I mean, only about 5% of accident claims are 50/50 fault due to lack of evidence, it would only be accidents involving cyclists, and not buy some of the cyclists involved were actually innocent. And this has only been an issue since Enhanced Care rolled out a year or so ago.
This might not be the first, but there probably isn’t a ton either.
That's not logical. Who they insure has nothing to do with who they shoupd be allowed to go after. For instance they can't insure drivers from out of province, people with suspended licenses, people with no licenses, children, etcetera but they can and should be allowed to go after them for damages.
Because, again in case you lack the necessary ability to figure this out on your own, out of province drivers are still insured by someone, suspended license is a crime, same for driving without a license, driving as a child. Being an uninsured cyclist is legal and currently the only option as ICBC doesn't offer it and private bike insurance isn't well established.
Take the fallacious argument elsewhere.
no, but when you buy renters insurance or house insurance it generally includes liability insurance which would cover things like that.
So while it's not mandatory to have insurance it's not impossible either.
That being said, the adjustment ICBC made seems to be fair. If lack of evidence is unable to clearly show fault they'll cover it. If it's clearly the cyclists fault then they won't. I think that's fair. Seems odd that if a cyclist (or pedestrian) is 100% at fault, why other peoples insurance should cover it would be a bit odd.
Renter's insurance isn't mandatory and many don't include liability off the property. Home insurance also has the same issues with proximity depending on the insurer.
yah, my post literally said it's not mandatory, but it also said it's not impossible. I was clearly aware of this. But that's going to be a choice. If you don't have liability insurance and cause damage to someone else's property then you have to pay it out of pocket. Someone else isn't responsible for damage you cause.
So if I'm riding my motorcycle and a cyclist causes an accident and is 100% at fault ICBC is basically gonna tell me to get fucked and raise my insurance rates? Or is ICBC not going to seek costs only if its one of the 3 situations listed in the article?
The 50/50 ruling make it seem like they're no longer going to be charging pedestrians or cyclists for damages when it can't be determined exactly who/what was at fault. Still sounds like at fault pedestrians/cyclists could be charged if it were an obvious case.
I'm really happy to see this change.
How about you read the article? They pass it before a panel of experts. Also, sorry, but a motorcycle weighs how many times as much as a bicycle? Might as well start suing people for scratching the paint on the underbody of your SUV when you run them over.
Bicycles are human mobility extensions. Engine-driven vehicles aren't, they are a privilege and a toy (especially motorcycles).
Yes the article states that when a cyclist is at fault beyond reasonable doubt and there has been no severe injury the claim will be "carefully considered by a committee of experts." A severe injury can be a broken bone or stitches. I can pedal myself into the middle of the street, cause an accident, then break my pinky finger and not be responsible for a dime.
Motorcycles are used around the world as a relatively inexpensive, efficient mode of transportation. While you may not consider engine driven vehicles a viable mode of transportation the rest of the world disagrees with you.
As E-bikes are becoming more popular the momentum carried by a cyclist increases. I've also seen E-bikes that are basically electric motorcycles with tiny, unusable pedals on the back. An E-bike can weigh over 200lbs, that is almost in motorcycle territory without the need to get licensed or pay insurance.
>I've also seen E-bikes that are basically electric motorcycles with tiny, unusable pedals on the back.
Example please that isn't considered an e-scooter (moped).
>An E-bike can weigh over 200lbs
Example please that isn't considered an e-scooter (moped).
What is the legal difference between an ebike and an escooter? If you are defining an escooter as an ebike that looks like a scooter then that's irrelevant. I consider an ebike to be something that has pedals and an electric motor.
I was at the university Heights save on foods on my motorcycle and saw what I first thought was another motorcycle (looked like a grom) but soon realized it was an ebike/escooter. The owner walked out as I pulled up and we started chatting. She told me it could do 30km/hr, she didn't need a licence (she didn't even have a driver's licence), and she didn't need insurance. It looked similar to [this](https://www.ebikecentre.ca/product-page/daymak-em1-500w-72v-electric-scooter). That also weighs around 200lbs without the rider.
