Insuring unused cars

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

my partner or friend wanted to occasionally use the bike, using their own insurance's 3rd party cover?

You can drive other vehicles on your/their insurance's 3rd party cover only if that vehicle is already insured.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by Woz

You can drive other vehicles on your/their insurance's 3rd party cover only if that vehicle is already insured.

i call shenanigans on that...

where's your proof?

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Woz

You can drive other vehicles on your/their insurance's 3rd party cover only if that vehicle is already insured.

Because it's true @TLW
Unless you're talking about a trade insurance policy - which would let you drive it untaxed as well with garage plates

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

where's your proof?

My proof was washed away down the sewer system after I rode my mates Duc 748 home for him (before he got his licence), thinking that my insurance was enough. When I read the paperwork properly a little later, I realised that I'd just ridden it 35 miles with no insurance whatsoever.

Oops.

This is a stupid, poorly thought out requirement. However, a mate had an old project parked on the road, taxed, but not insured as he never drove it. It was a hell of a state, a real "work in progress". One day he got a call at work from someone at the firestation alerting him to the fact they had been out as someone was concerned that there was petrol literally pooling under it and you could smell petrol all the way down the road. Let's say this had gone up whilst you were driving past; you would of hoped it would have been insured, wouldn't you? That's the only instance I can think of where it makes sense though and is so unlikely/applicable in so few cases you can dismiss it out of hand.

Perhaps it's designed to discourage people from parking old tax-exempt wrecks on the road for years on end? My uncle kept an old cage that didn't run as a lockup on the road near where he worked for over a decade. No need to insure it and free tax, what incentive was there for him to move it?

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

This is a stupid, poorly thought out requirement. However, a mate had an old project parked on the road, taxed, but not insured as he never drove it. It was a hell of a state, a real "work in progress". One day he got a call at work from someone at the firestation alerting him to the fact they had been out as someone was concerned that there was petrol literally pooling under it and you could smell petrol all the way down the road. Let's say this had gone up whilst you were driving past; you would of hoped it would have been insured, wouldn't you? That's the only instance I can think of where it makes sense though and is so unlikely/applicable in so few cases you can dismiss it out of hand.

Perhaps it's designed to discourage people from parking old tax-exempt wrecks on the road for years on end? My uncle kept an old cage that didn't run as a lockup on the road near where he worked for over a decade. No need to insure it and free tax, what incentive was there for him to move it?

I'd imagine it is designed to catch out people who drive around uninsured, as currently they need to catch you in the act. It just helps sloppy police-work....

[Lissa]

It's a b*gg*r for us.

We keep a second car as a 'space saver', so that basically no-one ever parks right across our gate and prevents us from getting the bike in and out. It's taxed and has an MOT but is not currently insured as we never drive it. Looks like that will change now.

Still worth it though I guess to ensure the bike can be got in and out of the house.

[the_lone_wolf]

nothing like this in my policy document...

Section 3, 1B

http://www.bell.co.uk/policyDocs/belPdf6.pdf

i'll call them tomorrow and ask, but as far as i can ascertain on the internet whether the other car has to be insured depends entirely on whether the insurer says so or not...

[rowdy]

It is supposedly to stop people driving around uninsured but it's still going to make the government a hell of a lot of money from a lot of law abiding citizens.

Originally Posted by Woz

You can drive other vehicles on your/their insurance's 3rd party cover only if that vehicle is already insured.

Funny that, as my policy states the exact opposite.

I can ride any bike I like, and I'm covered on my insurance, unless the bike is covered under any other policy (ie, the owner has an 'any rider' clause).