|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:15 pm
You are the apple...Excuse me, Mr. Dendekker, but WTAF ARE YOU ON? You want me to pay insurance on my BICYCLE? I dont drive and instead ride my bike around to AVOID cost. "...personal protection for cases such as bicycle theft or bicycle accidents." Ok, ways to avoid getting your bike stolen: 1. Lock it up to something! 2. If you see someone using bolt cutters to unchain a bike from something, BE SUSPICIOUS. Bike accidents are the only plausible reason for this. I got hit on my bike a while back and the guy never had to pay. Granted, i didnt want to deal with taking him to court since the bike only cost about $50, but I;m sure other people would do so. Plus, there could be some jerks who hit a car on their bike and then refuse to pay for the damage. Commenters here are saying bicyclists should pay insurance, since we ride on the same streets as motorists. Um, excuse me, but CARS are the ones that ruin the streets, NOT bikes. Hence your insurance money usually goes to paying for road fixing... I think this is an insane idea and seriously hope it doesnt pass. And then if it came all the way over here to california? Screw that. and I am your core.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:45 pm
Wait...what? That makes no sense. It's a bicycle. If they want to pay insurance it should be optional. Typically if a persona is riding their bike as their main means of transportation...it means that they're broke. Can't pay for insurance.
I mean if your bike gets stolen it's your own fault...it works, sure, if there's an accident...but that's usually not a big deal. Besides there are laws for bicycles. You aren't supposed to ride them on the sidewalk or against traffic...so any accident is usually the rider's fault...except in the cases of idiot drivers.
I live in California, in a city where pretty much everyone bicycles. It would just be laughed right out if it came here. My kick-a** governor wouldn't stand for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:46 pm
Quote: "proposing a bill that would require all bicycles in the entire state be licensed, insured and inspected. If passed, roller skates and Big Wheels are sure to follow" Bicycle owners would be required to register personal bicycles and get license plates for them, to the tune of $25 for the first year and $5 for every year thereafter. To get the license plate, cyclists would need to get their bicycles inspected to make sure they "conform to the lamp and equipment requirements." In a separate bill, commercial bicycles would require a $50 initail registration fee and liability insurance.
Good thing I gave up on this nearly 10 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:21 pm
Hester Peche I live in California, in a city where pretty much everyone bicycles. It would just be laughed right out if it came here. My kick-a** governor wouldn't stand for it.
I hope it gets laughed away before it goes anywhere.
and uh, dont you mean mayor, not governor? Or were you actually talking about all of Cali?
and I am your core.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:30 pm
Rock4ourRock Hester Peche I live in California, in a city where pretty much everyone bicycles. It would just be laughed right out if it came here. My kick-a** governor wouldn't stand for it.
I hope it gets laughed away before it goes anywhere.
and uh, dont you mean mayor, not governor? Or were you actually talking about all of Cali?
and I am your core. Oh, all of California. I'm in the capitol where all that political magic happens so I'm usually thinking big picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:53 am
Hester Peche Wait...what? That makes no sense. It's a bicycle. If they want to pay insurance it should be optional. Typically if a persona is riding their bike as their main means of transportation...it means that they're broke. Can't pay for insurance. I mean if your bike gets stolen it's your own fault...it works, sure, if there's an accident...but that's usually not a big deal. Besides there are laws for bicycles. You aren't supposed to ride them on the sidewalk or against traffic...so any accident is usually the rider's fault...except in the cases of idiot drivers. I live in California, in a city where pretty much everyone bicycles. It would just be laughed right out if it came here. My kick-a** governor wouldn't stand for it. Actually, accidents between a bike & a car are generally the drivers fault. Bicycle riders are supposed to follow all the same traffic laws as drivers are, & in that respect they're basically considered the same as a car. However, drivers are obligated to take extra preventative measures to avoid hitting a bicycle, & if they fail to do so, they're at fault. It's really not that different from the way drivers are supposed to deal with pedestrians. Although legally people can only cross the street at certain places & times, if a car gets in an accident with someone walking across the street when the "Don't Cross" sign is up (or whatever the hell the name for that red hand symbol at crosswalks is) it's automatically the drivers fault. It's really not fair to say that if a bicycle rider gets in an accident with a car it's usually the bike riders fault. The person in a car is protected by 2 tons of metal or some s**t; if they hit someone on a bike, it's more or less just as bad as if they'd ran someone over. Usually when such "accidents" occur the person on the bike doesn't live. I don't know where on earth you're getting the idea that usually it's "no big deal" if a bicycle rider gets in an accident with a car & that it's usually the person on the bike's fault... Perhaps you meant something different & just worded your post a bit thoughtlessly, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:02 pm
