Liability in Bicycle Crashes



Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pbwalther

Guest
I was out on a training ride on Sunday. I ended up going against the grain of a local century ride.
There was a crash so I stopped.

Now according to accounts, Rider 1 had been pulling a paceline. Rider 1 ran off the road onto the
grass shoulder (for no known reason even to Rider 1) and fell when he tried to get back onto the
pavement (the pavement was raised about 2" above the shoulder). Rider 2 and Rider 3 ran into Rider 1
and both went down also. No one suffered any apparant serious injuries - just bruises. However Rider
3's bike was demolished. The carbon fiber frame detached from the head tube (both tubes upper and
lower). That impressed me because I had not seen this kind of failure before.

Rider 3 asked Rider 1 for his name and address presumabely to pay for the damage to Rider 3's bike
because Rider 3 believed Rider 1 to have "caused" the accident. Now this does make sense according
to usual custom cycling circles I have been in.

Well I was surprised by this. I this was the first time I had ever seen a rider want to claim
damages against another rider.

But it seems to me that Rider 3 is in error. He was following Rider 1. According to my admittedly
hazy understanding of the motor vehicle code, a vehicle following another vehicle is nearly always
at fault if it rear ends the vehicle in front. Now if you are drafting in a paceline, it seems to
me, that you are following far too closely to give a safe interval for a mishap. I would think that
if there were damages, Rider 1 could collect from Rider 3 and not vice versa. It seems to me that
the law controls here not cycling custom.

So, I have a couple questions for the learned, not so learned, and just plain ignorent members of my
group (heck, I don't want to exclude anyone).

1) Are any of you familiar with one cyclist collecting damages from another because of a cycling
mishap? A brief background and rationale would be interesting.

2) What do you all think of my interpretation of liability? That is that people drafting can not
really legitimately claim damages from riders in front of them because they are following at a
dangerously close interval?
 
G

Guy Chapman

Guest
On 02 Dec 2002 14:34:31 GMT, [email protected] (Pbwalther) wrote:

[snip crash & broken bike]

I find the whole thing baffling. Three guys out racing have a crash (which is a known risk of
racing) - them's the breaks. That's why my bikes are properly insured: if I wipe out, the bike's
covered without having to try to pin the blame on someone else.

Guy
===
Now available in both wedgie and bent flavours!

** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
S

Scott Munro

Guest
On 02 Dec 2002 14:34:31 GMT, [email protected] (Pbwalther) wrote:

>I was out on a training ride on Sunday. I ended up going against the grain of a local century ride.
>There was a crash so I stopped.
>
>Now according to accounts, Rider 1 had been pulling a paceline. Rider 1 ran off the road onto the
>grass shoulder (for no known reason even to Rider 1) and fell when he tried to get back onto the
>pavement (the pavement was raised about 2" above the shoulder). Rider 2 and Rider 3 ran into Rider
>1 and both went down also. No one suffered any apparant serious injuries - just bruises. However
>Rider 3's bike was demolished. The carbon fiber frame detached from the head tube (both tubes upper
>and lower). That impressed me because I had not seen this kind of failure before.
>
>Rider 3 asked Rider 1 for his name and address presumabely to pay for the damage to Rider 3's bike
>because Rider 3 believed Rider 1 to have "caused" the accident. Now this does make sense according
>to usual custom cycling circles I have been in.
>
>Well I was surprised by this. I this was the first time I had ever seen a rider want to claim
>damages against another rider.
>
>But it seems to me that Rider 3 is in error. He was following Rider 1. According to my admittedly
>hazy understanding of the motor vehicle code, a vehicle following another vehicle is nearly always
>at fault if it rear ends the vehicle in front. Now if you are drafting in a paceline, it seems to
>me, that you are following far too closely to give a safe interval for a mishap. I would think that
>if there were damages, Rider 1 could collect from Rider 3 and not vice versa. It seems to me that
>the law controls here not cycling custom.
>
>So, I have a couple questions for the learned, not so learned, and just plain ignorent members of
>my group (heck, I don't want to exclude anyone).
>
>1) Are any of you familiar with one cyclist collecting damages from another because of a cycling
> mishap? A brief background and rationale would be interesting.
>
>2) What do you all think of my interpretation of liability? That is that people drafting can not
> really legitimately claim damages from riders in front of them because they are following at a
> dangerously close interval?

