Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

  1. #1
    mrblanche
    Guest

    NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    Hey, JDM, are you acquainted with the section of New Yorks no-fault law that says that motorcycles are not "motor vehicles," so if someone hits you with their car, they don't have to pay for your damages?

  2. #2
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,948

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    Quote Originally Posted by mrblanche
    Hey, JDM, are you acquainted with the section of New Yorks no-fault law that says that motorcycles are not "motor vehicles," so if someone hits you with their car, they don't have to pay for your damages?
    How does that work?

    I assume motorcycles in NY must have license plates, be registered and insured and pass state inspection just like cars....?

  3. #3
    mrblanche
    Guest

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    I'll just have to wait to hear from John. Sounds like typical insurance-company legalese.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,614

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    Quote Originally Posted by mrblanche
    Hey, JDM, are you acquainted with the section of New Yorks no-fault law that says that motorcycles are not "motor vehicles," so if someone hits you with their car, they don't have to pay for your damages?
    I think that's a mistake.

    In this case, no-fault basically means that the carrier will pay medicals and wage loss for the driver and occupants of the vehicle it insures regardless of fault (if there is a third party at fault, they may get it back). The insurance companies (or somebody) did not want to take on the risk of no-fault medical costs of bikers. As they say on TV: And there's much, much more ...

    A lot of people fall off bikes for one reason or the next (or no reason at all) and there is no negligent third party to pay the medicals. I don't believe that the biker is precluded from an action for damages if there is a negligent third party.

    It all may have changed but that's what I think I remember.

    If that's not clear, ask and I'll try again.


  5. #5
    mrblanche
    Guest

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    This guy says he's been stiffed all around, and he has a lawyer filing a civil suit for damages against the young lady who ran into him and was admittedly at fault.

    I think this link will take you to the whole sordid story.

    http://www.kawasakimotorcycle.org/fo...but-im-ok.html

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,614

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    Quote Originally Posted by mrblanche
    This guy says he's been stiffed all around, and he has a lawyer filing a civil suit for damages against the young lady who ran into him and was admittedly at fault.

    I think this link will take you to the whole sordid story.

    http://www.kawasakimotorcycle.org/fo...but-im-ok.html
    I know nothing of the negligence trade, either, but it sounds about right to me. 'Lycos' does not understand the concept of no-fault and the other insurance company may have been jerking him around but both of those are perfectly normal situations. He has a lawyer which is what he needs.

    If I run into you and am at fault, whether you are in your truck, in the Cobalt, on a bike or simply a pedestrian, my no-fault coverage will do nothing for you.

  7. #7
    mrblanche
    Guest

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    Why doesn't he have no-fault coverage? And isn't her liability insurance responsible for his expenses?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,614

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    Quote Originally Posted by mrblanche
    Why doesn't he have no-fault coverage? And isn't her liability insurance responsible for his expenses?
    I think his lack of no-fault has to do with the fact that bike insurance does not include it.

    She (her insurance) should should be responsible for his expenses and, maybe, any 'specials.' ('Specials' have to do with intangibles such as 'pain and suffering,' 'loss of consortium,' etc.)

    I'm not trying to be obtuse, my knowledge of this stuff is really limited. What was once relatively simple has become very complex.


  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    287

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    Quote Originally Posted by mrblanche
    Hey, JDM, are you acquainted with the section of New Yorks no-fault law that says that motorcycles are not "motor vehicles," so if someone hits you with their car, they don't have to pay for your damages?
    I'mm not in New York and I don't live in a no-fault state, but if you were a pedestrian who didn't own a car (there are several million people like that in NYC alone), you can sue them. Ownership of a motorcycle doesn't keep you from suing someone else, I bet--and if motorcycles are not covered by the no-fault insurance law, that means that you have to sue the other person, your own insurance isn't no-fault. Or so I would think.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,614

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    Quote Originally Posted by pgranzeau
    Quote Originally Posted by mrblanche
    Hey, JDM, are you acquainted with the section of New Yorks no-fault law that says that motorcycles are not "motor vehicles," so if someone hits you with their car, they don't have to pay for your damages?
    I'mm not in New York and I don't live in a no-fault case, but if you were a pedestrian who didn't own a car (there are several million people like that in NYC alone), you can sue them. Ownership of a motorcycle doesn't keep you from suing someone else, I bet--and if motorcycles are not covered by the no-fault insurance law, that means that you have to sue the other person, your own insurance isn't no-fault. Or so I would think.
    You think right!

