Insurance advice about tread depth

[el_scor_cho]

Hey all,

In a bit of strife with an insurance claim of mine.

Backstory. Was at hampton a couple of weeks back. Managed to lay my bike down mid-way through a tight turn. (Turn 3)
I was covered for the day by Star Insurance (Through Kiwibike). Dropped the bike off at my local, report came back that it was most likely a write off however the bike was not up to WOF standard. They claimed that the rear tire was not woffable. Now the rear will not technically pass a WOF however this is only due to the centre of the tire. The sides, which is was riding on at the time i lost traction, are perfectly fine (2mm plus)

Star are claiming that even though the centre of the tire was not the cause, it is likely that due to the low tread in the centre (1.1mm) the edges of the tire are possibly warped, making the tire unsafe <_<

Kiwibike have asked me to get an independent test done on the tire saying whether or not the centre tread of the tire could have caused me to loose traction. What im after from the KB crew is some advice on a) Do I have a real case here? b) Where to get a legit independent test from someone who could give me the above?

I realise Star may possibly have a legit out here but due to the fact that I was mid-way through the turn, not on a straight, I feel my centre tread depth is irrelevant.

Many thanks in advance!

[Rhys]

tire tread is for in the wet, if it was dry then its not a problem :innocent:

[KoroJ]

tire tread is for in the wet, if it was dry then its not a problem :innocent:
*sigh*


Because you lost traction on a tyre that didn't comply to WoF stanbdards, it will be deemed a contributory factor. I think you will find that you're pushing shit uphill if you try to get the Insurers to change their mind.

[Ocean1]

The insurer is only going to consider opinions that outrank theirs. Try talking to that particular tyre brand's importer, they should have a tech rep.

[YellowDog]

You were riding on a track, so the tyre doesn't need to be WOFable. Many track tyres are not permitted for road usage and would not pass a WOF.

Your usage was perfectly legal and their claim is irrelevant and no more than a scam to avoid honouring their obligation to pay you. They insured you for a specific purpose, being to race around a track. Where is their clause to state that road rules apply on a track, because they do not. Track rules apply. If you'd had an off on the way to or from the track, then they would have a point. You did not.

The tyre may have had the regulation WOFable tread when you started racing. You may have worn the tyre out during high speed racing. The bike was going to be loaded onto a trailer to take it home. As things transpired, it was :lol:

The insurance company insured you to ride on a track. There will be an incident report at the track. What does it say? If the track report states that the pre-race tyre condition contributed to your spill, then where is the report? The fact is that tyres to wear out very rapidly on a racetrack. Get the marshall's report and see if there is a cause. What is the present condition of the tyre?

The insurace company has to pay. They took the risk and lost. Now they are trying to get out of their obligation to you. Read their policy. How can they prove that your tyre was below the legal limit before you started racing and also why do they believe themselves to be suitably qualified to make such a judgement?

It sounds like you are accepting their crap. Don't fall for it. Bang the policy on their desk and just demand your money. So far, they have not come up with a legitimate provable reason not to pay you.

[Jantar]

Only my opinion, but I believe the tyre probably did contribute to the accident. Once the centre gets below minimum tread there is often little meat left on that part of the tyre carcase and the tyre can flex unpredictably. The other thing is that the tyre is no longer shapped as well as it was when it still had good tread and that can also affect the handling.

Now having said all that, if the insurance company were aware that the bike was being used on a track, and the scrutineers passed the bike as fit for the track, then the insurance company must accept that the bike, including the rear tyre, was OK when you commenced the day.

[AllanB]

What does the policy say? Does it state that the bike must be of WOF standard when used on the track?

In all cases refer back to the written policy/agreement first.

[bosslady]

Only my opinion, but I believe the tyre probably did contribute to the accident. Once the centre gets below minimum tread there is often little meat left on that part of the tyre carcase and the tyre can flex unpredictably. The other thing is that the tyre is no longer shapped as well as it was when it still had good tread and that can also affect the handling.

