4 ms·
And just what would be the point of bike insurance cover? Car insurance is primarily for property damage and/or medical issues. When's the last time you saw a b
by ajtaylor 12y ago
And just what would be the point of bike insurance cover? Car insurance is primarily for property damage and/or medical issues. When's the last time you saw a bike cause serious property damage? And it's obvious that short of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian (rare but it happens) it's the cyclist that's going to need the medical attention - not the car driver.
It's an unpopular idea because it makes no sense. It's needless paperwork, expense and bureaucracy for no real world benefit.
- korzun 12y agoPoints were already mentioned else where so I will not iterate over them again. Last time? When the cyclist took off most of my paint with his handle bars and pedals trying to squeeze in. $2500 in body work out of my pocket. Insurance is not only there to protect other people, it's also there to protect you. That needless paperwork you speak off is exactly why it works.
- ajtaylor 12y agoIs your insurance deductible $2500? If you had full insurance, as I assume you would from your comment, why not claim it? After all, it's there to protect you too. You can substitute cyclist for uninsured driver and the situation would be the same. Registration is the bulk of the "needless paperwork" I was referring to. Cyclists get that hurled at them pretty frequently (just this weekend to be exact), with the idea that rego fees cover road costs. And of course it's simply not true over most of the world. The bulk of money for roads comes from non-registration related sources.