Related question: I understand why the common government policy requiring that people purchase at least as much liability coverage as uninsured motorist coverage makes sense for motor vehicles, because you don't want people to just never buy liability insurance because they know that the other party's UM/UIM coverage will cover any accident they cause. But doesn't that make very little sense for people who want to buy the coverage primarily in order to cover them from uninsured/underinsured/hit-and-run drivers while on their bike? When it's bike vs. car, instead of car vs. car, the potential for damage, injury, and liability is very lopsided. Why shouldn't I be able to purchase a UIM/UM policy specifically designed to cover me when I'm on my bike, with high limits, unbundled from liability coverage? I feel it's much more likely for me to get hit by a hit-and-run or uninsured driver and seriously injured than for me to cause serious injury or property damage to a motorist with my bike.

I'm covered because of my auto insurance policy, but why should people who don't drive be forced to buy an auto insurance liability policy in order to get the UIM/UM coverage that they really need? Perhaps the insurance laws should be revised so that you can unbundle the two, but have the UM/UIM cover you only when you're on a bike if it's unbundled? Even though I have auto insurance, I still might be interested in purchasing a separate policy of that sort in order to keep the two separate (for example, I might want even higher UM/UIM to cover me when I'm on my bike than in a car, because I think the potential for me incurring serious injury in any such incident is higher and I think the potential for someone to pull a hit-and-run is higher). Is there just not a big enough perceived market for it for the insurance companies to bother with offering it?