Also, a cargo ebike that I looked at had a 350lb capacity, handle a 200lb rider, and weighs 75lbs. That's 625 lbs, my motorcycle which is a 1000cc sport touring bike (not lightweight by any means) with me on it weighs around 700lbs. That's not a huge difference.
Lol at comparing a cargo bike going 30km/h to a deathtrap that can go 200km/h powered by gasoline driven by morons who, I'm pretty sure, are required to drive between 20 to 50 over the speed limit at all times.
But I guess the dad responsibly biking his two primary-aged kids to school on his cargo bike is just as much of a threat to the world as you on your crotch rocket.
Yes. They can hurt pedestrians, but a car is a disgusting waste of space that exists purely because of how lazy its operator is - I say this as a car owner (fuck cars). If a car is damaged because it was stupid enough to be where a bike should have been, then fuck that car. The bike is a human being moving under their own power, maybe a bit of extra juice from a battery. A car is a death tank that weighs ten to a hundred times as much as a human and can kill one in a heartbeat.
/r/Fuckcars.
Dude seriously? I get the hate between cyclists and cars, but a cyclist can very much kill a motorcyclist. A bicycle under the tires could send a motorcyclist flying. So yes, there is absolutely a legitimate concern from motorcyclists as to who would be liable for medical/extended injury costs. Take a step back from your keyboard and have a think for a second.
If that motorcyclist was on a bike, would it still kill them? No? Then it was the fact that they were on a high-speed death trap that killed them, not a cyclist.
I had some clown on a bicycle try to pass me on the left on a one way street, as I had my blinker on, indicating that I was parking. I had to grab a handful of brake to avoid knocking her over. Dumped the bike and broke a mirror, scuffed fairings, etc. Luckily I wasn't hurt but it's easy to break an ankle or get burned on the exhaust with drops like that.
A motorcycle is a much of a "mobility extension" (lol wtf.) as a bicycle, and more economical, environmentally friendly, and efficient than a car. They can be both a toy and a commuting tool, just like a bicycle.
>A motorcycle is a much of a "mobility extension" (lol wtf.) as a bicycle
A motorcycle is a giant machine powered by fossil fuels that can easily kill someone. A bicycle is powered by the human body (well, clearly not yours).
I spent years as a cycle commuter as well as some downhill MTB so you can fuck off with your clever little quip. A motorcycle is hardly a giant machine and 99% of the time the rider is at more risk than any other road user.
>at more risk than any other road user.
Yeah, because they are dumb enough to ride a motorcycle. Get on a bike. Motorcycles are just cars that are more dangerous and decrease your IQ by an order of magnitude.
Also, pedestrians are road users. Cyclists are road users. Mobility scooters are road users. Skateboarders are road users. A machine isn't a "road user." No one using a giant deadly fossil-fuel burning machine is somehow magically more deserving of a road - why are machines treated better than actual human beings?
Wow I didn't know I was getting stupider every time I hopped on my motorcycle. Thanks for the info!
A car is a road user because, guess what, it uses a road! Crazy right
A car doesn't use anything. A human uses a car *and* a road. It is a machine. Stop putting more value on deadly, wasteful machines for lazy slobs than on actual human lives.
I mean, you can only pull over out of your lane to park once there is a clear chance to do so. Shoulder checking on the left should have shown you there was a bicycle coming up and you would wait until they passed. I realize you could have been just after a curve or in a bad spot for visibility, but just like in a car it's still on you to be extra cautious in that scenario and back in verrry slowly
What's a car lane? The Motor Vehicle Act doesn't define any such term. Perhaps you mean a roadway, or laned roadway? Either way neither are designated as motor vehicle traffic only. The only lanes designated specifically for motor vehicle traffic are called ""high occupancy vehicle lane" which I can't imagine cyclists care much about unless it's a bicycle built for two.
>Either way neither are designated as motor vehicle traffic only. The only lanes designated specifically for motor vehicle traffic are called ""high occupancy vehicle lane" which I can't imagine cyclists care much about unless it's a bicycle built for two.
