I Really Hate Bike Insurance, No, I Really Do

WOW WOW & BLOODY WOW

 

Caroles gash want £170 for my little Suzuki stinkmobile..............
Its safe to say they have lost my business...

 

I used CN for many years getting best quotes and cover for my Suzuki GS 1000, classic insurance, but when came to insure my Trophy had nothing but problems mostly todo with the young person on the other end of phone not understanding what I wanted to be fair not undestanding much about bikes fullstop. Which doesn`t help when your trying to insure one . I use go compare now ans cheapest third party insurance I can get as can`t afford fully comp. So much easier and they do policies for streetfighter and cafe racer bikes if you look through the qoutes

 

I just need a company to insure just ME for anthing up to the purchase value of £20k that I use on a public road!

Why is that so difficult. I can only ride/drive one vehicle at a time... Insure ME NOT THE VEHICLE....

 

Far too sensible and less money for them
I think the problem is you can have more than one bike stolen ........arrrrh what am I saying I've turned into an insurance broker .........
Great idea Dave now all we need is millions of pounds and set up an insurance company no no no no no no
said i shouldn't comment

 

Hi it's similar here in WA (OZ) bike and car rego gives you third party personal injury cover and there is NO annual vehicle inspections, but Police can 'canary' your vehicle if they think your vehicle isn't roadworthy, they place a yellow sticker ( known locally as "canary" sticker ) which means you have 14 days to satisfy the RTA (road traffic authority) that your vehicle is compliant, usually by having it inspected at an authorised examination station.

Vehicle insurance to cover vehicle damage is not compulsory ! So a lot aren't insured !
I have always had fully comprehensive on all my vehicles ! I could have bought several vehicles with the monies paid out in my cover !!!

Cheers capt.

 

i did have a multibike policy with bewiser do not get insured with them unless you want a lot of faffing about,demanded pics of both paper and card license/both logbooks all pages and then still managed to get the zrx listed as a zzr1400 and one wrong letter in reg even though i sent them pics via email,when i contacted them they had the brassneck to charge me another £60 plus for their mistake in phonecall i said how hard can it be to look at a pic of a logbook and still get it wrong and charge me more money,worse still when i bought the triple and removed the r1 the charge for 1 months cover to switch was over £60 so no longer with them qoute for renewing was over double what bennetts qouted me via mcn compare so guess who got my buisness and years fully comp for £90 ish.

 

Join the club chuc, we've all got a tale of woe to tell about the scheming, thieving insurance crooks.
To make matters worse, we all know it will continue to rise with the unregulated twats using every possible means of treachery and deception to further fleece us all.

 

Quite a thread, and of course we really all know how bad insurance companies are.

My own experiences are the same as you guys, one thing I can and will add, read your paperwork when it arrives and ensure all is correct. I ensured my GSXR1000 usual Social/Domestic/Pleasure/to and from place of work and to INCLUDE Pillion, the paperwork arrived, had a read and they had excluded said pillion. A call to them and they wanted to add X amount to the cost as I didn't state I wanted Pillion cover, Oh Dear I even had a conversation regarding a ride out with wifey with the salesman, many calls later and suggesting they check the recording of the sale they updated my cover..... So watch out for the obvious guys, they ARE out to get you

 

Actually if there was a way for motorcyclists to get organised we could start our own ins co. The bikes, boats, etc are considered luxury items and so justify high cost.

 

Just a note about filtering..you are automatically considered 50% at fault in any incident.

Spoke to CN about my prang in March when an Audi cut accross me.
Their position is that as I was filtering/progressing through traffic/lane switching (all the same in their book - I was riding between lane 2 and 3 in stationnary traffic) that I could automatically face a 50/50 liability

So the default position is, if you are filtering, you automatically face 50% liability for any incident
I told the person in their legal team to check the video I posted to them in March, she said no video is on file. So I linked her to the video online as it clearly shows her cutting accross from a blind spot without any consideration for other road users. I intend to take this all the way to court, no way am I accepting any liability.

 

If the following helps.......... requoted from the sv forum




Hopes this helps anyone who needs it. Its going to be a while before I get back to work to get the original so Ill type it here so all you need to to is cut and paste into word. Suggest you cut and paste the link to the highway code bits in too especially the diagram emphasising the shoulder check for the motorcyclist. And just amend for your circumstances.

Ref: - Accident {date & time}

Further to our previous conversations I feel it may make matters clearer by reference to the Highway Code. I shall compare my road position and manoeuvre with that of the other driver. You will see it is abundantly clear that I was doing nothing wrong and that the driver is entirely to blame.

My Circumstances

I was slowly overtaking a stationary line of traffic.

I refer you to rule 71 of the Highway Code in the section "Rules for Motorcyclists" which reads as follows:

71: Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When overtaking traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions.

