Insurance [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

firefighter

20th July 2009, 00:31

insurance means one thing and one thing only.

You feel the need to pay someone to cover your mistakes because you do not have the confidence in your ability to avoid an accident.

Wrong nutshell dude.

My reasons are different.

I don't want to write off a brand new mercedes, from whatever cause, and have to sell my house, and pay off a fucked car i'll never get anything out of for the rest of my life.......nor have to pay to replace a stolen bike...

Remember, if you can't prove it was caused by the other person, who took off, and it really was unavoidable (some things really are, no matter how perfect you think you are) Your mistake or not you could very well be paying out.....until you die.

Fucketh that.

YellowDog

20th July 2009, 06:05

+1 for Firefighter.

Insurance can pay for both partes upgrades, but it also pays for saving you from losing your potential ability to finance any kind of life.

The insurance company doesn't care whether you are sure you were not at fault or. We all know that shit happens. Right and wrong are decided by someone else, not you. What about the idiot witness who didn't understand what was going on and says that you were in the wrong. Maybe he's a mate of the other guy.

No Insurance = Huge risk.

Safe motorcycling = Avoiding as many risks as possible.

jono035

20th July 2009, 06:28

Wrong nutshell dude.

My reasons are different.

I don't want to write off a brand new mercedes, from whatever cause, and have to sell my house, and pay off a fucked car i'll never get anything out of for the rest of my life.......nor have to pay to replace a stolen bike...

Remember, if you can't prove it was caused by the other person, who took off, and it really was unavoidable (some things really are, no matter how perfect you think you are) Your mistake or not you could very well be paying out.....until you die.

Fucketh that.

Yep, got it in one.

I've always had full insurance, from my first car right on through. Would never drive without 3rd party for the reasons you mention, and always get full because there are idiots without any insurance out there.

3rd party insurance is a must, no matter how arrogant you are about your ability to avoid 'accidents' (although the word used should really tip you off on that score), because they are just that. Accidents. Yes, the vast majority are avoidable or could have been minimised at least, but they would still happen, because nobody is infallible.

If you get into an accident with a brand new merc/beemer without insurance and it isn't 100% clear who was at fault, then you're going to have lawyers crawling around in your ass for weeks. And will also end up paying for it. Probably for years to come or through filing for bankruptcy, which is awesome fun.

cowboyz

20th July 2009, 07:05

cowboyz

20th July 2009, 07:09

Yep, got it in one.
<snipped cause my response would have been a repost of my response to FF>

. And will also end up paying for it. Probably for years to come or through filing for bankruptcy, which is awesome fun.

And here we have how insurance companies make money. Operate on fear and ones basic lack of self confidence on the idea that something might go wrong.

Add to the mix that they want full disclosure without offering the same in return.

jono035

20th July 2009, 07:18

And here we have how insurance companies make money. Operate on fear and ones basic lack of self confidence on the idea that something might go wrong.

Add to the mix that they want full disclosure without offering the same in return.

As opposed to what? The assumption that I am a driving god who will never have an accident, ever?

Insurance companies make money, yes. They do so by providing a service. Most people would rather pay them something to ensure than when something goes wrong, the effects of it are minimised.

The problem is, you're looking at it in an average sense. On average everyone pays the insurance company some amount, who then pays out on claims. This all works out even except that the insurance companies make a profit, which I'm guessing is what your beef with them is. They basically work to make sure that if something bad happens, it doesn't completely and utterly cripple your life (has happened and to people I know, so cut the BS about spreading fear).

You can take that risk if you want, but at least get 3rd party so you don't end up being one of those wankers who writes someone elses car off while driving/riding with no insurance then sticks their fingers in their ears and goes 'lalala it wasn't my fault because I am a driving god lalala' at the top of their lungs.

The real reason you are insuring your bike for accident is that you think it is concievable that you might hit a brand new mercedes, from whatever cause, and have to sell my house, and pay off a fucked car i'll never get anything out of for the rest of my life.

I'm not sure what part of this statement you are saying is unreasonable? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. In history, people who are careful drivers have had accidents and you don't get to choose the type of car you get into an accident with.

Owl

20th July 2009, 07:42

the real question should be why dont motorcylist get pissed at people who use insurance to pay for their upgrades

I did exactly that cowboyz, but it was fully disclosed to the insurance company and approved.

I guess there are good and bad ways about doing it.

cowboyz

20th July 2009, 07:46

As opposed to what? The assumption that I am a driving god who will never have an accident, ever?

Insurance companies make money, yes. They do so by providing a service. Most people would rather pay them something to ensure than when something goes wrong, the effects of it are minimised.

The problem is, you're looking at it in an average sense. On average everyone pays the insurance company some amount, who then pays out on claims. This all works out even except that the insurance companies make a profit, which I'm guessing is what your beef with them is. They basically work to make sure that if something bad happens, it doesn't completely and utterly cripple your life (has happened and to people I know, so cut the BS about spreading fear).

You can take that risk if you want, but at least get 3rd party so you don't end up being one of those wankers who writes someone elses car off while driving/riding with no insurance then sticks their fingers in their ears and goes 'lalala it wasn't my fault because I am a driving god lalala' at the top of their lungs.

I'm not sure what part of this statement you are saying is unreasonable? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. In history, people who are careful drivers have had accidents and you don't get to choose the type of car you get into an accident with.

I find this interesting on a few counts.

let me list the points out to make it a little clearer, as always, you might want to correct any point I have misunderstood.

1. You think that getting a bike from point A to point B on a public road with other traffic on the road without damaging any vehicle requires a god-like riding ability

2. You do not think that you have god-like riding abilities

3. You pay a premium so someone else pays for the majority of your mistakes

4. accidents are inevitable and will happen

Just to clear a few points up on my side.

1. I have no problem with any company making a profit - thats their job.

2. I didnt say it was unreasonable for you to have lack of confidence in your ability to avoid an accident. I havent seen you ride. You may be fully justified in your fears of crashing into an expensive car and being lumbered with a huge debt.

