Did you have a GoPro running or only the still shot posted here? That is a huge difference. A still shot does not show what happened leading up to the crash. I could argue that you fell on your own and the driver slammed on the brakes to keep from hitting you, then backed away to go around.

This is awesome, thank you for mentioning it. Started the process today of checking / bumping my UM / UIM coverage!!

Cheers, and here's hoping we never need it.

-Eric

My friend's wife was rear-ended while driving and the other driver's insurance tried to argue that she should have been watching her rear view mirror and honked to warn their client. That didn't get them anywhere.

I use the first gen Garmin Virb and get about 2.5 hours per charge. On longer rides, I bring extra batteries. Rear facing is 1080 and records license plates with no issue. Front facing is currently set to 720, though I may revert back to 1080. Only issue is that if you live in a state that doesn't require front plate (e.g. PA), you won't be able to capture anything. The mounts ended up costing almost as much as the cameras.

Drivers around where I live are bad enough that I'm considering getting windshield mounts for when i'm driving.

Fly6 is designed exactly for this situation.

I set my camera to 1080p, 60 fps today and managed to get 85 min of recording time.

License plates at:
1080p, 60 fps, 25 Mbps
vs.
4K, 30 fps, 100 Mbps

I could probably improve the 1080p quite a bit by playing with the settings as it goes up to 120 fps/100 Mbps. Maybe I'll try that tomorrow.



Edit: I forgot to mention that the Sony action camera mounts by K-Edge are $15 front and $25 rear on Amazon.

This is fantastic. I have an old Contour ROAM for my front camera. Battery lasts about 1 1/2 hours, maybe 2 if I'm lucky. The SIM card holds about 1 GB/15 min (in 720p) up to a maximum of about 8 GB. I'd love to get more, which I guess I could with lower quality video, but then I'd still lose the battery at 2 hours. I gotta upgrade, I guess.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

do you know what one could do if one lives in a state where the auto policy does not extend to situations when I'm on the bike? I'm in NJ and my auto policy applies only when I'm driving. Not sure if my renter's policy would extend to cycling. Umbrella coverage also doesn't extend to situations when I'm on the receiving end of something when riding.

I don't think you are understanding the issue. A GoPro will not make a difference. At all. The driver's insurance company will ALWAYS create a narrative that places the cyclist at fault. Any pictures or video you have of the accident will be used by them to support that narrative. Thinking otherwise is comforting but naive.

The traffic laws are different state by state in the US, but in most cases cyclists are treated in much the same ways that cars are treated. The problem is that drivers do not treat cyclist the same as cars, and the laws of physics do not treat us the same either. Vulnerable user laws recognize this and make things reasonable. Most states in the US do not have them. So when you are on your bike, you are at very clear physical and legal disadvantage. In PI law, things change.

If you are hit, stay on the ground. Take the ambulance ride.

Your GoPro is cute. I have a Fly6. It's cute too.

Geez all these threads make me feel like my bike/car crash was one in a hundred where everyone behaved as they should in 2006.

Car pulls out, I hit and t-bone here. Broken bike, ambulance ride, $20k in medical bills.

Within a week I had insurance settlement and they covered new bike and all medical bills. They never once tried to put it on me, the girl didn't try and put it on me. Cops didn't even cite her for breaking any laws. I was really worried about that initially but the cops (best friend's dad was police chief) told me that wouldn't factor in insurance claims.


Of course now that I'm riding 7 outdoor rides a week w athletes it's like I'm dreading the next time it happens.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I would double check on that. I am not licensed in NJ, just Idaho, Washington and Oregon so take this advice for what it is. But I did a quick google search for a copy of a standard NJ auto policy and it does indicate that PIP coverage applies when you are on a bike. The key here is that the coverage applies to a "pedestrian" if the injury is caused by an "auto". Anything in a policy that has " " around it means there is a definition for that word listed in the policy. In the NJ policy I have linked below the word "pedestrian" means any person not occupying a vehicle that is A: propelled by other than muscular power, and B: designed for use on highways, rails or tracks.

