6 ms·

Here in Belgium, when a car hits a bicyclist, the car driver's insurance will always pay for bodily damage of the bicyclist, even if the bicyclist is at fault.

• fortes 16y ago
  Well, there's a huge asymmetry between a car hitting a bike and vice-versa. So I'd guess it's not that the bike can't be held responsible, but that the potential downside for a biker is death, while the car would likely just suffer some dents. Whether or not that causes reckless behavior on the biker's part, I don't know. But I can imagine the argument.
  • alaithea 16y ago
    I wouldn't want to get hit by a car on my bike no matter who was going to pay for it.
    • fortes 16y ago
      Clearly, but you might relax a little if you believe that drivers are more cautious due to the insurance laws.
• dwiel 16y ago
  Biking by itself is not that dangerous. Biking near cars is dangerous. If you want to drive around in a 2 ton vehicle with the power to kill, you better damn be responsible for it. Also, there is an imbalance in incentives to not get in an accident. If a car and a bike get in a wreck, the person driving has almost no risk of injury where the person on bike is at risk of dying or getting seriously injured, depending on the situation. This law gives people driving a little more reason to be more careful. Also, keep in mind in the US, if a car hits a pedestrian, the driver's insurance always pays no matter whose at fault.
  • run4yourlives 16y ago
    Biking by itself is not that dangerous It is if you are a pedestrian. This is also typical of a cyclist's attitude that their vehicle is the only one that matters; impossible to do any harm - it is most certainly possible for a cyclist to cause an accident between two other vehicles that is caused by their lack of due care. (e.g. car A hits car B instead of hitting cyclist C that is running a red.) You're suggesting C walks as if nothing happened, I'm suggesting that it is an irresponsible law that allows this. If you want to drive around in a 2 ton vehicle with the power to kill, you better damn be responsible for it. I'm not suggesting that a car driver should not be at fault. I'm suggesting that all individuals on the road be held to the same standard. Also, there is an imbalance in incentives to not get in an accident. I realize this, which is why I provided my example, specifically. Do you not agree that the same imbalance exists for the driver of the mini?
    • olefoo 16y ago
      In your somewhat contrived example the cyclist could certainly be cited for reckless behavior.
      • run4yourlives 16y ago
        but, the car drivers would pay the increased premium as if they drove their car into a wall. I have a problem with that.
    • alaithea 16y ago
      From a legal and personal responsibility standpoint, the law is lopsided, but it may act as a deterrent to driving in the first place, thereby encouraging bike use. I think that's what the OP of this thread was trying to get at.
      • run4yourlives 16y ago
        I don't think encouraging behaviour of any sort should trump personal responsibility and (more importantly) legal liability.
• roc 16y ago
  I'm not seeing a huge difference between that and the state of vehicle laws in my home state (Michigan). Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another vehicle does, you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency. I have a friend who actually did get a ticket for hitting a car that ran a red light. Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend.
  • run4yourlives 16y ago
    Red light accidents are tricky and each one is assessed on its particulars. Usually, regardless of the other vehicle's actions, if you are judged to be able to avoid an accident, and you don't, you are being careless, hence at fault. A lot of jurisdictions have "no-fault" legislation however that gets in the way with regards to insurance.
  • detst 16y ago
    > Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another vehicle does [...] That's not true. Recently, I was a passenger in a car that stopped very quickly and made a turn into a restaurant. We were hit from behind and the driver of our car received a ticket because it was an erratic, unsafe maneuver. > you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency It's possible to do this and still hit the car in front of you. I hit someone in front of me trying to make an illegal U-turn. I tried to avoid it but still hit them. They received a ticket. > Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend. I don't know the specifics but your friend probably got the ticket because it was determined by the cop after hearing both sides of the story that it was reasonable for him to see the other car coming. He may have been determined at fault in the context traffic laws but not in terms of who pays for it because Michigan is a no-fault insurance state. I don't see how this is anything like Michigan.
• Luc 16y ago
  The law is more complex than I perhaps made it seem. The car's insurer can for example sue the bicyclist afterwards to get some money back if they think they can prove something (but they have to pay first, that's the default). There's also a provision that it doesn't apply for knowingly getting into a dangerous situation (but, on the other hand, if a bicyclist runs a red light thinking it's safe, this provision wouldn't be triggered). I haven't heard anyone call it ridiculous before, so it's probably down to me not explaining it very well or not knowing all the details. It's also not a law tailor-made for bicyclists, it applies to all 'vulnerable road users', i.e. pedestrians, skaters, also passengers in cars...
  • run4yourlives 16y ago
    Thanks, that addresses some of the things in my response.