Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Define Insurance

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

HD
World Chat Champion



Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:15 - 21 Nov 2010    Post subject: Define Insurance Reply with quote

Okay so insurance time is coming for my wee Derbi.

Just need a hand of defining the different insurance types and the benefits and downsides.

So as far as my knowledge goes:

Third Party Only - Cheapest of the bunch. Covers you for only if it is not your fault so if someone crashes into you. If you crash into someone it comes out of your pocket (does this mean you still ring your broker)

Third Party Fire and Theft - Middle priced. Third party only + covers your if your bike is burnt or stolen.

Fully Comprehensive - Covers you for anything? (but what is anything?)

On a side note, just thinking about insurance if I am parked at a mates overnight. I imagine if it is nicked I can still claim right? So same if I keep it outside my house? I have a friend who lives like 2 mins up the road but what if I stayed there and wanted to keep my bike there? (he has a garage but its always full)

And when do you need to contact your insurance? What about other peoples? And if both people who are involved agree, does nobody need to be contacted?

Any comments that aren't copied and pasted would be appreciated.

Thanks Thumbs Up (Karma)

EDIT: I have a derestricted Metrakit exhaust, surely I wouldnt put this on my insurance as it means my bike is not legal therefore doesn't correspond with my licence. Plus it looks standard. But would I put my renthals on my insurance?
____________________
Rusty '02 Vito Camper + CBR600F3
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

truslack
World Chat Champion



Joined: 08 Apr 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:28 - 21 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

TPO Covers the person you crash in to, even if it's your fault.
____________________
Current: Suzuki RG 125 Gamma, Honda H100, Triumph Tiger 800XC, Suzuki SV650 (minitwin)
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:28 - 21 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Third party only is the minimum legal requirement and covers you for damages to third parties, any damage to your own vehicle comes out of your pocket.

Third party fire and theft covers you for damages to third parties and covers you if your bike is stolen or burnt (you have to pay the excess). Any crash damage to your own bike comes out of your pocket.

Fully comp covers all of the above and covers damage to your bike so you only pay the excess amount.

If you've got TPFT or fully comp then you'd be covered for your bike being stolen outside your mates house.

Cover for riding other peoples bike depends on the policy.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

dragstaar
World Chat Champion



Joined: 18 Aug 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:54 - 21 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scenario: You crash into a cager. police come. your bike is a write off. and the cager's door is dented.

Option A: Its not your fault.

Then it doesnt matter what insurance cover you have. Because all the costs will be paid by the Cager's insurance company. So you'll get paid for your bike, gear, and any personal injury, loss of earnings due to injury time etc etc.

Option B: its your fault

Third Party Only The cheapest insurance. This will means that because the accident is your fault, your insurance sompany pays up. So it will pay for the dented door, and any injuries that the driver may be claiming for.

The wrecked bike, your injury, loss of limbs and whatnot, is up to you to sort. The Insurance company wont give a shit about that.

Third party Fire and Theft This is exactly the same as Third party Only in terms of the given scenario. the only difference is, If your bike was to get stolen, or catch fire, then the insurance will pay for it. But in an accident that was your fault, its up to you to sort it.

Fully Comprehensive THis is the most expensive level of cover. This will cover the cager. And it will cover you, even though it was your fault. so any injuries you've got, the bike, the car's door, the driver, will all be paid by your insurance company.

-----------

Shit gets more complicated if its a 50:50 liability split, if you're both to blame. what happens here, is that there are 2 claims in process. One of them will be you claiming against the cager for your bike, and your injuries, and the other will be the cager claiming against you for his car and his injuries. You will each be paid 50% of your total claim. So, if you were to claim for £2000, and the cager claimed for £1000. Then you'll get £1000, and the cager will get £500.

Remember, if the accident is NOT YOUR FAULT, then you claim against the OTHER person's insurance. Not yours.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

HD
World Chat Champion



Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:24 - 21 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what do I do? Ring my insurance and say some twat crashed into me Laughing

Then give them their insurance details?