Whos history are you baseing the requirement for insurance on? My personal history? 20 years of road riding with zero at fault accidents? I have been in a position where I have argued with anothers insurance company where they were at fault and they didnt want to pay. The paid up after a few discussions so it worked out well but again, if the other driver was paying attention and didnt run me over he wouldnt have needed insurance.
He obviously thought that his skill set in operating a vechile on a public road without causing an accident was lacking and did not want to foot the bill for his own mistakes so he paid a company to cover the costs for him. He happened to be right and he did not pay for his own mistakes. His insurance company paid me instead.

cowboyz

20th July 2009, 07:48

I did exactly that cowboyz, but it was fully disclosed to the insurance company and approved.

I guess there are good and bad ways about doing it.

Yeah, but I like you and I would have done the same.

I never said I thought it was a bad thing. Just putting the question out there.

CookMySock

20th July 2009, 07:57

People fear uninsured riders, because if they get hit by them, there is no one to cover the repair bill.. except for their own insurance company, and that will cost them their excess. Insurance has also become somewhat of a cash cow.

Here's my line on it ;

If you WANT to guard against damaging, or someone else damaging your bike, go buy some insurance.

If you don't, then don't.

If you are uninsured, and something happens to your bike, then TOUGH LUCK SON.

If someone else damages your insured bike, go cry to your insurance company and pay the excess you agreed to pay.

Also consider, uninsured riders are going to be bloody careful, where comprehensively insured riders are "all good". Who would you rather have in your fast group?

If it's still about money, then your income needs looking at, and something doing about it.

I never claim any insurance, so I gave up paying it. Thousands of dollars a year was going down the toilet.

Steve

jono035

20th July 2009, 08:00

I find this interesting on a few counts.

let me list the points out to make it a little clearer, as always, you might want to correct any point I have misunderstood.

1. You think that getting a bike from point A to point B on a public road with other traffic on the road without damaging any vehicle requires a god-like riding ability

2. You do not think that you have god-like riding abilities

3. You pay a premium so someone else pays for the majority of your mistakes

4. accidents are inevitable and will happen

Just to clear a few points up on my side.

1. I have no problem with any company making a profit - thats their job.

2. I didnt say it was unreasonable for you to have lack of confidence in your ability to avoid an accident. I havent seen you ride. You may be fully justified in your fears of crashing into an expensive car and being lumbered with a huge debt.

Whos history are you baseing the requirement for insurance on? My personal history? 20 years of road riding with zero at fault accidents? I have been in a position where I have argued with anothers insurance company where they were at fault and they didnt want to pay. The paid up after a few discussions so it worked out well but again, if the other driver was paying attention and didnt run me over he wouldnt have needed insurance.
He obviously thought that his skill set in operating a vechile on a public road without causing an accident was lacking and did not want to foot the bill for his own mistakes so he paid a company to cover the costs for him. He happened to be right and he did not pay for his own mistakes. His insurance company paid me instead.

1. To get from A-B without making mistakes, no. To get from A-B to guarantee beyond doubt that you will not make a mistake or an action that is later construed as a mistake, yes.

2. Hell no, I started riding 3 months ago and have covered less than 1000 kms :D

3. I pay a premium so that, in the event of something that I'm trying my hardest to avoid happens anyway, I don't have to be staring down the barrel of 100k worth of damages to repay.

4. Inevitable yes, but don't misunderstand me and think that I am brushing this off. All accidents are avoidable to some degree, but we make trade-offs as to what that degree is. I am not advocating a 'que sera, sera' attitude to accidents, just that statistically speaking, you will have one, one day.

As for your points:

1. Good, sorry for misinterpreting.

2. Like I said, I'm a new rider and, while I'm trying to avoid it, I realise that there is every possibility that I will make a giant cock-up at some point.

As for your history, congratulations on that record, I wish I could say the same. I don't believe that in individual cases you can look at someones history and use it as a 100% accurate prediction of the future.

A question for you: Do you think that your 20 year history of no accidents indicates that it is impossible for you to have an accident in the rest of this year (or your riding career, either or)?

jono035

20th July 2009, 08:03

Also consider, uninsured riders are going to be bloody careful, where comprehensively insured riders are "all good". Who would you rather have in your fast group?

I agree that this is certainly a part of it, but I don't believe that all accidents can be avoided by the kind of care and attention that most humans are able to exhibit.

I'm also thinking about all of this in a car-driver point of view. As a bike rider you're much less likely to utterly wreck someone elses car, and if you wreck a bike it is comparatively cheap. On a car the cost of one moment of inattentiveness can be in the hundreds of thousands (a very rare example, I admit) so I will continue to hope (and act to bring about) the best, while planning for the worst.

Indiana_Jones

20th July 2009, 08:06

Yep, got it in one.

I've always had full insurance, from my first car right on through. Would never drive without 3rd party for the reasons you mention, and always get full because there are idiots without any insurance out there.

That's what I did once I got my second bike, after being knocked off my 1st by a drunk driver, and only having 3rd party my company didn't pay out, nor did his as he was pissed.

Couldn't be shagged doing the whole civil courts thing.

It paid for itself when some muppet drove into the back of my CBR250 who had no insurance.

Now he's still paying it back to them I bet :rolleyes:

If someone else damages your insured bike, go cry to your insurance company and pay the excess you agreed to pay.

In my above case, I didn't have to pay a cent for my excess as he was at fault.

-Indy

jono035

20th July 2009, 08:09

That's what I did once I got my second bike, after being knocked off my 1st by a drunk driver, and only having 3rd party my company didn't pay out, nor did his as he was pissed.

Couldn't be shagged doing the whole civil courts thing.

It paid for itself when some muppet drove into the back of my CBR250 who had no insurance.

Now he's still paying it back to them I bet :rolleyes:

-Indy

Yeah, definitely. People driving/riding outside their insurance/license conditions is a big one too. With all the drink drivers on the roads then having full insurance can save you a whole lot of pain and suffering, right when you may need all the help you can get.

CookMySock

20th July 2009, 08:12

I don't have to be staring down the barrel of 100k worth of damages to repay.You have the boot on the wrong foot.

If you have a $1,200 bike, would you insure it? Your call...

If you have a $100,000 mercedes, would you insure it? Your call..

Whether someone insures their 100k car is nothing to do with you, and nor should it be.

Steve

jono035

20th July 2009, 08:16

You have the boot on the wrong foot.

If you have a $1,200 bike, would you insure it? Your call...

If you have a $100,000 mercedes, would you insure it? Your call..

