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.
and he should be suing the person who hit him. He was the one who was hurt.
Hope he has witnesses. He should get a lawyer and sue.
There are too many lights and signs. Just have cars go slowly through intersections.
Bicyclists, skateboarders, roller skaters, foot walkers . . .
So should pedestrians be insured?
Clog up the streets even worse than they are?
Most surface streets here are 20 to 30 MPH. You want folks driving SLOWER?
The guy on the bike pays a little bit of tax to use the road, but only through his accommodation while on his bike, as there is no provincial tax on his bike, or its parts.
The car driver is paying tax on the car, on the tires, on every other part, on the fuel, plus whatever taxes the bicyclist is paying.
Close to 95+ % of the vehicles on the road need to be in an artificially slowed traffic situation because some idiots don’t follow the rules of the road?
Do you see a slight disconnect from reality here?
>> Most surface streets here are 20 to 30 MPH
That’s between the lights and signs, where you go to 0, and then you sit they for 90 seconds or more. Just let people proceed with caution.
“Just let them proceed with caution”.
Most drivers DO proceed with caution. Then the Lance Armstrong wanna-be comes tearing out of the crossing street hell-bent for leather and t-bones the car.
As was said earlier, it’s rarely the car that breaks the rules. A bicyclist has ZERO protection, and is fully responsible for his own safety. If they follow the rules of the road, they are fine. It’s them running stop signs and lights, ignoring signals, crossing traffic willy-nilly, riding on sidewalks when convenient, and generally being pains in the patoot that is the cause of the vast majority of bicycle-automobile conflicts. We both know what vehicle is going to win that unfortunate scenario every time.
This incident is one of the rare occasions where the driver appears to be at fault. The other 99.9999% of the time it’s the other way around, and punishing all drivers for the moronic habits of certain cyclists is completely disproportionate and wrong.
Great idea. Maybe we could csll it a roundabout.
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.