Now having said all that, if the insurance company were aware that the bike was being used on a track, and the scrutineers passed the bike as fit for the track, then the insurance company must accept that the bike, including the rear tyre, was OK when you commenced the day.

they don't scrutineer like the motott guys, they just get you to sign some registration sheet saying your bike is up to standard or whatever, they don't even check anything, that's my understanding/observations... don't wanna be blamed/involved if shit hits the fan I guess

[Milts]

If you had been riding on slicks, would they be bitching about the bike not being up to WOF standards?

If not, how can they bitch about the tyre you used not being up to WOF standards, regardless of whether it did or did not contribute towards the crash?

[discotex]

If you had been riding on slicks, would they be bitching about the bike not being up to WOF standards?

If not, how can they bitch about the tyre you used not being up to WOF standards, regardless of whether it did or did not contribute towards the crash?

If I recall correctly, Star don't cover trackdays if you have race fairings or slicks on the bike.

[FJRider]

The insurance company insured you to ride on a track. There will be an incident report at the track. What does it say? If the track report states that the pre-race tyre condition contributed to your spill, then where is the report? The fact is that tyres to wear out very rapidly on a racetrack. Get the marshall's report and see if there is a cause. What is the present condition of the tyre?

The insurace company has to pay. They took the risk and lost. Now they are trying to get out of their obligation to you. Read their policy. How can they prove that your tyre was below the legal limit before you started racing and also why do they believe themselves to be suitably qualified to make such a judgement?

It sounds like you are accepting their crap. Don't fall for it. Bang the policy on their desk and just demand your money. So far, they have not come up with a legitimate provable reason not to pay you.

He may well be insured to ride on the track day. But the "Up to WoF Standard" clause is common with some insurance companies. And a WoF is required when riding a motorcycle in any public place ... or any place where public have access. Turning up at a race track and signing the waiver form ... might then deem the race track as then a "public place". Approval to ride the bike on a track day is often by a phone call made to the company informing them of your intentions. Unless your driving record is bad ... approval is usually given. But a track day ... (on a Race Track or not) ... it wont change the conditions of his (already signed) policy.

Reasonable and polite "discussion" with the Insurance company rep, may have better results that thumping a policy on their desk.

[Dragon]

It was wofable when you hit the track you didnt realize that the tread had worn down so much and im sure you where planning on pulling in soon to check tyre condition.

You made a judgement call that the tyres where ok and had an accident, no different from misjudging the distance that a car is from you at an intersection.

You are paying an excess as you are at fault for the accident, whats to say you trying to stop didnt wear the tyre down below the wof limit ?

Are they going to try not let you claim because you where clearly breaching the speed limit that would be allowed on the road?

Hope you get this resolved because I am also insured with star insurance, I recently got my tire replaced as it was under wof standard but I didnt know that until after the bike shop told me.

Most people dont realize there tires aren't wofable unless they see no tread or belts showing (generally after the tire is past the 1.5mm point) so don't replace them until they get told at the next wof (part of the reason I dont like the idea of yearly wofs :s )

Had you lost front brakes from hoses spliting due to hard braking that you don't do on the street could they say it was due to them not being wofable?

When was your last wof?

[bosslady]

I really hope my tYres don't get tIred anytime soon...

[sil3nt]

I really hope my tYres don't get tIred anytime soon...I really hope you stop posting soon.

[jellywrestler]

The tyre may have had the regulation WOFable tread when you started racing. You may have worn the tyre out during high speed racing. The bike was going to be loaded onto a trailer to take it home. As things transpired, it was :lol:

you must have two dicks, no-one could be that stupid playing with just one!

[bosslady]

I really hope you stop posting soon.

Uneccesary - feel good about yourself? If you don't like seeing my posts, please facilitate the ignore button on my profile page http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/member.php/36924-bosslady I suggest you do so right now, if my posts upset you so.

[Paul in NZ]

What you need is a written 'opinion' from some kind of authority or witness to state that the condition of the tyre did NOT contribute to the accident.

