Thanks, JP. I'm getting some updates from one of Lynn's riding partners, as well. My mind processes the blog differently than many, but at least someone is out there doing something, and for all I know, it's necessary. In this case, the so-called ambulance chasers are probably needed, because no one else gives a hoot, it seems.

Most states have or set adequate limits of insurance coverage for cars that hit other cars, but bicycle accidents involving adults are unique:

1-The fault much more often lies with the car (bicycle accidents with children most often have the child at fault).

2-The injuries much more often exceed the legal minimums of coverage required by law. Quite often they exceed whatever coverage there is, minimum or not.

3-Not all states allow the adult cyclist to bring in his/her own UnderInsured Motorist carrier (UIM). The same protection afforded you if you get hit in your car by an Un-Insured or Under-Insured motorist is not always afforded you on a bike, even though you paid for it and a bike must follow motor vehicle laws. This leaves adult cyclists often responsible for the medical bills, out of work, with not nearly enough compensation. A simple change in statue by adding less than 10 words could fix that, but for some reason, states do not do so.

Why is this?

1-Low Frequency. Cyclist accidents are low frequency, therefore not something legislators address. If they do after situations like this, they get chided by motorists. Politicians do not tend to write bills (or have lobbyists do so) for a small segment of the population unless they can get votes on it.

2-High Severity. The high severity of injuries is in comparison to the high frequency auto injuries, which are much lower, and limits are set for the average accident involving cars. The carriers would have to increase coverage, and premium, and the public drives cars, and they'd complain. Again, no-win for the politicians.

3-Low Constituency. Compare cyclists to vehicle license holders. Not even a drop in the bucket. Legislators have no need to address this cycling issue, the voters have motors.

Insurance Company reluctance is based on 1, 2, and 3. - Insurance companies rate and charge based on probability. This means high frequency, low severity occurrences are easily tracked and predicted, both frequency and severity. Insurance companies also need a market/constituency. There is a large market/constituency for vehicle drivers, but developing a product for cyclists? Not worth their time.

To me, the solution is to allow cyclists to purchase UM and UIM coverage for themselves, limited to riding their bikes, and bar Medical Payment coverage for bike accidents, so they can't collect every time they fall off their bike. Put a minimum level of special damages required, like $1000, and let the cyclists choose their limits (I'd choose $1M). Low-frequency, High-severity occurrences get rated fairly reasonably, and statistics are available to show how many policies would need to be sold to break even, or be profitable. Allow piggy-backing the policies onto the cyclists' auto policies to defray the underwriting and admin expense.

Almost all states require liability coverage for drivers, and all of them allow drivers to elect a level of UM/UIM coverage to add to this. All they'd have to do is allow a cyclist endorsement that allows the driver to have a separate coverage for damages from being hit on a bicycle, for damages higher than the minimum limits required by law. As a cyclist then, you could elect to cover yourself or not, but situations like this would go from being so blatantly unfair to a choice made by the cyclist.