From your description, I think rider 3 was correct.

If rider 1 had stopped suddenly to *avoid* going off the pavement, and riders 2 and 3 had crashed
into him, then 2 and 3 would be at fault because they were following too closely.

However, having gone off the pavement, it was rider 1's responsibility to make certain that it was
safe for him to re-enter traffic.

--
What happens when a lighthearted and humorous film intended to teach children about bicycle safety
turns into a bizarre and surrealistic vision of a world gone mad? http://home.attbi.com/~onegotfat/
 
H

Harris

Guest
Pbwalther <[email protected]> wrote:

> Now according to accounts, Rider 1 had been pulling a paceline. Rider 1 ran off the road onto the
> grass shoulder (for no known reason even to Rider 1) and fell when he tried to get back onto the
> pavement (the pavement was raised about 2" above the shoulder). Rider 2 and Rider 3 ran into Rider
> 1 and both went down also. No one suffered any apparant serious injuries - just bruises. However
> Rider 3's bike was demolished. The carbon fiber frame detached from the head tube (both tubes
> upper and lower). That impressed me because I had not seen this kind of failure before.

> Rider 3 asked Rider 1 for his name and address presumabely to pay for the damage to Rider 3's bike
> because Rider 3 believed Rider 1 to have "caused" the accident.

This is why it's foolish to get into a paceline with riders you don't know on large group rides. I
don't know the legalities involved, but I would think it would be difficult to collect damages while
admitting to "tailgating" a foot or two behind the other rider.

Art Harris
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
[email protected] (Pbwalther) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Rider 3 asked Rider 1 for his name and address presumabely to pay for the damage to Rider 3's bike
> because Rider 3 believed Rider 1 to have "caused" the accident. Now this does make sense according
> to usual custom cycling circles I have been in.

Rider 3 was responsible for the safe operation of his bicycle and was required to only pass when it
was safe. Since he ran into Rider 1 (especially after seeing him leave the road and attempt to
reenter), Rider 3 was fully responsible for any damage that he caused on Rider 1's bicycle.

> 1) Are any of you familiar with one cyclist collecting damages from another because of a cycling
> mishap? A brief background and rationale would be interesting.

This isn't normally covered by vehicle insurance though it could be. It would normally be covered by
homeowners liability insurance. I think that motor vehicle insurance would only take this under
special circumstances.

But it is a forgone conclusion in my estimation - any person that is following so closely that he
could not avoid an accident that could be seen to be coming even before it happened has no chance of
arguing that the person he was dogging was at fault.

> 2) What do you all think of my interpretation of liability? That is that people drafting can not
> really legitimately claim damages from riders in front of them because they are following at a
> dangerously close interval?

I'm in full agreement with you. When you paceline it is prima face' evidence that you had the
intent to ride in a dangerous manner in return for the advantage of working less to obtain a higher
average speed.

Running off of the road while riding along it's edge is a common occurence and part of the practice
of riding bikes. It is incombent upon the drafting riders to take such occasional problems into
account and not for the leading rider to never make common mistakes due to his attention being drawn
by something else.

BTW, I practice running off of the road and getting back on over the asphalt verge.
 
M

Mike Jacoubowsk

Guest
Riding in a tight paceline requires that you not only suspend your disbelief that it's unsafe to
ride in such a fashion (in the event anything goes wrong), but also places an extreme amount of
trust in the actions of others, perhaps more than should be the case. If a rider was riding
erratically and warned that he shouldn't be part of a pace line, and *then* continues and causes a
crash, sure, at the very least you have cause to be extremely agitated and perhaps try to make the
case that you're owed something for the damage to your equipment.