But beware - if the tyre was not at fault then then the other possibility was that you were going too fast or lacked sufficient skill for the speed. Either way its a possible admission of you culpability. I suppose thet means you excess is doomed regardless.

What (in your opinion) did cause the accident?

[pzkpfw]

I thought the WOF rules on tyres were about depth of tread across the width of the tyre?

That is, only 3/4 of the width or something had to have "deep enough" tread. Am I wrong?

(Not that I'm saying it's good to use un-evenly worn tyres or anything like that...)


P.S. what's the wording of their terms and conditions? Had a look on their site but couldn't find track day specifics.


P.P.S. OK, am wrong: found this in a PDF on NZTA site:

http://nzta.thomsonreuters.co.nz/DLEG-NZL-LTSA-T.LTR-32013.pdf


Except as otherwise provided in this clause, a tyre on a motor vehicle must have a tread pattern, excluding any tie-bar
or tread depth indicator strip, of not less than 1.5 mm in depth within all principal grooves containing moulded tread
depth indicators, and around the entire circumference of the tyre.

Except as otherwise provided in 2.3(14) to [[2.3(17A)]], for tyres manufactured without moulded tread depth
indicators, the tread depth must be not less than 1.5 mm across at least three-quarters of the width of the tread and
around the entire circumference of the tyre.

etc.

I guess that makes sense. Any modern tyre will have the wear indicators.

[Trade_nancy]

Hey all,

In a bit of strife with an insurance claim of mine.

Backstory. Was at hampton a couple of weeks back. Managed to lay my bike down mid-way through a tight turn. (Turn 3)
I was covered for the day by Star Insurance (Through Kiwibike). Dropped the bike off at my local, report came back that it was most likely a write off however the bike was not up to WOF standard. They claimed that the rear tire was not woffable. Now the rear will not technically pass a WOF however this is only due to the centre of the tire. The sides, which is was riding on at the time i lost traction, are perfectly fine (2mm plus)

Star are claiming that even though the centre of the tire was not the cause, it is likely that due to the low tread in the centre (1.1mm) the edges of the tire are possibly warped, making the tire unsafe <_<

Kiwibike have asked me to get an independent test done on the tire saying whether or not the centre tread of the tire could have caused me to loose traction. What im after from the KB crew is some advice on a) Do I have a real case here? b) Where to get a legit independent test from someone who could give me the above?

I realise Star may possibly have a legit out here but due to the fact that I was mid-way through the turn, not on a straight, I feel my centre tread depth is irrelevant.

Many thanks in advance!

So assuming the tyre didn't cause the off...what did?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Sorry to hear about your bike. But I do think if you're gonna be doing track days...doing so on a fucked tyre is asking for trouble. Modern tyres work well for the first third of their life...ok (ish) for the next third...and are rooted by the time they get as worn as yours sounds like it was (is).

[jellywrestler]

So assuming the tyre didn't cause the off...what did?
mantrol, or lack of it

[Grant`]

mantrol, or lack of it
Well recently there has been plenty of offs with tar bleed and heat in the track at hd's...

Also depends on speed as to what lean angle was being used also could of been on the worn spot still? 2 into 3 is a transition across that part of the tyre from edge to edge aswell ?

[cowboyz]

My insurance (kiwibike) say bike must be woffable at track days.. No slicks allowed. Which is just dumb. They also ramp the excess to $2000 which is also dumb.
They make their own rules and you have to just put up with it. Funny how in the same breath they raise excess they also will too you it's safer being on the track than on he road. I would prefer they honour the original contract ( nothing in there about extra excess for track use) and let race fairing and tyre Warmers and slicks

[el_scor_cho]

Ok a lot to go on.
First off Im not trying to dodge my excess, because all in all it does fall as my responsibility. But thats why I made sure I was covered.
Last WOF was a good 7 months ago and again I should have checked the tyre levels. Policy words in a round-a-bout way that the bike must be WOFFABLE after my last session on the track.

