# Bike rack legalities -- I just got rearended with bikes on the rack.



## luckynumber9 (Mar 7, 2009)

to cliff notes:

-rearended with bikes on the rack.
-exchanged information without police because the bikes were argueably obstructing views of the brake lights. right or wrong choice?
-other drivers insurance is paying for damage
-for those that this has happened to how did they handle the damaged bikes? do they send an adjuster for the bikes? how much do they have to repay you? new cost per part, replacement cost per part that was damaged, whole bike..... what about parts cosmetically damaged?

as of 4/16/09; where things stand right now -- i have to get estimates for the damage to the bikes and send in pics to the other drivers insurance. my current question is whether they have to pay for cosmetic damage to the bike? ie scratche on the frame


----------



## Johnny M (Jan 30, 2004)

She rear ended you, she is totally at fault. Her insurance is definitely responsible. Years ago (when I was younger and dumber) I was rear ended in a car I had that was completely undocumented. I got a bunch of fines, then proceeded to sue the other drivers insurance company for my totaled car, injuries, and pain and suffering. Ended up with enough to replace my car, make it legit, and pay the attached fines. 

Those laws are there to protect others from you and any hazards you may create. I don't see how her following to close, not paying attention, or whatever was caused by your violation.


----------



## gmcttr (Oct 7, 2006)

Her deductible applies to the damage to her car, not yours.

You should have called the police and had the report filled out for insurance purposes.


----------



## luckynumber9 (Mar 7, 2009)

gmcttr said:


> Her deductible applies to the damage to her car, not yours.


my bright ass forgot that. I know which insurance company she claims to have so with her info my ins company can file the claim against her. the rack is what im curious about, would ins cover the damage to bike?


----------



## emtnate (Feb 9, 2008)

In my city, PD does not usually file a report in a property damage accident with damage < $1000. 

For insurance purposes, it is not too late. If you decide you would feel better with a report, just call the business line of the department and tell them you want to make a report. They may send an officer out to you, but most likely you would have to drive to the station / precinct. 

If your laws are anything like Indiana, you shouldn't have a problem working things out with the insurance companies and not getting the cops involved. Of course actually getting the money could prove to be more difficult.

Good luck to ya.


----------



## MisterC (May 17, 2007)

Don't be so sure. If you were illegally obstructing your tail lights, and the officer were to cite you for that, you might very well be found at fault.

Johnny M seems to believe that rear ending someone is open and closed, but its not.


----------



## luckynumber9 (Mar 7, 2009)

MisterC said:


> Don't be so sure. If you were illegally obstructing your tail lights, and the officer were to cite you for that, you might very well be found at fault.
> 
> Johnny M seems to believe that rear ending someone is open and closed, but its not.


my thoughts exactly. it was dark and my car is black. not to mention i got a citation for my bike rack obstructing view of plate bout a year ago, cop may have saw that when he ran my info


----------



## EndersShadow (Jun 27, 2008)

First....Good to know you're ok....car accidents suck...

Second....Get a new bike rack....preferably one that isn't illegal. What a stupid thing to get a ticket for.

Third...It was totally her fault.....I hope you get your money.


----------



## luckynumber9 (Mar 7, 2009)

EndersShadow said:


> First....Good to know you're ok....car accidents suck...
> 
> Second....Get a new bike rack....preferably one that isn't illegal. What a stupid thing to get a ticket for.
> 
> Third...It was totally her fault.....I hope you get your money.


thanks. Im limited on options for getting a new rack when it comes to legalities. i drive a mustang and no one makes a roof rack (that I know of) for them. a hitch rack will obstruct views of the plate, and the tail lights. Trunk rack do both those and break the law about stuff pertruding from the vehicle.


----------



## ash240 (Jun 2, 2007)

You were stopped? 
If you were stopped and your rack blocks the lights she could probably make a case against you.

I think not calling the cops was a mistake. As this stage I wouldn't even feel good about knowing if she was insured or if you are going to get screwed over.


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

The comment on anything extending 12" past the bumper doesn't sound right. Most states follow a fairly uniform code for such things, and that number is usually 4 feet. Anything over 4 feet usually requires a red flag during daylight and a red light in the dark.

Low slung cars like a Mustang are usually tough candidates for carrying bikes on hitch racks. They're narrow enough for the bike wheels/tires to obstruct the tail lights. They're also low enough that the 3rd brake like in the top of the rear window can be obstructed. Like MisterC stated, rear-end collisions aren't always absolute. That said, there is a simple solution. Putting a simple pair of cheap tail lights on the rack with a simple wiring plug to your car will probably get you by in any state. It's pretty chicken sh!t to get a ticket for a bike rack blocking the license plate. Cops usually have more of an issue with the actual safety of not being able to see tail lights.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

luckynumber9 said:


> despite it technically being her fault i decided not to call the police for several reasons.


That may have screwed you over big time. Whether or not your license is obscured has nothing to do with the accident. Sure, the cop may have had a problem with it, but I doubt it. Rear end collisions are the fault of the person that rear-ended you 99.9999% of the time, and none of those other things would change that. If you were obscuring the tail lights the maybe, but you'd have to not see them when the rack is in place, unlikely IMO.

In any case, it doesn't really matter all that much. Some people like to think that roof-racks are more secure because they see a car that got in an accident without bikes attached and they see the rack and figure that the bikes wouldn't have been damaged. Put bikes on there though and you subject the roof-rack to many times more Gs and possibly thousands of pounds of force. It would probably rip the bike out or the rack off if you had got in a collision with a roof rack.


----------



## emtnate (Feb 9, 2008)

For all the people who say the OP should have called the police, quoted from the Florida DMV website.



> What Florida Law says about...
> Accidents and Reports
> 
> FSS 316.065 Accidents; reports;
> ...


OP - if you claim damage less than $500, you both are probably okay for not calling police right away. If that number includes both cars, you should make a report, or since you were both in the wrong, try to settle things amongst yourselves and suck up any loss for a lesson learned.


----------



## sherijumper (Feb 19, 2007)

That`s why I like keeping my bikes on the roof .


----------



## Daffunda (Aug 26, 2005)

You can prevent yourself from driving under a low clearance object with your bike on the roof, but you can't prevent someone from rear ending you and messing up your bike, rack and a car.

At least your bike and your rack won't be messed up if it is on the roof when someone hits you from behind.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

luckynumber9 said:


> 3: the bikes were blocking my my tail lights and brake lights. thats another illegal


And you're suprised when somebody drives into the back of you?



luckynumber9 said:


> ...ill paste the email i sent to my pops who gives me all my advice...


May I ask what age you are?


----------



## Neppo1345 (Apr 22, 2008)

Per FL statutes...

(1) Any vehicle may be equipped and, when required under this chapter, shall be equipped with a stop lamp or lamps on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red or amber light, visible from a distance of not less than 300 feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and which shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake, and which may but need not be incorporated with one or more other rear lamps. An object, material, or covering that alters the stop lamp's visibility from 300 feet to the rear in normal sunlight may not be placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied over a stop lamp. 

Basically, as long as you had at least one lamp that wasn't blocked (most cars have 3, two tail lights and a third brake light somewhere in the rear window) you're good. At least thats how I read it. However I'm sure someone will disagree.


----------



## Thinkly (Apr 9, 2007)

I think it would be hard to prove the bikes were " blocking the tail lights and signals. I have a hitch rack and although they may block a portion of the tail lamps the blockage is moderate and the lights are still very easy to see, even at night. 

Probably the infraction most given around here would be a blocked license plate.


----------



## habernac (Apr 12, 2005)

if hitch racks illegally block things, why are they still sold? A cop in my city told my wife the rack should be removed when it isn't carrying bikes, but there were no problems if there were bikes on it.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Don't confuse lack of enforcement with lack of a law. Remember all those blackout headlight covers that were on mullet-mobiles in the 90's? You can still get lots of that crap now.

I was a passenger in my friend's car as we were going to a bike park. He ran a red at a cop outpost. IMO, the yellow was clearly real short, but that's besides the fact. The cop gave him a ticket for an obstructed license plate along with the red. Good thing I told my friend to just yes and no the cop because I later found out that the passenger in the back hat pot and stashed it in the car and we would have all gone in.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_Remember all those blackout headlight covers that were on mullet-mobiles in the 90's?_"

Kids in the UK would to use tights/stockings stretched over tail-lights to imitate the 'smoked' effect of sporty cars light clusters. It wasn't such an issue in the dark, but during daylight hours the lights were almost completely screened.