But rarely is that the case. More typically you're out there riding with people you've never met or
perhaps know only casually, and from riding a very short distance *you* made a determination that it
was safe to ride in close proximity to that other person (or persons).

The simple fact is that many cyclists (myself included) ride closely together in a way that
approximates how cars race, and requires not just quick reflexes but also very predictable behaviour
to have things go smoothly. If normal car traffic behaved that way, can you imagine all the wrecks
on the road? I'm not suggesting that what we do is something that should be outlawed (for following
too closely) or even that it should be discouraged. People who know what they're doing can ride for
many tens of thousands of miles in a paceline without being in a crash. But there will always be
that random element that can occur, and it's simply a risk you take for riding in such a fashion.

Please note this is entirely different from a cyclist doing something like running a red light and
smashing into you, or wrecklessly goofing off and causing a crash. In those circumstances, the
cyclist causing the accident should probably be treated no differently than had he/she been
driving a car.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReaction.com

"Pbwalther" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I was out on a training ride on Sunday. I ended up going against the
grain of
> a local century ride. There was a crash so I stopped.
>
> Now according to accounts, Rider 1 had been pulling a paceline. Rider 1
ran
> off the road onto the grass shoulder (for no known reason even to Rider 1)
and
> fell when he tried to get back onto the pavement (the pavement was raised
about
> 2" above the shoulder). Rider 2 and Rider 3 ran into Rider 1 and both
went
> down also. No one suffered any apparant serious injuries - just bruises. However Rider 3's bike
> was demolished. The carbon fiber frame detached
from
> the head tube (both tubes upper and lower). That impressed me because I
had
> not seen this kind of failure before.
>
> Rider 3 asked Rider 1 for his name and address presumabely to pay for the damage to Rider 3's bike
> because Rider 3 believed Rider 1 to have "caused"
the
> accident. Now this does make sense according to usual custom cycling
circles I
> have been in.
>
> Well I was surprised by this. I this was the first time I had ever seen a rider want to claim
> damages against another rider.
>
> But it seems to me that Rider 3 is in error. He was following Rider 1. According to my admittedly
> hazy understanding of the motor vehicle code, a vehicle following another vehicle is nearly always
> at fault if it rear
ends
> the vehicle in front. Now if you are drafting in a paceline, it seems to
me,
> that you are following far too closely to give a safe interval for a
mishap. I
> would think that if there were damages, Rider 1 could collect from Rider 3
and
> not vice versa. It seems to me that the law controls here not cycling
custom.
>
> So, I have a couple questions for the learned, not so learned, and just
plain
> ignorent members of my group (heck, I don't want to exclude anyone).
>
> 1) Are any of you familiar with one cyclist collecting damages from
another
> because of a cycling mishap? A brief background and rationale would be interesting.
>
> 2) What do you all think of my interpretation of liability? That is that people drafting can not
> really legitimately claim damages from riders in
front
> of them because they are following at a dangerously close interval?
 
T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
David Reuteler <[email protected]> writes:

> ohhh, you lucky brit, you. my bike is insured for theft anywhere, but i know of no way in the USA
> to insure against liability and accidents. can anyone enlighten me?

I know of at least one local cycling club (Cycling BC) that offers 24-hour liability and accident
insurance coverage included in their membership fee.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD

remove NO_SPAM. from address to reply
 
C

Comutrbob

Guest
>What do you all think of my interpretation of liability? That is that people drafting can not
>really legitimately claim damages from riders in front of them because they are following at a
>dangerously close interval?
>

I destroyed my bike and shattered my kneecap to pieces when I was riding #2 in a paceline and rider
#1 went down, causing me to endo. Ah ... but there's the rub. Did he cause me to endo? It was a
paceline and nobody but a complete idiot would deny the obvious risk of riding in a paceline -- that
something could happen ahead of you and you wouldn't have any time to react whatsoever. Paceline
riding is inherently risky and riders #2 and #3 clearly assumed that risk.