  11. #11
    DonTom
    Guest

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    "Hey, JDM, are you acquainted with the section of New Yorks no-fault law that says that motorcycles are not "motor vehicles," so if someone hits you with their car, they don't have to pay for your damages?"

    No-fault insurance simply means your own insurance company pays for the damages. That way the insurance company doesn't have to waste time with whose fault each accident is.

    CA voted it down several years ago. But I don't think it would have been a big deal if it passed or not.

    -Don-


  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,614

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    Quote Originally Posted by DonTom
    "Hey, JDM, are you acquainted with the section of New Yorks no-fault law that says that motorcycles are not "motor vehicles," so if someone hits you with their car, they don't have to pay for your damages?"

    No-fault insurance simply means your own insurance company pays for the damages. That way the insurance company doesn't have to waste time with whose fault each accident is.

    CA voted it down several years ago. But I don't think it would have been a big deal if it passed or not.

    -Don-

    There's a little more to it - with no-fault there are no awards for 'pain and suffering,' which can be far more than a couple of band aids. In NY, there was once a threshold of $500 in medicals before one could sue but that was a joke, anyone can run up $500 in medical costs. Now the threshold is much higher and subjective, not a number.

    Today, in the NYC area, the insurance fraud is in the no-fault area with fake injuries being treated at crooked clinics which overbill and pay kickbacks.

  13. #13
    DonTom
    Guest

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    "There's a little more to it -"

    There's insurance fraud either way, so I don't understand why there's a big difference. With no-fault, can't one sue their own insurance company if you don't believe they are paying you enough for your injuries?

    The insurance companies paid big bucks trying to get no-fault to pass in CA. But it still failed, and failed by a large margin so now nobody even talks about it much. IIRC, I voted against it too, but I don't remember my reasons. It was many years ago, perhaps about 20 or so, that we voted on the issue here in CA.

    -Don-



  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,614

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    Quote Originally Posted by DonTom
    ]There's insurance fraud either way, so I don't understand why there's a big difference. With no-fault, can't one sue their own insurance company if you don't believe they are paying you enough for your injuries?
    Anywhere there is money, there is fraud.

    More later but I do think that CA is right in rejecting the no-fault concept.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    287

    Re: NY putting motorcyclists in danger?

    "No-fault" was an attempt at reducing huge claims for damages when personal injury was involved in automobile accidents. An example is the rear-ender, where the party who has been hit has some whiplash. He or she incurs possibly $2,000 in medical bills, walks around in a foam collar, and sues for $5 million for "pain and suffering". Another example might be the person who has incurred some severe injury, and discovers that to recover all of his medical bills, he needs to sue for double the amount that he would be satisfied with, as his lawyer will gat 50% of the award when it is settled.

    Anyway, no-fault usually prohibits tort lawsuits for pain and suffering until a certain threshhold of medical expenses is reached. Of course, this gives rise to inflated medical expenses, in an attempt to reach the threshold to permit tort lawsuits.

    No one can figure out how to handle the frauds, however, or even how to tell the frands from the people who really have suffered severe ijury that gives no visible indication of its existence. They end up in court, and he who has the best lawyer usually wins.


Similar Threads

  1. Survey: Are you putting off buying a new car?
    By Eric in forum Survival/Economic Collapse
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-21-2010, 06:36 AM
  2. TSA putting hands DOWN your pants
    By Eric in forum Tea Party Talk...
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2010, 06:44 AM
  3. Putting Government Workers First
    By Eric in forum Survival/Economic Collapse
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-13-2010, 10:30 AM
  4. The greater danger?
    By swamprat in forum Fight Traffic Tickets/Driving Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-03-2008, 08:04 AM
  5. NMA friends to Motorcyclists
    By gail in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 07:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •