[vijen6]

All the more reasons for the cyclist to carry their own insurance I think. Their personal injuries can be a lot worse than the damage to the car, although it is their choice to use a `dangerous` mode of transportation. When a motorcyclist on a street bike gets killed, the general consensus is that he was probably doing something stupid and that extra risk comes with the territory. Why should it be any different than for cyclist ?

When you get into an accident with me, yes you might be injured or killed, but (assuming the accident wasn't my fault) does that mean I should have to pay for my own damages?

Just seems like a good idea to make cyclist insurance mandatory as with car / motorcycles. If you already have 5 cars, then you are cycling for fun. There's plenty of biking trails that you could make use of to not have to worry about commuting cars and ****************************s on the road with beer cans and cigarettes. If you choose to use the public road, then you should `pay to play` and carry insurance. Besides, looking at the prices of some bikes nowaday ($2k+), wouldn't you want to protect that investment too ?

I work in SF, and I used to bike daily to school, so I do deal with this issue and not just speaking out of my ass.

But this is just my opinion. Sorry to steer this off topic.