I think you're really on the money. Rider #1 could argue as you suggested, that he was rear-ended by
riders "tailgating" at an unsafe interval. And since he was at the front, he could claim he was
unaware of the riders behind him and their unsafe pacelining tactics.

I would hope they'd all assume their own losses and let it rest. That's what I did in my case. It
never crossed my mind for even a second -- nor has it crossed my mind in the five years since then
(until I read this post) -- to go after the rider who fell in front of me. I would have considered
myself a major asshole for doing so.

Bob C.
 
J

Jens Kurt Heyck

Guest
This issue came up on the Princeton Univ. cycling club a number of years ago. Rider 1 was a complete
novice, who "scare-braked", causing several riders to go down, trashing Rider 3's bike (a pricy
colnago, I think). Rider 3, a friend of mine, investigated getting compensation through Rider 1, the
team coach, and the law, and get nowhere with any of them. I think the judgement on all parts was
that riding in a paceline is kinda like trusting a belayer when you rock climb. You've chosen to
throw normal safety precautions out the window, in favor of completely trusting another individual.
If that individual makes an error, it's just tough cookies for you for trusting them.

BRW. Rider 1 subsequently left the club, and thereafter, the club applied extreme moral suasion to
anyone who rode erratically in the pace line.

--Jens

"Pbwalther" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I was out on a training ride on Sunday. I ended up going against the
grain of
> a local century ride. There was a crash so I stopped.
>
> Now according to accounts, Rider 1 had been pulling a paceline. Rider 1
ran
> off the road onto the grass shoulder (for no known reason even to Rider 1)
and
> fell when he tried to get back onto the pavement (the pavement was raised
about
> 2" above the shoulder). Rider 2 and Rider 3 ran into Rider 1 and both
went
> down also. No one suffered any apparant serious injuries - just bruises. However Rider 3's bike
> was demolished. The carbon fiber frame detached
from
> the head tube (both tubes upper and lower). That impressed me because I
had
> not seen this kind of failure before.
>
> Rider 3 asked Rider 1 for his name and address presumabely to pay for the damage to Rider 3's bike
> because Rider 3 believed Rider 1 to have "caused"
the
> accident. Now this does make sense according to usual custom cycling
circles I
> have been in.
>
> Well I was surprised by this. I this was the first time I had ever seen a rider want to claim
> damages against another rider.
>
> But it seems to me that Rider 3 is in error. He was following Rider 1. According to my admittedly
> hazy understanding of the motor vehicle code, a vehicle following another vehicle is nearly always
> at fault if it rear
ends
> the vehicle in front. Now if you are drafting in a paceline, it seems to
me,
> that you are following far too closely to give a safe interval for a
mishap. I
> would think that if there were damages, Rider 1 could collect from Rider 3
and
> not vice versa. It seems to me that the law controls here not cycling
custom.
>
> So, I have a couple questions for the learned, not so learned, and just
plain
> ignorent members of my group (heck, I don't want to exclude anyone).
>
> 1) Are any of you familiar with one cyclist collecting damages from
another
> because of a cycling mishap? A brief background and rationale would be interesting.
>
> 2) What do you all think of my interpretation of liability? That is that people drafting can not
> really legitimately claim damages from riders in
front
> of them because they are following at a dangerously close interval?
 
T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
David Reuteler <[email protected]> writes:

> Tom Keats <[email protected]_spam.vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>: I know of at least one local cycling club (Cycling BC) that offers 24-hour liability and accident
>: insurance coverage included in their membership fee.
>
> have we annexed british columbia? excellent! it's beautiful up there. a very worthy acquisition.

Not annexed yet. WRT liability ins., if our clubs can do it, yours can, too.

I'm almost tempted to plead to the world for somebody, anybody, to liberate us from our Provincial
Gov't. You can keep the Hummers at home, though. They'd just get stuck between all the trees,
anyways. Feel free to bring us lotsa Miller Genuine Draft. Our locally brewed-under-license version
ain't a patch on the Real Thing. We've made pretty good Guinness here, though. In fact, I've used
the lees from local Guinness as starter for my own home brews with great success. I dunno what the
local Guinness is like now.