To go on a semi-related tangent, I've spotted more than one car with catering-size coffee tins (6in x 9in) attached to the rear silencer in place of the tail-pipe, to give the 'big bore' look. It sounds absolutely hilarious.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

I think your failure to file a report was a big mistake. I was recently rear ended at night with my bike on the hitch rack. The first thing I did was call the police, well after checking in on everyone involved. The other driver was found to be at fault. The kicker is that even though the damage to my bike seemed minimal, who could say for sure? I got a new bike, a new rack, and some pocket money for the small dent in the tailgate. Without a report you'll likely get nothing. Bummer.


----------



## luckynumber9 (Mar 7, 2009)

skimmed the responses and will respond later when i have more time.

the update: today i got the womans insurance information, filed an exchange of information with the sheriffs office, got estimates for damage on the car and bikes and filed the insurance claim. i also contacted the fhp to inquire about the bike rack... the trooper said that they must have a red reflector if they stick out more than 12 inches. my saris never came with one. I "hypothetically" asked him about the bikes possibly obstructing the tail lights in a rear end collision. he said that if there is any, even slight obstruction of the brake lights I would more than likely be responsible for being rearended.


----------



## c_m_shooter (Mar 8, 2007)

Just a thought on the rack. If you got a hitch mounted tray rack, it would be easy enough to mount trailer taillights on it to prevent any issues in the future.


----------



## Johnny M (Jan 30, 2004)

MisterC said:


> Don't be so sure. If you were illegally obstructing your tail lights, and the officer were to cite you for that, you might very well be found at fault.
> 
> Johnny M seems to believe that rear ending someone is open and closed, but its not.


So as long as it doesn't have tail lights it's alright to hit it? I always thought that using my headlights, paying attention, and driving an appropriate speed would help me to avoid hitting things that were in front of me. Would the OP be at fault if he were a pedestrian? What if he were a breakdown or had a sudden electrical malfunction? Unless he pulled out in front of the other driver suddenly, she was plainly driving in some sort of risky manner.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_I always thought that using my headlights, paying attention, and driving an appropriate speed would help me to avoid hitting things that were in front of me._"

So if you hit somebody who didn't have lights, you'd gladly accept responsibility for hitting them? I doubt that very much.

"_What if he were a breakdown or had a sudden electrical malfunction?_"

These are mitigating circumstances, not (necessarily) negligence, as blocking brake lights would be.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_UK is not the USA, and GOD I hope it never will be, so stay out of USA legality issues._"

What's GOD? Is that like GOP?

If I want to comment on posts, I will. If you disagree with what I say, then counter it.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_Ha! Ha! I already did, thanks anyway!_"

_That_ was a counter? How sophisticated...


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

American living in the Germany, now owning an EU-approved bike rack for the hitch on my car.

American racks suck, by comparison. Yes, they should have lights, and at the same time, someone should not hit you as well, but **** happens and lights are there for a reason. American hitch and trunk racks should be made better, first thing, and then there should be lights, no doubt.

Oh yeah, I was born in the UK.


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> American living in the Germany, now owning an EU-approved bike rack for the hitch on my car.
> 
> American racks suck, by comparison. Yes, they should have lights, and at the same time, someone should not hit you as well, but **** happens and lights are there for a reason. American hitch and trunk racks should be made better, first thing, and then there should be lights, no doubt.
> 
> Oh yeah, I was born in the UK.


So JC...that means based on previous threads and posts of your pickup truck and such that you are in no way a true American *******? My estimation of all your posts just dropped 50 percentage points.:lol:

On the rack comments, I have to disagree...I think. What do you mean by "American racks"...you didn't clarify if you meant manufacturing source, company location, or what. I have a Sportworks T2...now rebadged as Thule's...that's built like a tank. It's always attached to my van and/or 4X4 and even gets used at a carrier sometimes for heavy, bulky stuff that I don't want to put on the inside of either vehicle. Maybe like most stuff, it's not American made...but even now that Thule owns them, it's probably made in Asia or somewhere else. Anyone know? What's the EU rack you have?

