Why is insurance not mandatory for cyclists? Well, they can't do this for a start

Insurance for my ebike is $25 per year, insurance on my car is over $3,000 per year. This is honestly one area where the economics make sense, the price does reflect the decreased risk of harming others.

jeep dude with the frame-perfect brake slam

And then the NOPE! outta there
I think their entering the road “caused” the accident. The other driver was definitely going way too fast and their “evasive maneauver” aas whatever the fuck that was but the Jeep was fully in their lane when it all happened. Likely they thought they had time until it turned out that the other car was going mach 1, and then it instead of hoofing it out of the way they hit the brakes(it’s not a stop everything button).
Speculation, but I’d hardly call stopping in the other car’s lane “frame perfect”.
- we definitely do not have enough information here to determine right of way, visibility, or culpability. pretty much the only thing we can say for certain is that the SUV driver was going way too fucking fast.

On a side note: I wonder what the cost of all the bike-related crashes (caused by bikes) would add up.

A crash like the one in the video likely cost someone (insurance company, tax payers, other drivers, etc.) way more than hundreds of cyclist-caused crashes.

I'd be willing to bet that the administrative costs to have cycling insurance would likely be more than the insurance is worth.

Whereas with car insurance, you'd never be able to pay for the true cost of all the damage, lives lost, etc. That's why they cap liability to usually max $2,000,000.

I feel like most bike related crashes (not involving cars) are damage to the individual and not to property. Maybe to their bike, or minor damage elsewhere. If that's the case I would imagine medical insurance would be enough. I guess there are some really fancy bikes you might want to insure but you're right it's prob not worth the admin cost for even a 2 or 3k bike.
- Exactly. You don't hear about bikes crashing through buildings and store fronts. Or knocking down road signs. Or power lines. Or bus stop shelters.
- I put it higher up, but the cost to insure my USD2k bike is $25 per year. That covers theft, accident damage, liability, I keep it as theft insurance and very sure its worth it.
  Insurance is gambling, and the house always wins, right? 24 of that $25 is probably theft insurance, the chance of injuring someone else on the ebike is not zero but so low it's immaterial.

Things like this make me terrified to ride a bike on the street with nothing but a painted line between me and tons of speeding metal.

Totally random car bombs. Only way. Just, completely random.
Only thing thay should be safe is ambulances and fire trucks.

Am I the only one who regularly can’t see posts in this instance? It says media failed to load, and I feel like that constantly happens in fuckcars.

I think it's the "catbox.moe" hosting site that is the issue. At least for me.
- (also if you’re using Quad9 DNS – Quad9 and Catbox have an long running beef with each other)
I can only see videos if I’m in the comment section. They never load if I click on it directly. On voyager on iPhone.
Loads for me on Connect app

Why is insurance not mandatory for cyclists?

Per the PPACA, health insurance is mandatory. This just isn't particular to cyclists because cycling isn't materially more dangerous than any other non-vehicular mode of transportation.

That's insurance for oneself.
Mandatory car insurance for drivers is liability insurance for everyone else. The driver is perfectly free not to insure their own vehicle (or their own injuries caused by their own driving).
- The principle of health insurance is still that you are - statically - paying for someone else. It's liability for an unexpected injury or illness that exceeds ability to pay.
  The difference between health and car insurance really boils down to the ability to total a car in a way you can't total a human being.

Asshole in the jeep couldn't be bothered to stop and check on the people

They should have stopped because they witnessed an accident, and were probably more than somewhat at fault.
Going to help when power lines are struck are a great way to increase casualties or create fatalities. Approaching from a safe distance and keeping them in the car is the safest thing to do until responders can get there.
You are assuming what they did after the clip ends. If it was me I would GTFO away from the falling power lines and stop a block away so to not impede traffic or emergency services. The guy could have called right out of frame.
With loose power lines? No thanks.
You don't know if he did a u-turn mid block and came back. He had to at least get out of the travel lane on the main road.

Maybe not that, bit have a look at the assholes who race at ebike top speed through the pedestrian zone.

Where is the source of the video? I’m almost convinced is AI, the grey car appears from nowhere and the black one when accelerates again after the “incident”, it seems to go to low on the asphalt, almost inside the street.

I believe this is the original. There's some extra footage as well so I'm fairly certain it's real. If you look closely, the grey car is hidden behind the black one right up until the moment it passes.
https://x.com/CBSNews/status/1543961632874823680
Sorry for the Twitter link
- FYI for future reference, you can just switch the "x.com" part of the link with "xcancel.com" if you'd rather not send others to The Cesspool. A reflection of The Cesspool still smells, but not as much.
- Thanks for it!
  Don’t worry about it, there is always the Nitter link :)
  https://nitter.net/CBSNews/status/1543961632874823680

cyclists still can end up severely injuring or killing a pedestrian.

So can pedestrians.
ok, and?
- OPs title is a question of comparison, this person was answering it.

Then insurance should be cheaper for them... what a dumb post.

It is in at least parts of Japan (if not all of it now)

It depends on the state, the insurance and even the cop who arrives on scene... but I imagine both are at fault. The Jeep for not making sure the way was clear, and the flipped vehicle for apparently going way too fast and for avoiding hitting the Jeep.
If the flipped vehicle was going significantly over the speed limit then I'd absolve the Jeep driver of any blame, except being an asshole leaving the scene of an accident and not trying to provide aid (even if that aid is just to call 911).
- Not sure what the speed limit is, but considering it looks like a residential area, the flipped vehicle seems like they were probably going twice what the speed limit should be. We can't see it to the right of the Jeep driver, but there doesn't seem to be any day lighting at the corner on the left of the intersection where the Jeep came from, so it might have been impossible for the Jeep to see the speeding car until they entered the intersection.
- Honestly I’d give them a pass on that one. They only gunned it after the crash happened and the power pole got hit, thinking a live power line is about to fall on you is absolutely a good reason to leave the area. Given the limited camera view we don’t know if they drove halfway down the block and stopped to call 911.
If you don't touch anyone, you're not at fault. It's bullshit.
- That's a fucking braindead take. If someone veers into your lane, and you get in an accident because you had to swerve to avoid them or die, you're not at fault.