Quote:
Originally Posted by Bibio
if you invalidate your insurance because you cant give proof of restriction being fitted by a qualified person then you are liable for all expenses including 3rd party, add to that you will more than likely be prosecuted and loose your licence. insurance companies will use any excuse not to pay out so dont give them one.
i hate to be a bit blunt but if you cant afford to spend £100 getting a restriction kit fitted properly then how do you expect to maintain and run the bike. or is it a case that you grudge paying what you have to.
|
Off topic, but:
Up to your insurance company to prove that you were not restricted and that it was a substantially contributing factor in the accident. Otherwise your contract with them stands.
Although you might have to force this via court, so for an easy life it's not recommended.
Still if you've personally modified your bike so that it outputs less than the required power limit, you're compliant. Up to anyone challenging it to prove that you're not. This is how everyone who doesn't bother with restricting gets away with it. It'd cost more to prove than to just pay out for damages. I don't like it but it's the way it is.
Aside from fuel & insurance, my bike costs £35 for MOT and £40 for changing oil & filter each year, and a few more quid to replace brake pads/chain/sprockets etc whenever required. £100 is a lot of money to chuck away when you can buy a whole bike for £850.