I started thinking. Unless your auto insurance covers you on a bike. For those like myself that either, don't drive, or no longer drive. What is the point of having insurance for, when on a bike. Because of the propensity of law enforcement to cite the cyclist. Regardless of who's fault it is, in an accident.

Insurance for what?

You already carry medical insurance which pays the doctors and hospital. Granted that the auto policy might have smaller co-pays, but the overall reality is that it's more about accounting, ie. who pays your medical or the auto insurer.

Then there's the liability side, in case you get sued for damage the other guy claims you caused. Insurance might be nice, but how much damage can a bicycle cause? And regardless of the police report, it's rare for a driver to sue a bicyclist over a collision.

Now we have the last part, which is about compensating you for your pain, suffering and/or long term damage. The protection your own auto policy might provide is fairly limited unless you pay for added protection. You can also buy a stand alone or wrap around disability policy.

But in a serious accident with serious consequences, the police report is only a tiny piece of the puzzle, It's not binding on anybody, and when the stakes are high litigators have a dcent track record getting compensation for their clients regardless of what a police report may say.

Lastly, as I say here all to often, it shouldn't be about fault finding or insurance. Focus on assurance, meaning avoiding the kinds of things you insure against entirely.

auto insurance covers autos. not bikes. I'd talk to your agent regarding uninsured motorist coverage and/or what your homeowner's policy covers...

Insurance is intended to protect the insured against loss, primarily the property of the insured, or to protect the assets of the insured against loss due to liability -- the latter of which is generally determined by the courts.

What's the risk of loss when you're riding a bicycle? Determine that and you'll know which insurance to get.

1. If your primary risk is to your health -- usually loss of income due to injury/illness -- insure for that.
2. If your risk includes loss of personal property in excess of easy replacement value -- such as a multi-thousand dollar bicycle -- insure for that.
3. And if you have sufficient assets that #1 and #2 are significant concerns, you may also be at risk of liability and may need insurance to protect your assets against lawsuits from folks who hit you with their vehicle and then sue you for denting their fender and causing them pain and suffering in the form of feeling somewhat miffed, peevish and semi-guilty for having struck you.

The problem occurs when the government complicates and obfuscates the concept by making insurance mandatory. Arguably, mandatory insurance is no longer insurance. It's a bond, surety, hidden tax or something else, but it isn't insurance.

Texas acknowledges this verbal mendacity by technically referring to mandatory vehicle "insurance" as "proof of financial responsibility" and accepts a surety bond in lieu of "insurance". Arguably this is a good thing, as it establishes a precedent for creative and legal surety bonds in situations where genuine insurance isn't readily available.

So don't mistake mandatory minimum "insurance" for the type of real insurance intended to protect your assets -- your health, property, and valuables against liability. Mandatory minimum "insurance" is for serfs like me who have poor health, no assets and little or nothing to lose other than the prospect of imprisonment for failure to pay hidden taxes, surcharges, fees (as in fealty), pre-paid penalties and various forms of sanctioned bribes for engaging in activities that are lawful for free people but which the government would prefer we not do, as such activities do not directly benefit the feudal lords.

All of that is correct from the usual perspective. But I am referring to the hostility of law enforcement towards bikers/cyclists' being on the road. Automatically(or almost automatically) finding fault with the biker/cyclist. Even if the motorist was really at fault. Resulting in an increase in the insurance rate for the personal policy.

Well, consider this, from a bike injury lawyer in southern California;

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2015...se-get-r-done/

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2015...-thyself-more/

You base your assumptions on unproven and inaccurate facts.

First of all, the police report isn't binding on anybody as it's based on nothing but what was reported to the officer who wrote it. About the only useful info would be the names and addresses of the involved parties and hopefully any eyewitnesses. Rarely, it might include some verifiable factual data, such as skid marks, or an accurate(?) physical description of the damage and reported injuries. So, given that it's mostly hearsay, the courts tend to give it minimal weight.

As for the assumptions that bicycle events drive up the cost of non-auto policies, consider that the totality of bike accidents isn't enough in the scheme of things to affect anything.

My auto policy covers my bike even in the case of me screwing up and solo crashing. The deductible is about 50% of replacement cost, but better than nothing.

Not exactly. Your bike is one thing. If your bike is damaged in an accident, you likely are "damaged" too. And your auto insurance can help. Really, do read this; https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2015...se-get-r-done/. The guy might be a lawyer, but he's also an accomplished amateur racer, the blog post is short, easy to read and understand, and funny too (a bonus)!

So I asked my agent, here's some detail based on my situation and the types of insurance I'm carrying. YMMV and please confirm with your insurance agent(s) for what applies to you:

I don't get it: you "either don't drive or no longer drive," but you still have auto insurance?

For me, it works like this, if I get in an accident involving a motorist, with me riding a bike:

I get damaged. Health insurance covers, maybe auto insurance as well, both will subrogate payment and go after motorists insurance co. or motorist for reimbursement.

Bike gets damaged. Home/Apt content insurance covers, subrogates as above.