Whether someone insures their 100k car is nothing to do with you, and nor should it be.

Steve

True, but if I (allegedly perhaps) cause 100k worth of damage, it doesn't matter whether they are insured or not, ultimately someone is going to be blaming me for it and coming after me, whether it is the insurance companies lawyers of the merc owner's lawyers.

CookMySock

20th July 2009, 10:16

if I (allegedly perhaps) cause 100k worth of damage, it doesn't matter whether they are insured or not, ultimately someone is going to be blaming me for it and coming after meBut thats what they have insurance for.

It's certainly not your problem if I put 100k into some investment and treat it in a risky fashion. What difference does it make if it was a boat, plane, car, motorcycle, or if it was even used on the road or not?

If you have a large and expensive risk, you mitigate against it. Thats just business. Your call. Do it, or not. Thats what insurance is for.

My risks are small, inexpensive, and I don't treat them in a risky fashion - not worth mitigating against. Your 100k car - different kettle of fish.

You manage your risk, I manage mine. Easy peasy. My risk isn't your problem, and the reverse holds true.

Steve

rosie631

20th July 2009, 10:30

the real question should be why dont motorcylist get pissed at people who use insurance to pay for their upgrades?

and when you break it all down insurance means one thing and one thing only.

You feel the need to pay someone to cover your mistakes because you do not have the confidence in your ability to avoid an accident.

Well, I for one am pleased I had insurance, when I hit a patch of diesel on the road and came off at 100ks. Dis my riding skills all you like but that was unavoidable. And I wasn't the only one that went down. Both fully insured. Both bikes written off.

cowboyz

20th July 2009, 16:19

Well, I for one am pleased I had insurance, when I hit a patch of diesel on the road and came off at 100ks. Dis my riding skills all you like but that was unavoidable. And I wasn't the only one that went down. Both fully insured. Both bikes written off.

this is interesting.

1. By unavoidable are you saying EVERY SINGLE vechile that come across that certain patch of diesel came to grief?

I also find it interesting that instead of saying "I have insurance because sometimes unexpected things happen and I dont trust that I have the ability to deal with all the unexpected things that appear on the roads to avoid an accident" you have implied "Its not my fault!!!!!"

MarkH

20th July 2009, 16:24

ready4whatever

20th July 2009, 16:26

i dont plan on getting insurance, the way i see it is if i crash im dead anyway

on the other hand i could accidently cause a logging truck to crash, he hits a bus, they hit a power pole cutting power to a city block, those people lose power to their freezers and all there meat goes off. then id have to pay. damn

cowboyz

20th July 2009, 17:12

I have full insurance, so I am covered.

Imagine this:
You park your bike.
Some old person driving along has a heart attack and his car hits your bike hard, writing it off.
The old persons insurance company says: "act of god" not our problem.
Replacing the bike will cost you $7K

Without insurance you are going to have to come up with that $7K out of your own pocket.

as insurance is a risk/reward business if that is your reasoning for having insurance then I have a proposal

For a bargin price of $1000 per year, I was personally insure you. In which if at any time, between 11.30pm and 11.45pm you fall off a building between 1.9 and 3.1m high injuring yourself so that you are unable to work for the rest of their natural life I will pay all expenses and cost of living for your natural life.

Can you afford to not have a job for your entire life???

Owl

20th July 2009, 17:42

MarkH

20th July 2009, 18:01

Nice scenario and they probably would try to use that clause if you were uninsured. Reality is that you may have to fight them in court, but they would ultimately lose, as it's not an "Act of god". It's just bad luck!

Ummm, yeah - that is a real life situation and legally the accident is considered to be a no fault one. The guy who had the heart attack is not held to blame and his insurance company did NOT pay out the other party because legally they didn't have to. When an accident occurs and no one is deemed to have 'fucked up' then each driver just claims on their own insurance - no insurance = paying for the repairs/replacement yourself.

You could fight the insurance company in court but YOU would ultimately lose as their insured heart attack victim is a victim and will not be legally 'at fault' for the accident. You would also be out of pocket for the legal costs for trying to fight it in court.

Owl

20th July 2009, 18:52

Ummm, yeah - that is a real life situation and legally the accident is considered to be a no fault one. The guy who had the heart attack is not held to blame and his insurance company did NOT pay out the other party because legally they didn't have to. When an accident occurs and no one is deemed to have 'fucked up' then each driver just claims on their own insurance - no insurance = paying for the repairs/replacement yourself.

You could fight the insurance company in court but YOU would ultimately lose as their insured heart attack victim is a victim and will not be legally 'at fault' for the accident. You would also be out of pocket for the legal costs for trying to fight it in court.

I heard about that scenario years ago. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Heart attack victim was in charge of the vehicle when it crashed! Fair enough not facing charges, but he's still liable.

What if said heart attack victim hadn't taken his medication? Perhaps he'd mistakenly taken the wrong medication. Would that make a difference?
Next guy has a stroke, so it's not his fault?
This one got cramp in his leg and couldn't take his foot off the accelerator, so not his fault.

Where do you draw the line?:(

jono035

20th July 2009, 19:44

Insurance companies insure you for mistakes you make or mistakes others make when they can't find out who it was.

If you cause 100k of damage to someone elses car and you don't have insurance, you can bet your boots they'll be coming after you...

Thats the situation that I'm trying to avoid.

MarkH

20th July 2009, 21:14

I heard about that scenario years ago. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Heart attack victim was in charge of the vehicle when it crashed! Fair enough not facing charges, but he's still liable.

What if said heart attack victim hadn't taken his medication? Perhaps he'd mistakenly taken the wrong medication. Would that make a difference?
Next guy has a stroke, so it's not his fault?
This one got cramp in his leg and couldn't take his foot off the accelerator, so not his fault.

Where do you draw the line?:(

I would imagine having a stroke to be similar legally to having a heart attack. I am not too sure why you have trouble understanding that an unforseen medical event leading to a crash could be seen in the eyes of the law as a no-fault accident. I have also heard of diesel on the road causing someone to crash into someone else and the accident being declared a 'no fault' accident - each driver claiming on their own insurance.