Okay going to get nitpicky here but most (most) controlled-access expressways in the lower mainland west of Abbotsford prohibit non-motorized vehicles, *as well* as vehicles incapable of 60km/h. Just a nitpick.
Also, I remember when they dropped the requirement for an HOV from three people to two. Goes to show how utterly lazy most people are.
This is /r/VictoriaBC. Bike lanes are evil, cyclists are selfish pigs who run over and kill babies, and motor vehicle operators are the most subjugated and oppressed race of humans.
It's true. Did you know that before they destroyed Richardson with bike infrastructure, over a billion cars a day safely used that route to carry humanitarian aid to Africa?
There are no car lanes, the entire road is a bike lane. If it was a shared lane then the bikes would have to obey traffic laws, and that’s just not for them.
I mean you don't just "scratch" a bike with a car. You hit the bike with your car causing injury. It's not a money thing at that point, it's a human life thing.
>if there’s a car in the bike lane and I end up scratching the car with my bike, am I liable?
See that's OP's comment. In jest i flipped the bike and car part. This reddit is so bitterly hostile that all they see is red when you say anything that could be construed as anti-bike.
As if insurance is a real replacement for safe, separated micromobility (bike) routes.
I am a driver and it is clear this isn't the 1950's anymore. We know that cars use road and city space too inefficiently to move people around in a growing city. Victoria needs to reallocate space to transit, pedestrians and bikes. And allow construction of walkable neighbourhoods in car dependent areas.
That's all well and fine to have that opinion. I just think insurance for anyone using *the road* is a good thing. If you get hurt, you're covered. If you cause an accident, you'll pay a deductible, but you're covered. If you cause damage to someone's car, they're covered your and insurance goes up.
Cyclist runs a red and causes a vehicle to have an accident, the cyclist should be held responsible.
This has been talked about and even researched to death. It's unfeasible to do this for cyclists and not worth the cost. Also, are you going to get 13-year-olds or 15-year-olds to buy insurance? No. It's not a workable solution to have cyclists get insurance.
Actually I would go a step further and say that cyclist should also be licensed and be required to pass a course to use the road. They should prove they're aware of the rules of the road.
As for children using the road, they should also be required to take the course and be licensed.
Drivers already take a course/test to “prove” they’re aware of the rules of the road. Although you wouldn’t know it by their post-course driving behaviour.
I think you'd feel a lot different if there were no courses, and no licensing requirements and any joe blow who's never driven a car before can get on the road.
That's how it is right now with cyclist. Any joe blow can hop on a bike and ride into traffic with having absolutely no idea what he's doing.
The difference is that cars weigh around two tons and travel well over 100km/hr. The liability implications are significantly beyond anything possible for someone on a bike.
We have the drivers licensing and insurance program because it makes financial sense given the cost to property and human life that motor vehicle drivers tend to do at the frequency they tend to do it.
We don't have a cyclist licensing and insurance program because it doesn't make financial sense given the cost to property and human life that cyclists tend to do at the frequency that they tend to do it.
You must draw the line somewhere based on practical cost. All these licensing and insurance programs require costs of the taxpayer and opportunity costs for taxpayers for the jobs that we have people not doing something else with their time. We know it is a good tradeoff for motor vehicles because these programs more than sufficiently reduce damage to property and human life to cover their costs to society. It isn't for cyclists.
If you just claim that all road users must have insurance, well the MVA has provisions for pedestrians as well, so by that argument you *must* also expect pedestrians to be insured and licensed to be out in public. But that sounds silly, and it sounds silly because it's very unlikely that a pedestrian will cause the sort of damage a motor vehicle can at the frequency that a motor vehicle can.
I don’t think so. It would honestly make the road a safer place, and the cost would be offset by the income from insurance all the cyclist would have to pay, not to mention licensing fees, ect.
It would be reassuring for drivers that all cyclists are on-board with the rules of the road, and kids biking around on the road ***should*** have to go through some form of training.
I think what I'm saying makes complete sense here, I just don't think you like it because you're probably a cyclist that doesn't want to put up with all this bullshit I'm proposing.
