Feel free to surf to my blog post :: high quality backlinks

Nope, and I’ll tell you why – cars are, in general, way more expensive than bikes and they cause way more damage when they hit something. They also cause more serious accidents than bikes do. Liability insurance was imposed on private (as opposed to commercial) motorized vehicle drivers because of the high rates of accidents coupled with the high amount of damage in the typical accident. Even a fender bender can result in thousands of dollars in repairs and the state wanted to insure that individuals had the ability to pay for the damage they caused. On the other hand, there’s no evidence that damage caused by bicycles is anywhere near the level caused by cars in a typical year.

Additionally, some uninsured motorist policies will cover you getting hit on your bike and an uninsured bike hitting you, you just have to look at your policy. Also – there is such a thing as bike insurance. Additionally, cars kill a fuckload of people every year and bikes do not.

Still, there are cases where a biker’s uninsured motorist policy has paid for damages by hit and run drivers who were clearly shown to be at fault and I would guess that some auto policies will cover damage by a biker who is at fault and not carrying insurance for the accident. Remember, mandatory insurance policies are based on public policy – how do we insure that the least amount of damage is done to the least amount of people? Not, how do we insure that bikes have the same financial responsibilities as cars. If bike accidents become more numerous or more dangerous/expensive then you’ll see bills calling for bikers to carry liability insurance.

And finally, some traffic death statistics food for thought- in 2010, 2,715 people died from “traffic fatalities.” Almost 1600 of those fatalities were people inside of the cars themselves. Over half of those fatalities either involved a BAC of over .08 or speeding. All of this means that in 2010, the fatality rate in CA for traffic deaths was 7.27 per 100,000 people (which is way better than it was 5 years before). 599 of those fatalities were pedestrians and 99 were bicyclists.

Pedestrians are much more likely to be killed by cars, but have fewer restrictions placed on them than bicycles because on their own, pedestrians are less dangerous than bicycles. When a pedestrian crashes into something, the likelihood of damage is lower. Still, sometimes a jogger breaks someone’s hip, leg, etc. when they crash. This doesn’t mean that all joggers should have to carry liability insurance because this isn’t how we decide insurance policy (based on extreme examples as opposed to the aggregate). Additionally, drivers owe pedestrians in CA a “duty of care” whenever they’re in the roadway. This means a pedestrian can be jaywalking while hit and not be at fault if the driver breached this duty (what would a reasonable person have done in the same situation).

You can still sue a bicyclist (or a pedestrian) under tort law and recover, you just won’t be able to recover from an insurer.

You can’t have it both ways… except in the case of bicycles… they are allowed to get away with anything they want.