If someone fails to give way or takes a corner too fast and has an accident which damages another vehicle then that's where their 3rd party insurance cover pays for the repair/replacement of the other vehicle. But it is definitely possible for an accident to happen where the other person wrecks your vehicle, but is not legally liable - that's where you make a claim on your own insurance.

BTW:
The heart attack victim died, that story was on Fair Go, the Fair Go team didn't even argue the legalities - they just tried to guilt the big insurance corporation into paying out the poor 'little guy' that was out of pocket. The insurance company refused to budge because they had a fiscal responsibility to their shareholders and were obliged to not go handing out money when they had no legal requirement to do so. It turned out that their was nothing that the hard done by car owner or Fair Go could do. It doesn't matter if you 'buy it' or not - it happened and the results were televised for all to see.

HungusMaximist

20th July 2009, 21:40

If you have no insurane and you're a student and then get into an nasty accident, thank the NZ government that you're able to pay it off $5 bucks a week for the rest of your lfie.

Cheshire Cat

20th July 2009, 21:56

Why are we so tolerant of uninsured riders, and why hasn't this come up yet?!

In short, 3rd party as a minimum should be encouraged.

EDIT: this was for the rides working group, but a kind mod disagreed with me, infracted me thrice, and PD with all my threads. Wouldn't dare post this otherwise for the borderline trolling it would be, but it's here now. have fun.

Are you going to pay for my insurance darling?
:tugger:

jono035

21st July 2009, 07:26

I think one of the points that a lot of the pro-insurance people (myself included) have been trying to make is that 3rd party should be considered compulsory and thought of as another running cost for the vehicle.

When I decided to get a bike to go to uni and back I went through and factored all those costs in. Rego/warrant, insurance, consumables (likely distance travelled, cost of oil change, chain, sprockets, tires, all pretty pie-in-the-sky numbers though). As mentioned before, if you can't afford all of these things, then you need to change your plans. Don't buy a bike thats expensive as balls to run and then whinge about it, figure out what you can afford and plan accordingly. If that sounds too 'pussy' or 'egghead' for you then don't whinge when you don't have enough money to do the other things you want to do. Simple as that. Insurance should be factored in from the start.

The problem is people will look at insurance and say nah, I won't crash. Until you crash, of course insurance has no value, but if you do (and statistically speaking, you will eventually...) then it far outweighs the costs..

Again, I'm not advocating that people should feel free to crash into whatever they want and take no responsibility... I don't believe that I would ride any differently with or without insurance basically because I'm more concerned about injuring myself. Avoiding damaging someone elses car or my bike is just a bonus...

jono035

21st July 2009, 07:27

If you have no insurane and you're a student and then get into an nasty accident, thank the NZ government that you're able to pay it off $5 bucks a week for the rest of your lfie.

Not sure what you're referring to here but it sounds interesting, any further info?

Indiana_Jones

21st July 2009, 08:05

cowboyz

21st July 2009, 08:23

at least get 3rd party so you don't end up being one of those wankers who writes someone elses car off while driving/riding with no insurance then sticks their fingers in their ears and goes 'lalala it wasn't my fault because I am a driving god lalala' at the top of their lungs.

Again, I'm not advocating that people should feel free to crash into whatever they want and take no responsibility... I don't believe that I would ride any differently with or without insurance basically because I'm more concerned about injuring myself. Avoiding damaging someone elses car or my bike is just a bonus...

The really interesting thing about your argument is that on one side you are saying that it is irresponsible to not have insurance and on the other side you are saying that you need insurance so you dont have to take responsibility for your own actions. Because escentially, that is what insurance is. Paying someone else to take responsibility for the financial aspects of your mistakes. My argument is sound. putt around the points all you like but at the end of the day the main reasons are all the same.
I would have less problems with insurance companies if they were honest and upfront.

Heres a bone. I do have comprehensive insurance. And that is why I know how devious the insurance companies are. The real shocker is that people allow insurance companies to get away with it.

I have a policy on my ZX9r ROAD bike that says I will pay the first $500 towards the cost of an accident that happens on any public road.
Another part of that policy states that I will pay $500 towards the cost of an accident that happens OFF-ROAD. Now when trackday season comes around and I take my bike to the track I have to get approval to go and my excess jumps to $2000. No mention of this in the contract that I signed. They just make it up. I tried to argue that the racetrack was not a road therefore covered under the offroad section of my policy. They wouldnt buy that.
So what they are saying is that if I decide to take my ZX9r road bike to the woodville motoX and crash it I pay $500. however, at manfield on a sealed circuit my excess is $2000. How does this even make sense.

oh, and another bone.. and I am really surprised noone has come up with this yet. You ask why I have comprehensive insurance on my bike. The answer is it is a desirable bike and the likelyhood of it getting stolen is realitively high considering I dont have a lockable garage and live on a main road and the way they work out the premiums actually mean it is cheaper to insure full cover than 3rd party.

Max Preload

21st July 2009, 12:28

I can't be arsed reading the whole thread because it'll be the same old shit usually regurgitated by insurance junkies, but I'll address these posts since they're the common key arguments for compulsory motorvehicle insurance. To state my position, I don't insure because I'll be damned if I'm going to subsidise fuckers who are always falling of their bikes and crashing into shit. Fuck that.

People fear uninsured riders, because if they get hit by them, there is no one to cover the repair bill.. except for their own insurance company, and that will cost them their excess.

No loss of no-claims if the crash is not your fault and other vehicle is identified.

In short, 3rd party as a minimum should be encouraged.

Why? If you're fully insured because you think you need to be you have nothing to lose. Other people's business is really none of yours.

I have full cover, so i'm (hopefully) ok, but I know of riders who have had the responsibility/common sense to have 3rd party, but then get shafted when hit by an uninsured rider/driver

If they don't want to be out of pocket they should get comprehensive cover. Simple, eh?

yeah i think this is true, if your going to go ahead and buy a vehical you need to be resbonsible for your actions even thou you may think you might never crash. if you cant afford 3rd party, how are you going to pay for damage if you do crash:(

So you can only be responsible if you're paying through the nose for premiums to be insured... another Tui? Once again, it's not about affording it - it's about cost/benefit. In my case there's far too little benefit.

I don't want to write off a brand new mercedes, from whatever cause, and have to sell my house, and pay off a fucked car i'll never get anything out of for the rest of my life.......nor have to pay to replace a stolen bike...