To be specific, I lost traction rounding the third (or forth) turn at Hampton. The corner was pointed out to us as a trouble turn before the first riders went out and they have since then repaved the entire section. As far as im aware that, mixed with going in too hot threw the bike out from under me.

Not sure if this carries any weight but the Insurance Law Reform Act states that if a defect is found to not have caused the accident, then a claim cannot be denied on such grounds. I realise the tyre is low and not woffable however the low tread is only in the very centre and played no part in loosing traction mid-turn as far as im aware. Guess the onus lies on me to prove this, herein lies the problem...

[GTRMAN]

Ok a lot to go on.
First off Im not trying to dodge my excess, because all in all it does fall as my responsibility. But thats why I made sure I was covered.
Last WOF was a good 7 months ago and again I should have checked the tyre levels. Policy words in a round-a-bout way that the bike must be WOFFABLE after my last session on the track.

To be specific, I lost traction rounding the third (or forth) turn at Hampton. The corner was pointed out to us as a trouble turn before the first riders went out and they have since then repaved the entire section. As far as im aware that, mixed with going in too hot threw the bike out from under me.

Not sure if this carries any weight but the Insurance Law Reform Act states that if a defect is found to not have caused the accident, then a claim cannot be denied on such grounds. I realise the tyre is low and not woffable however the low tread is only in the very centre and played no part in loosing traction mid-turn as far as im aware. Guess the onus lies on me to prove this, herein lies the problem...

So haven't you kinda answered your own question? The tyre was not in a warrantable state after the track day. It was not in a warrantable state at the time of the accident. If the requirement of your policy was that in a warrantable state pretty much at all times and they weren't then you haven't kept up your end of the contract and the policy is null and void.

Harsh but true.....

[Rhys]

Ok a lot to go on.
First off Im not trying to dodge my excess, because all in all it does fall as my responsibility. But thats why I made sure I was covered.
Last WOF was a good 7 months ago and again I should have checked the tyre levels. Policy words in a round-a-bout way that the bike must be WOFFABLE after my last session on the track.

To be specific, I lost traction rounding the third (or forth) turn at Hampton. The corner was pointed out to us as a trouble turn before the first riders went out and they have since then repaved the entire section. As far as im aware that, mixed with going in too hot threw the bike out from under me.

Not sure if this carries any weight but the Insurance Law Reform Act states that if a defect is found to not have caused the accident, then a claim cannot be denied on such grounds. I realise the tyre is low and not woffable however the low tread is only in the very centre and played no part in loosing traction mid-turn as far as im aware. Guess the onus lies on me to prove this, herein lies the problem...

I think you would need a statement from your tyre manufacture stating it was safe and didn't contribute to your off

[Fast Eddie]

To be specific, I lost traction rounding the third (or forth) turn at Hampton. The corner was pointed out to us as a trouble turn before the first riders went out and they have since then repaved the entire section. As far as im aware that, mixed with going in too hot threw the bike out from under me.

haha.. skip to 6:15 on this video..

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/e1hiXxYZK-8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

was that the corner?

[el_scor_cho]

Yes I think it may have been :facepalm:
Thats true it is in my contract (...what I mean by a legit out) but regardless I understand I have a case as the tyre is unrelated to the accident. I just need someone a bit more knowledgeable than myself to put that on paper.

I have flicked Michelin NZ a message to see if they can put me on to that someone.

[p.dath]

tire tread is for in the wet, if it was dry then its not a problem :innocent:

A track tyre does not use compounds or construction like a road tyre. Trying to say that a road tyre that is 100% bald offers more grip than a tyre that is half worn on a dry track is just plain wrong.

The construction of the carcass, including the tread, is integral to the way that the tyre will flex and dissipate heat.

[imdying]

Funny how in the same breath they raise excess they also will too you it's safer being on the track than on he road.Safer for you, nothing to do with their level of risk.

If it says you need to have your bike WOFable then you're fucked. Does it say it needs a current WOF, or that it needs to have a current WOF and be in a warrantable condition?