I agree with you on the lights for a hitch carrier, I suggested that a ways back in this post. The problem with a manufacturer supplying them might be the laws and regulations from U.S. state-to-state or even with international sales. That's probably a headache. Getting an automotive repair shop or such to install a cheap, reliable set of aftermarket, generic tail lights to your rack with a detachable pigtail to the vehicle should be easy and not too expensive.


----------



## Johnny M (Jan 30, 2004)

SteveUK said:


> "_I always thought that using my headlights, paying attention, and driving an appropriate speed would help me to avoid hitting things that were in front of me._"
> 
> So if you hit somebody who didn't have lights, you'd gladly accept responsibility for hitting them? I doubt that very much.


I would give him my insurance card and license number as well as my phone number, after apologizing profusely for what I did to his property as well as his well being. I would have to be a real ass to not accept responsibility. Would I do it gladly? What's to be glad about?

There is no excuse for crashing into anything that is in front of you. Blaming his obscured lights is like blaming the guy who stopped suddenly. The fact is if she had been following at a safe distance and speed as well as paying attention it would never have happened.


----------



## MTBghandi (Jul 29, 2008)

BlackDiamond-1 said:


> BAM!!!!!
> 
> Say it like it is JM!! Some people just have no clue JM, and everyone wonders why the world is soooo FREEKED up!!:yikes:
> 
> GET A CLUE PEOPLE!!!:thumbsup:


Someone as clueless as you have proven to be has no place telling people to get a clue.

Yes, you're one of the aforementioned people who have no clue. Examples:

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=505249


----------



## MTBghandi (Jul 29, 2008)

BlackDiamond-1 said:


> Thats it! Thats the best that your clueless & little shallow mind can conjure up! WOW, what an insult to Ghandi.:eekster: Just not worth it!
> 
> A lost soul without a clue! You have been weighed, measured, and definitely found un-wanted!


I conjured nothing. It's your very own posts that prove that you are particularly clueless. You did all of the work, all by your lonesome.



BlackDiamond-1 said:


> Out of here!


I'll believe it when I see it. After all, you continued to post in that IH thread even after you posted the same smarmy "out of here!" bit.


----------



## DrNickels (Jan 7, 2008)

I find it hard to believe that a bicycle rim with spokes is enough to fully block out 2 brake lights and a 3rd brake light on a mustang. Unless you have solid rims on your bike, the light should still reflect through them enough to be visible at dusk even with the bikes on the rack.

She rear ended you, it's her fault for following too close. I would have called the police. Granted I don't trust police and my experiences with them have never been good, but in the end that report by someone in "authority" is usually a great thing to have in the insurance business. 

Don't take a cop's word for the law in your state. Half the time I've asked cops about laws they tell you the wrong information because half the time they have no clue about it!

Look at open carry here in Ohio. The majority of police officers have no clue that a person of 21 years or older with no criminal record can openly carry a firearm on their person. There have been multiple cases of police departments roughing up law-abiding citizens and arresting them for open carry and they don't know it's legal to do so!

Know your state laws, know your rights, and exercise your knowledge when it's contested by Johnny Law. Do it respectfully though and don't lose your temper. You can always fight the case in court later.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

MTBghandi said:


> Someone as clueless as you have proven to be has no place telling people to get a clue.
> 
> Yes, you're one of the aforementioned people who have no clue. Examples:
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=505249


Thanks for the link! I loved reading about how Iron Horse is still ok, according to him.

To TNC: Absolutely correct. There are notable exceptions.

As to the brand of my rack, it's an Uebler (picture somewhere in my user gallery). It's not available in the US, nor is it truly compatible with a US hitch, even with a ball. Hitches here are of a different design.

I have seen lights wired and mounted to trailer racks in the US before. The lights for my rack are a complete set, including license plate (we require a place for the rack as well, since the one on the car is blocked), and rear fog and backups. They plug into the trailer wiring harness, which also isn't compatible with US harness plugs.

And sorry to not keep up the image that I drive a Camaro with "more power than you can handle", TNC  There's someone else on this site that fits that description, though.



> I find it hard to believe that a bicycle rim with spokes is enough to fully block out 2 brake lights and a 3rd brake light on a mustang. Unless you have solid rims on your bike, the light should still reflect through them enough to be visible at dusk even with the bikes on the rack.


You have to take the optics into account. Light is not being projected from those lenses and reflectors uniformly on purpose. Some floods, and some light from certain points are what is projected further. It's not unreasonable to think that the bikes partly obstructing a set of taillights can affect distance visibility. Generally not when one is close, but it could reduce someone's reaction time, of course, if they are too close.


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

DN, the difference in vehicle widths, tail light design, and even bicycle size can all accumulate to decently block tail light visibility with a hitch rack. It's the tires that do the most to block tail lights, especially when there are two bikes on the rack. My van and 4X4 are pretty good about being wide enough, and the 3rd centrally mounted brake light is high enough to always be visible. I don't have any extra lights attached to my T2 rack, but it would probably help in any roadside or court debate either due to a traffic stop or vehicle accident.


----------



## Jim311 (Feb 7, 2006)

Without a police report you could totally be screwed over by whoever hit you. If there is damage later on that isn't visible, or if she just chooses to completely deny the accident she could probably do so. Unless there's just no damage whatsoever or it's completely minor you should call the cops.


Edit:

As for the hitch rack or trunk rack obstructing the tail lights, at least in Florida, it appears that as long as the tail lights can still be seen from 300 feet they CAN be partially obstructed. Is a cop going to walk back 300 feet behind your car while you apply the brakes to check for this? I don't think so.


----------



## luckynumber9 (Mar 7, 2009)

my latest update as of the day: My insurance claim adjuster says that they will see to it that the others person insurance pays for the damages to my car. BUT that I am on my own with the bikes, because I did not select a bike rack as a modification when I applied for the insurace. The adjuster said the other insurance company _should_ easily cover the damage to the bikes though.. I plan to look into whether my insurance company can do that.

a question for those who have dealt with this situation: do the insurance companies send out adjusters to look at the bikes?


----------



## DrNickels (Jan 7, 2008)

I think they allow you to take a bike to a lbs and have them look at the damage and give you a price quote to give back to the insurance company


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

LN9, I wouldn't be surprised if your insurance company has a clause in your policy that addresses their lack of coverage of "special add-ons" like a bike carrier and such. They've probably been burned in the past on all manner of high tech and expensive add-ons to vehicles which caused them to make such disclaimers without extra coverage premiums. Not saying it's always fair, but you can see their perspective. Now...the agent should be able to show you this disclaimer in your policy. It should be in writing. It may all be a moot point if the other driver's insurance ends up covering it. One other thing to be aware of is how some homeowner's policies will kick in on bicycle damage or theft in some limited situations. I hope the other driver's insurance comes through for you.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Last I checked, the last couple of insurers I had only covered the bikes if I was hit and they were damaged while being carried inside the car.


----------



## ash240 (Jun 2, 2007)

BlackDiamond-1 said:


> You are very correct MisterC, but even though LN9's tail/brake lights were not working or not functioning properly, she is still at fault no matter what the status of LP9's tail/brake lights were.
> 
> 1) Why was she driving so close to his vehicle? In short terms, law states that any vehicle should be following at a safe traveling distance from the rear of another vehicle. Obviously this driver was not following in a safe manner, which in turn was one of the major factors in this individual crashing into LN9's vehicle.


Dude, Clueless is how I would describe your post and then follow up rant at the UK guy.

1. Irrelevant IF he had blocked rear lighting. No matter the distance she was at she can claim the lack of rear lighting means she could not tell he was sopping.

She could make a VERY good case for at least partial responsibility of the OP AND it may well be that he WAS partially responsible.

"I "hypothetically" asked him about the bikes possibly obstructing the tail lights in a rear end collision. he said that if there is any, even slight obstruction of the brake lights I would more than likely be responsible for being rearended."

Which is what the OP found when he asked 

Now, IF she can show he had had a previous ticket for this she has a very good case for the OP having total responsibility for this.

Maybe the OP now realizes he needs to fix this. If he ends up getting anything back from the woman he is very lucky.


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> Last I checked, the last couple of insurers I had only covered the bikes if I was hit and they were damaged while being carried inside the car.


