Commuting - bike insurance

don't want to start any rumors or give lawmakers any ideas, so let's just keep this between us, ok? ;) bicycle commuting rocks because you can get rid of a car and all the hassle it comes with, including car insurance. car insurance is the major cost of having a car that you don't use because you ride everywhere. so it is the major financial incentive to get rid of the car and bike commute. so i was thinking, why aren't we required to have bike insurance for liability reasons, just like cars? bikes are classified as vehicles, use public roads, and can cause accidents and damages to others.

thoughts?

Numbers. Car insurance became necessary when the number of cars and accidents rose to a problematic level. There just aren't enough bikers (and bikers doing damage) to warrant the need. If we started to see a big rise in deaths, injuries and property damage caused by bikes, you can bet their would be legislation proposed, most likely by the insurance lobby.

I think it also has to do with the consequence of an accedent, negligence, or driver error. On a bike, you can damage yourself and your own property in a collision, but it is unlikely that you will do much harm to anyone or anything else. Bikes-most bikes at least, are not very valuable (sure, all of mine cost more than my car, but I never claimed to be normal). Cars on the other hand are expensive, and can do lots of damage to other people and property. It is quite possible for an average car driver to do more damage to someone than he or she can pay for. Much less likely for a cyclist.

In the end, I expect someone will try to force cyclists to be licensed, and possibly insured the way motorists are. It's only a matter of time. I can almost hear the sound of lawyers licking their lips.

If we started to see a big rise in deaths, injuries and property damage caused by bikes, you can bet their would be legislation proposed, most likely by the insurance lobby.

Not likely. The numbers are too small. Bikes are not known for doing much damage in an accident, so the liability limits would be low. Premiums would never amount to much, and servicing the policies would be cost prohibitive. I can expand on that if anyone needs a better explanation.

Wanna bet? Ask the City of Boston why messengers here carry twice as much liability as cabbies.

I'll tell you why. A messenger had a collision a few years back when a pedestrian stepped out in front of him into a crosswalk without the walk signal. This ped was seriously injured, ended up in a medically induced coma for a while to stabilize. When he came to it turned out that he was very well connected pedestrian and knew the right people to get things done.

The city came down on couriers forcing the IBMA to move CMWC'00 to Philadelphia among other things.

No, these things aren't driven by the insurance industry. They don't care. In fact, they'd rather high risk individuals NOT carry insurance. But knee jerk reactions by local politicians will force mandatory cyclist insurance.

I don't think bike insurance is likely...i agree with darkmother on the liability issue.

Also, if insurance companies were to offer insurance as if bikes were vehicles, there'd also be comprehensive insurance...and how many insurance companies would want to accept the theft risk of someone locking up their $2k bike at work or the grocery store or something.

In the end, I expect someone will try to force cyclists to be licensed, and possibly insured the way motorists are. It's only a matter of time.


OK, just to play devil's advocate (or lawyers' advocate...)

Why not do this, why not mandate training, and licensing? This would eliminate the whole "renagade road warrior" view that motorists have of cyclists... or at least part of it.

This would also give us mandated legitimate claims to road use and improvement. Cagers could yell, get off the streets, and you can yell back it's mine too. (of course cyclists DO have rights, but imagine the lobby that could be built on behalf of cyclists.)

Yup, lawyers licking their chops...

Why not do this, why not mandate training, and licensing? This would eliminate the whole "renagade road warrior" view that motorists have of cyclists... or at least part of it.


It would also cost some people their jobs. Some people have only a bicycle as their transportation and have limited income. These people would not know about the law, or would not pay because they couldn't. Then they'd get tickets upon tickets and probably thrown in the slammer after too many offenses. Remember this person is just trying to get to work. You know how many unlicensed and uninsured motorists there are? There'll be even more unlicensed and uninsured cyclists.

And who wants to tell their 10 year old kid that they can't ride their bike to a friend's house because they had an accident when they were 8.

Motorist licensing was introduced due to the liability of operating a fast and heavy motor vehicle. The state has a responsibility to act in the interests of public welfare and regulate their use. Vehicle registration fees are to cover the costs of road maintenance and other incidentals associated with vehicle use.

Bicycle operators pose a much lesser degree of danger to those around them, so no need for a bike license. They also have a negligible impact on road surface, so no need for registration fees. If there was only bicycle traffic a road could last indefinitely (and be substantially smaller). Why don't we charge pedestrians for using the sidewalk?