Your bicycle is propelled by muscular power so according to my reading of the policy your PIP coverage does apply. It appears you can get limits of $15-25k on PIP in NJ, I would go with the $25k myself, the cost difference is usually negligible.

https://www.csg-inc.net/...New-Jersey-Basic.pdf

As I said I am not an NJ insurance agent so take it all with a grain of salt, but check out the link and do some reading. Then take that to your local agent and ask for their opinion and advice on it. The Idaho policy is a bit more straight forward and just says "Pedestrian" includes anyone on a bicycle. Yours is a bit more convoluted with the muscular power line but it gets to the same conclusion in my opinion.

I had a car accident like that back around 2005 too. Everyone behaved, so I thought the system was reasonable and moderately fair. And that was why I was so naive when I got hit on my bike a couple years ago.

I am not a lawyer (obviously), but I was told by the Insurance Commissioner's Office in California that the laws have changed here and that the insurance companies must accept responsibility now. They only do that if their driver clearly accepts blame on the spot and tells the cop and their insurance company that they were at fault. And all of this is written down by the cop and recorded by insurance company. That's not likely. At best, the driver will be nervous and say they're not sure. And over a day or two things change. And the driver's insurance company has a new statement from their driver and the legal team ready to beat it into your skull how you caused this crash.

I'm understanding most of what you've written, with the exception of the bolded part.

If you have rear-facing video footage of you holding your line and maintaining a steady speed a foot left of the white line, and it shows a car or truck coming up behind you and hitting you, what narrative is the driver or insurance company going to be able to create that isn't easily disproven by that video? I get them trying to say you suddenly swerved into the path of the vehicle or whatever but surely the video would clearly contradict that claim?

'Merica strong baby!!!

ETA: one day my auto correct will spell correctly.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Both the cyclist and the car were going backwards and the camera footage was actually being played backwards. Then velociraptors killed everyone.

Can I be an insurance adjuster?

many thanks for digging that up and taking the time to write the detailed response! the insurance person on the line was of the opinion that a pedestrian getting side-swiped wouldn't even be covered under the auto PIP policy, so it's good to know that this isn't the case. I'll read up the fine print later.

The driver's insurance company is not interested in what happened or what is fair and reasonable. They will create a narrative because they are paid to show how you, not their driver, did things to cause the crash. It's not that hard to do. Parents do this for their kids. Insurance companies do this for their clients.

Please keep in mind that these issues are almost always settled without a judge being involved, so there isn't a disinterested person there to decide what has or has not been proven. If they cannot say you swerved, they will find something else.

I do want to be clear that I am not being cynical and I am not encouraging anyone to make a false or unethical claim against a driver. The legal framework for vehicle law in most states was designed by insurance companies to address issues with car-on-car crashes where it is often best to just let the insurance companies of both sides cover their clients. That's reasonable, but when a car hits a bike, that legal framework sets the cyclist at a clear disadvantage.

So I do agree with other people who advocate keeping a good (expensive) insurance policy, and I agree with people who use video cameras and have one myself. And if vulnerable user laws were more common, I would be saying something very different.

But until then, stay on the ground. Take the ambulance ride. Be polite but say nothing to the cop. Call a PI lawyer.

You just passed the California State Bar exam.

I'm sorry.

I was in a wreck with a car that totaled my bike a little over a year ago. Luckily, I was in-injured. The car had a stop sign, I did not. He did stop, but crossed the road just as I was approaching the intersection and I slammed into his rear passenger door and flew over the trunk. Put a huge dent in his door!

The cops came and did an investigation and placed the driver at fault. There were several witnesses that stayed at the scene and made statements on my behalf. The cops also had the good manners to believe that the 25 foot long bike skid marks leading into the intersection was actually mine!

But his insurance company at first agreed only to reimburse me 40% of the cost to replace my bike because I should replace it with a used bike of the same age. I called my renters insurance and they just me a full replacement value check that same day, minus my deductible, and within three weeks even got my deductible back from subrigation with the driver's insurance company. They were awesome! It was about $8,000 total.

Lawyers wanted nothing to do with me unless I had at least $25k in hospital fees. Even the so-called cycling lawyer.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

This one I am sure is different from state to state I know in WV if you rear-end somebody it is your fault no matter what.

[quote RowToTri

Lawyers wanted nothing to do with me unless I had at least $25k in hospital fees. Even the so-called cycling lawyer.[/quote]
Same experience...I had to go to a Lawyer with less experience and at a smaller firm....the settlement was low as the Driver's Ins. Comp. played hardball, pretty much taunting us to go to court.