I don't know, JC. Working at a shop and in my previous career, I got to hear all kinds of stories. I've seen an insured get his bike covered for falling off a rack with no wreck...while getting pitched off a roof rack in a wreck that was the insured's fault...while driving under a low obstacle with a bike on the roof rack...while backing into an obstacle with a bike on a rack...etc. Sometimes it comes down to the particular policy, and sometimes it has a lot to do with the agent. Some agents have tremendous lattitude.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

> Some agents have tremendous lattitude.


Didn't know that. Thought it was fixed in stone with the insurance company.


----------



## luckynumber9 (Mar 7, 2009)

I have Good news for all you following the thread. The other insurance company is paying for damages. As of the moment I have to email in pics of the damages with an estimate to the insurances company.

my questions for all you is, how much are they obligated to pay for (i.e. msrp, replacement value, replacement value per damaged part, whatever the shop says, etc)? and do they have to pay for cosmetic damage to frame?


----------



## daisycutter (Sep 18, 2005)

Have your shop look at the bikes and rack and have them write up an estimate of what it would cost to replace all the damaged items. Even if you they will charge you less have them write it up for full msrp and included their labor costs to install the parts even if you will do the work yourself.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

My experience went like this. I was rear ended. First I call my insurance and they said not to worry, if you have problems, let us know and we'll go to bat for you. Adjuster comes to my job site and says," that bike is worth how much?" " Well let me get our "bike guy" over here to have a look". Good idea. "Bike guy" says take it to a shop. Shop says it's toast. Insurance cuts me a check for full replacement value of the frame, cranks, wheels, the rack, and a small dent in the tailgate. FYI, I asked my agent about the bikes being insured and they told me that anything in, on, or attached to my truck is insured. Bikes, campers, trailers, etc... Good luck!


----------



## CCrew (Apr 16, 2009)

luckynumber9 said:


> I have Good news for all you following the thread. The other insurance company is paying for damages. As of the moment I have to email in pics of the damages with an estimate to the insurances company.
> 
> my questions for all you is, how much are they obligated to pay for (i.e. msrp, replacement value, replacement value per damaged part, whatever the shop says, etc)? and do they have to pay for cosmetic damage to frame?


Insurance company is legally obligated to "make you whole" in legal parlance. That means that when done you have to be at a level you were at prior to the accident. So, yes, in that definition cosmetic damage should be covered since it didn't exist prior to the accident. Labor, parts, etc are all covered.

If that means the cost of factory refinishing the frame, it's a valid cost. 
In the event of deeming it a total loss they're liable for the "current fair market value" of the bike.


----------



## ver-T (Mar 29, 2008)

Since the other person's insurance company has accepted liability (not a bad idea to verify this because they sometimes send out an appraiser while they are waiting to make the determination) I believe that your bike(s) and rack fall under property damage. If the other insurance company has, in fact, accepted liability you should have no deductable and the other insurance company should pay for a rental car while yours is being repaired. Of course they usually have a pre-set dollar amount per day and a maximum they will pay out total for rental. It's best all around if you pursue the claim through the other ins co and not your own. If for whatever reason the other ins co does NOT accept liability (not enough evidence to show their insured was at fault, lapsed coverage for their insured etc.) you will have to pursue the claim through your OWN ins co and (depending on your ins co) pay your deductable. At this point YOUR policy is effective and things like the bike, rack, rental get a little tricky. Basically your ins co handles the claim and then goes into subrogation with the other ins co or at fault party depending. I have never handled a claim w/ damage to bikes per se but I know there is no crash estimating software for them and so they will probably ask you to get an estimate or if by some odd chance the appraiser knows of a bike shop may ask you to go there and get an estimate. Sorry this post is longwinded and kinda choppy but I hope this info helps you. Feel free to PM w/ any other questions you may have and I'll be happy to answer them as best I can. PS for those just tuning in, yes, I work in the industry  Good luck with your claim.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

luckynumber9 said:


> my latest update as of the day: My insurance claim adjuster says that they will see to it that the others person insurance pays for the damages to my car. BUT that I am on my own with the bikes, because I did not select a bike rack as a modification when I applied for the insurace. The adjuster said the other insurance company _should_ easily cover the damage to the bikes though.. I plan to look into whether my insurance company can do that.
> 
> a question for those who have dealt with this situation: do the insurance companies send out adjusters to look at the bikes?


Call her insurance and open a claim against her with them. They will have no such stipulations since they'll be required to repair or replace what their client damaged.


----------