In some instances, you can be covered under your auto insurance (if you have it, that is) if you're involved in bike-car wreck, at least in Colorado, anyway. I don't know how it is in other states.

if a cyclist does something wrong that causes a car or truck to swerve or lose control and slam into something, then the damages could be quite high. or is it not legally possible to blame this on a biker?

Lots of cyclists allready have a driving license. The government would never want it as it would be a lot of administration for little cash and would be impossible to police.
In the uk joining the CTC (http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3365) gets you £5 million third party public liability insurance and only costs £12 a year. So even if they do require insurance it should be cheap compared to car insurance.

if a cyclist does something wrong that causes a car or truck to swerve or lose control and slam into something, then the damages could be quite high. or is it not legally possible to blame this on a biker?

This is actually Boston's defense in claiming that couriers need that much coverage but it's mostly hot air.

Yes, you could also run into a pedestrian and kill them. Or as a pedestrian you might step out into the street, causing an accident for which you could be held at fault. Should we require walking insurance? A strollers license? Shoe registration?

Lots of things are possible. The question is how likely are they? Do they pose a risk to public welfare in general?

Wanna bet? Ask the City of Boston why messengers here carry twice as much liability as cabbies.

I'll tell you why. A messenger had a collision a few years back when a pedestrian stepped out in front of him into a crosswalk without the walk signal. This ped was seriously injured, ended up in a medically induced coma for a while to stabilize. When he came to it turned out that he was very well connected pedestrian and knew the right people to get things done.

The city came down on couriers forcing the IBMA to move CMWC'00 to Philadelphia among other things.

No, these things aren't driven by the insurance industry. They don't care. In fact, they'd rather high risk individuals NOT carry insurance. But knee jerk reactions by local politicians will force mandatory cyclist insurance.

WOW! that's incredible. It's too bad things like that get based on an individuals one experience, and not statistics. There must have been some bike groups lobbying against it, but were not powerful enough.
Do you have any idea what the premiums might be? A friend of mine is looking into starting that.

This is actually Boston's defense in claiming that couriers need that much coverage but it's mostly hot air.

Yes, you could also run into a pedestrian and kill them. Or as a pedestrian you might step out into the street, causing an accident for which you could be held at fault. Should we require walking insurance? A strollers license? Shoe registration?

Lots of things are possible. The question is how likely are they? Do they pose a risk to public welfare in general?

While it doesn't happen often, if it does, and we are held liable, how many of us could fork over a couple of hundred thousand dollars?

Wanna bet? Ask the City of Boston why messengers here carry twice as much liability as cabbies.

I'll tell you why. A messenger had a collision a few years back when a pedestrian stepped out in front of him into a crosswalk without the walk signal. This ped was seriously injured, ended up in a medically induced coma for a while to stabilize. When he came to it turned out that he was very well connected pedestrian and knew the right people to get things done.

The city came down on couriers forcing the IBMA to move CMWC'00 to Philadelphia among other things.

No, these things aren't driven by the insurance industry. They don't care. In fact, they'd rather high risk individuals NOT carry insurance. But knee jerk reactions by local politicians will force mandatory cyclist insurance.

I'd take that bet, but I don't want your money. You are confusing two issues. Business liability is not the same as personal liability. Bike messengers operate a time sensitive business, and they choose to take risks. Your statement fails to differentiate between messengers and cyclists. A guy that drives a vehicle as a courier would not need the same coverage as someone that drives for personal use/pleasure.


While it doesn't happen often, if it does, and we are held liable, how many of us could fork over a couple of hundred thousand dollars?

You won't have to. If you have no assets, the insurance company is not going to bother pursuing you. If you have assets, such as a home, you would most likely find some coverage under your personally liability umbrella policy. To state it simply, if you have anything worth protecting, you probably have insurance to protect it.

Business liability is not the same as personal liability. Bike messengers operate a time sensitive business, and they choose to take risks.

I wouldn't be so sure that seals the deal. The courier that precipitated the incident wasn't even on the job, he was just on his way home. What if the cyclist had just been a commuter? I suppose our pedestrian could have raised hue and cry and demanded ordinance that says that any cyclist wishing to ride in the street carry insurance. After all, motorists do. It's not about business insurance and incentive to rush. Cabbies have this too and yet their coverage is less nor must they clear a criminal background check to drive, unlike couriers. This guy wasn't on the job at the time, so he was no more a courier at that moment than a cabbie driving his family down to the Cape for the weekend.