Yeah, the road is literally covered in new Mercedes, Lamboghinis & Ferraris. It sure is a high chance of hitting one when they're everywhere! :rofl:

jono035

21st July 2009, 18:09

The really interesting thing about your argument is that on one side you are saying that it is irresponsible to not have insurance and on the other side you are saying that you need insurance so you dont have to take responsibility for your own actions. Because escentially, that is what insurance is. Paying someone else to take responsibility for the financial aspects of your mistakes. My argument is sound. putt around the points all you like but at the end of the day the main reasons are all the same.

Again, I'm not advocating that people should feel free to crash into whatever they want and take no responsibility... I don't believe that I would ride any differently with or without insurance basically because I'm more concerned about injuring myself. Avoiding damaging someone elses car or my bike is just a bonus...

It really sounds like you are just venting over being told you have more excess under racetrack conditions rather than off-road conditions. I would call and ask your insurance company to confirm that the $500 excess for off-roading applies while you are racing MotoX. If it does, then that is a pretty big surprise unless some of the other criteria for cover change between off-road and on-road.

cowboyz

21st July 2009, 18:13

i am not advocating racing motoX. pretty sure when it comes time to update the bike I might take it on an offroad journey and let the insurance pay for my upgrade. Heaps easier than dealing with tardme retards.

motorbyclist

22nd July 2009, 00:07

for those who follow the "i wont ever damage another's property and be at fault therefore i don't need insurance" line of reasoning - what if some other fuckwit causes the accident but for whatever reason you're found to be at fault? I know a few guys who've had it happen.

I know one unlucky bastard who had the driver call a cop who then never filed the report or gave him the details of the other driver.

My mate just had his car written off avoiding another car pulling out from a side road, but was apparently better off to have ploughed into the driver's door, as the unharmed other driver seemed to think my mate just swerved into a ditch on a dead straight road for no reason.

Another "favourtite" is how my old FXR got written off - brother was riding it with 3rd only, unlicenced unsupervised 15yo girl did a U turn and wrote off the bike, right outside her house. Parents threaten to "smash" us, so call cops. Parents give false details to cop standing in their living room, cop hands out large fines for the girl who was still in shock and admitted what had happened. Cop then hands out more fines for the false details. All up the other family was required to pay thousands of dollars in fines to the courts, yet my family, after three successful visits to small claims, never got a cent and eventually sold the wreck for $700. some justice system eh?

ever since we've been fully insured - but in an ideal world we'd all either be perfect drivers or all have the common decency to admit we're human and all have 3rd (then suck it up if we damage our own vehicle but at least we didn't just leave a 16 year old seriously out of pocket)

(yes i do realise even if the girl was insured, she'd not be covered)

If you have no insurane and you're a student and then get into an nasty accident, thank the NZ government that you're able to pay it off $5 bucks a week for the rest of your lfie.

first i heard of that

You ask why I have comprehensive insurance on my bike. The answer is it is a desirable bike and the likelyhood of it getting stolen is realitively high considering I dont have a lockable garage and live on a main road and the way they work out the premiums actually mean it is cheaper to insure full cover than 3rd party.

you might want to check your policy in that regard - many insurers wont cover theft unless it is (said to be) primarily stored in a locked garage.

cowboyz

22nd July 2009, 07:03

for those who follow the "i wont ever damage another's property and be at fault therefore i don't need insurance" line of reasoning - what if some other fuckwit causes the accident but for whatever reason you're found to be at fault? I know a few guys who've had it happen.

I know one unlucky bastard who had the driver call a cop who then never filed the report or gave him the details of the other driver.

My mate just had his car written off avoiding another car pulling out from a side road, but was apparently better off to have ploughed into the driver's door, as the unharmed other driver seemed to think my mate just swerved into a ditch on a dead straight road for no reason.

Another "favourtite" is how my old FXR got written off - brother was riding it with 3rd only, unlicenced unsupervised 15yo girl did a U turn and wrote off the bike, right outside her house. Parents threaten to "smash" us, so call cops. Parents give false details to cop standing in their living room, cop hands out large fines for the girl who was still in shock and admitted what had happened. Cop then hands out more fines for the false details. All up the other family was required to pay thousands of dollars in fines to the courts, yet my family, after three successful visits to small claims, never got a cent and eventually sold the wreck for $700. some justice system eh?

ever since we've been fully insured - but in an ideal world we'd all either be perfect drivers or all have the common decency to admit we're human and all have 3rd (then suck it up if we damage our own vehicle but at least we didn't just leave a 16 year old seriously out of pocket)

(yes i do realise even if the girl was insured, she'd not be covered)

first i heard of that

you might want to check your policy in that regard - many insurers wont cover theft unless it is (said to be) primarily stored in a locked garage.

firstly, yes.. my bike is insured for theft and it is in the contract that it is not stored in a garage. I went through a shit load of companys before I found one that would insure me without a garage so you are right there in a sense. There are alot that simply wont.

The point you are missing is there only seems to be 2 sides of the argument and your missing the third.

You seem to think its either..

I am insured so I have no problem getting someone else to pay for my mistakes

or..

I am not insured and so I will never have an accident.

The bit you are missing is the I am not insured and am willing to pay for my own mistakes. Just because someone chooses not to be insured doesnt mean they are going to not own up to their mistakes.

jono035

22nd July 2009, 07:18

firstly, yes.. my bike is insured for theft and it is in the contract that it is not stored in a garage. I went through a shit load of companys before I found one that would insure me without a garage so you are right there in a sense. There are alot that simply wont.

The point you are missing is there only seems to be 2 sides of the argument and your missing the third.

You seem to think its either..

I am insured so I have no problem getting someone else to pay for my mistakes

or..

I am not insured and so I will never have an accident.

The bit you are missing is the I am not insured and am willing to pay for my own mistakes. Just because someone chooses not to be insured doesnt mean they are going to not own up to their mistakes.

No, we just believe that your distinction is bogus due to the fact that you have no control over what you have an accident with, therefore no control over what the ultimate cost is likely to be.

You can guess, you can average, but you can't be sure.