Theoretically then I should go Third Party Fire & Theft if my bike is like £1000 brand new?

And what about the parts on my bike?
____________________
Rusty '02 Vito Camper + CBR600F3
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 01:37 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:
If you've got TPFT or fully comp then you'd be covered for your bike being stolen outside your mates house.


Read your policy carefully. If you've insured your bike as garaged, then there may be a clause about it having to be garaged overnight if it's within X distance of your home address, where X varies with insurers. Your mate "2 minutes up the road" may be within that limit.

Alternatively, you can just deposit £500,000 with the Accountant General of the Senior Courts and not bother with insurance (RTA 1988 section 144). Bargain! Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ingah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 02:02 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
Ste wrote:
If you've got TPFT or fully comp then you'd be covered for your bike being stolen outside your mates house.


Read your policy carefully. If you've insured your bike as garaged, then there may be a clause about it having to be garaged overnight if it's within X distance of your home address, where X varies with insurers. Your mate "2 minutes up the road" may be within that limit.

Alternatively, you can just deposit £500,000 with the Accountant General of the Senior Courts and not bother with insurance (RTA 1988 section 144). Bargain! Very Happy


I thought it was "only" £15K to do this? (as a minimum figure)

To add to this, any security etc you declare may also be endorsed (i.e. forced) in a similar way - they'll basically say if you weren't using it your policy is invalid. For this reason, when i have theft cover i don't declare security despite using it as it doesn't dip the premium by much (5%, less, or sometimes nothing) and opens an extra can of potential worms. One exception is datatag/AlphaDot (providing i have proof of it, which i do), as once it's on the bike it's on the bike, you can't forget or fail to use it! (and apparently they only allow 1 security item to give you a discount anyway, so it's the ideal one to use and simply don't declare the others)
____________________
-- Ingah
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

The Shaggy D.A.
Super Spammer



Joined: 12 Sep 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:56 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:
Third party only is the minimum legal requirement and covers you for damages to third parties, any damage to your own vehicle comes out of your pocket.


I'm trying to find a reference, but I could have sworn the minimum legal requirement is called "Road Traffic Act Insurance", which effectively covers you for damage caused to people, not their property.
____________________
Chances are quite high you are not in my Monkeysphere, and I don't care about you. Don't take it personally.
Currently : Royal Enfield 350 Meteor
Previously : CB100N > CB250RS > XJ900F > GT550 > GPZ750R/1000RX > AJS M16 > R100RT > Bullet 500 > CB500 > LS650P > Bullet Electra X & YBR125 > Bullet 350 "Superstar" & YBR125 Custom > Royal Enfield Classic 500 Despatch Limited Edition (28 of 200) & CB Two-Fifty Nighthawk > ER5
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

multijoy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:23 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ingah wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:


Alternatively, you can just deposit £500,000 with the Accountant General of the Senior Courts and not bother with insurance (RTA 1988 section 144). Bargain! Very Happy


I thought it was "only" £15K to do this? (as a minimum figure)


It was, amended in '91 to the £500k figure.

S145 is the section relating to the minimum standard of insurance- the so called 'Road Traffic Act insurance'.

Quote:
145.— Requirements in respect of policies of insurance.
(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act, a policy of insurance must satisfy the following conditions.
(2) The policy must be issued by an authorised insurer.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, the policy—
(a) must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road [ or other public place] in Great Britain, and
(aa) must, in the case of a vehicle normally based in the territory of another member State, insure him or them in respect of any civil liability which may be incurred by him or them as a result of an event related to the use of the vehicle in Great Britain if,–
(i) according to the law of that territory, he or they would be required to be insured in respect of a civil liability which would arise under that law as a result of that event if the place where the vehicle was used when the event occurred were in that territory, and
(ii) the cover required by that law would be higher than that required by paragraph (a) above, and