And if a claim is filed on your auto insurace? I'd rather they use their legal resources to fight such a claim than have to fight an insurance company on my own...

While I bookmarked both links for a further read. That I will read later. But it only goes to the importance of having insurance. Not the treatment from law enforcement.
At first, that is true, about the police report. But the way you describe it. A police report is never 'entered in evidence' in court and what a police officer has to say, is just hearsay. No wonder officers' need body cameras'. Not only to catch 'dirty' beat cops. But to also backup 'clean' beat cops.

Here are a number of examples of what I am getting at:

https://isolatecyclist.bostonbiker.or...ming-cyclists/

San Francisco Police, Bicyclists Clash Over Fatal Collisions | News Fix | KQED News

Chicago jury finds for injured bicyclist ticketed by police | Bike Law

It isn't only in the U.S.

Traffic police given target to fine 10 cyclists a month | The Times

https://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1801/

Police repression of cyclists in Montreal | John S. Allen's Bicycle Blog


You missed what I said in parentheses. I don't drive.

But The rest of your answer was needed information on the insurance end, as to coverage. But it still doesn't address the law enforcement pre-determined response of finding the cyclist at fault. Instead of doing a complete investigation for any traffic violations.

Which affect a person's insurance rate.

This sounds like an assumption/hypothetical, not fact. Can you show any real life examples?

Read my previous post with a 'few' supplied links. It is no assumption.

There's a material difference between first hand experience testimony and hearsay. I never said that the officer's report isn't received into evidence, but it's only material as to what he saw and heard personally. Since officers are rarely on the scene when a collision happens, all they can testify to is their own observations of the scene ie. skid marks, the positions of the vehicles, and their respective damage, and information gathered from witnesses and other emergency personnel.

Other than that, he can only relate what the various participants told him at then scene, and while that might be used to impeach someone, it's not material as direct testimony which can more properly be received in court directly from the people involved.

Body cameras wouldn't help or hurt since they, like the officer, were not likely to record the event in question.

So, I'm not saying cops are liars, only that they can't testify to things they don't know first hand.

Let me clarify....can you show any real life examples of a non driving bicyclist's insurance going up because of a accident report or a simple rules infraction, no injury ticket on a bicycle?

As to hostility by LEO... I think if varies and it also varies by what the general public is asking of the police. I know in San Francisco the police have been called to be stricter in enforcement due to public demand because of stop sign and red light running by cyclists (2 pedestrian fatalities by red light running cyclist in the last 3-5 years)

As in what kind of insurance "goes up" for a bicyclist, no matter what the bicyclist does on a bicycle? Sounds like someone is fretting about a non existent problem.

Absolutely agree about the treatment of law enforcement. I'm addressing the concerns of the OP about the point of insurance and what it can do for a cyclist.

Yes. Your health insurance is your primary coverage. BUT, if you are hit by a driver, it is the drivers fault and you are awarded a bodily injury settlement, your health insurance company WILL file a lien to recover that money.

That sux for two reasons, first, why have you been paying health insurance premiums if your provider covers it's payouts by taking your injury settlement? Second, be aware that most drivers carry minimal bodily injury coverage. You could receive a $10-15k settlement from the drivers insurance company and that is ALL! In the meantime you are incurring all kinds of costs and your health insurance company is taking the only settlement available for your injury.

Just check out your UM/UIM insurance. That's all. It's probably the cheapest thing on your auto insurance policy and it can pay enormous benefits if hit by a negligent driver.

I am the OP.

Oh. Hey there!

Perhaps counseling would be more productive than insurance.

Clever, not.

I marginally found what I was looking for

How Police Car Accident Reports Affect Insurance Claims

[h=2]The Police Report and Your Injury Claim[/h]A few days after the accident, once a claim has been filed with the insurance company, a claims adjuster will begin collecting statements from you, their insured, the passengers, and any witnesses. Even though the police report may clearly show their insured was at fault, the adjuster still has to investigate the claim.
Police officers aren't infallible. A thorough investigation by a claims adjuster may uncover something the responding officer missed. But in most cases, the police accident report is the deciding document for determining fault. It's usually accepted by the adjuster as the most accurate assessment of the accident.
Police reports are very persuasive in personal injury claims. Unlike the adjuster, the police officer was actually at the scene of the accident. Their training enabled them to properly evaluate the accident and its causes, especially each driver's fault.
Claims adjusters can disagree with police officers, but they usually don't. If the adjuster disagrees with the officer's assessment, and the case ends up in court, there's a 90 percent chance the jury will rely on the officer's opinion. A police officer's testimony has automatic credibility with a jury.

This is from a major American city on the West Coast: Victims Share Tales of SFPD Anti-Bike Bias and Hostility at City Hall | Streetsblog San Francisco

This guy lives near me, and knows first-hand about police hostility: Driver assaults bicyclist, police ticket bicyclist: The video - Greater Greater Washington

+1.

You asked a question about a particular issue due to largely imagined concerns over a few isolated events.

I gave my honest opinion in a respectful manner based on the comments you provided.