MarkH

22nd July 2009, 11:01

The fact is that there are a lot of $50K+ cars driving around Auckland (Subaru, Holden, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Ferrari, Jaguar, Lexus, etc) and if you fuck up and damage one (or at least get blamed for the accident) then you could be up for a very large bill. I pay $500 per year for insurance because I can't afford the $7K to replace my scooter, let alone $10K+ for the other vehicle.

There is also the huge advantage of not having to get money out of the other party when they are at fault (this happened with the car twice last year). Insurance pays you and they have the fun & joy of sorting out the deal with the 'at fault' party. I have my car/bike repaired and carry on with my life.

cowboyz

22nd July 2009, 11:14

The fact is that there are a lot of $50K+ cars driving around Auckland (Subaru, Holden, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Ferrari, Jaguar, Lexus, etc) and if you fuck up and damage one (or at least get blamed for the accident) then you could be up for a very large bill. I pay $500 per year for insurance because I can't afford the $7K to replace my scooter, let alone $10K+ for the other vehicle.

There is also the huge advantage of not having to get money out of the other party when they are at fault (this happened with the car twice last year). Insurance pays you and they have the fun & joy of sorting out the deal with the 'at fault' party. I have my car/bike repaired and carry on with my life.

all based on my orginail premise that you do not feel like you can ride your bike on a public road without avoiding an accident.

Max Preload

22nd July 2009, 11:48

The fact is that there are a lot of $50K+ cars driving around Auckland (Subaru, Holden, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Ferrari, Jaguar, Lexus, etc) and if you fuck up and damage one (or at least get blamed for the accident) then you could be up for a very large bill.

How fast are you going around Auckland that you think you're going to write off a $50k car through your own fault? You're also forgetting that cars are notoriously cheap to repair, whereas bikes are notoriously expensive!

I pay $500 per year for insurance because I can't afford the $7K to replace my scooter, let alone $10K+ for the other vehicle.

Just as I don't pay $500/year because I can. Now, if I could just find something I'd like to actually buy from someone who is not a complete halfwit, unable to operate their computer and digital camera I would have another bike and the matter would be concluded... alas my search for such a vendor has been largely futile.

There is also the huge advantage of not having to get money out of the other party when they are at fault (this happened with the car twice last year).

For you that's an advantage. For me, it doesn't figure in the cost/benefit/likelyhood equation.

Indiana_Jones

22nd July 2009, 12:21

all based on my orginail premise that you do not feel like you can ride your bike on a public road without avoiding an accident.

Well I donno about you but I couldn't see let alone get out of the way of the stupid cunt to drove into the back of me.

Shit happens.

-Indy

Owl

22nd July 2009, 12:27

How fast are you going around Auckland that you think you're going to write off a $50k car through your own fault? You're also forgetting that cars are notoriously cheap to repair, whereas bikes are notoriously expensive!

That's not actually correct Max. It wasn't that long ago we repaired a BMW X5 with fairly minor damage. Slight suspension damage, new front guard, wheel and door required. Total cost in excess of $20k with $7500 for the door trim (airbags) alone.

Interestingly the X5 driver was at fault and the innocent party had no insurance. The wealthy party had their solicitor at the scene and they nearly succeeded in shifting the blame saying the young girl ran a red light. Lucky young girl was fortunate that an independent witness came forward to state otherwise.

cowboyz

22nd July 2009, 12:48

Well I donno about you but I couldn't see let alone get out of the way of the stupid cunt to drove into the back of me.

Shit happens.

-Indy

righto- and being as they caused the accident either they pay or they realised that they do not have the skills to drive a vehicle on a public road without causing an accident and paid a company in advance to pay for their mistakes.

if you are insured or not shouldnt have any bearing at all in this case.

That's not actually correct Max. It wasn't that long ago we repaired a BMW X5 with fairly minor damage. Slight suspension damage, new front guard, wheel and door required. Total cost in excess of $20k with $7500 for the door trim (airbags) alone.

Interestingly the X5 driver was at fault and the innocent party had no insurance. The wealthy party had their solicitor at the scene and they nearly succeeded in shifting the blame saying the young girl ran a red light. Lucky young girl was fortunate that an independent witness came forward to state otherwise.

jepps we live in a cynical world. One would hope that is particular case is not the norm but sometimes you got to stand up and argue the point. Because the above BMW rider didnt want to take responisibilty for his own actions shouldnt be an argument for insurance, it should be an argument for taking responsibility for ones actions.

Indiana_Jones

22nd July 2009, 12:56

righto- and being as they caused the accident either they pay or they realised that they do not have the skills to drive a vehicle on a public road without causing an accident and paid a company in advance to pay for their mistakes.

if you are insured or not shouldnt have any bearing at all in this case.

I was insured, that useless cunt wasn't.

I got my insurance to pay for it, about $1000 and he'll be paying them back about $10 a week I'm guessing for a while. I don't care, I needed my only form of transport back on the road!

If I had not had the insurance, then I would of had to of gone to the civil disputes court etc to make sure this guy paid (he was the kind that wouldn't of by his own accord) and I would of had to have fronted the grand up front of got $5 a week for 20 years :rolleyes:

Bottom line is, each to their own.

I'm not trying to promote or denounce insurance, people know the case both ways.

EDIT: you're point above about people taking responsibility is key, people should and if they did I wouldn't of had to of done what happened above.

-Indy

Supermac Jr

22nd July 2009, 13:00

You feel the need to pay someone to cover your mistakes because you do not have the confidence in your ability to avoid an accident.

good point! confidence in your ability or self-control to stay within your limits, etc, etc.

but there's always the remaining (not controlled by yourself) risk that something happens changing the 'ability-equation' like a blowout/oil sending you into the X5 causing you to 'put it on plastic'.

you imply that the confidence/ability operates at 100% all the time. You only have to be a tad off for less than 1 sec for it all to turn to custard.

Alot of 'ifs' in there...

Max Preload

22nd July 2009, 13:09

That's not actually correct Max. It wasn't that long ago we repaired a BMW X5 with fairly minor damage. Slight suspension damage, new front guard, wheel and door required. Total cost in excess of $20k with $7500 for the door trim (airbags) alone.

Interestingly the X5 driver was at fault and the innocent party had no insurance. The wealthy party had their solicitor at the scene and they nearly succeeded in shifting the blame saying the young girl ran a red light. Lucky young girl was fortunate that an independent witness came forward to state otherwise.