> around here at least, the liability insurance seems limited to the group rides. not sure what info
> bikeleague.org has that i'm missing, tho.
>
> anyway, it has been months since i hit anyone in the meat-locker slalom.

As long as you've got some kind of medical coverage. I've got a hunch any litigations over paceline
accidents would get laughed outa court anywayz.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD

remove NO_SPAM. from address to reply
 
T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
David Reuteler <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats <[email protected]_spam.vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>: I'm almost tempted to plead to the world for somebody, anybody, to liberate us from our
>: Provincial Gov't.
>
> jesse "the body" ventura is free. we're done with him, you can have him.

In that case, we'll trade ya Alberta for Oklahoma.

cheers again, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD

remove NO_SPAM. from address to reply
 
M

Matt O'Toole

Guest
"Guy Chapman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> On 02 Dec 2002 14:34:31 GMT, [email protected] (Pbwalther) wrote:
>
> [snip crash & broken bike]
>
> I find the whole thing baffling. Three guys out racing have a crash (which is a known risk of
> racing) - them's the breaks. That's why my bikes are properly insured: if I wipe out, the bike's
> covered without having to try to pin the blame on someone else.

I agree. This is sport, and stuff like this happens. A gentleman would accept it and move on,
without trying to lay blame.

Matt O.
 
D

David Reuteler

Guest
Guy Chapman <[email protected]> wrote:
: I find the whole thing baffling. Three guys out racing have a crash (which is a known risk of
: racing) - them's the breaks. That's why my bikes are properly insured: if I wipe out, the bike's
: covered without having to try to pin the blame on someone else.

ohhh, you lucky brit, you. my bike is insured for theft anywhere, but i know of no way in the USA to
insure against liability and accidents. can anyone enlighten me?
--
david reuteler [email protected]
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:52:53 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

>If a rider was riding erratically and warned that he shouldn't be part of a pace line, and *then*
>continues and causes a crash, sure, at the very least you have cause to be extremely agitated and
>perhaps try to make the case that you're owed something for the damage to your equipment.

TBH if someone was that bad I'd leave the line.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
S

S. Anderson

Guest
I think there is a widely held principle about assuming risks that are known and widely accepted as
part of the sport. For instance, if you're golfing and somebody hooks a drive off the next tee and
drills you in the head, you generally cannot get damages from that person unless they were proven to
be wreckless or malicious. If the guy just happened to pull one and yells fore, you're stuck with
brain damage and the medical bills. Similarly, if a guy falls down in front of me during hockey and
I blast a puck into his face, he's paying for his own dental work. If he's sitting on the bench and
I purposely shoot the puck into his face, then there might be a case. I think buddy was upset at
being dumped and his $2k bike being ruined and was probably kicking ass and taking names. But I
doubt he'll get any compensation. I'd tell him to sue my ass. It's unfortunate that some people are
unable to accept blame.

Cheers,

Scott..
--
Scott Anderson

"ComutrBob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> I destroyed my bike and shattered my kneecap to pieces when I was riding
#2 in
> a paceline and rider #1 went down, causing me to endo. Ah ... but there's
the
> rub. Did he cause me to endo? It was a paceline and nobody but a
complete
> idiot would deny the obvious risk of riding in a paceline -- that
something
> could happen ahead of you and you wouldn't have any time to react
whatsoever.
> Paceline riding is inherently risky and riders #2 and #3 clearly assumed
that
> risk.
>
> Bob C.
 
S

S. Anderson

Guest
Yep, that's it exactly. Unless you can prove malicious intent or recklessness, you really can't
collect. The followers in the pace line may have thought the braking was too early and too hard,
but the lead rider probably honestly believed he was doing the right thing. And even if he didn't,
it would be very hard to prove otherwise. Similarly in mountaineering, if you're a paid guide and
you rope your clients together on a glacier at 5' intervals and all perish in a crevasse except
the guide, you may be liable since your method of roping up was not accepted practice. If you have
no guide, you all have equal experience and you decide that 5' intervals is a good method, you
have no case.

