[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Driving Pet Peeves
In article <3scfpg$13l@buffnet2.buffnet.net>,
Tom Gentry <operdude@buffnet.net> wrote:
)Tom Holub (doosh@netcom.com) wrote:
): In article <3rs0h2$ik4@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
): KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
): )wrong.. right?) if the police blotter says the bicycle was completely at fault,
): )all witnesses say the biker was at fault, the BICYCLST says he was at fault,
): )guess who gets to pay the medical bills.
)
): The bicyclist, or rather, his insurance company, if any.
)
)Please tell me in what states a bicyclist is required to carry liability
)insurance.
None. Most probably carry health insurance, however, which is likely what
would pay for the medical bills in an accident where the cyclist was at
fault.
)I'm sorry Tom, but you're point falls a little short of the mark. Yes,
)the law still perceives the cyclist as a vehicle,
Actually, that's not strictly true in many states (including mine).
) but the insurance
)companies don't. Therefore the driver's liability insurance pays for any
)and all medical bills incurred even at the fault of the cyclist.
You've provided an assertion. I've provided law. I suggest, if you want
to argue that the law is not followed by the insurance companies, that you
provide some proof.
) On top
)of which, becuase the cyclist doesn't carry liablity, any damage
)occurring to the car is paid for by the drivers collision insurance.
The driver can sue the cyclist for damages if the cyclist is at fault.
-Tom
References: