Is it fair that motorcyclists share medical costs even when not at fault?

[MrShaun]

Many motorcyclists are unaware that, by riding a motorcycle, they automatically assume a percent of the burden of medical costs even in the event of an accident that was not their fault.

The standard has been set because the cyclist should know there is a greater chance of harm with any collision.

Your thoughts?

[OneViewpoint]

I'm fine with it. I ride bikes. CT is a no helmet law state for anyone over the age of 21. Riding a bike is inherently dangerous in this zoo of idiots. Riding a bike without a helmet just ups the risk. But I see young guys doing stupid shit on liter bikes all the time. It's bad enough that you have to ride with your head on 360 degree swivel. But when you start popping wheelies at 75 mph in traffic, you are asking for $100K hospital bill or a nice funeral. A financial incentive is perfectly justified to instill a little common sense in people who ride bikes. We are never gonna win in an accident with any car or truck.

[FreyaRed]

It seems in US are insurance companies greedy and just manipulate legislative to make such idiotic laws to save their shackles.
The more English I learn, the more I know about US, the more I think it's just a big Banana republic.

[SaoirseS]

Whose medical costs? I've never heard of this.

[DryGermanGuy]

Motorcyclists should be automatically put on the organ-donors list.

[exitseven]

it is commons sense, Especially if they are not earing protective gear and a helmet.

[sage2021]

No, it's not fair if it's not their fault.