To be specific, I lost traction rounding the third (or forth) turn at Hampton. The corner was pointed out to us as a trouble turn before the first riders went out and they have since then repaved the entire section. As far as im aware that, mixed with going in too hot threw the bike out from under me.No, the paving has nothing to do with it, only you going in too hot is at fault; your could have always gone around there at a speed suitable for the conditions.

[p.dath]

I am with the same insurer, and I just checked my acceptance, and it has these words on it:
"Bike must remain at WOF standard"
I queried the insurer about this, and they re-affirmed this.

As a result, I no longer remove mirrors or other bits from my bike wen on the track - because it would no longer remain at WOF standard.

[el_scor_cho]

No, the paving has nothing to do with it, only you going in too hot is at fault; your could have always gone around there at a speed suitable for the conditions.
Beside the point, im not arguing it wasnt my fault.

States exactly that "Bike must remain in WOF standard"
Which I neglectfully took to mean no removing lights, indicators, replacing with slicks etc

[imdying]

Why mention it then?

[Fast Eddie]

That corner is a bastard..

blame the corner all the way.

[rossirep]

i highsided a bike a couple years ago due to my tyre being stuffed and bald on the road, thought i might have the same problem as you but they never said a thing about it, and at the end of the day my tyre was ok when i left home but 200ks later on a stinking hot day blasting round the hills finished it off, and thats what id be saying to them if i was you. so long as your bike had a wof at the time ya dropped it ya should be ok, they just tryin to get out of giving you ya money.. fight the mother fuckers.. thats what i would be doing.

[Ocean1]

No, the paving has nothing to do with it, only you going in too hot is at fault; your could have always gone around there at a speed suitable for the conditions.

How is he supposed to know what speed's suitable for the conditions?

I've needed to exceed suitable speeds numerous times to in order to learn about what that means wrt different bikes and conditions, and it took a power of financial pain and not a little blood to learn what little I eventually did.

Personally, I tend to fuck about around 75% of “suitable corner speed” on my road bike. If I ever wanted to know more about limits I’d probably do so on a cheap uninsured machine rather than my pride and joy. But the fact remains it'd be a fucking clever bastard that knows right where the limit is without ever reaching it. Good on him for at least doing that in the right place.

[imdying]

How is he supposed to know what speed's suitable for the conditions?If somebody can't figure that out, they have no place on a motorcycle.... I'll give you a hint though, it's probably slower than 'your' (his/my/somebodies) ego thinks. As far as far as figuring out the ultimate limit goes, the track is definitely the right place, but the track isn't magical and so still need to pay attention to the condition of your machine, arguably more so.

[FJRider]

I really hope you stop posting soon.

I'm glad you don't speak with a lisp ... then none of YOUR posts would make sense ... perhaps you remain silent first. :psst:

[nodrog]

This thread is full of retardation.

"I fell off on a racetrack, I fell off on the coro loop, I fell off lanesplitting, my insurance company hates me, hear me whinge"

Fucksakes, you aucklanders need some better work stories.

[FJRider]

I think you would need a statement from your tyre manufacture stating it was safe and didn't contribute to your off

It really doesn't matter if it didn't contribute to the off .. the conditions of the policy were clear and full understood by the OP. By his own admission ... he ignored it.

The bite marks on his ass are of his own making.

A reasonable discussion with the insurance rep is needed. If that doesn't work ... find (future) insurance elsewhere ...

[Marmoot]

Star Insurance through Kiwibike, is it?
Damn, I'm on Kiwibike as well.

Never had any problems with claims when I was with National Auto Club. I'd better switch off my Kiwibike as well then.
The premium has consistently gone significantly up as well since I joined (from $800 to $1200 (yes wtf) to $1300) despite bike depreciation.

Dave from Kiwibike, tell me this is not right?

[FJRider]

This thread is full of retardation.

"I fell off on a racetrack, I fell off on the coro loop, I fell off lanesplitting, my insurance company hates me, hear me whinge"

Fucksakes, you aucklanders need some better work stories.