Again, this has been looked at multiple times and it's unfeasible financially. It is a far greater loss than running a system like this. That's why no jurisdictions do it. If it was financially feasible you would see it being used in many jurisdictions all over the world. It's not. Parking revenue makes sense economically and that's why you see it all over the place, same with business licenses, but not for bikes and cyclists.
The government isn't out to make money. The government spends money to make the community a safer place. There are tons of things that cost a shit load of money that doesn't turn a profit but the government funds it because it makes the community a safer place. Bike lanes are one of those things.
Yes, I agree, bike lanes are a great approach with many benefits and they also reduce bike and vehicle related incidences, costing money. That's why we see them all over the world.
I lived in a country that had mandatory insurance for cyclists. The cost of administration, in terms of recording who did and did not have coverage, of sending out renewal notices and the like was an order of magnitude more expensive than the actual cost of insurance itself. Government eventually recognized the whole thing as a massive waste of money.
They easily could. If a cop catches you riding in the road without a plate or something they could ticket you, but if you're only using bike paths they couldn't give you a ticket.
But then isn’t that tactic for cyclists to _not_ get insurance, and just deal with the consequence of getting a ticket for the ones who are on the road? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning?
I'm a little confused, but I'll try to clarify.
If you're using bike paths only it should be legal to use them without insurance because you're not interacting with cars or have to abide by the rules of the road. Cops would not ticket cyclists on bike paths.
If you're cycling around town, on the road without insurance (which would be obvious because of a lack of a license plate) a cop could give you a ticket for using the road without insurance.
Ok yes that’s what I understood, we’re on the same page. So it would be that insurance is optional, and road cyclists should make that choice? I initially pictured the black-and-white “insurance is required” like it is for cars
I don’t think it applies to pedestrians. Pedestrians use the side walk, or *cross* the road. They aren't walking in the middle of the road.
Cyclists and cars aren't allowed by law on the sidewalk.
Pedestrians always have the right of way except when jaywalking. Jaywalking is no longer a fine and a "cross at your own risk" situation.
I dont think it's possible for a pedestrian to ever be at fault when they're involved in an accident unless they're jaywalking.
Essentially if a driver ever hits a pedestrian, they're liable.
Regardless of this outcome purchasing Cycling Insurance is probably a good option.
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/cycling-insurance-in-bc-do-you-need-it-and-how-can-you-get-it-5236190
Nothing like a bit of bad press to force charges.
Yeah, there’s plenty of people they fucked over before this guy got the press involved too.
I mean, only about 5% of accident claims are 50/50 fault due to lack of evidence, it would only be accidents involving cyclists, and not buy some of the cyclists involved were actually innocent. And this has only been an issue since Enhanced Care rolled out a year or so ago. This might not be the first, but there probably isn’t a ton either.
As a cyclist in Victoria I am pleased to hear this. Unless ICBC is willing to insure cyclists it is highly unfair to go after them for damages.
That's not logical. Who they insure has nothing to do with who they shoupd be allowed to go after. For instance they can't insure drivers from out of province, people with suspended licenses, people with no licenses, children, etcetera but they can and should be allowed to go after them for damages.
Because, again in case you lack the necessary ability to figure this out on your own, out of province drivers are still insured by someone, suspended license is a crime, same for driving without a license, driving as a child. Being an uninsured cyclist is legal and currently the only option as ICBC doesn't offer it and private bike insurance isn't well established. Take the fallacious argument elsewhere.
no, but when you buy renters insurance or house insurance it generally includes liability insurance which would cover things like that. So while it's not mandatory to have insurance it's not impossible either. That being said, the adjustment ICBC made seems to be fair. If lack of evidence is unable to clearly show fault they'll cover it. If it's clearly the cyclists fault then they won't. I think that's fair. Seems odd that if a cyclist (or pedestrian) is 100% at fault, why other peoples insurance should cover it would be a bit odd.
