Injuries using e-scooters, e-bikes and hoverboards jump 70% during the past four years | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Injuries using e-scooters, e-bikes and hoverboards jump 70% during the past four years

It’s sad how many brain injuries come from misadventure.

In 2002 a friend got transferred to Connecticut to lead a large company’s sales force - he was thrilled it was a no helmet state. At 40 the world was his oyster. On his first ride he crashed his bike. He woke up 10 days after the crash as a 5 year old, that’s all he'll ever be.
 
mimico_polak said:
Wow. Talked about untapped potential for the insurance industry.
Click to expand...

unless they make it legally required, there is little incentive for anyone to get insurance on an e-bike/scooter.
ebike and scooter are fairly cheap, OHIP covers your injuries, only thing would be if you injure others and face a large lawsuit.
hate to stereotype but it doesn't seem to me that most ebike riders would stop after an incident or even have much to lose in a suit.
 
As much as the whole ebike thing irks me. Let's not forget who they are intended for. Make insurance a requirement to operate and we would be taking a lot of peoples only mode of transportation away from them.
Used properly they are a good thing.
 
Wingboy said:
As much as the whole ebike thing irks me. Let's not forget who they are intended for. Make insurance a requirement to operate and we would be taking a lot of peoples only mode of transportation away from them.
Used properly they are a good thing.
Click to expand...
Reasonable argument. Drop the max legal weight from 120 kg to 40 kg and they would have a lot less energy in a crash and still provide transportation. Start enforcing ebike laws with bikes suspected of being out of compliance getting a proper inspection prior to return. If they do not meet the definition of an ebike, they should be recycled. At this point, I suspect the majority of vehicles being operated as ebikes are actually LSM's.
 
Bicycle helmet wearing is not mandatory over the age of 18.
Protective motorcycle gear (other than helmet) is not required at all.
Lets change OHIP rules, if you have an accident you have no coverage if you aren't wearing either.
 
Blooton said:
Bicycle helmet wearing is not mandatory over the age of 18.
Protective motorcycle gear (other than helmet) is not required at all.
Lets change OHIP rules, if you have an accident you have no coverage if you aren't wearing either.
Click to expand...

Can't. This goes back to the anti mask, fat ppl, smokers, drug addicts, etc. debate
 
Blooton said:
Bicycle helmet wearing is not mandatory over the age of 18.
Protective motorcycle gear (other than helmet) is not required at all.
Lets change OHIP rules, if you have an accident you have no coverage if you aren't wearing either.
Click to expand...

a little heavy-handed there. I am ATGATT but heavily disagree with this.
it's a slippery slope you are headed down. OHIP is for everyone, not only for those that protect themselves at all costs. What's next? OHIP coverage only for those in cars? No OHIP for anyone into dangerous sports?

mandatory helmets for bicycles I would agree with.
more enforcement of rules for cyclists and e-bikes would help.
better training and licensing.
 
I agree its heavy handed and not practical as Killvino said.
But as an example look at how the stunting/50kmh laws have changed since introduced.

Insurance companies have no problems changing things. A "buddy" of mine had an at fault accident two weeks ago. Both cars were driveable, and the person he hit agreed to a cash settlement. 3 days later he gets notified by his insurance that his policy is cancelled retroactive to his accident and they will not insure him anymore. Turns out the other driver went to the accident reporting center. My friend is now charged failure to remain, the damage done to both cars is not covered by his insurance either
 
Blooton said:
I agree its heavy handed and not practical as Killvino said.
But as an example look at how the stunting/50kmh laws have changed since introduced.

Insurance companies have no problems changing things. A "buddy" of mine had an at fault accident two weeks ago. Both cars were driveable, and the person he hit agreed to a cash settlement. 3 days later he gets notified by his insurance that his policy is cancelled retroactive to his accident and they will not insure him anymore. Turns out the other driver went to the accident reporting center. My friend is now charged failure to remain, the damage done to both cars is not covered by his insurance either
Click to expand...
Damn. Got to prioritize dashcam installation.
 
Blooton said:
I agree its heavy handed and not practical as Killvino said.
But as an example look at how the stunting/50kmh laws have changed since introduced.

Insurance companies have no problems changing things. A "buddy" of mine had an at fault accident two weeks ago. Both cars were driveable, and the person he hit agreed to a cash settlement. 3 days later he gets notified by his insurance that his policy is cancelled retroactive to his accident and they will not insure him anymore. Turns out the other driver went to the accident reporting center. My friend is now charged failure to remain, the damage done to both cars is not covered by his insurance either
Click to expand...
Perfect example how going without insurance can burn you.