These threads are almost as big a laugh as the "I got a speeding ticket .. how do I get off it" threads ...

[FJRider]

How is he supposed to know what speed's suitable for the conditions?



Any speed a corner is taken at/attempted at ... is irrelevant it it is without an incident resulting in an off.

If more riders on such track days ... were more aware of the conditions of their insurance. And well aware what their excess is before they start. If they then are prepared to take the risk of paying that excess ... should it be necessary .... that is their informed choice.

But no track day is safe from ALL risk.

[jellywrestler]

Not sure if this carries any weight but the Insurance Law Reform Act states that if a defect is found to not have caused the accident, then a claim cannot be denied on such grounds. I realise the tyre is low and not woffable however the low tread is only in the very centre and played no part in loosing traction mid-turn as far as im aware. Guess the onus lies on me to prove this, herein lies the problem...


so if you're so clever at all this how come you weren't clever enough to apply all of this to your riding and not crash?

you signed the terms of your insurance and breached them, can't see it any other way really

[jellywrestler]

and at the end of the day my tyre was ok when i left home but 200ks later on a stinking hot day blasting round the hills finished it off, and thats what id be saying to them if i was you. that's like having one beer and driving happily and safely drinking more while driving then being surprised at being pulled up drunk driving, i wonder if that's hold up in a court of law???

just cause you have a warrant and the front end starts clunking or similar doesn't mean it's still warrantable does it!!!

[FJRider]

that's like having one beer and driving happily and safely drinking more while driving then being surprised at being pulled up drunk driving, i wonder if that's hold up in a court of law???

just cause you have a warrant and the front end starts clunking or similar doesn't mean it's still warrantable does it!!!

It's been tried ... and failed ... apparently :facepalm:

But the sticker says it's legal .... <_<

[Ocean1]

If somebody can't figure that out, they have no place on a motorcycle.... I'll give you a hint though, it's probably slower than 'your' (his/my/somebodies) ego thinks. As far as far as figuring out the ultimate limit goes, the track is definitely the right place, but the track isn't magical and so still need to pay attention to the condition of your machine, arguably more so.

"Suitable" is a bit fuzzy, eh? I assume it means "somewhat slower than dangerous".

My point was that conditions change, they can cover a wide range of goodness, and there's a shitload of them. So sometimes, even on the same corner/machine the difference between "suitable" and dangerous is not a lot.

That being the case it's hardly surprising that people arse off, they often don't know when a normally"suitable" speed for the location becomes dangerous because of changes in a vast number of current conditions. So doesn't it make more sense to have them learn what happens at speeds aproaching dangerous? More particularly what clues the bike can give you that it's time to back off?

Doesn't that give them a more usefull skill than simply guessing that X speed is OK for this corner because it's been OK on a similar one some time ago? Or worse, the guy in front thinks it's OK.

In fact let's ask, eh? See if we can get a list. What are the best clues your bike gives that you're aproaching the limit of traction?

[imdying]

Oh yeah, conditions are changing all the time on the track... arse off on oil did he?

[onearmedbandit]

But no track day is safe from ALL risk.

A rained off one is.

[Gremlin]

Star Insurance through Kiwibike, is it?
Damn, I'm on Kiwibike as well.
Kiwibike is a broker, so you need to find out who your insurance has been arranged with (give Dave or one of the team a call, they're always happy to help), as it could be Star, Swann, Protecta or others.

As with any broker, they're not magical, and it's up to you to check the terms of your policy with the insurer. Being with Kiwibike doesn't mean all the rules change, but they certainly go into bat on our behalf at times.

[FJRider]

My point was that conditions change, they can cover a wide range of goodness, and there's a shitload of them. So sometimes, even on the same corner/machine the difference between "suitable" and dangerous is not a lot.

That being the case it's hardly surprising that people arse off, they often don't know when a normally"suitable" speed for the location becomes dangerous because of changes in a vast number of current conditions. So doesn't it make more sense to have them learn what happens at speeds aproaching dangerous? More particularly what clues the bike can give you that it's time to back off?