elyzia Hester Peche Wait...what? That makes no sense. It's a bicycle. If they want to pay insurance it should be optional. Typically if a persona is riding their bike as their main means of transportation...it means that they're broke. Can't pay for insurance. I mean if your bike gets stolen it's your own fault...it works, sure, if there's an accident...but that's usually not a big deal. Besides there are laws for bicycles. You aren't supposed to ride them on the sidewalk or against traffic...so any accident is usually the rider's fault...except in the cases of idiot drivers. I live in California, in a city where pretty much everyone bicycles. It would just be laughed right out if it came here. My kick-a** governor wouldn't stand for it. Actually, accidents between a bike & a car are generally the drivers fault. Bicycle riders are supposed to follow all the same traffic laws as drivers are, & in that respect they're basically considered the same as a car. However, drivers are obligated to take extra preventative measures to avoid hitting a bicycle, & if they fail to do so, they're at fault. It's really not that different from the way drivers are supposed to deal with pedestrians. Although legally people can only cross the street at certain places & times, if a car gets in an accident with someone walking across the street when the "Don't Cross" sign is up (or whatever the hell the name for that red hand symbol at crosswalks is) it's automatically the drivers fault. It's really not fair to say that if a bicycle rider gets in an accident with a car it's usually the bike riders fault. The person in a car is protected by 2 tons of metal or some s**t; if they hit someone on a bike, it's more or less just as bad as if they'd ran someone over. Usually when such "accidents" occur the person on the bike doesn't live. I don't know where on earth you're getting the idea that usually it's "no big deal" if a bicycle rider gets in an accident with a car & that it's usually the person on the bike's fault... Perhaps you meant something different & just worded your post a bit thoughtlessly, I don't know. I'm just saying when a bicyclist doesn't follow the rules of the road and they get hit because they're driving against traffic or don't signal something like that.it's their fault. Just the same as if a car had done the same thing. I've seen it. Multiple times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:11 pm
Rock4ourRock You are the apple...Excuse me, Mr. Dendekker, but WTAF ARE YOU ON? You want me to pay insurance on my BICYCLE? I dont drive and instead ride my bike around to AVOID cost. "...personal protection for cases such as bicycle theft or bicycle accidents." Ok, ways to avoid getting your bike stolen: 1. Lock it up to something! 2. If you see someone using bolt cutters to unchain a bike from something, BE SUSPICIOUS. Bike accidents are the only plausible reason for this. I got hit on my bike a while back and the guy never had to pay. Granted, i didnt want to deal with taking him to court since the bike only cost about $50, but I;m sure other people would do so. Plus, there could be some jerks who hit a car on their bike and then refuse to pay for the damage. Commenters here are saying bicyclists should pay insurance, since we ride on the same streets as motorists. Um, excuse me, but CARS are the ones that ruin the streets, NOT bikes. Hence your insurance money usually goes to paying for road fixing... I think this is an insane idea and seriously hope it doesnt pass. And then if it came all the way over here to california? Screw that. and I am your core. I agree that overall the idea is really quite ridiculous, & the way in which that article is worded -- making it sound like people riding bicycles are some sort of huge threat to pedestrians & s**t -- is so misguided that it's really bordering on offense. However, there IS a really huge upside to bicycle riders having insurance that you're failing to recognize, & very understandably so, considering the article in question is failing to recognize that upside to, as would I imagine 99% of the general public: Although bicycle riders hitting & subsequently "hospitalizing" pedestrians isn't some sort of huge issue or significant problem, drivers hitting & hospitalizing bicycle riders is something that happens all too frequently. If the driver doesn't have insurance, & the person riding the bike doesn't also have a car & therefore happen to have car insurance themselves, even though the bicyclist is the victim of the accident & in no way at fault they'll still have to end up paying for all their medical bills out of pocket, which often times causes people to lose everything & end up in the sort of financial black hole you never recover from. Since when somebody has insurance it means that not only is anybody that they hurt while driving (or bicycling, as the case may be) covered financially, but that they're also covered financially if somebody who doesn't have insurance injures them, it could ultimately prove very beneficial for numerous people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:30 pm
