Report a Comment

Really? 20 major insurers would be lining up to provide this insurance? The no-fault, uninsured motorist, and hit-and-run rules alone would scare off ANY insurer except the absolute shadiest, and good luck collecting from THEM. If a driver takes me out while I'm riding (could be as simple as bumping a tire), and drives off, I could cost that insurance company thousands (maybe I break a tooth off), tens of thousands (broken major limb, for instance), HUNDREDS of thousands (head trauma, getting run over by a following vehicle) of dollars in medical bills, because, unlike the driver involved in a hit-and-run, I didn't have thousands of pounds of steel around me when they "bumped" me. I've been in a number of car crashes (from minor bumps in a parking lot to head-on collisions), and walked away without a scratch. I had a bike accident (not caused by a car, but a similar one could easily happen at the fault of a car, without the car being damaged) as a teen and my parents ended up spending a good chunk of change in deductibles and copays fixing my face...who knows what the total bills were. If it's pure liability, it doesn't solve much, since you can always sue and (at least my) homeowner's insurance covers me for that, anyway. I agree with others...I have almost been pushed in front of trains by hapless tourists on the Metro, almost hit pedestrians by their fault while driving or biking, and otherwise suffered actual or theoretical injury to myself or my property by people doing things that don't require testing, licensing, and insurance. Where does your line of thinking stop?

And kids ride their bikes in the street in my neighborhood all the time. Even if they stick to the sidewalk, they still have to cross streets occasionally. Sure, it's not "downtown," but motorized vehicles still use the roads in my neighborhood (maybe you live in a car-free neighborhood?).

by Ms. D on Jun 7, 2012 9:19 pm • link • report