Doesn't that give them a more usefull skill than simply guessing that X speed is OK for this corner because it's been OK on a similar one some time ago? Or worse, the guy in front thinks it's OK.



It's different on the open road ... the law says it's safe at 100 km/hr. ... no need for "useful skills" ... exceed THAT at your peril ... right .. ?? :confused:

Or have I got it wrong ... again .. ??? :facepalm:

[Ocean1]

Oh yeah, conditions are changing all the time on the track... arse off on oil did he?

No Idea. He obviously didn't either, or he wouldn't have ended up on his arse.

You're not very helpful. Gwarn mate, tell him how to decide what's a suitable speed, eh? Must be pretty obvious if all the guns are so fucking cock sure of themselves.

[Marmoot]

Kiwibike is a broker, so you need to find out who your insurance has been arranged with (give Dave or one of the team a call, they're always happy to help), as it could be Star, Swann, Protecta or others.

As with any broker, they're not magical, and it's up to you to check the terms of your policy with the insurer. Being with Kiwibike doesn't mean all the rules change, but they certainly go into bat on our behalf at times.

Good point.

[AllanB]

Sounds like the policy is clear re WOF standard and track days. It is a contract accepted between both parties and in this case you have not lived up to your side of the agreement by using your motorcycle with a non WOFable rear tyre.

Also in relationship to road use of your MC - the same applies re insurance - it must be up to WOF standard when being used. Being a adult in charge of that motorcycle means you are responisable to ensure it is up to standard not rely on a check done 6 monts ago ...........

Out of interest which bike shop dropped you in it telling your insurer about the tyre ........

[YellowDog]

I think you would need a statement from your tyre manufacture stating it was safe and didn't contribute to your off

Surely a statement from the track marshalls, being the higher authority in this particular case, would carry more weight.

I must however say that having experienced riding with tyres at the legal tread limit in wet and windy conditions, I would not ever do it again :no:

[rossirep]

that's like having one beer and driving happily and safely drinking more while driving then being surprised at being pulled up drunk driving, i wonder if that's hold up in a court of law???

just cause you have a warrant and the front end starts clunking or similar doesn't mean it's still warrantable does it!!!

its nothing like drink driving mate.
noone really changes their tyres when there is still plenty of tread left on them do they.? they wait till they are had it and then ya get a new one. they aint cheap and ya wanna get ya moneys worth.
just sounds like the insurace guys just tryin to get out of paying..!!!
who are they again..?? bald tyres with canvas showing thru is one thing, but being alil below min depth is another..

[Teflon]

Sorry to hear about your bike. Sounds like the tyre had heaps of life left! I only ever change mine when canvas starts to show... But, most likely
I would have changed the tyre before the appraisal, and replace any dodgy looking shit (plus giving it a few love taps just to make sure).

Good luck.

[FJRider]

its nothing like drink driving mate.
noone really changes their tyres when there is still plenty of tread left on them do they.? they wait till they are had it and then ya get a new one. they aint cheap and ya wanna get ya moneys worth.
just sounds like the insurace guys just tryin to get out of paying..!!!
who are they again..?? bald tyres with canvas showing thru is one thing, but being alil below min depth is another..

Quite a lot like drink driving actually. You are MUCH more likely to crash if you've been drinking/low on rubber.

Low tread means a weaker tyre ... it wont hold its shape as well ... road contact patch gets smaller as it distorts. Punctures/blowouts are more likely when the tread is low too.

I know of plenty that did "one more ride before the new tyre" ... and binned it. And a few that died from it.

My life is more than the "Moneys worth" left on the old tyre. Your life must be cheap if you think it is.

The OP had agreed deal with the Insurance company. Now wants to renege on that agreement. And a surprising number of people think he should.