(b) must, in the case of a vehicle normally based in Great Britain, insure him or them in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the use of the vehicle and of any trailer, whether or not coupled, in the territory other than Great Britain and Gibraltar of each of the member States of the Communities according to

(i) the law on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles of the State in whose territory the event giving rise to the liability occurred; or
(ii) if it would give higher cover, the law which would be applicable under this Part of this Act if the place where the vehicle was used when that event occurred were in Great Britain; and
(c) must also insure him or them in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them under the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to payment for emergency treatment.
(4) The policy shall not, by virtue of subsection (3)(a) above, be required—
(a) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of a person in the employment of a person insured by the policy or of bodily injury sustained by such a person arising out of and in the course of his employment, or
(b) to provide insurance of more than [£1,000,000]5 in respect of all such liabilities as may be incurred in respect of damage to property caused by, or arising out of, any one accident involving the vehicle, or
(c) to cover liability in respect of damage to the vehicle, or
(d) to cover liability in respect of damage to goods carried for hire or reward in or on the vehicle or in or on any trailer (whether or not coupled) drawn by the vehicle, or
(e) to cover any liability of a person in respect of damage to property in his custody or under his control, or
(f) to cover any contractual liability.

(4A) In the case of a person–
(a) carried in or upon a vehicle, or
(b) entering or getting on to, or alighting from, a vehicle,
the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above do not apply unless cover in respect of the liability referred to in that paragraph is in fact provided pursuant to a requirement of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 19697.
(5) “Authorised insurer” has the same meaning as in section 95.
(6) If any person or body of persons ceases to be a member of the Motor Insurers' Bureau, that person or body shall not by virtue of that cease to be treated as an authorised insurer for the purposes of this Part of this Act —
(a) in relation to any policy issued by the insurer before ceasing to be such a member, or
(b) in relation to any obligation (whether arising before or after the insurer ceased to be such a member) which the insurer may be called upon to meet under or in consequence of any such policy or under section 157 of this Act by virtue of making a payment in pursuance of such an obligation.


Whether or not you can find an insurer who'll only provide the very minimum is different question!
____________________
'11 CBF1000A, '99 C90, '98 CB500
silky666: He rode amazingly well considering his bike is the weight of a small van and had slicks on.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Paulington
World Chat Champion



Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:33 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Re: Define Insurance Reply with quote

HD wrote:
EDIT: I have a derestricted Metrakit exhaust, surely I wouldnt put this on my insurance as it means my bike is not legal therefore doesn't correspond with my licence. Plus it looks standard.

Why even bother asking about insurance if you're just going to invalidate it?

You may aswell ride around without it. Rolling Eyes.
____________________
"Four wheels move the body, two wheels move the soul."
Current Vehicles: '89 Kawasaki KDX200, '99 Yamaha XV535, '00 Honda ST1100 Pan-European, '08 Suzuki GSX-R1000, '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GS4 2.0 TDCi, '15 BMW 1 Series 116d Sport Turbo.
CBT: 27/08/08. Theory: 04/09/09. Module 1: 16/09/09. Module 2: 01/10/09.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

iooi
Super Spammer



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:00 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

I look at it like this.

TPO. If you have cash to spare should anything happen to the bike, so you can replace it straight away.

TPF&T. If you can't afford to replace the bike should ir be nicked, but have cash to spare should you crash to repair it yourself.

FC. If you don't have spare cash and rely/need the bike to get around.

Of course if you are totally skint and are prepared to risk it, go with what you can afford.

There is then the school of thought that no matter what you need to avoid claiming, as all you get is shafted in the next years....

As to the pipe. If you don't declare it, you risk it not being replaced, or worse they see it and decide that you have invalidated the insurance, so won't pay out.
____________________
Just because my bike was A DIVVY, does not mean i am......
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

HD
World Chat Champion



Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:07 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm. Gives me a lot to think about. As with the pipe, it looks basically standard and there are no markings to say its an aftermarket. It came with sticker to put on the can but I didnt put it on for this reason.