I’ve met people that tried that and then immediately had the other driver call insurance regardless.

My sister hit a car in a parking lot and the other driver wanted to do cash for something stupid like $2k for a bumper scratch. I told her for that ‘settlement’ just go insurance. She called the other driver, told them she’ll go insurance as 2k was too much…never heard back and issue was forgotten.
 
GreyGhost said:
Damn. Got to prioritize dashcam installation.
Click to expand...
My wife got hit by a car backing into her and the guy threatened her. Insurance looked at damage and said there was zero chance she could have hit him.

Then they said she’s at fault:
Me: but I was told the damage shows she didn’t hit him
Adjuster: who told you that?
Me: You did 3 days ago. Go through your records and I’m sure you record this call.
Adjuster: oh ya…you’re right. Sorry. No fault.
Me: great. Send me that in writing.

She had a dash cam front and rear within a few days after that.
 
My friend did have insurance at the time of the accident. The company cancelled it 3 days later and said they would not cover his collision.
 
Blooton said:
My friend did have insurance at the time of the accident. The company cancelled it 3 days later and said they would not cover his collision.
Click to expand...
Dashcam would have shown the crash and discussion after to show they didnt run. The shadyness of the whole situation makes me wonder if the friend was taken by a scam artist that is going to run up a huge pile of questionable medical bills.
 
Last edited:
GreyGhost said:
Dashcam would have shown the crash and discussion after to show they didnt run. The shadyness of the whole situation makes me wonder if the friend was taken by a scam artist that is going to run up a huge pile of questionable medical bills.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Shouldn’t the friend also have the other drivers contact info? Could that be enough to show that they actually spoke in person? Bonus points if the insurance info was shared.
 
Blooton said:
My friend did have insurance at the time of the accident. The company cancelled it 3 days later and said they would not cover his collision.
Click to expand...
Your buddy HAD a contract with his insurance company.
Your buddy operated outside the terms of that contract, making that contract null and void.
Perfectly reasonable response to "non disclosure"
Now your buddy has to get on national news and whine about the mean and nasty insurance company to try to shame the insurance company into backing away from their 100% defensible position.

... wait till he tries to buy insurance, and finds out he has a non-disclosure on his record.
 
Wingboy said:
As much as the whole ebike thing irks me. Let's not forget who they are intended for. Make insurance a requirement to operate and we would be taking a lot of peoples only mode of transportation away from them.
Used properly they are a good thing.
Click to expand...

And 96.3% of them are irresponsible with the rights granted to them to ride them
 
bitzz said:
Your buddy HAD a contract with his insurance company.
Your buddy operated outside the terms of that contract, making that contract null and void.
Perfectly reasonable response to "non disclosure"
Now your buddy has to get on national news and whine about the mean and nasty insurance company to try to shame the insurance company into backing away from their 100% defensible position.

... wait till he tries to buy insurance, and finds out he has a non-disclosure on his record.
Click to expand...

Isn’t there a damage threshold for reporting? Something like >$1,500?
 
FullMotoJacket said:
Isn’t there a damage threshold for reporting? Something like >$1,500?
Click to expand...
IIRC yes, there is some threshold where you can decide not to go through insurance once a year without rates getting jacked. There may be something about needing to notify them anyway in there and honestly, assuming it's more than a scratch, you are over. A dent on each bumper and you are well over.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
Isn’t there a damage threshold for reporting? Something like >$1,500?
Click to expand...
That's for going to the "Accident Reporting Center"... or what ever it's called.
If the claim is $1500 or more the insurance company wants a police report... AND the police, that don't attend minor collisions any more, were missing on charging drivers with "follow too close", illegal turns and such and the police use those forms as investigative tools to lay charges against drivers.

But the contract with your insurance company says something like " the insured must report any material change in risk"... the key word here is "ANY".
If having a full ashtray constitutes having a "material change in risk", you are obligated to report that full ash tray to your insurance company, every time it gets full... and I guess by extension; every time you empty it.

It is not out side your contract to settle a collision loss for cash on the side of the road, BUT you MUST inform your insurance company, as per your contract, that you were in that collision, AND the insurance company is well within their rights to use the facts of that collision to change the price of your policy AND demand a vehicle inspection, that you'll pay for, for continued coverage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom