that it is your family car - so if your kid rides a bike and crashes into someone, your auto insurance policy will cover his liability.

If you do not have a car and therefore you do not have an automobile insurance policy? You or your family member's bike crashes into a bus at a bus stop and injured a passenger, say. The insurance company for the bus will pay the compansation of everybody involved according to a standard accident benefit schdule as usual. However, any injured person can take you to court for damages such as "pain and suffering" within two years of the accident. I repeat: sue you within two years. And, the insurance industry will not forget when you buy a car next time.

For the life of me, I will never understand how insurance companies justify the things they do. It must be a very lonely business deciding which numbers (not people) get consideration, and then which other numbers have to pay for it.

For the life of me, I will never understand how insurance companies justify the things they do. It must be a very lonely business deciding which numbers (not people) get consideration, and then which other numbers have to pay for it.

Insurance companies are in business for the same reason as every other business, to make money. Insurance works on the principal of premiums are income, claims are expenses, and as long as claims + costs are less then premiums, then things are good. If you can reduce the claims, and keep premiums the same, you increase the difference, therefore you make more money.

No fault insurance dealt with costs, lawyers in court cost a lot of money, the insurance companies realized they were often paying more to fight the claim, then the claim was worth, and no fault simply allowed the insurance companies, to in many cases, pay off their customer, and not bother with the fighting, saving money.

Now, here is where it gets interesting, one poster stated that if you were in a collision on a bicycle, that your car insurance would deal with the claim, I think in reality its the cyclists home owners or tenants insurance that would deal with the claim, not their car insurance. Just like your home insurance would deal with a stolen bicycle claim, not your car insurance. Often this is a moot point, because you use the same company to handle both. The best thing to do, is to check with your broker, as this is one of those things that is jurisdiction specific. You might also need to purchase additional coverage to make sure your covered properly on your bicycle, it depends on state or provincial laws regarding insurance.

Insurance companies are in business for the same reason as every other business, to make money. Insurance works on the principal of premiums are income, claims are expenses, and as long as claims + costs are less then premiums, then things are good. If you can reduce the claims, and keep premiums the same, you increase the difference, therefore you make more money.

No fault insurance dealt with costs, lawyers in court cost a lot of money, the insurance companies realized they were often paying more to fight the claim, then the claim was worth, and no fault simply allowed the insurance companies, to in many cases, pay off their customer, and not bother with the fighting, saving money.

Now, here is where it gets interesting, one poster stated that if you were in a collision on a bicycle, that your car insurance would deal with the claim, I think in reality its the cyclists home owners or tenants insurance that would deal with the claim, not their car insurance. Just like your home insurance would deal with a stolen bicycle claim, not your car insurance. Often this is a moot point, because you use the same company to handle both. The best thing to do, is to check with your broker, as this is one of those things that is jurisdiction specific. You might also need to purchase additional coverage to make sure your covered properly on your bicycle, it depends on state or provincial laws regarding insurance.

In florida, which is a no-fault state, my no-fault covers me if I am riding my bike or even as a pedestrian.

But the most important insurance to have is uninsured motorist, if your state laws provide that UM insurance covers you while you ride a bike, as Florida does, because it is very likely that if you are in a bike/car accident, that the car will be at fault and uninsured or minimally insured. At least that way you can be compensated for permanent disability, lost future income, pain and suffering etc.

Be wary of insurance that is free market, or profit motivated, the premiums will accelerate,
as never has the world seen a lower price reflecting less risk to the insurer past on to the consumer of such s ervice .
Hate to say it but i'm cynical about the capitalistic market place ,Hamaurabi's code in ancient times allowed the punishment of any one who raised any price including labour . Death was it. Inflation is the excuse used by the so called elites of our society to justify rate increases every where, when not that an increase in demand /decrease in supply can be used as an excuse.
Propose an uninsured drivers fee of say ten dollars attached to all bike purchases and alll new car purchases, a oone time thing , this would endow a uninsured fee fund to be invested with fudiciary interests to accumulate for payouts of damage to vehicle property. I for one cannot think that no fault is a plan to follow in determining fault , best say the fund will only pay for property. The horrendous medical ocsts would go to the public healthh systems be that as it may .Foreign visitors could be treated as indigent indiviuals as could those who are effectively grandfathered into the system without paying.
Might be worth a try . but in the meantime get the courts to rule as they judge .

Wonder if he learned to use a light when riding at night so as not to plow into things. Like parked cars. :roflmao:

A bike light probably wouldn't have prevented that accident. They make you more visible to drivers but don't provide much illumination of the road.