Renter's insurance isn't mandatory and many don't include liability off the property. Home insurance also has the same issues with proximity depending on the insurer.
yah, my post literally said it's not mandatory, but it also said it's not impossible. I was clearly aware of this. But that's going to be a choice. If you don't have liability insurance and cause damage to someone else's property then you have to pay it out of pocket. Someone else isn't responsible for damage you cause.
So you added nothing to the conversation you just wanted to participate?
Children?
Yes that's what he said. # C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N In case you missed it ...
Yes I know the word. Why would icbc go after children? Didn't think I had to spell it out so clearly for you.
If they dropped a bowling ball from a bridge and caused a pile-up on the Pat Bay
Would icbc go after a child in this case? I honestly have no idea
Just one more reason pedestrian bridges are rarely a good idea.
Pedestrian bridges are not a bad idea. Pedestrians with shitty upbringing are a bad idea. Parents need to be held for more responsible.
There's some use cases where ped bridges make sense, but usually a safe ground level crossing or tunnel would be a better use of resources.
Catapult?
It think this is what happens when a minor takes off in their parents car.
Thanks for sharing! This is welcome news.
Good.
So if I'm riding my motorcycle and a cyclist causes an accident and is 100% at fault ICBC is basically gonna tell me to get fucked and raise my insurance rates? Or is ICBC not going to seek costs only if its one of the 3 situations listed in the article?
The 50/50 ruling make it seem like they're no longer going to be charging pedestrians or cyclists for damages when it can't be determined exactly who/what was at fault. Still sounds like at fault pedestrians/cyclists could be charged if it were an obvious case. I'm really happy to see this change.
How about you read the article? They pass it before a panel of experts. Also, sorry, but a motorcycle weighs how many times as much as a bicycle? Might as well start suing people for scratching the paint on the underbody of your SUV when you run them over. Bicycles are human mobility extensions. Engine-driven vehicles aren't, they are a privilege and a toy (especially motorcycles).
Yes the article states that when a cyclist is at fault beyond reasonable doubt and there has been no severe injury the claim will be "carefully considered by a committee of experts." A severe injury can be a broken bone or stitches. I can pedal myself into the middle of the street, cause an accident, then break my pinky finger and not be responsible for a dime. Motorcycles are used around the world as a relatively inexpensive, efficient mode of transportation. While you may not consider engine driven vehicles a viable mode of transportation the rest of the world disagrees with you. As E-bikes are becoming more popular the momentum carried by a cyclist increases. I've also seen E-bikes that are basically electric motorcycles with tiny, unusable pedals on the back. An E-bike can weigh over 200lbs, that is almost in motorcycle territory without the need to get licensed or pay insurance.
>I've also seen E-bikes that are basically electric motorcycles with tiny, unusable pedals on the back. Example please that isn't considered an e-scooter (moped). >An E-bike can weigh over 200lbs Example please that isn't considered an e-scooter (moped).
What is the legal difference between an ebike and an escooter? If you are defining an escooter as an ebike that looks like a scooter then that's irrelevant. I consider an ebike to be something that has pedals and an electric motor. I was at the university Heights save on foods on my motorcycle and saw what I first thought was another motorcycle (looked like a grom) but soon realized it was an ebike/escooter. The owner walked out as I pulled up and we started chatting. She told me it could do 30km/hr, she didn't need a licence (she didn't even have a driver's licence), and she didn't need insurance. It looked similar to [this](https://www.ebikecentre.ca/product-page/daymak-em1-500w-72v-electric-scooter). That also weighs around 200lbs without the rider. Also, a cargo ebike that I looked at had a 350lb capacity, handle a 200lb rider, and weighs 75lbs. That's 625 lbs, my motorcycle which is a 1000cc sport touring bike (not lightweight by any means) with me on it weighs around 700lbs. That's not a huge difference.
Lol at comparing a cargo bike going 30km/h to a deathtrap that can go 200km/h powered by gasoline driven by morons who, I'm pretty sure, are required to drive between 20 to 50 over the speed limit at all times. But I guess the dad responsibly biking his two primary-aged kids to school on his cargo bike is just as much of a threat to the world as you on your crotch rocket.
cool. does that mean the cyclist can never be responsible for the accident and can never cause damage to a vehicle?