As standard, this exhaust does actually have restrictors in it.

I am thinking of TPF&T. This means I have to borrow about £100 off my dad. If I go fully comp that means £200. You think it is worth it?

And what about putting my bars on? It surely wouldn't matter? Confused
____________________
Rusty '02 Vito Camper + CBR600F3
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

itsallgood
Nitrous Nuisance



Joined: 28 Aug 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:47 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

HD wrote:
Hmm. Gives me a lot to think about. As with the pipe, it looks basically standard and there are no markings to say its an aftermarket. It came with sticker to put on the can but I didnt put it on for this reason.

As standard, this exhaust does actually have restrictors in it.


You aren't getting the point - if you have derestricted the bike, you are no longer covered by your insurance for two reasons:

Its not the bike they agreed to cover anymore

You don't have the licence to ride it

As for fully comp, id imagine your excess will be around £500. Say you claim for £700 worth of damage. You'll only receive £200 after they deduct your excess. Then when you go to get insurance next year, your premium will have likely increased by £200 or more.

Is it still worth claiming? How much is your bike worth?

My CG cost me £200, at most its worth twice that now. I'm TPO cos its cheaper to replace the bike outta my own pocket than use the insurance!
____________________
1995 Honda cg125 SOLD
1993 Jawa 350 twin sport (haven't found the "sport" aspect yet)
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

HD
World Chat Champion



Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:14 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do understand the derestricted bit but there is nowt I can do about it. I am not riding a restricted bike; it is dangerous and unneccesary.

As for the bike, I bought it for £1000 but not sure it is quite worth that. They go for around £800.

So you think I should go for Third Party Fire & Theft?

That way I would eliminate the huge excess but what if I injure myself?

Thanks Thumbs Up
____________________
Rusty '02 Vito Camper + CBR600F3
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:30 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
it is dangerous and unneccesary.

It's only dangerous if you go on roads where you can't keep up with traffic. You might think it's unnecessary but the law (which the insurance company will expect you to follow) doesn't work that way.

Fully comp doesn't cover you for injuries to yourself.

For an £800 bike I'd probably go for TPO. If you needed to claim on a TPFT policy then you'd get market value for the bike (say £700), minus the excess (which will probably be at least a few hundred), then the policy is finished (which cost you another few hundred) so it would cost you the total price of the policy and the excess amount for receiving the rest back from the insurance company. And then you've got a claim to declare for the next few years which will bump up the cost of insurance in that time.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Ingah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:30 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you injure yourself it's your loss unless you are able to sue someone else for it.

One exception is an optional add-on you can buy from many insurers along with the actual bike insurance policy (even for TPO) called "Personal Injury" insurance, which will pay out set sums in the event of specific serious injuries (we're talking lost limbs etc here).
____________________
-- Ingah
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

itsallgood
Nitrous Nuisance



Joined: 28 Aug 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:11 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:
stuff


What he said. Insurance is legalised theft*. Get the bare minimum until you have a bike that at trade value is worth a lot more than your excess

I have tpo on my cg. Id be lucky if an insurer gave me £300 for it. As far as I'm concerned I have the bare minimum to sort out the unlucky sod I hit, and keep me legal. Beyond that my personal insurance is a couple of quid stashed away should I need a new bike, so if I trash it or it gets nicked I can sort it out without some insurance company ass raping me for the next few years.....

*don't get me wrong, I agree with having insurance, if I cause an accident I don't want to leave the third party out of pocket, and vice versa but insurance companies know how to take the piss, therefore the less involvement with them the better in my book.
____________________
1995 Honda cg125 SOLD
1993 Jawa 350 twin sport (haven't found the "sport" aspect yet)
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ingah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:46 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

itsallgood wrote:
Get the bare minimum until you have a bike that at trade value is worth a lot more than your excess

I have tpo on my cg. Id be lucky if an insurer gave me £300 for it. As far as I'm concerned I have the bare minimum to sort out the unlucky sod I hit, and keep me legal. Beyond that my personal insurance is a couple of quid stashed away should I need a new bike, so if I trash it or it gets nicked I can sort it out without some insurance company ass raping me for the next few years.....

