« I'd rather kill the feeling of aliveness that speeding creates, than kill a mother of three. Courtland Milloy feels differently. |
| Wednesday Afternoon Commute - Actually the chronology of chicken and egg is well established »
September 12, 2012 | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
AAA once offered me a 100K policy for being hurt while "commuting", which included biking and walking.
I wish I had signed up -- something like 59 dollars. Usually these programs are chump change but my health insurance at the time was terrible and an accident would have wiped me out.
September 12, 2012 at 12:47 PM
I skimmed through the comments but found all the back and forth confusing and unfocused.
Happily I'm currently covered through work. And as mentioned in the previous comments ACA will extend (or mandate) coverage to nearly everyone.
Property Insurance also includes general liability coverage. It's a good idea to have such coverage anyway. Many condos and apartments now require that you carry such coverage anyway.
I would recommend that cyclists have some coverage but should it be mandated?
It seems to me that in our democracy that the state only hesitantly steps in and issues such mandates when some threshold has been crossed and the need to provide protection for the public outweigh the freedom of choice of the individual.
[Auto Insurance for the car free]
This is a point that the car free who occasionally drive need to consider carefully. I've found that the limits that one can obtain casually through use of the car sharing services to be woefully inadequate.
Use of certain credit cards for renting a car may provide insurance as well but read carefully because the coverages offered are often very basic.
And be wary of driving a friends car. If you are at fault in an accident their insurance policy does not protect you at all!
I'm told that one can purchase a non-owners insurance policy from any of the traditional auto insurers. That seems to me to be the way to go if you are an occasional driver because then you can establish exactly the level of protection (and responsibility) necessary.
September 12, 2012 at 03:09 PM
I was fascinated by the arguments re first and second order effects, i.e. what is the correct theoretical explanation of the data.
The problem is that the DATA show a decrease. I agree that this is counterintuitive, but so is the world being a globe. As for the assertion that transit agencies are fudging the numbers: perhaps, but why?Where is the evidence for a long term pervasive procycling bias. More importantly, injury stats are collected through public health agencies, hospital records, and the insurance companies. You can look up such things at the CDC.
IOW: there are plenty of different sources of data. If someone wants to dispute the data offered by David C, then they should be able to find such evidence to rebut it instead of hiding behind a conspiracy.
September 12, 2012 at 03:52 PM
In terms of car-free insurance, I believe Amex offers a term system. Or used to. Something like $30 for six months.
But yes, it is similar problem with any mandate. I'd fully support a system making everyone over 16 buy "moving" insurance.
September 12, 2012 at 04:33 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(You can use HTML tags like <b> <i> and <ul> to style your text. URLs automatically linked.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address
Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com
Subscribe in a reader