In Missouri we are in the process of getting a bill written for this session in congress to stop the Insurance companies from saying we are at any fault just because we are on a bike in an accident.Did you know if a car slams into you at a light, they consider you a % of fault due to the fact you are on a bike? There fore they only have to pay a % of damage done? How many know about this?
2007-02-09 00:54:34 · 8 answers · asked by Broadgonebiker 3 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Motorcycles
Sorry but this is nationwide, just as insurance is. All states need to be fighting this. A friend of mine found out about it when she was hit by a car.
2007-02-09 01:08:37 · update #1
Wow that sounds very very wrong. I am hoping that the AMA http://www.ama-cycle.org/ is also aware of this and trying with your group to change that law. I searched their page and couldn't find anything listed there about this... contact them they have a strong lobby at state and federal levels.
That would be gounds to remove a cage drive from the gene pool.
2007-02-09 01:06:04 · answer #1 · answered by shovelkicker 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not too sure this is nationwide. I have a fair amount of experience with NY state auto insurance and I have never heard of anything like this. Comparitive negligence basically means that it takes 2 vehicles to cause an accident... therefore, both are partially at fault. There is rarely a case where one driver is 100% at fault. In most instances. If you are stopped at a light or traffic device and you are rear ended, the other driver will be 100% at fault. But lets say you stop short and get rear ended.. you will be (let's say) 10% at fault becuase you should not have been following the car in front of you so closely.
As far as I know comparative negligence works the same for cars an motorcycles (at least in NY).
2007-02-09 02:10:08 · answer #2 · answered by NY1Krr 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is not nationwide. We don't have anything like that here. There are state with comparative negligence laws but it has nothing to do with bikes. Each party is assigned a % of the fault in the accident. Where I am at if the damages are under 5000 the party that is 51% at fault becomes 100% at fault. You should have your friend check with their company again regarding this.
2007-02-09 10:03:11 · answer #3 · answered by blb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the interest of educating all you bone heads this is a situation that could happen through loop holes in the comparative fault laws it is very probable that anyone of us who actually ride a motorsickle could fall pray to this unethical possibility a worst case senario if you will It is the stated mission of the AMA MRF and groups like abate and forr to anticipate these kinds of possibilities and yes there is a case in which an elderly couple walking down the road were hit by a drunk driver after fleeing to the ditch , they were assigned 20% fault for being in the ditch . Never and I mean never underestimate the greed of corporate america your best interest mean nothing when compared to money . This aint something your insurance man is going to be honest about with you . Cenical yes but after you've been royaly phuqued it's too late for caution .
2007-02-09 10:58:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
some states require bike riders to the position helmets because of the severe possibility of head harm. there is regardless of the indisputable fact that lobbying occurring in those states to both eliminate the regulation or rigidity each body to the position helmets. Their argument is that if a helmet is safer then drivers of automobiles and automobiles can take advantage of the protection.
2016-12-03 22:52:08 · answer #5 · answered by northcut 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a load of BS. Being on a motorcycle is not considered comparative negligence anywhere, and it certainly isn't a proximate cause of anything.
2007-02-09 07:12:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How stupid. That's like blaming pedestrians on the sidewalk for not dodging a drunk driver!
Sounds like something GEICO would think up so they can keep paying for their damn CGI lizard instead of paying claims.
2007-02-09 01:55:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guess I won't be riding through Missouri any time soon! (And I though California had screwed up laws!)
2007-02-09 00:58:23 · answer #8 · answered by strech 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