*don't get me wrong, I agree with having insurance, if I cause an accident I don't want to leave the third party out of pocket, and vice versa but insurance companies know how to take the piss, therefore the less involvement with them the better in my book.


This is my attitude too. Ways i see it you need a nice very expensive bike (especially at a young age) to be worth insuring any more than TPO (NCB and good claims history is worth so much more when young), but the insurers make it financially not viable (or at least, prohibitively expensive) to get a nice bike in the first place due to the premium jump they'll want to provide the cover!

I suppose riders are a large part of the problem though, leaving their nice bikes unsecured, and crashing them more often Doh!
____________________
-- Ingah
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

HD
World Chat Champion



Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:02 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

My head hurts. I need to speak to the father and such like and see what the outcome is. Thanks guys Thumbs Up
____________________
Rusty '02 Vito Camper + CBR600F3
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Ingah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:09 - 22 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Basically, if you're young, you should (best solution imo, but obviously it's your choice) have a crappy cheap bike your not too attached to, and TPO insurance, some saved money to replace it, and whatever extras you fancy (i.e. helmet and leathers, personal injury etc - but check the small prints because sometimes these products are actually white elephants).

Avoid claiming for bike theft / drops at nearly all costs, as the excess, loss of NCB, and having to declare the claim for the next several years, will cost you far more than all but the most expensive machine. So by claiming, you'd lose more money than you gain (this is one reason why people don't like insurers, it's lose-lose no matter what). Hence get the cheapest quote (probably TPO - and will be cheaper, saving you more money, because of the reduced cover and crappy/low risk machine) and play the game until you're assessed as a lower risk and can afford to buy and insure something nice as a result.

Do anything else, and you're spending more (probably unnecessarily). I do appreciate you may want to disregard this though, get something nice and take the risk.

Hopefully that clarifies it.
____________________
-- Ingah
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

HD
World Chat Champion



Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:04 - 23 Nov 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ingah wrote:
Basically, if you're young, you should (best solution imo, but obviously it's your choice) have a crappy cheap bike your not too attached to, and TPO insurance, some saved money to replace it, and whatever extras you fancy (i.e. helmet and leathers, personal injury etc - but check the small prints because sometimes these products are actually white elephants).

Avoid claiming for bike theft / drops at nearly all costs, as the excess, loss of NCB, and having to declare the claim for the next several years, will cost you far more than all but the most expensive machine. So by claiming, you'd lose more money than you gain (this is one reason why people don't like insurers, it's lose-lose no matter what). Hence get the cheapest quote (probably TPO - and will be cheaper, saving you more money, because of the reduced cover and crappy/low risk machine) and play the game until you're assessed as a lower risk and can afford to buy and insure something nice as a result.

Do anything else, and you're spending more (probably unnecessarily). I do appreciate you may want to disregard this though, get something nice and take the risk.

Hopefully that clarifies it.


Cheers mate, really appreciate Karma

As for buying a crappy bike, its a bit late. Problem is if it is nicked then I have nothing whereas if I claim I may be able to get ~£500 so I could buy a scoot or something. I know it may decrease my NCB and make insurance more expensive but I think I may need a bike more than the insurance being cheaper.

Looks like I am going to go TPF&T as I think fully comp is a bit pointless atm. I will just spend more on security and less on insurance. That way hopefully I wont have to claim anyway.

This thread has been really helpful guys, appreciate it a lot!
____________________
Rusty '02 Vito Camper + CBR600F3
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 15 years, 322 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.14 Sec - Server Load: 0.71 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 128.85 Kb