AndrewP

Read this and add your thoughts to the debate.

https://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/st...769018,00.html

I am not sure if this is just to cover personal injury, or property damage (bike) as well.

I dont think it will encourage geurilla bikers, because no biker will intentionally injure themselves,to collect the insurance payout - the risk of death is too great. Bikers with helmets dont ride more recklessly because they wear helmets. Reckless bikers would still be just as reckless without a helmet.

LittleBigMan

Insurance companies seem to be fighting this proposed law because it will raise premiums for their customers. That doesn't make sense to me.

What makes more sense to me is that they fear the new law will cause them to have to pay out more cash.

Ouch !

I was told today by a motorist that it would encourage this to happen. I pointed out that cyclists try everything they can to keep away from cars , without deliberately throwing themselves under the wheels to claim a payout.

webist

Though there may be other reasons behind premium increases, it is generally true that if the pay out more, they raise rates.

Carl

Bikes-N-Drums

I don't understand the nature of this law. It claims to protect those who are STATISTICALLY more prone to....what was it, suffering(?) in certain accidents involving autos - mainly pedestrians and cyclists. Every accident involves mitigating factors. At what point are the circumstances of the accident or the actions of the individual taken into account?
Furthermore, I must regretfully admit that EACH accident I have been involved in on my bicycle was due to something I was or wasn't doing - including a head-on with a guy at a gas station. Even though it would be a nice convenience, why should someone else pay for a mistake that my dumb ass made?
I don't mean to be unruly, but it's stuff like this that makes me glad the US is not part of the "World Court".

webist

It's actually been quite some time now since individual responsibility was seriously argued as a good thing.

Certainly there is someone else you can blame, especially if there's money involved.

Carl

Bikesalot

I think that this new law reflects the reality that in every situation, regardless of fault, the car poses the injury hazard to the cyclist and not the other way around. Therefore, if you choose to drive a car, you have to assume the financial responsibility of that inherent hazard. Even if a cyclist was behaving egregiously when struck by a car, it's always the involvement of the car in the crash that results in injuries. If the driver had chosen to take, say, his or her skateboard instead of the car and still hit the cyclist anyway, it's not likely the cyclist would incur the same level of injury. It's not the driver's behavior that's liable, it's the mere fact that cars can very easily cause grievous harm. The hard reality is that cars, even when piloted responsibly, are a hazard to road users that aren't protected by steel cages. It's right thaty auto users should bear the liability of injuries caused to non-auto users.

Feldman

Bravo, bikesalot--I'd say the same thing. This could be a long-needed start in reducing the rights and freedom of motor vehicle operators which has gone to terrible excess in ours and many other countries.

Bokkie

I can see both sides of the argument. I think most drivers and cyclists do avoid each other by intent. There are those who 'provoke' dissent. The group of cyclists I object to are the irresponsible couriers who do treat all road user and pedestrians with contempt. In London not so long ago, my wife and I stepped off the sidewalk to cross the road (the lights were green for us). We had to suddenly jump backwards because an idiot courier cyclist came speeding around the corner against the one-way flow of traffic. He spat at us "****ing arseholes!" and was gone. So who accepts responsibility for that if he'd hit one or both of us?

If he'd hit a car under the conditions of the proposed law change then I'd say the car driver is exempt from being held accountable, and the cyclist deserves all the injury that was self-inflicted. We did not have a steel-cage around us that day. He at least had some protection. It is I suppose, relative to who-hits-who and with what that matters.