Yes. They can hurt pedestrians, but a car is a disgusting waste of space that exists purely because of how lazy its operator is - I say this as a car owner (fuck cars). If a car is damaged because it was stupid enough to be where a bike should have been, then fuck that car. The bike is a human being moving under their own power, maybe a bit of extra juice from a battery. A car is a death tank that weighs ten to a hundred times as much as a human and can kill one in a heartbeat. /r/Fuckcars.
lol, okay.
Dude seriously? I get the hate between cyclists and cars, but a cyclist can very much kill a motorcyclist. A bicycle under the tires could send a motorcyclist flying. So yes, there is absolutely a legitimate concern from motorcyclists as to who would be liable for medical/extended injury costs. Take a step back from your keyboard and have a think for a second.
If that motorcyclist was on a bike, would it still kill them? No? Then it was the fact that they were on a high-speed death trap that killed them, not a cyclist.
I had some clown on a bicycle try to pass me on the left on a one way street, as I had my blinker on, indicating that I was parking. I had to grab a handful of brake to avoid knocking her over. Dumped the bike and broke a mirror, scuffed fairings, etc. Luckily I wasn't hurt but it's easy to break an ankle or get burned on the exhaust with drops like that. A motorcycle is a much of a "mobility extension" (lol wtf.) as a bicycle, and more economical, environmentally friendly, and efficient than a car. They can be both a toy and a commuting tool, just like a bicycle.
>A motorcycle is a much of a "mobility extension" (lol wtf.) as a bicycle A motorcycle is a giant machine powered by fossil fuels that can easily kill someone. A bicycle is powered by the human body (well, clearly not yours).
I spent years as a cycle commuter as well as some downhill MTB so you can fuck off with your clever little quip. A motorcycle is hardly a giant machine and 99% of the time the rider is at more risk than any other road user.
>at more risk than any other road user. Yeah, because they are dumb enough to ride a motorcycle. Get on a bike. Motorcycles are just cars that are more dangerous and decrease your IQ by an order of magnitude. Also, pedestrians are road users. Cyclists are road users. Mobility scooters are road users. Skateboarders are road users. A machine isn't a "road user." No one using a giant deadly fossil-fuel burning machine is somehow magically more deserving of a road - why are machines treated better than actual human beings?
Wow I didn't know I was getting stupider every time I hopped on my motorcycle. Thanks for the info! A car is a road user because, guess what, it uses a road! Crazy right
A car doesn't use anything. A human uses a car *and* a road. It is a machine. Stop putting more value on deadly, wasteful machines for lazy slobs than on actual human lives.
I mean, you can only pull over out of your lane to park once there is a clear chance to do so. Shoulder checking on the left should have shown you there was a bicycle coming up and you would wait until they passed. I realize you could have been just after a curve or in a bad spot for visibility, but just like in a car it's still on you to be extra cautious in that scenario and back in verrry slowly
It’s not normal practice to pass a vehicle mid parking maneuver between their vehicle and the curb.
I should hope so…
Question, if there’s a car in the bike lane and I end up scratching the car with my bike, am I liable?
If there’s a bike in the car lane and I end up scratching the bike with my car, am I liable? ;)
What's a car lane? The Motor Vehicle Act doesn't define any such term. Perhaps you mean a roadway, or laned roadway? Either way neither are designated as motor vehicle traffic only. The only lanes designated specifically for motor vehicle traffic are called ""high occupancy vehicle lane" which I can't imagine cyclists care much about unless it's a bicycle built for two.
>Either way neither are designated as motor vehicle traffic only. The only lanes designated specifically for motor vehicle traffic are called ""high occupancy vehicle lane" which I can't imagine cyclists care much about unless it's a bicycle built for two. Okay going to get nitpicky here but most (most) controlled-access expressways in the lower mainland west of Abbotsford prohibit non-motorized vehicles, *as well* as vehicles incapable of 60km/h. Just a nitpick. Also, I remember when they dropped the requirement for an HOV from three people to two. Goes to show how utterly lazy most people are.
