For some strange reason we treat the potential to do damage by the car and the bicycle entirely differently. Most people wouldn't dream of getting in their car and driving without valid registration, which includes compulsory insurance protection for injuries caused to others - and most have both the vehicle itself and it's capacity to cause material damage covered by a general insurance policy.
Most bicycle riders entirely lack any form of indemnity insurance and trust to luck that Australia is not a litigious country. While there is awareness that a car weighing near a tonne is capable of causing death or very serious injury, the lightweight bicycle is regarded as harmless. We even buy it for kids and in many respects it is regarded as a "toy "!
Consider the case of a young woman who had a cycling accident in Sydney recently. She stepped off the kerb when the walk light turned green and was hit by a cyclist running the red light. The damage incurred included a broken jaw and teeth damage and many months later when these problems had been medically fixed she was left with medical expenses that amounted to $ 18,600. She has had no luck recovering this cost from the rider who caused the damage.
Bikes do not carry an identification plate and no license is required to prove that riders are competent to ride. There is mounting pressure for both to be legislated into existence and if this happened New South Wales would be amongst the first in the world to regulate cycling in a similar manner to four wheel vehicles - and motorbikes !
The politicians are wary. It would obviously come at a cost and many bicycle owners would be both hostile and indignant. It would also raise the issue of at what age a child would be allowed to ride a bike on public streets - and then there is the matter of enforcing compliance. Many cyclists already break the law with impunity when it comes to wearing safety helmets and obeying road laws.
Perhaps we are missing the point. There was a past tendency to regard a person riding a bike as a person of little substance. The poor rode bikes, The wealthy had cars. It followed that there was little to be gained by sueing a bike rider for damages caused.
Today, that game has changed. We are persuading people to leave their cars in the garage and get on their bikes on ecological grounds - and to improve their health. Bike riding is fast becoming a competitive sport and electric bicycles are becoming an acceptable method of travel for short rides to the shops. We now have people of substance riding bikes.
We also have a changed population - many of who are now asset rich. Even moderate equity in a home runs to very substantial dollars and uninsured bike riders put that at serious risk in the event that they have an accident for which they can be blamed. The legal fraternity will be looking at cycling accidents with new interest.
Perhaps the insurance industry is remiss in not offering legal cover for bike riders as an option for the wise. It seems that pet insurance is now an item that can be added to existing home and contents policies. Would it not be reasonable to be able to add public liability for bike riding accidents in a similar manner ?
As things stand, citizens put their entire assets at risk when they hop on their bike and go for a ride on a public road. If they have the misfortune to cause an accident that seriously injures others redress can be sought in the courts - and these days compensation can cover items such as pain and the loss of future earnings. At the moment, cycling seems the only road activity not covered by liability insurance !
No comments:
Post a Comment