Today’s good news from the roads of Canada, a country I other hold in high regard, and which has done fabulous roads and trails…

The mind boggles

Bikes don’t need insurance. Fine.

But if you’re in a crash the motorist’s insurer classes the bike as an uninsured vehicle so automatically applies full blame to them and charges the cyclist for repairs.

Irrespective of fault, or injury. And the law has blocked private lawsuits, somehow.

Massive failure of justice.

Wouldn’t you just get cycle insurance like Cycle UK or British Cycling ?

I think Canada gets good PR for not being the US, but the reality is that politically in terms of legislation it much closer to the US than Europe. If I won the lottery and could live anywhere I wanted neither country would be on my list.

Wouldn’t you just get cycle insurance like Cycle UK or British Cycling ?

It seems obvious for cycling enthusiasts, but it is just another barrier to making cycling an everyday widely accepted activity.

Wouldn’t you just get cycle insurance like Cycle UK or British Cycling ?

Would seem a fairly simple solution.

Worth noting that the article applies to British Columbia. I’m not sure what the laws are in other provinces (may be even more nuts) but it seems it’s a provincial matter.

Wouldn’t you just get cycle insurance like Cycle UK or British Cycling ?

It might seem obvious to those of us with a CUK or BC membership, but most bicycle users aren’t going to sign up to a user group/association, nor should they really have to.

And if “cycling insurance” becomes a defacto requirement it only serves to further deter people from cycling.
I actually think some of the recent changes to the UK Highway code were beneficial or at least had the right intent, making the hierarchy of responsibility for road users a bit clearer in the UK.

These cases in BC highlight what happens when you open the door for insurance companies to blame victims and make them financially liable for their customer’s actions…

Walleater Walleater Walleater.

Read the article on Road CC, the approach to people on bikes seems crazy. Does the same approach apply to pedestrians as well?

nor should they really have to.

Why shouldn’t they though ? or why shouldn’t WE….

Lets say we hit someone using our bikes and put a whopping dent in their car/van, who should cover that ? In this case in OP it was seen as 50-50, but lets say it’s 100% the cyclists fault… should the car driver have to claim on their own insurance ? Why shouldn’t we as cyclists be equally responsible ?

I didnt drive on many roads in Canada where I would feel safe riding a bike !

And then if you are off road you can get eaten by a bear so not really some where I would think about biking

Why shouldn’t they though ? or why shouldn’t WE….

Because cycling is beneficial to society in numerous ways that I would assume I don’t have to list for someone on a cycling forum.

Cars are actively damaging to society in many many ways.

We should be increasing the barriers to car driving while reducing them for cycling. In BC they seem to be actively doing the opposite.

OK, so what if it’s a person you/we/they hit ? or even another cyclist ?

I don’t know. Cost of doing business?

What if I step out in the street without looking and take out someone on a bike. Do you want all pedestrians to have insurance too?

Best get killed in the accident, then where would they get the money for their special car from eh!? Ha! That’d teach em.

Wouldn’t you just get cycle insurance like Cycle UK or British Cycling ?

Would seem a fairly simple solution.

Yeah! Then your insurance company can pay out for something that wasn’t your fault. That’s what I call fair.

In the UK whether or not you have insurance doesn’t change the injured persons right to claim from you.

If you are riding along and hit a Ferrari you are liable for the damage. If you have insurance, no problem. If you don’t you get a big bill.

If you injure someone causing life changing injuries you get a very, very big bill. Many people have third party insurance as part of their house insurance, for others the cost of a BC/Cycling UK membership looks pretty cheap…

Wouldn’t you just get cycle insurance like Cycle UK or British Cycling ?

I think Canada has state run insurance for drivers? So might be expensive for cyclists.

It is a totally different culture over there though.
I’ve been a few times, enjoyed it etc,
But, friends of ours who live there were horrified when we said we would get a bus to whatever pub we were going to that night, they insisted that we got picked up by them or a family member.
Extremely (by British standards) car centric culture.

Why shouldn’t they though ? or why shouldn’t WE….

Because these are optional organisations to join, which people tend to join because they are already keen cyclists, insurance is part of the equation and beneficial if your cycling more frequently and faster than is maybe considered typical. But The last thing we need is to create new barriers to bicycle use in towns and cities…

Lets say we hit someone using our bikes and put a whopping dent in their car/van, who should cover that ?

If you need cycling specific insurance, how about walking? is there any aspect of your existence you don’t want to give the financial products industry a stake in?

To answer your question You should pay for any damage you cause, you are liable in your strawman scenario.
But insurance should still remain optional for bicycle use IMO.
Your aspirational MAMIL, charging around Richmond park would probably be well advised to throw some money at BC to cover himself. But a ‘normal’ person trundling to Aldi on they Hybrid to do bit of shopping, mostly using cycle lanes has a far smaller probability of being liable to for Damage and/or injury to others and therefore cycling insurance would just serve to put such bike users off.

The probability is still far higher that you’ll cause substantial damage or injury with your car than your bicycle. The greater harm would be driving people away from “active transport” options like cycling because of extra requirements for insurance. It’s a wet dream for the helmet/hi-viz/Reg plate crowd who just want to put people off using bicycles so the roads are a more consequence free environment for careless drivers…

We should be increasing the barriers to car driving while reducing them for cycling. In BC they seem to be actively doing the opposite.

You have to be a little careful on statements like that based on a sample size of two. Esp. in which one of the cyclists failed to stop at a stop sign and the other is in a he said she said with seemingly no witness.

The fact is just being the most injured or vulnerable party doesn’t necessarily mean you’re the victim and if it is your fault it really shouldn’t be down to someone else to pay.