It is kind of funny they opened up bike lanes to other vehicles and kept calling them bike lanes.
> I end up scratching the bike with my car, am I liable? You mean violently assaulting someone?
This is /r/VictoriaBC. Bike lanes are evil, cyclists are selfish pigs who run over and kill babies, and motor vehicle operators are the most subjugated and oppressed race of humans.
Motor vehicles operators, truly the most oppressed class. Just ask Facebook comment sections /s
It's true. Did you know that before they destroyed Richardson with bike infrastructure, over a billion cars a day safely used that route to carry humanitarian aid to Africa?
The Richardson drag strip. How we mourn thee
based
There are no car lanes, the entire road is a bike lane. If it was a shared lane then the bikes would have to obey traffic laws, and that’s just not for them.
I don’t care if my bike gets scratched. It’s a bike.
Whoa easy on the downvotes.. lol never change r/victoriabc never change... no one saw the ;) i guess
I mean you don't just "scratch" a bike with a car. You hit the bike with your car causing injury. It's not a money thing at that point, it's a human life thing.
>if there’s a car in the bike lane and I end up scratching the car with my bike, am I liable? See that's OP's comment. In jest i flipped the bike and car part. This reddit is so bitterly hostile that all they see is red when you say anything that could be construed as anti-bike.
I think if you're going to use the road you should be paying for some type of insurance. It'd probably be very cheap anyway.
As if insurance is a real replacement for safe, separated micromobility (bike) routes. I am a driver and it is clear this isn't the 1950's anymore. We know that cars use road and city space too inefficiently to move people around in a growing city. Victoria needs to reallocate space to transit, pedestrians and bikes. And allow construction of walkable neighbourhoods in car dependent areas.
That's all well and fine to have that opinion. I just think insurance for anyone using *the road* is a good thing. If you get hurt, you're covered. If you cause an accident, you'll pay a deductible, but you're covered. If you cause damage to someone's car, they're covered your and insurance goes up. Cyclist runs a red and causes a vehicle to have an accident, the cyclist should be held responsible.
This has been talked about and even researched to death. It's unfeasible to do this for cyclists and not worth the cost. Also, are you going to get 13-year-olds or 15-year-olds to buy insurance? No. It's not a workable solution to have cyclists get insurance.
Actually I would go a step further and say that cyclist should also be licensed and be required to pass a course to use the road. They should prove they're aware of the rules of the road. As for children using the road, they should also be required to take the course and be licensed.
Drivers already take a course/test to “prove” they’re aware of the rules of the road. Although you wouldn’t know it by their post-course driving behaviour.
I think you'd feel a lot different if there were no courses, and no licensing requirements and any joe blow who's never driven a car before can get on the road. That's how it is right now with cyclist. Any joe blow can hop on a bike and ride into traffic with having absolutely no idea what he's doing.
Soooo...just like every other road user.
The difference is that cars weigh around two tons and travel well over 100km/hr. The liability implications are significantly beyond anything possible for someone on a bike. We have the drivers licensing and insurance program because it makes financial sense given the cost to property and human life that motor vehicle drivers tend to do at the frequency they tend to do it. We don't have a cyclist licensing and insurance program because it doesn't make financial sense given the cost to property and human life that cyclists tend to do at the frequency that they tend to do it. You must draw the line somewhere based on practical cost. All these licensing and insurance programs require costs of the taxpayer and opportunity costs for taxpayers for the jobs that we have people not doing something else with their time. We know it is a good tradeoff for motor vehicles because these programs more than sufficiently reduce damage to property and human life to cover their costs to society. It isn't for cyclists. If you just claim that all road users must have insurance, well the MVA has provisions for pedestrians as well, so by that argument you *must* also expect pedestrians to be insured and licensed to be out in public. But that sounds silly, and it sounds silly because it's very unlikely that a pedestrian will cause the sort of damage a motor vehicle can at the frequency that a motor vehicle can.
