Posted on 03/31/2022 11:39:21 AM PDT by Red Badger
Eight months into his recovery after being struck by a car while biking, Ben Bollinger of Vancouver, Canada received a surprise bill for $3,752.01. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) was asking him to recoup the damages caused to the vehicle that hit him, Global News reports.
Bollinger told Global News that he was riding on a bike path when a vehicle ran a stop sign and collided with him. He said that he flew 14 meters, or about 46 feet, after being struck and was hospitalized with a broken hand and foot.
But the ICBC claimed that he was driving an uninsured vehicle at the time of the collision, so he has to pay for damages, since the driver was insured.
This may be an unintended result of British Columbia’s no-fault-style insurance policy, which means that all B.C. residents can receive benefits for injuries, wage loss, and damages after a crash, regardless of who was at fault. Accident victims cannot sue the at-fault driver. At-fault drivers have few consequences for their actions aside from an increase in premiums. And that includes cyclists.
In theory, this plan was intended to provide all parties better access to care and coverage after an accident — but it can also have unintended consequences of the kind we can see here, where Bollinger can be charged with causing damage to an at-fault vehicle.
Here’s a little more from the Global Canada article about why this issue is popping up:
But Vancouver lawyer Kyla Lee said cases like Bolliger’s are becoming more common, now that cyclists and other uninsured individuals do not have the ability to sue ICBC or insured drivers under the new insurance model.
“It gives ICBC all the power, and what we see when ICBC has the power is they try and get as much money from people as they can and save themselves from paying out as much money as they can when it comes to a claim,” Lee said.
It's a harsh blow to Bollinger, who had metal plates inserted during the reconstruction of his hand — of which he will never regain full motion.
Good luck getting him to sign a check, then.
But the ICBC claimed that he was driving an uninsured vehicle at the time of the collision, so he has to pay for damages, since the driver was insured.
Don’t pay the bill. Let the insurance company take him to court. No insurance company will go to court over such a trifling amount in a matter that would keep the jury chuckling.
BICYCLISTS?...................
BICYCLISTS?...................
Bikers - people who ride motorcycles, do have insurance and have to obey the rules of the road, or get ticketed.
Cyclists - people who ride bicycles, probably should get insurance, especially since most of the ones I see don't obey the rules of the road at all - blowing through red lights and stop signs, crossing the yellow lines and riding against the flow of traffic, riding four abreast...and I never see any of them getting ticketed.
Can’t say about Vancouver but Portland cyclists are nuts.
Stop lights/signs are only for decoration.
Frankly I’m surprised 10/week are not killed in Portland.
I must have seen a dozen idiots downtown Seattle just cruise through red light intersections and get tagged by a vehicle and then throw a tantrum acting all indignant like it wasn’t their fault to start with.
They don’t have to be, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the BC insurance was going to try and use this case to make the arguement that cyclists should be ensured.
It’s money in the pocket of government.
If culpability is to be assessed, then let it fall upon the person who was actually at fault, by running a stop sign and entering a bicycle path with a motor vehicle. “No-fault” insurance does not normally apply to bicyclists.
Bad law to begin with, and even worse interpretation in practice.
It sounds like the cyclist wasn’t actually on the bike path, as he claims, but was in the middle of the street at a place where the bike path intersects with it. There’s a situation like that right behind my local bar, where the bike path crosses the street. I always go real slow there because I’m afraid some cyclist will just blow on through without slowing down or even looking for cars.
“Eight months into his recovery after being struck by a car while biking, Ben Bollinger of Vancouver, Canada received a surprise bill for $3,752.01. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) was asking him to recoup the damages caused to the vehicle that hit him, Global News reports.”
Recoup does not mean pay.
It’s hard to read these things with such idiocy.
Canada is just as illiterate as we are it seems.
That's pretty much how most insurance companies operate. Oh you were expecting something different from a government run monopoly? Human nature to suddenly change? One of the great flaws of socialist thought. They somehow think compassion suddenly appears when things are run by government bureaucrats.
There is a bicycle path that crosses my street that has a 4-way stop. I have rarely seen a car not stop for the sign.
Bicycles, however, seem to think that they don’t need to obey the rules of the road. There is a stop sign for their direction of travel, and a second sign that recommends dismounting and walking across the road.
More than once I have had narrow escapes from cyclists barrelling through the intersection at 20+ mph. A couple of cyclists have been shocked to learn that when they hit a car in the side, THE CYCLIST gets the ticket.
I have gotten to the point where I only look to the right when I approach this intersection after I have stopped. I have been shouted at by cyclists for not allowing them through when they fail to yield, and I respond with: “You have a stop sign TOO, *******!”
As a bicyclist myself, I understand the reluctance for the dismount, but I always try to be courteous and follow the rules of the road. Some think that once the Spandex goes on, the rules no longer apply.
If the cops had half the zeal for enforcing the rules with cyclists as for automobiles, I am certain the rates of injury to cyclists would drop precipitously. Cars, however, are far easier targets.
That policy is a consequence of cyclists insisting on having the same right to the road as vehicles.
I used to be a year-round cyclist and I’ve always been of the opinion that bicycles should be using side roads and not main roads to get around. It doesn’t take a whole lot longer to use roads that are one block over from main roads.
It’s an act of stupidity to give equal weight to cars and bicyles.
Too bad it wasn’t john f’n kerry on the bike.
CanaDUH is not a place I would live.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.