To de-restrict or to not de-restrict that is the question

Discussion split from the there orginal plowsie thread, Fizz


So let me get this confirmed then.

Someone decides to not conform to their insurance policy. Basically fraud. If they were to be involved in an accident and cause third party damage, the insurance company would payout regardless of the fact the person they insured has not complied with the policy

We are assuming here that the person will stop in the event of an accident with the knowledge that should they stay they are going to get screwed by both the insurance company AND the police.

This however is quite acceptable and tolerable to the masses as it's his choice and no one else will suffer

Originally Posted by BigApe

So let me get this confirmed then.

Someone decides to not conform to their insurance policy. Basically fraud. If they were to be involved in an accident and cause third party damage, the insurance company would payout regardless of the fact the person they insured has not complied with the policy

We are assuming here that the person will stop in the event of an accident with the knowledge that should they stay they are going to get screwed by both the insurance company AND the police.

This however is quite acceptable and tolerable to the masses as it's his choice and no one else will suffer

Still riding an unmodified SV?

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

It's not just a case of insurance, you've been given permission by the DVLA to ride a 33hp bike and you're riding something significantly more powerful. It's not far off riding an SV with just a CBT.

Ho-hum, your life, your choice, just don't expect anyone to respect you.

You're both assuming he'd get caught.

Don't take this the wrong way Lee, but even if he did did get caught, worst is fine/points. Where as, I think it's fair to say, that had you been caught riding the way you used to (not sure if you still do!) you'd be behind bars, no?

[21QUEST]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Still riding an unmodified SV?



You're both assuming he'd get caught.

Don't take this the wrong way Lee, but even if he did did get caught, worst is fine/points. Where as, I think it's fair to say, that had you been caught riding the way you used to (not sure if you still do!) you'd be behind bars, no?

Yanno, for a squirrel, you do talk a lot of sense


Ben

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by BigApe

So let me get this confirmed then.

Someone decides to not conform to their insurance policy. Basically fraud. If they were to be involved in an accident and cause third party damage, the insurance company would payout regardless of the fact the person they insured has not complied with the policy

We are assuming here that the person will stop in the event of an accident with the knowledge that should they stay they are going to get screwed by both the insurance company AND the police.

This however is quite acceptable and tolerable to the masses as it's his choice and no one else will suffer

As I understand it they would pay out to the 3rd party, then come after you to recover the costs and basically f### you over.


My view as to the restricted thing;
If you want to ride unrestricted, it's nothing to do with the org, so don't brag about it. It's illegal.
And admitting illegal things is a REALLY BAD IDEA. If you're going to do it, accept the risk that you could get caught and STFU.
Works both ways too, if you suspect somebody's running full power, keep quiet about it, its nothing to do with you, chances are whoever it is will be aware of the law and have made their decision so a big "you're not insured ... zu vill be shot" rant does nobody any good.
Just like we all know our bikes top speed, because we have tested it on a private runway. Convenient eh.

My 2p worth.

Originally Posted by BigApe

So let me get this confirmed then.

Someone decides to not conform to their insurance policy. Basically fraud. If they were to be involved in an accident and cause third party damage, the insurance company would payout regardless of the fact the person they insured has not complied with the policy

This wasn't the case in our experience. My wife was hit by a wally in a BMW. She suffered whiplash and off work for a bit. Because (and only because) she didn't get sick pay we sought legal help to recover loss of earnings - this turned out to be a wise move. The BMW geezers insurance company admitted blame and priced the compo all good until it was discovered that the geezer wasn't insured for that particular car (he had others apparently), the insurance company dropped it like a hot brick and it was referred to the Motor Insurance Bureau. The idea is that they pay up then chase the geezer (who incidentally then vanished). The MIB (Tommy Lee Jones they ain't!!) were a pile poo and were a real battle for our legal bods but eventually paid up but substantially less than the original insurance company had valued. They took so long that we were at risk of running out of time to take our own action if MIB failed (assuming we could have found the Beeming bar steward that is)

So if your not insured or insured properly your potential victims aren't necessarily automatically covered. Sorry a little off thread.

[yorkie_chris]

Not really a fair comparison IMO as that feller had no insurance at all

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Not really a fair comparison IMO as that feller had no insurance at all

I'm no expert on these things, appears to have similar issues to me just thought it would question whether the situation stated was that clear cut .
The geezer in our situation did have insurance cover that was inclusive for a number of cars but hadn't actually 'named' this one. My understanding at the time (which I admit was somewhat limited) was a bit like not advising the insurance of any sort of modifications.

i was told that not reporting a speeding fine would invalidate my insurance but whther that would still pay 3rd party didn't crop up in the conversation. i assumed it blow it out in total.

My 1st 'big' bike was a RVF400, when I called to sort my insurance they told me 'they do not insure bikes as restricted (33bhp) because people just take the restrictors out, so I will be insured on the bike as full power'.

Therefore my policy stated that I had a full license (which I did albeit restricted for 2 years) and no mention of restriction.

A question for anyone who has a restricted license. When calling for a quote on your bike have you ever been asked if it was restricted? or if you had a restricted license?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by A-jay

My 1st 'big' bike was a RVF400, when I called to sort my insurance they told me 'they do not insure bikes as restricted (33bhp) because people just take the restrictors out, so I will be insured on the bike as full power'.

Therefore my policy stated that I had a full license (which I did albeit restricted for 2 years) and no mention of restriction.

A question for anyone who has a restricted license. When calling for a quote on your bike have you ever been asked if it was restricted? or if you had a restricted license?

This is a good point, when i renewed my insurance i was told that the restriction doesn't give me any discount/money off so they told me it would be insured as if full power. You can bet that they would soon check if it was restricted at the time of any accident though. My insurance know im on a restriced licence so all they are doing really is pocketing more money.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by BigApe

Someone decides to not conform to their insurance policy. Basically fraud. If they were to be involved in an accident and cause third party damage, the insurance company would payout regardless of the fact the person they insured has not complied with the policy

To the third party, yes. I think it's the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 151. Though I'm not sure of the section, I just read that bit and I'm none the wiser. Officially it was written by the government to protect roadusers- in fact it was written by lawyers to protect the employment of future lawyers

Originally Posted by skint

The BMW geezers insurance company admitted blame and priced the compo all good until it was discovered that the geezer wasn't insured for that particular car (he had others apparently), the insurance company dropped it like a hot brick and it was referred to the Motor Insurance Bureau.

Very different situation, in this he was never insured for the vehicle at all.