2manybikes, as to the premiums, I don't know. Adam Ford <diesirae@earthlink.net> is something of an old man in the Boston messenger scene and should know. I know Owen McGonagle <bikeboston@aol.com> also has some pretty strong feelings on the matter and could probably talk your friend's ear off about any aspect of the courier requirements.

Most cyclists that carry homeowners or renters insurance are already covered for damages they cause on a bike under the general liability section of that policy. I don't have an HO-3 policy in front of me, but I think the exclusion is to motor vehicle liability, hence if you are sued for causing damage on a bike, your HO/Renter's policy will cover you.

Found my policy:

Exclusions from section 2 (Liability)
Vehicles: We will not cover bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, supervision, ...blah blah... of any type of motor vehicle....

A bicycle isn't a motor vehicle so it isn't excluded from your HO policy, meaning that:
"We will pay, up to our limit, compensatory damages for which any insured is legally liable because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence covered by this policy."

BTW, bike messengers aren't covered because it would be an occurrence that arises out of a buisness purpose.

DogBoy's got it, Trevor still doesn't get it. If the courier wasn't on the job, then he had no coverage, so what's your point? Cabbies probably have a minimal policy. Why should they have more? They're probably a terrible risk, and pay high premiums to protect very little in the way of assets.

I think it would be near impossible and possibly illegal to pass a city ordinance requiring cyclists to carry liability insurance. For one thing, you can't require something that doesn't exist. Insurance companies do not want to provide coverage to cyclists. If you are on your bike, and get hit by an uninsured motorist, some policies in certain states will allow you to collect under your UMBI coverage. That's a $15-30k check they'll have to write. If the insured demands it, and the company balks, it can go to court. Do you know who wins any time a cyclist is in court? Doesn't matter if they're suing a motorist or their own carrier, judges and juries will almost always favor the injured cyclist. I think you would have a hard time finding an insurance company to write a policy. The only way it will happen is if the state passes a law, and requires companies to issue minimal policies, like automotive Assigned Risk policies. I can tell you at least one major insurance company stopped writing ANY auto policies in an eastern state because it could not afford the risk.

I believe car registration is required to aid in the recovery of stolen vehicles. A large problem. Not to cover the costs of road maintenance and other incidentals. Taxes cover that.

Found my policy:

Exclusions from section 2 (Liability)
Vehicles: We will not cover bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, supervision, ...blah blah... of any type of motor vehicle....

A bicycle isn't a motor vehicle so it isn't excluded from your HO policy, meaning that:
"We will pay, up to our limit, compensatory damages for which any insured is legally liable because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence covered by this policy."

BTW, bike messengers aren't covered because it would be an occurrence that arises out of a buisness purpose.

You still need to be carefull. In many jurisdictions, bicycles are classified as 'motor vehicles'. If you live in a state or province that does this, your homeowners/renters coverage would not cover you.

You still need to be carefull. In many jurisdictions, bicycles are classified as 'motor vehicles'. If you live in a state or province that does this, your homeowners/renters coverage would not cover you.

"Vehicles" I could believe, but "Motor," no way.

2manybikes, as to the premiums, I don't know. Adam Ford <diesirae@earthlink.net> is something of an old man in the Boston messenger scene and should know. I know Owen McGonagle <bikeboston@aol.com> also has some pretty strong feelings on the matter and could probably talk your friend's ear off about any aspect of the courier requirements.

Thanks again. Bostontrevor. This will help.

You still need to be carefull. In many jurisdictions, bicycles are classified as 'motor vehicles'. If you live in a state or province that does this, your homeowners/renters coverage would not cover you.

Very true. Even between insurance companies in the same state/province, what is covered or excluded can vary greatly.



BTW, bike messengers aren't covered because it would be an occurrence that arises out of a buisness purpose.

Bike messengers would not be covered under their homeowner's or renter's policy, but should be covered under their employer's business liability.

You still need to be carefull. In many jurisdictions, bicycles are classified as 'motor vehicles'. If you live in a state or province that does this, your homeowners/renters coverage would not cover you.

If they ever deny me I will sue. Since insurance is a contract of adhesion, any ambiguity is resolved on the side of the consumer, not the company. Since it seems pretty clear that a common person would not consider a bike to be a "motor" vehicle, I am 99.99% sure I would win. This would be my case:

Judge, here is my bike. Please point to the motor.