Hester Peche elyzia Hester Peche Wait...what? That makes no sense. It's a bicycle. If they want to pay insurance it should be optional. Typically if a persona is riding their bike as their main means of transportation...it means that they're broke. Can't pay for insurance. I mean if your bike gets stolen it's your own fault...it works, sure, if there's an accident...but that's usually not a big deal. Besides there are laws for bicycles. You aren't supposed to ride them on the sidewalk or against traffic...so any accident is usually the rider's fault...except in the cases of idiot drivers. I live in California, in a city where pretty much everyone bicycles. It would just be laughed right out if it came here. My kick-a** governor wouldn't stand for it. Actually, accidents between a bike & a car are generally the drivers fault. Bicycle riders are supposed to follow all the same traffic laws as drivers are, & in that respect they're basically considered the same as a car. However, drivers are obligated to take extra preventative measures to avoid hitting a bicycle, & if they fail to do so, they're at fault. It's really not that different from the way drivers are supposed to deal with pedestrians. Although legally people can only cross the street at certain places & times, if a car gets in an accident with someone walking across the street when the "Don't Cross" sign is up (or whatever the hell the name for that red hand symbol at crosswalks is) it's automatically the drivers fault. It's really not fair to say that if a bicycle rider gets in an accident with a car it's usually the bike riders fault. The person in a car is protected by 2 tons of metal or some s**t; if they hit someone on a bike, it's more or less just as bad as if they'd ran someone over. Usually when such "accidents" occur the person on the bike doesn't live. I don't know where on earth you're getting the idea that usually it's "no big deal" if a bicycle rider gets in an accident with a car & that it's usually the person on the bike's fault... Perhaps you meant something different & just worded your post a bit thoughtlessly, I don't know. I'm just saying when a bicyclist doesn't follow the rules of the road and they get hit because they're driving against traffic or don't signal something like that.it's their fault. Just the same as if a car had done the same thing. I've seen it. Multiple times. You've seen a cyclist get hit by a car multiple times? Really? Well, then, how injured was the person on the bike, & how injured was the person in the car? Because the likelihood of someone on a bike getting hit by (or hitting) a car & then just getting up & walking away perfectly unharmed is REALLY slim. & how can the cyclist legally be held responsible when there are absolutely no requirements one must meet in order to ride a bike? I mean, you don't need any sort of license to ride a bike; not only are cyclists not required to learn "the rules of the road", but they're really not expected to, either. The information isn't made commonly available to them. However, people have to learn numerous rules & safety regulations regarding how to drive when near a bike & what to do & not to do to ensure the cyclists safety etc. etc. just in order to be adequately prepared to pass the Knowledge Exam to get a driver's permit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:53 pm
elyzia Rock4ourRock You are the apple...Excuse me, Mr. Dendekker, but WTAF ARE YOU ON? You want me to pay insurance on my BICYCLE? I dont drive and instead ride my bike around to AVOID cost. "...personal protection for cases such as bicycle theft or bicycle accidents." Ok, ways to avoid getting your bike stolen: 1. Lock it up to something! 2. If you see someone using bolt cutters to unchain a bike from something, BE SUSPICIOUS. Bike accidents are the only plausible reason for this. I got hit on my bike a while back and the guy never had to pay. Granted, i didnt want to deal with taking him to court since the bike only cost about $50, but I;m sure other people would do so. Plus, there could be some jerks who hit a car on their bike and then refuse to pay for the damage. Commenters here are saying bicyclists should pay insurance, since we ride on the same streets as motorists. Um, excuse me, but CARS are the ones that ruin the streets, NOT bikes. Hence your insurance money usually goes to paying for road fixing... I think this is an insane idea and seriously hope it doesnt pass. And then if it came all the way over here to california? Screw that. and I am your core. Although bicycle riders hitting & subsequently "hospitalizing" pedestrians isn't some sort of huge issue or significant problem, drivers hitting & hospitalizing bicycle riders is something that happens all too frequently. If the driver doesn't have insurance, & the person riding the bike doesn't also have a car & therefore happen to have car insurance themselves, even though the bicyclist is the victim of the accident & in no way at fault they'll still have to end up paying for all their medical bills out of pocket, which often times causes people to lose everything & end up in the sort of financial black hole you never recover from. Since when somebody has insurance it means that not only is anybody that they hurt while driving (or bicycling, as the case may be) covered financially, but that they're also covered financially if somebody who doesn't have insurance injures them, it could ultimately prove very beneficial for numerous people.
You are the apple...
I did make mention of bike accidents being the only plausible reason for it. Though i never did mention hospitalization, which is probably what you were focusing on, rather than bike accidents in general.
I was hit while riding my bike back in november. Luckily, it was in a residential intersection and the driver wasnt going too fast, so it only caused me to fall over, but my bike was trash after that. In this case, insurance probably would have been a good thing to have as his insurance company refused to cooperate with me and he just wanted to defer the situation to his insurance company. By the time the idea of taking him to court came about, it was already a couple months later and I just didnt wanna deal with all of it for the replacement of a $50 bike.
and I am your core.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