Was the girl on a bike?

cowboyz

22nd July 2009, 13:11

good point! confidence in your ability or self-control to stay within your limits, etc, etc.

but there's always the remaining (not controlled by yourself) risk that something happens changing the 'ability-equation' like a blowout/oil sending you into the X5 causing you to 'put it on plastic'.

you imply that the confidence/ability operates at 100% all the time. You only have to be a tad off for less than 1 sec for it all to turn to custard.

Alot of 'ifs' in there...

bike simply are not that unstable. If being 'a tad' off for 'less than 1 sec' will cause you to crash then you should not be riding bikes!

May have been lost in translation so Ill say it again here.

I am not against insurance, I am fully insured. What I am saying is that being insured doesnt negate personal responsibility which should be above all else. If you choose not to insure your bike its not because you are a wanker who is going to end up tens of thousands of dollars in debt. It simply means that you have worked out the risk/reward and it doesnt balance out.

It is the insured riders who ride without consequence because it is cheap for them to crash that annoy me.

MarkH

22nd July 2009, 13:53

Just as I don't pay $500/year because I can.

This is something that I have no problem with - basically you are saying that you can afford to self-insure, there is nothing wrong with that. If I had more than enough money to be able to pay for the repair/replacement should I have an accident then I would consider not bothering with insurance. Although I have found my current insurer good to deal with, I was previously with State Insurance and they were such an incredible pain to deal with when making a claim (house burglary) that I would never go back to those cnuts again!

If I could afford it I would definitely prefer to self insure than to use State Insurance!

MarkH

22nd July 2009, 14:00

all based on my orginail premise that you do not feel like you can ride your bike on a public road without avoiding an accident.

I wouldn't ride if I didn't feel like I could ride on a public road without avoiding an accident. Before I cancelled the insurance on the car (because I have only driven 600kms in 10 months) I had a very happy insurance company because I gave them money and claimed none back (apart from twice last year, but they could get the money back from the other party in both cases).

If you paid attention to my posts in this thread you would be aware of situations when you have to replace your vehicle at your cost or on your insurance through no fault of your own.
Here are some more examples:
Your bike is stolen & never recovered.
Someone drives into your parked bike and then drives away, no witnesses.
You hit diesel or oil on the road and go down.
A mechanical failure causes you to crash.

Insurance would cover all of these and unlike Max I cannot afford to self-insure.

cowboyz

22nd July 2009, 14:24

Your bike is stolen & never recovered.

covered with fire and theft insurance. so why the comprehense cover?

Someone drives into your parked bike and then drives away, no witnesses.

granted. So to paraphase you are saying that you park your bike in an area where the likelyhood of someone causing damage more than your excess and not taking responsibility for it is high enough that you choose to pay a 3rd party to cover the cost of that damage

You hit diesel or oil on the road and go down.

Again, you do not feel it is possible to ride on public roads without running into a diesel or oil spill resulting in an accident.

A mechanical failure causes you to crash.
This is a shocker and falls into another gripe of mine. Above insurance should be compedancy in maintainance, or at the very least, trust in a good mechanic to avoid mechanical failures. But you are saying that there is a chance your bike can have a mechanical failure resulting in an accident.
Insurance would cover all of these and unlike Max I cannot afford to self-insure.

inline responses above. For what I can see, we actually agree. You just dont like the idea that insurance is by definition, passing the buck.

MarkH

22nd July 2009, 15:00

inline responses above. For what I can see, we actually agree. You just dont like the idea that insurance is by definition, passing the buck.

Insurance is by definition: a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss.
Spreading risk is not the same thing as passing the buck.

I feel that it is possible to ride on public roads without running into a diesel or oil spill resulting in an accident.
I also feel that it is possible to ride on public roads WITH running into a diesel or oil spill resulting in an accident.

Because I am too poor to cover the cost of a new bike I spread the risk by contracting an insurance company to accept a $500 yearly fee and in return pay me if something bad happens and my bike is damaged. It's like a gamble, they will pay out 14 to 1 if I have an accident and I lose my $500 bet if I don't. This is not unlike the fishing villagers that could not feed their family if their boat was destroyed in a storm, so if a boat was destroyed the entire village would replace it, in return the others would receive the same generosity if it were there own boat destroyed.

The principals of insurance are well understood by most people, though some are in a position of being able to self-insure. This is a concept whereby the person keeps the value of the premium each year and should they suffer a loss due to theft/accident/whatever then they pay their own costs to replace the vehicle. If you have an accident seldom enough then this is actually cheaper - as long as you can cover the large cost if/when you have to.

Owl

22nd July 2009, 18:19

jepps we live in a cynical world. One would hope that is particular case is not the norm but sometimes you got to stand up and argue the point. Because the above BMW driver didnt want to take responisibilty for her own actions shouldnt be an argument for insurance, it should be an argument for taking responsibility for ones actions.

That's an extreme case and not the norm. Even we in the trade were a little gob smacked at the final figure. Not as much as the girls father though when he came in to have a look at the damage. It was he who told us about the crash scene and solicitor.

I hope you don't mind me correcting your post!:D

Was the girl on a bike?

Car I believe Max, though not 100% sure.

cowboyz

22nd July 2009, 18:24

I hope you don't mind me correcting your post!:D

.

my bad. obvously it was a woman driving if th car was damaged!

dvsfit5

22nd July 2009, 21:01

end of the day ppl full insurance isnt that expensive how much do you love ur bike and riding it 3rd party is a waste of space. its worth paying the money for full is something does happen.

mister.koz

22nd July 2009, 21:53

I got comprehensive insurance for the main reason that i can't afford to replace my 10r if me or someone else damages it.

A benefit of insurance is that if other driver is at fault, your insurance company stands to loose money so they will fight it. You have a better chance of winning if you are insured. I had some idiot change lanes on me without indicating or looking. I think he was reading a map, there was literally nowhere for me to go. $5k worth of damage to my car, $500 excess. A couple of months later state won the fight and i got my excess back. I don't imagine i would have won the case if i was fighting for myself.

I don't think for a second that i am a perfect rider and that my farts smell like roses, i pay insurance premiums so i am covered in the event that i cause an accident or someone else does.

I do like the idea that if i slide off the road (diesel honest) and take out a power transformer and subsequently a few businesses that the insurance company will protect and cover me for those damages.