Case closed.

If they ever deny me I will sue. Since insurance is a contract of adhesion, any ambiguity is resolved on the side of the consumer, not the company. Since it seems pretty clear that a common person would not consider a bike to be a "motor" vehicle, I am 99.99% sure I would win. This would be my case:

Judge, here is my bike. Please point to the motor.

Case closed.

Insurance companies (and the wording used in their contracts) are heavily mandated by the state/province in which they do business. While insurance contracts can be wordy and frustrating, rarely are they ambiguous.

Depending on the type of policy you purchase, the coverages are essentially either named perils (covered perils are specifically listed; everything else is excluded) or all-risk (everything is covered unless specifically excluded).

If you want to know what you are covered for (not you specifically DogBoy), read your policy jacket. If your insurance company lists a bicycle as a motor vehicle, then it is legal in that state/province to do so. If you failed to inform yourself about a legal contract which you signed, how would the insurance company be found liable? It's up to the consumer to know what their policy does and does not cover. If you read your jacket and find something confusing, talk to your agent or call the company.

DogBoy's got it, Trevor still doesn't get it. If the courier wasn't on the job, then he had no coverage, so what's your point? Cabbies probably have a minimal policy. Why should they have more? They're probably a terrible risk, and pay high premiums to protect very little in the way of assets.

No, you don't get it. Couriers were not required to carry liability insurance at all prior to 2000. A pedestrian stepped out in front of an off-duty courier against the Don't Walk signal. The courier was found at fault though eventually all they could slap him with was failing to wait for the crosswalk to clear when there was a ped in it (even though the ped entered against the signal). $20 fine.

However, despite being a civilian at the time, the city instituted some pretty draconian regulations that make it harder to become a bike courier than a cabbie. Imagine if a cabbie got into an accident on a weekend drive in his family Taurus and as a result the city cracked down on the taxi drivers.

Meanwhile, as to the liability of cabbies vs. couriers are you suggesting that someone driving a V8 Crown Vic needs less coverage than a cyclist or that a bike courier making $20k - $25k a year has more assets? The point is that minimum liability coverage for cabbies and couriers are both mandated by law. Following the witch hunt over the Spring-Gladstone case couriers are required to carry around twice the liability insurance of cabbies. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Not a single death in the last 20 years in this city has been attributed to cyclists. If you run the numbers you'll see that automobiles are much more likely to kill someone, per vehicle, than a bicycle, yet the bike courier carries more insurance.


Do you know who wins any time a cyclist is in court?

Well it wasn't the cyclist in the above case. It wasn't the cyclist in the recent wrongful arrest case here. Is there one answer? Because if there is, it's not the cyclist.


The only way it will happen is if the state passes a law, and requires companies to issue minimal policies, like automotive Assigned Risk policies.

Yup.

While insurance contracts can be wordy and frustrating, rarely are they ambiguous.


I'm assuming you do or have worked in insurance. Do/Did you work in insurance in the US or in Canada? If in the US, I would ask for your take on UM stacking lawsuits, the OEM replacement parts lawsuit against state farm, and untold other cases where the policy clearly stated something but the court found for the plaintiff because a reasonable person could construe it as something different. For instance, If I read a policy that said motor vehicles were excluded but then said a bicycle was a motor vehicle, I could construe that as ambiguity since the exclusion is for motor vehicles and bicycles don't have a motor.


No, you don't get it. Couriers were not required to carry liability insurance at all prior to 2000. A pedestrian stepped out in front of an off-duty courier against the Don't Walk signal. The courier was found at fault though eventually all they could slap him with was failing to wait for the crosswalk to clear when there was a ped in it (even though the ped entered against the signal). $20 fine.

If the courier was off duty at the time, they would have been covered by their renters/HO policy if they had one. The decision to require liability insurance on them seems reasonable to me, and they are most likely covered by a typical GL commercial policy. The limits could be held by the carrier's company and it would apply to the whole group. This is not an excessive premium if they do it that way. If they require each messenger to carry the limits then yeah, that's dumb. Anyway, your story smells a bit, since crossing against a light is jay-walking and if the cyclist was traveling on the roadway and could not respond quickly enough to avoid a collision with another individual who is breaking the law, the law breaker is typically at fault. Do you have any references to this case? I have a feeling the cyclist failed to yield to a pedestrian who had a walk, in which case they are clearly at fault.