The system is rigged against those who do not take part in filling the Tax or Insurance coffers....

That's the essential point.

When you have been hit on your bike, you are not stepping into a legal system where the facts are established and a reasonable solution is hammered out by a disinterested third party. You are, instead, asking a company to pay for your bike and medical expenses. That company is the driver's insurance company and they are also looking at expenses for their driver's car which may have been damaged when your head hit the driver's door.

In many states, the insurance company gets to determine what they are responsible for and what you are responsible for. Yes, folks. They get to decide if they give you their money and if you are going to pay to fix their driver's door. That is what many states have set up as the legal framework in which insurance companies operate. Again, they get to decide if they are going to give your their money or if you are going to pay for their driver. No, I'm not kidding.

The "system" was not designed to screw over cyclists. It just does because it was designed to addressed crashes with two insured drivers in automobiles. Insurance companies created an essentially no-fault legal environment in many states so that they could process things more quickly and not fight in court over who pays for whose fender. In car accidents, basically both sides blame each other and end up covering their own damages and expenses. When one driver is not insured, they go after them in court ruthlessly for every dime they can squeeze out of them.

The UCLA student did not have an insurance company on her side telling the driver's insurance to fuk off and pay for the bike, so the driver's insurance went after her for the damages to their driver's car. They did not care how stupid their claim was. They did that not because they are evil insurance people but because they can and this is business. Nothing personal. Really.

So, again, the people who think their GoPro is going to settle the matter are in for a rude awakening. Nobody cares what you have on video. I do think people should ride with them, but don't go turning your video over to the cops or the driver's insurance company. They will simply go through the footage to show how you contributed to the accident. Nothing personal. Really.

Just say you have it. And no, you are not sharing it yet.

And you want money for your medical bills for all those unresolved medical issues that you reported when you were first taken to the hospital in that ambulance.

And your badass 2010 Cervelo P2 has the hottest aluminum rims in the market that can only be found in the darkest corners of E-bay. And it's busted.

And your doctor says your lawyer is the best in the business.

And you lawyer says your doctor is right about that and about your need for longterm chiropractic care and massage therapy. And he thinks you cracked your patella, but he's not sure yet. Maybe some more x-rays or an MRI will be needed.

Be that guy.

It will probably take a while, but eventually the insurance adjuster needs to get you off the books and settle the matter. They will talk when they want to get rid of your whiney and legalistic ass, especially if you are a threat to become a PI issue. They don't want to screw around with that because they did not write those laws. And then you are more likely to be able to replace that P2 with a badass P4 you found at Backpages.

Until we have vulnerable user laws, that's how it needs to be done.

Tell me again how video makes no difference...

http://wkrn.com/...n-williamson-county/

Victim of left hook here.

Driver said I made a right turn from the left lane into her; my wife, who was right behind me, laughed this statement.

Cop on the scene—1 block from his station—asked the driver why she thought I'd want to turn into her car. She was ticketed for something, I don't exactly recall what (this is 8yrs ago).

I filed a police report, and contacted my auto ins co. w/ the offending driver's info.

My ins co contacted driver's ins co.

I wound up w/ a friend sewing 2 stitches in my r index finger, one slightly out-of-true front wheel, and some torn bar tape.

Driver's ins co. bought be a new commuter bike.

This took 8 business days.

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

The video you posted is of a criminal offense where someone will be facing criminal charges. Video in a criminal offense is important and will be considered by the DA.

The topic has been discussing civil disputes over property damage and medical expenses after a traffic accident involving a car and a bike. In a civil dispute over property damage, especially one where the insurance company legally gets to determine its own liability, video will not help you. In fact, as I have said multiple times before, they will use it to punch holes in your narrative and use it to determine how you are at fault.

Do not give the driver's insurance company or the cop writing the accident report your video. The cop will turn it over to the insurance company and the insurance company will use it against you. Keep it but let it be known you have it. And you have nagging injuries and know a PI lawyer who is interested.

The insurance company will realize you are a pain in the ass after a few months and pay for your bike and refrain from demanding that you pay for the dent you made with your head in their driver's door.