The uninsured bit is a red herring, it’s not why it got ascribed to a joint fault, it is why he’s got to find (I guess 50% of) the costs from his own pocket.

Wouldn’t you just get cycle insurance like Cycle UK or British Cycling ?

Would seem a fairly simple solution.

I have no issue with this. I have BC cover, because it seems wise.

The problem (if I have understood the situation) is with the chap in the roadcc story: the motorist seems to be at fault for collision, from the info in the story.

But because the cyclist doesn’t have (non-compulsory) insurance the issue isn’t even being considered/investigated. And a suit is blocked.

Seems wrong.

If the cyclist is at fault then sure, pay for repairs. But if not why should the poor driving mean that the cyclist not only gets hospitalised, but has to pay drivers costs for the result of the poor driving.

The lack of insurance should not the automatic justification for failing to investigate.

But because the cyclist doesn’t have (non-compulsory) insurance the issue isn’t even being considered/investigated. And a suit is blocked.

That’s how I read it. The cyclist is seen to be 50% at fault because he was using an uninsured and therefore illegal vehicle (even though it’s not illegal).

If that’s the case that seems like a pretty big barrier to cycling.

Actually, I may have got that wrong about why he was said to be 50% responsible. Bit more info here:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/article-a-bc-cyclist-injured-in-a-crash-was-billed-for-damage-to-the-car/

Still doesn’t seem like legislation designed to discourage driving while encouraging cycling to me.

All supposition as there is no real info in the article but…

Given the extent of the damage to the car, injury to the cyclist I can’t see there not being a police report.
If the driver drove through a stop sign (per the article) they are at fault and committed an offence. Unless of course…
… The cyclist also approached from a stop sign and – the motorist claims at least – didn’t stop, making it a joint fault claim. (that the cyclist went through at 5km/h would sort of suggest to me to that they failed to stop)

Given the extent of the damage to the car, injury to the cyclist I can’t see there not being a police report.

From the article:

“We’re both claiming that we did run the stop sign,” said Bolliger, who tweeted about the letter. “He hit my side – I was already making the turn. I have two witnesses, but ICBC says they’re not credible because they are my neighbours. [Vancouver police] won’t give me a copy of the accident report and I got a heavily redacted version of the officer’s notes.”

I mean, we could just assume the guy is lying but from the reporting it seems that the law regarding insurance and fault is seriously biased against vulnerable road users, both pedestrians and cyclists.

Having ridden extensively in BC

I’d still rather ride there than here insurance issues asside.

Drivers largely obey rule 1 over there.

It’s a bit depressing when even on a cycle forum we have the ‘but they jump red lights … should be insured’ arguments.

I suspect many, many more cars are damaged by pedestrians, often deliberately. Where do we stop – should we really be expected to have insurance just to leave the house? What about the kids? The dog?

Motor insurance deals with this stuff already. Same as your house insurance. You have expensive things, or things liable to cause lots of expensive damage, then you get them insured, and they’re covered. Something happens, your insurance pays out.

This is just insurance companies taking advantage of the most vulnerable because they can, creating an entirely backwards heirachy.

It’s the exact opposite of the strict liability policies they have on the continent to promote safety for the most vulnerable and encourage active travel.

From the article

Which article? I can’t find that in the road cc one

This one I posted about 25 minutes ago:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/article-a-bc-cyclist-injured-in-a-crash-was-billed-for-damage-to-the-car/

EDIT: For some reason clicking on the link doesn’t take me to the article. You have to copy and paste the text into the address bar (which is probably good practice anyway).

Ah, I guess that you posted whilst I was writing mine.

It’s not a million miles from where I expected though.

We’re both claiming that we did run the stop sign

So that’d be your joint fault right there.

And, because he’s uninsured, he’s personally on the hook for his portion of the costs.

It sucks but its not unreasonable, anymore than expecting if you kicked a ball through someone’s window or what ever you might have to put your hand in your pocket.

(I would go so far as to say that the figure seems unreasonable and, that looking at your article if they’ve refused his claim for the phone and bike for a 50/50 but are pursuing costs for damage to the vehicle that seems very odd)

So that’d be your joint fault right there.

I read that as saying they are both saying the other ran the stop sign.

He also said there were witnesses who weren’t deemed credible because they were his neighbours which supports this.

Ignoring the individual cases, this recently introduced no fault legislation helps motorists by reducing the cost of their premiums while giving absolutely no benefits to pedestrians and cyclists.

It is the opposite of Presumed Liability and it absolutely encourages driving at the expense of cycling and walking and I really don’t understand how you can argue otherwise.

this is only in bc because of the ridiculous situation with car insurance. google icbc for more information, but essentially car insurance is run by the province and comes with all the madness that dealing with the public sector could possibly bring combined with insurance companies.

cover for cyclists/personnel liability is available with house insurance, as in the uk.

i agree with the comment above that canada is more american than european, but it is a much more pleasant place to live than england.

I’ve been in Vancouver since Jan and haven’t even attempted a road ride yet. Standards of driving are low, like, scary low. I saw this story and thought “hmmm, yep, I can see that”.

Why shouldn’t they though ? or why shouldn’t WE….

Lets say we hit someone using our bikes and put a whopping dent in their car/van, who should cover that ? In this case in OP it was seen as 50-50, but lets say it’s 100% the cyclists fault… should the car driver have to claim on their own insurance ? Why shouldn’t we as cyclists be equally responsible ?

Obvious answers are obvious…

1) as stated above we are stil liable if we cause an accident.
2) generally the number and severity of damage caused by car accidents is immeasurably higher, hence why they need to have insurance.
Taking your example above, if you really tried as hard as you could to damage a car by driving into it, how many thousands of £ of damage could you cause,?