At any rate, if there is a law passed that requires me to hold liability insurance, I'm not worried because I already have it. That was my main point.

Anyway, your story smells a bit, since crossing against a light is jay-walking and if the cyclist was traveling on the roadway and could not respond quickly enough to avoid a collision with another individual who is breaking the law, the law breaker is typically at fault. Do you have any references to this case? I have a feeling the cyclist failed to yield to a pedestrian who had a walk, in which case they are clearly at fault.

From Mass General Law, this is the paragraph under which he was cited:


No driver of a vehicle shall pass any other vehicle which has stopped at a marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed.

Mr. Gladstone was moving up on the right, as allowed under Mass law, but failed to yield to the pedestrian. The first paragraph of that section says that the driver shall yield to the ped in the event that there is no functioning walk/don't walk indicator. The implication seems to be that the walk/don't walk is simply advisory though as the second paragraph gives the ped the ROW in any event.

Here's the defendant's summary:


Funny...someone was asking me about the incident recently and I directed
him to some articles, which I reread, reminding me just how much the media
can spin a story if inclined to do so.

For those who don't know (and who care after all these years): I escaped
without jail time. All I got was two $100 licensing violations (which had
no bearing on the facts of the case - something that apparently no one in
the media could grasp), one $20 violation for violating MGL 89.11
(http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/89-11.htm - initially they charged me
with violating the first paragraph, but they changed it to the second
paragraph when they understood the accident took place where there WERE
signals in place - I still disagree with the finding). I also got a
6-figure lawsuit that led to my declaring bankruptcy (I included the $20
ticket among my debts - a symbolic gesture) which took two years longer
than typical bankruptcies take to go through (some people have a very hard
time accepting that they will not get a dime from someone, or his family,
when an unfortunate accident occurs).

Oh yeah, and I had to have my head wound reopened last year since a
fragment of something (possibly a piece of Bill Spring's teeth that got
left behind) was still in there and swelled up.

So no jail time. Just a lot of nuisances and a first hand education in
(just a few of) the failings of the system (and, as I try to remember and
remind folks, a realization that there ARE some police officers who are
thoughtful and recognize these failings and will even alert potential
victims to them - no names, but there are some good folks out there). Of
course, other lessons failed to take hold. My wife and I still refuse to
buy a car, insist on riding bikes, have taught our six year old son to
ride a bike, also use skateboards to get around town regularly, etc.
We'll never learn.

-Jonathan

I'm assuming you do or have worked in insurance. Do/Did you work in insurance in the US or in Canada? If in the US, I would ask for your take on UM stacking lawsuits, the OEM replacement parts lawsuit against state farm, and untold other cases where the policy clearly stated something but the court found for the plaintiff because a reasonable person could construe it as something different.

Yes, I currently work in insurance in the U.S. Since the legal department and mine are worlds apart, I rarely hear of any type of suit within the company (not to mention other legal reasons). I googled some UM lawsuits, and it seems most were based on the fact that the insured wanted to stack between multiple policies, when (at least for the companies I've worked with) stacking only occurs within a single policy. Again, how your coverages apply are (relatively) clearly explained in your policy jacket. I must admit that I completely agree with the State Farm suit though. :)

Much like a politics or religion discussion, I'm sure one could make a convincing argument for either side. Insurance companies' hands are so tied with their contract language, both on the state and federal level, that it's difficult to both protect the company's assets while at the same time making it easy for the average person to fully comprehend.



For instance, If I read a policy that said motor vehicles were excluded but then said a bicycle was a motor vehicle, I could construe that as ambiguity since the exclusion is for motor vehicles and bicycles don't have a motor.

As I see it, depending on the era, you could litigate for just about anything and win, depending on how you present the case, which I think has been proven time and time again. Using this logic, one could (and apparently has) create an entire (and expensive) case out of the definition of the word ambiguity. I say to you, "The Pacific Ocean is blue." Seems like a pretty straight forward statement. But you could take it and say "The Pacific Ocean is blue, and the sky is blue, so the sky must be the Pacific Ocean." Again, at what point does the company draw the line as far as protecting itself and being comprehensible to the public? It's a razor-thin line.

Just remember this; before you decide to litigate for coverage which was/was not laid out in your policy language, roughly $100-$200 of your premium covers lawsuits and fraud. ;)