A number of important points arise from this rule.

1. Note the use of the word WHEN as emphasised in the rule. It does not say "Do not overtake traffic queues" (or words to that effect), or suggest that it is an inappropriate course of action to take. It is clearly not a prohibitive instruction (see for example rule 74 which give prohibitive instructions). This clearly envisages that motorcyclists may, in the normal course of riding, overtake traffic queues.

2. I had already checked my mirrors and glanced behind to make sure nothing was overtaking the traffic queue already.

3. It was only the fact that I was progressing relatively slowly, in order to check for pedestrians who may be crossing between the vehicles making the accident much less serious than it would otherwise have been.

Before I move on, it is probably worth referring to the General rules for motorcyclists set out in rules 67 to 69. Again, I have reproduced these below.

67: On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. Helmets MUST comply with the Regulations and they MUST be fastened securely. It is also advisable to wear eye protectors, which MUST comply with the Regulations. Consider wearing ear protection. Strong boots, gloves and suitable clothing may help to protect you if you fall off.

68: You MUST NOT carry more than one pillion passenger and he/she MUST sit astride the machine on a proper seat and should keep both feet on the footrests.

69: Daylight riding. Make yourself as visible as possible from the side as well as the front and rear. You could wear a white or brightly coloured helmet. Wear fluorescent clothing or strips. Dipped headlights, even in good daylight, may also make you more conspicuous.

You will note that:

1. I had complied with rule 67 by wearing protective clothing, which again helped reduce the seriousness of the accident.

2. I had complied with rule 68.

3. I had complied with rule 69 by using dipped headlights. I always ride with dipped headlights as it is considered good practice and safer to do so.

Accordingly, the only conclusion which may be drawn from the above is that I was riding my motorcycle safely and as envisaged by the Highway Code. I cannot, therefore, be to blame in any way for the accident.

Mr Xs Circumstances

I now turn to Mr Xs driving manoeuvre.

I shall compare his manoeuvre to two fairly similar manoeuvres; setting off from rest as he was stationary and making a right turn.

Setting Off From Rest

This is governed by rule 135 of the General Rules for Using the Road. This is reproduced below:

135: Before moving off you should

use all mirrors to check the road is clear

look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)

signal if necessary before moving out

look round for a final check.

Move off only when it is safe to do so.



Check the blind spot before moving off

It is quite clear that Mr X failed to undertake all, or more likely any, of the requirements given that my body was level with his drivers door when he made the manoeuvre.

Turning Right

This is governed by rule 155 of the Road Junction section for Using the Road. This is reproduced below:

155: Well before you turn right you should:

use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you

give a right-turn signal

take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right

leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.

The first point to note, however, is that Mr X was not turning right as I approached. He was stationary in a queue of traffic for a red light. Clearly, Mr X does not have the patience to wait for lights to change so decided to take a different route by turning right. He chose to make this decision as I was level with him.

Again, however, the emphasis of the first two requirements is on observation and signalling. As set out above, Mr X failed these on both counts.

Accordingly, the only verdict which can be reached from the above analysis of Mr Xs manoeuvre is that it was undertaken without sufficient care and attention to myself and other road users.

Conclusion

Mr X was stationary and I took all reasonable care to overtake a stationary vehicle. I checked before doing so, no right indicator on the car, no mirror checks carried out by Mr X, no wheel turns to indicate movement, and the car remained stationary so I proceeded to overtake.

Mr Xs lack of patience to wait in a queue to move clearly made him decide to take a different route. The issue here is he pulled out without mirror checks or signals whilst I was LEVEL with him by the drivers door. Not only is this driving without due care and attention, how Mr X could not HEAR my engine next to him, or be aware of movement right next to him is clearly indicative that he was not concentrating on what was going on around him.

Mr X is young and appears to only have had his licence a short while. But this does not excuse him for not making the proper checks - what if I were a pedestrian or pedal cyclist? More substantial injuries could have been caused by his inattention.

As shown above, I have followed the road rules clearly and exactly and am in no way responsible for this accident. If Mr X had made all the checks required as shown above or been paying attention he would have been aware of my presence and not moved until I had passed, in which case this accident would not have occurred.

I trust this is sufficient to pass to his insurers..

regards etc etc etc


May even be worth making a sticky here, I've used it in slightly modified form and it swayed the balance from 60/40 to 100% not to blame

Cheers all Terry

 

Fantastic summary of the highway code and its application.
Many thanks forthis, I shall paste, copy and edit as needed

Thanks again

Red "Steve" Thunder

 

Oh yes just remembered used it against carols gash too !!!

 

Just added towing to my insurance with Bennets
£36.80 until 3rd Aug!!!
£33.00 is admin charges
TWATS

 

Did you tell them you were towing your rocks off to pay it ?