If a bicycle hits a car and damages it (bicycle rider being guilty), who pays the insurance?
Bicycle Hitting a Car - Who Pays The Insurance?
DiLs on 08/03/2019 - 07:20
Last edited 08/03/2019 - 08:48 by 1 other user
Last edited 08/03/2019 - 08:48 by 1 other user
Comments
He is on life support, so I am just trying to sort out the issues before he finally depart
one of the reasons for the push to have rego plates on pushies
.Actually cyclists can (and should) get public liability insurance to cover these instances.
I was thinking more for when the cyclist scampers off
Not applicable in this case….
.
How much damage to the car?
Send a bill to the bike rider and hope they'll pay up. If not contact your insurance company and ask them.
You are, of course, insured?
I believe the bicycle rider is liable. Bike riders can get liabilty insurance as well.
If car has comprehensive insurance, I Believe the insurance company will chase the rider or their insurance. Hopes the rider has insurance. If in Victoria, personal injury to the rider should be covered under TAC as it involved a motor vehicle.
Is the Bike damaged (or the Car)
Is the cyclist insured?
The cyclist isn't guilty, at fault possibly…
You can't pay insurance after. lol
The question doesn't even make sense, as the word insurance is used incorrectly. It doesn't matter how calmly it is read.
There is no guilt in this scenario.
I think you mean who pays for the damages?
Send cyclist details to your insurance company. Let us know what they say?
^ This
Who pays the insurance? The insured person pays the insurance.
Who pays for the damage? The person who caused the damage - or the person's insurer if they assume liability on that person's behalf.
The car driver should get this repair done through their insurer. The insurer should recover the cost of the repairs from the cyclist given they are at fault which should mean that the car driver does not pay any excess on the claim to the insurer.
If the insurer is unable to recover the costs from the cyclist than the driver will need to pay an excess and can try to recover this cost from the cyclist but I think their chances are slim if an insurance company was unable to do the same thing.
If the insurer is unable to recover the costs from the cyclist than the driver will need to pay an excess
That doesn't sound right. As long as you can identify the other person responsible (motorist/cyclist/vandal), you shouldn't have to pay an excess. Maybe it depends on the insurance company?
Looks like you are correct, I was close! From the NRMA PDS:
When you don’t need to pay any excess
You don’t need to pay any excess if:
you make a claim for an incident that we agree was not in any way your fault or
the fault of any other person we cover, and
you can give us the name and residential address of the at fault driverThat surprises me - if they cannot recover the money from the other person I thought they would definitely charge you an excess instead of taking the entire hit themselves. I guess their success rate at recovering costs is probably very high.
That surprises me - if they cannot recover the money from the other person I thought they would definitely charge you an excess instead of taking the entire hit themselves
I think it's just a matter of perception. Charging a customer an excess under these circumstances would definitely leave a bad taste in the customer's mouth. Easier to increase premiums down the line.
I guess their success rate at recovering costs is probably very high.
Nah - I don't think they spend a lot of effort on recovery beyond a few strongly worded letters. The vast majority of insurance debt is sold to a factoring company for cents on the dollar.
Car driver gets ID of the cyclist. Car driver passes that to his own insurance. Insurance company goes after cyclist.
as you don't have to show ID, what's stopping you from providing a fake name? with a car, you get the car plates, but bugging with a bicycle.
Nothing honestly, you hope they give you their ID before thinking of doing a runner.
Who ever is at fault, if the cyclist is at fault they pay. It would be best to just lodge a claim with your insurance and let them sort it out.
Same for pedestrians, dogs etc.
dogs
Might be a little harder for the insurance company to go after a dog….. (or for the dog to pay)
The owner of the dog.
The cyclist might have home contents cover, which might include liability cover for these types of events.
The cyclist might be able to make a claim on that, instead of going through your car insurance. The excess on contents insurance is likely to be lower than your car insurance policy.
CTP pays for personal injuries.
On no!!! The cyclist won’t be insured everyone panic!!
It’ll just come out of he CTP find for the few instances where the at fault party does not have CTP.
Go to your insurance company and provide them with the other party's details. If the cyclist is deemed to be at fault, then you won't have to pay the excess. That will be your part done and your car will get fixed by your insurer.
Given the state the the cyclist is in, the choice of whether to attempt recovery or not is up to the insurer. It will not impact you either way.
If a bicycle hits a car and damages it (bicycle rider being guilty), who pays the insurance?
The person at fault is responsible. However, when a pushbike doing the wrong thing slammed sideways into the side of my car, a lawyer told me "good luck with that".
Claim on your insurance.
Thank you everyone for the comments, it was just a hypothetical question that comes in my mind at times.
The answer is 42.
Poor bloke you hypothetically put him on life support.
And while you are at it, in 80% of motor vehicle crashes involving a bicycle, the motor vehicle is at fault. So your hypothetical situation is pretty unlikely considering that many drivers go for years and years without a crash.
To have that question sounds like u have the subconscience to knock cyclists down unintentially enough to place the person on life support, and the cyclist will pay u for your car damage??
Do you believe in Allah extremists?
I don't imagine that a cyclists would do enough damage to a car that insurance would be worth it
hypothetical cycle = nil damage
I've written two cars off and walked away with no broken bones and the bike was a total write-off in one of the accidents. Both cars faults. T-boned a Ford fiesta breaking all the left side windows and bending the b-pillar… Car was only worth $800 plus whatever rego it had left plus the petrol in the tank. My claim came to nearly $7000. The other was a Ford Telstar worth about $2500 where the passenger opened the door on me. I bent the door so far forward they couldn't close it. $2500 to repair so they sent it to the wreckers and had to buy another car. Bike only suffered about $180 in cosmetic damage which they paid for.
Difference being those examples the car was at fault. The incidence of a cyclist being at fault is very low. A typical cyclist is far more aware of surroundings to do the best they can to avoid a crash - because there is significant risk of self harm without seatbelts, airbags etc.
Who pays the insurance??
Who pays for education?
No difference between 2 cars or car and cyclist. The person at fault is liable. This liability is then usually passed on from the at fault person to their insurance provider. Most cyclists will have insurance through their home and contents, cycling membership such as cycling Australia, or state based membership.
I know in my case I have $20,000,000 in personal liability each policy for 3 different policies.
Sounds like he's paying for the damages!
Same as for a pedestrian, or a dog that should have been on leash.
Our insurance system could use some reform. It would help if car insurance policies covered nominated drivers for liability when they were cycling.
If the cyclist is too young to drive, the insurance company would just write off the debt anyway.
Is the cyclist still alive in this scenario?