But as i explained to the JW's on the weekend, just because their idea of a way of life suits them doesn't mean they need to cram it down my throat. If you like insurance, get it, if you don't..... don't.

cowboyz

22nd July 2009, 22:03

on the up side, got a call from my insurance broker tonight and have have had my premiums go down as well as my excess halved and full trackday cover.

motorbyclist

23rd July 2009, 15:26

The bit you are missing is the I am not insured and am willing to pay for my own mistakes. Just because someone chooses not to be insured doesnt mean they are going to not own up to their mistakes.

good on you for being able to afford that, and being a good enough person to own up for an expensive mistake.

BUT, I've met/seen many people simply drive away (one even had insurance but couldn't/wouldn't pay the excess). If 3rd was made mandatory, there would be less motivation for those bastards who simply hit and run to do so, but ultimately full cover (or healthy fiscal status) are the way to go.

the fact is that insurance IS the responsible option for those who cannot afford to otherwise pay for damages to which they may become liable - alternative being to walk or catch the bus.

3rd party isn't a cop out - it's an admission that we're human and will take reasonable means to ensure if we make a mistake or otherwise find ourselves in an "unavoidable" accident, we won't ruin some other person's life.

If i go on a ride and through some retarded manuvuer I take out a 1098 or other overpriced ducati, my insurer will ensure they are compensated.

If on a ride some learner rear ends me or similar, my full cover ensures i am compensated, and i hope for their sake they have 3rd party.

Now, if I could just find something I'd like to actually buy from someone who is not a complete halfwit, unable to operate their computer and digital camera I would have another bike and the matter would be concluded... alas my search for such a vendor has been largely futile.

+1

If you choose not to insure your bike its not because you are a wanker who is going to end up tens of thousands of dollars in debt. It simply means that you have worked out the risk/reward and it doesnt balance out.

it could mean either.

vIt is the insured riders who ride without consequence because it is cheap for them to crash that annoy me.[/QUOTE]

+1

Above insurance should be compedancy in maintainance, or at the very least, trust in a good mechanic to avoid mechanical failures. But you are saying that there is a chance your bike can have a mechanical failure resulting in an accident.

what about those gixxer chassis that snapped in half?

in the past three years I've had three blowouts where the tyre debeaded, all at 100kph - one was an illegal repair made by a previous owner to the front tyre that went mid corner, the other was a bit of road debris putting a large gash in my rear, and the most recent was a tube blowout on a very small bike, riding 2up, which did very nearly result in a nasty crash.

while the last one was almost expected, the first two could not reasonably have been forseen given the circumstances.

mechanical failures are often not something we can predict or prevent, through ignorance of the fault (inexperience is often a factor here when it comes to chains, gearboxes and seizures) or the very nature of the failure itself.

motorbyclist

23rd July 2009, 15:26

on the up side, got a call from my insurance broker tonight and have have had my premiums go down as well as my excess halved and full trackday cover.

who is that with?

The Pastor

23rd July 2009, 16:00

andrew your forgetting one main thing about compulsory 3rd party - that costs would rise insanely for no benefit.

Look at all the places that have compulsory 3rd party and see how many of them are cheaper than NZ.

The people who don't have insurance (without the means to pay for it or the repairs) are the kind of people who wont get a wof or rego for the car or do a runner or brake some sort of law which will void their insurance.

what about pizza delivery boys? those cars are all un-insured and there are tons of them out every night.

im not a fan of insurance, but i have 3rd party for both my bike and car as of yesterday. we will see how long it lasts.

Ive also had an accident my fault without insurance, it wasn't a big deal, i paid for and repaired the damage, way way way way quicker than insurance ever would.

compulsory insurance? ignorant argument.

*plays the you don't know how lucky we are song*

mister.koz

23rd July 2009, 16:04

compulsory insurance? ignorant argument.

*plays the you don't know how lucky we are song*

Dunno about ignorant, from the outset its a good idea but you are right, it doesn't stack up under investigation.

Squiggles

23rd July 2009, 16:37

Dont know if i could afford the GN's 3rd party going up from $3 a month to $4 if 3rd party was made compulsory... might break the bank.

As a rider in Auckland, its becoming increasingly more risky to not be covered for theft.

Indiana_Jones

23rd July 2009, 17:33

Making insurance compulsory will do nothing except make my premiums rise.

-Indy

cowboyz

23rd July 2009, 18:29

who is that with?

kiwibike. not sure who it is actually with yet. still have to get the papers sent out.

Indiana_Jones

23rd July 2009, 18:43

kiwibike. not sure who it is actually with yet. still have to get the papers sent out.

Swann (maybe one n, can't remember) I believe

-Indy

cowboyz

23rd July 2009, 19:01

not nessacerily. was with kiwibike last year and it was with star.

hutchy52

25th July 2009, 03:19

bike simply are not that unstable. If being 'a tad' off for 'less than 1 sec' will cause you to crash then you should not be riding bikes!

May have been lost in translation so Ill say it again here.

I am not against insurance, I am fully insured. What I am saying is that being insured doesnt negate personal responsibility which should be above all else. If you choose not to insure your bike its not because you are a wanker who is going to end up tens of thousands of dollars in debt. It simply means that you have worked out the risk/reward and it doesnt balance out.

It is the insured riders who ride without consequence because it is cheap for them to crash that annoy me.

I think you'll find that people who have insurance are generally more responsible than those who don't. In most cases people have it for piece of mind that if something does go wrong, they are covered, but there will always be a minority that have it for questionable purposes.

Its similar to why you would wear leathers, not because you are going to do stupid things resulting in an accident, but because you want to know that you will be relatively safe if you do come off. Nobody would wear them if they knew for certain they would never have an accident.

motorbyclist

25th July 2009, 14:42

andrew your forgetting one main thing about compulsory 3rd party - that costs would rise insanely for no benefit.

.....

The people who don't have insurance (without the means to pay for it or the repairs) are the kind of people who wont get a wof or rego for the car or do a runner or brake some sort of law which will void their insurance.

i'm well aware of that - made the same case when they suggested it.

If 3rd was made mandatory, there would be less motivation for those bastards who simply hit and run to do so, but ultimately full cover (or healthy fiscal status) is the way to go.