a twit and her tweet

[wolfie]

That's my arguement, but my arguement for it goes a little further, part of having a licence is proving that you have a basic understanding of road rules, a cyclist does not have to prove such and part pf registration is compulsory 3rd party insurance, which cyclists are not required to have, so the poor shmoe who gets hit by the cyclits at a crossing because the cyclist doesn't know they have to obey road rules and such is on thier own with medical expenses.

Depends on the jurisdiction. Where I live (Ontario), there's a provision (don't know the details) so that even if the person responsible for the collision has no insurance, there's always someone's insurance that has to pay. For example, an uninsured motorist hits a pedestrian at an intersection. Your car (insured) is parked on the street as close as is legally possible to the intersection (assume the nearest other parked car is at least a block away). By some legal mumbo-jumbo, YOUR insurance is the one that has to pay out, even though you had nothing to do with the collision. In the eyes of the law, it's better for an innocent person to "take the hit" than for an injured person to not be covered.

Of course, your insurance company is free to subrogate (i.e. go after the uninsured motorist) to get the money back, but if that person has no assets, it's a moot point.

[s_stabeler]

OK, how does that logic work? someone inocent takes the hit, likely being forced to pay higher premiums, for someone else's mistake/asshole behaviour?

[Andara Bledin]

If I read that right, the insurance company takes the hit, and everybody pays slightly higher premiums in general, even if the insurance company never gets hit at all.

However, since we don't have anything like that that I know of, I could be horribly mistaken.