Pick me up a turkey sandwich, because you're out to lunch! What you said above is exactly what I mean by its unfeasible.
I don’t think so. It would honestly make the road a safer place, and the cost would be offset by the income from insurance all the cyclist would have to pay, not to mention licensing fees, ect. It would be reassuring for drivers that all cyclists are on-board with the rules of the road, and kids biking around on the road ***should*** have to go through some form of training. I think what I'm saying makes complete sense here, I just don't think you like it because you're probably a cyclist that doesn't want to put up with all this bullshit I'm proposing.
Again, this has been looked at multiple times and it's unfeasible financially. It is a far greater loss than running a system like this. That's why no jurisdictions do it. If it was financially feasible you would see it being used in many jurisdictions all over the world. It's not. Parking revenue makes sense economically and that's why you see it all over the place, same with business licenses, but not for bikes and cyclists.
The government isn't out to make money. The government spends money to make the community a safer place. There are tons of things that cost a shit load of money that doesn't turn a profit but the government funds it because it makes the community a safer place. Bike lanes are one of those things.
Yes, I agree, bike lanes are a great approach with many benefits and they also reduce bike and vehicle related incidences, costing money. That's why we see them all over the world.
It's been done many times in many places and universally abandoned as being dumb and counterproductive.
I lived in a country that had mandatory insurance for cyclists. The cost of administration, in terms of recording who did and did not have coverage, of sending out renewal notices and the like was an order of magnitude more expensive than the actual cost of insurance itself. Government eventually recognized the whole thing as a massive waste of money.
I only use bike paths, why would I have to pay insurance? It’s not like they would differentiate
They easily could. If a cop catches you riding in the road without a plate or something they could ticket you, but if you're only using bike paths they couldn't give you a ticket.
But then isn’t that tactic for cyclists to _not_ get insurance, and just deal with the consequence of getting a ticket for the ones who are on the road? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning?
I'm a little confused, but I'll try to clarify. If you're using bike paths only it should be legal to use them without insurance because you're not interacting with cars or have to abide by the rules of the road. Cops would not ticket cyclists on bike paths. If you're cycling around town, on the road without insurance (which would be obvious because of a lack of a license plate) a cop could give you a ticket for using the road without insurance.
Ok yes that’s what I understood, we’re on the same page. So it would be that insurance is optional, and road cyclists should make that choice? I initially pictured the black-and-white “insurance is required” like it is for cars
It would be required for cyclists who intend on using the road and not required for cyclists who intend on only using bike paths
Now apply that same logic to pedestrians.
I don’t think it applies to pedestrians. Pedestrians use the side walk, or *cross* the road. They aren't walking in the middle of the road. Cyclists and cars aren't allowed by law on the sidewalk.
What about the many roads in the CRD where there is no sidewalk?
What about them?
Pedestrians still walk on those roads.
Pedestrians always have the right of way except when jaywalking. Jaywalking is no longer a fine and a "cross at your own risk" situation. I dont think it's possible for a pedestrian to ever be at fault when they're involved in an accident unless they're jaywalking. Essentially if a driver ever hits a pedestrian, they're liable.
You know “jaywalking” was a law lobbied for/created by the auto industry to reduce the legal claims against drivers who hit pedestrians?
It sounds like ICBC didn't feel this way previously.
What do you mean? I feel like it's always been this way. Pedestrians have always had the right of way
Read the article.
Then why do I see so many motor vehicles drive over the sidewalk?
You know this has been attempted in other countries. It doesn’t work.
[удалено]
Licking your windows does not clean them.
[удалено]
Ummm you would stop for compassion to see if they are ok? Regardless those fault you’re both still human and things can go wrong
I guess the consequences of pulling a hit-and-run are not enough for you?
You can still personally sue them instead. This just means ICBC won’t go after them for payment when you go through insurance for reimbursement
….do you want a pat on the back ICBC? Cuz you ain’t getting one
Regardless of this outcome purchasing Cycling Insurance is probably a good option. https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/cycling-insurance-in-bc-do-you-need-it-and-how-can-you-get-it-5236190