Letter in Fast Bikes re ped de-restriction and insurance

[Ste]

https://www.okas.co.uk/stuff/fastbikes.jpg

I thought that "It was like that when I bought it and I didn't know" isn't an excuse? And surely as he says he knew it did more than 30mph he did know it was technically illegal?

Interesting letter (imo) as it's the first time I've heard of an insurance company noticing a bike not being restricted.

And would I be right in saying the insurance company would not drop the claim as it would be covered by the MIB who provide insurance cover when there is an un-insured driver or un-traceable driver? They would then go after the rider to recover their costs though, but the insurance company wouldn't care about that.

[instigator]

Hmm, yeah interesting letter indeed. Just hope dodsi doesn't see it.

My friends moped was restricted, as new, but after about 6 months, it could do an actual 40mph. I hear that happens quite a bit with scoots. Doesn't that mean that if he was in an accident and it was producing more power than he was allowed, then itd be the manufacturers fault?

[TomC]

Wouldnt think so, i would have thought it will be up to the owner to make sure that it is properly restricted, manufacters wouldnt except responsibility for it.

[Ste]

As the driver or rider of a vehicle you're responsible for it being road worthy, Honda had to recall the new Fireblade as a fair amount of the speedos were under reading by 25% and people were getting done for speeding.

[Ric]

i think a 16 cbt ped thingy says 30mph max

not restricted, so they can do that?

[Gazdaman]

Insurance inspector probably saw a silly exhaust on it and dug a little more, finding the large-bore kit would have been a tease though.

Gaz