Cheers,

Scott..
--
Scott Anderson

"Jens Kurt Heycke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This issue came up on the Princeton Univ. cycling club a number of years ago. Rider 1 was a
> complete novice, who "scare-braked", causing several riders to go down, trashing Rider 3's bike (a
> pricy colnago, I think). Rider 3, a friend of mine, investigated getting compensation through
> Rider 1, the team coach, and the law, and get nowhere with any of them. I think the judgement on
> all parts was that riding in a paceline is kinda like trusting a
belayer
> when you rock climb. You've chosen to throw normal safety precautions out the window, in favor of
> completely trusting another individual. If
that
> individual makes an error, it's just tough cookies for you for trusting them.
>
> BRW. Rider 1 subsequently left the club, and thereafter, the club applied extreme moral suasion to
> anyone who rode erratically in the pace line.
>
> --Jens
 
G

Guy Chapman

Guest
On 02 Dec 2002 19:01:37 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote:

>my bike is insured for theft anywhere, but i know of no way in the USA to insure against liability
>and accidents. can anyone enlighten me?

I would guess that www.bikeleage.org would be a good starting point, but ICBW.

Guy
===
Now available in both wedgie and bent flavours!

** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
M

Mike Jacoubowsk

Guest
> TBH if someone was that bad I'd leave the line.

Yes, and I should have pointed that out. It's really tough to entirely get rid of personal
responsibility for *yourself* in something like this.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReaction.com

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:52:53 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >If a rider was riding erratically and warned that he shouldn't be part of a pace line, and *then*
> >continues and causes a crash, sure, at the very least you have cause to be extremely agitated and
> >perhaps try to make the case that you're owed something for
the
> >damage to your equipment.
>
> TBH if someone was that bad I'd leave the line.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.
 
A

Alan

Guest
You might be ablel to get what's called a 'marine rider' that covers accidental damage, but I don't
know about liability. I carried a marine rider on my photo equipment for many years. Liability may
be covered by homeowner's insurance or auto insurance. Ask your agent.

--

alan

Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."

"David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Guy Chapman <[email protected]> wrote:
> : I find the whole thing baffling. Three guys out racing have a crash (which is a known risk of
> : racing) - them's the breaks. That's why my bikes are properly insured: if I wipe out, the bike's
> : covered without having to try to pin the blame on someone else.
>
> ohhh, you lucky brit, you. my bike is insured for theft anywhere, but i know of no way in the USA
> to insure against liability and accidents. can anyone enlighten me?
> --
> david reuteler [email protected]
 
J

Joshua Putnam

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] writes:
>Guy Chapman <[email protected]> wrote:
>: I find the whole thing baffling. Three guys out racing have a crash (which is a known risk of
>: racing) - them's the breaks. That's why my bikes are properly insured: if I wipe out, the bike's
>: covered without having to try to pin the blame on someone else.
>
>ohhh, you lucky brit, you. my bike is insured for theft anywhere, but i know of no way in the USA
>to insure against liability and accidents. can anyone enlighten me?

Assuming amateur use of the bike, not professional racing, the personal liability protection of your
homeowners, renters, or condo insurance will typically cover liability resulting from recreational
and sporting activities. Check the wording of your own insurance policy to see what coverages it
has, or ask your insurance agent for information.

If someone else steals or damages your bicycle, that can be a covered loss to personal property
under your homeowners, renters, or condo policy, subject to the deductible on your policy of course.
I would caution against using this coverage too freely -- homeowners insurance is intended to
protect against major losses, not minor ones. Filing claims can produce steep rate increases or even
nonrenewal with some companies, and most preferred carriers won't take you as new business if you
have a recent claim.

Some companies also offer separate "floater" policies that cover your bicycle against all forms of
loss. Again, ask your own insurance agent.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.