[R650R]

Don't normally run tyres too low but the last one was feeling flat when it wa down to wear indicators (brand name 180/55/17), stopped pressures ok, just the centre of carcass was weak as and flexing heaps. With the speeds your doing at a track day you shouldn't have even been let out on a road tyre with low tread.
But it all boils down to the words in the contract because that is all that will matter in court. If it says wof standard then thats whats required as others have said.
Btw don't forget to mention this incident on your next renewal under "Have you had a claim rejected/denied?" as not disclosing stuff is a definate party stopper. I'll ask my friend who is a broker but I don't think she will say anything different.
BTW how much does track insurance cost? Has anyone ever had recompense from a crash caused by someone else at a track day? Are you liable?

[el_scor_cho]

Star Insurance through Kiwibike, is it?
Damn, I'm on Kiwibike as well.

Dave from Kiwibike, tell me this is not right?

Yes I am dealing with Dave but dont get me wrong, he has been nothing but awesome and very easy to deal with. He is the one that suggested I obtain an independent report to give a bit of weight to my case.

Independent assessor from Star checked it out and picked up on the tire now its up to me to prove him wrong...

I am simply wanting to get opinions and advice. I am no insurance sage and really not sure if I have a case or not. From a bit of reading it seems 50/50 as I do not believe the low tread in the centre contributed to my accident. I am not saying I have been cheated out of any payment or that the accident wasnt my fault.

Kiwibike simply up my excess a bit for track cover. I transfered from Golightly as they didnt offer track cover

[FJRider]

Kiwibike simply up my excess a bit for track cover. I transfered from Golightly as they didnt offer track cover

Not always as simple as that.

If the claim is accepted ... you pay the excess and nothing more. Apart from them (possibly) upping your excess/premiums for your main policy. And NOT just on track days.

Or they decline your claim. And then (possibly) up your premium and excess. Maybe even refuse cover for your track days.

The ball is ENTIRELY in THEIR court. NOT yours ... Don't rely on any advice in this thread to make it better.

[tigertim20]

He may well be insured to ride on the track day. But the "Up to WoF Standard" clause is common with some insurance companies. And a WoF is required when riding a motorcycle in any public place ... or any place where public have access. Turning up at a race track and signing the waiver form ... might then deem the race track as then a "public place"..

you are confusing this with a public road.

a public road is deemed as a place the public have access to, whether by right or not.

generally, once you are on the track, the gates are closed, which PREVENTS ACCESS, the gate is usually manned as well - so no, its not a 'public road' at all.

To the OP - I would fight it and see where you go, get in touch with a local tyre rep and see what they have to say about the matter - I think you are splitting hairs with the argument - it would have been helpful to you if the bike HAD been scrutineered but youll have a fight with this one I expect.

[Marmoot]

Agree Dave has been great to deal with, but insurance experience is also with the undertaker, not just the broker.
Even with great broker if the undertaker sucks the experience is still bad.

I am now considering my options.

Thanks for sharing.

[FJRider]

it would have been helpful to you if the bike HAD been scrutineered but youll have a fight with this one I expect.

Had it been ... it probably wouldn't have been allowed to participate in the track day. He signed a waiver accepting the event organisers conditions/standards. And declared the bike was up to the standard required. It was not. And the OP knew that. He was caught out. His problem.

No change in the policy conditions was stated by the insurance rep ... nor asked for by the OP ... for the track day. Trying to change terms of the policy AFTER the event (crash) seems a bit stupid. (and pointless)

Begging seems to be the OP's best hope in his next contact with the rep.

[chasio]

...insurance experience is also with the undertaker, not just the broker.

An unfortunate slip of the keyboard!

I wish good luck to the OP but I think you're up the proverbial creek. If it had been a blown headlight bulb I can see you might have had a chance, since it is not relevant to the off. But since it seems that the faulty item may well have contributed, I think this is going to be an expensive lesson.

Look on the bright side: you didn't learn the lesson about your tyres by lowsiding under a truck. If you had, your family could have been dealing with an undertaker, rather than you dealing with an underwriter.

[Dragon]

Just got myself approved for the Victoria motorcyles club track day next month, assuming I don't have work and decide to go.

Got this reply

Hi Alan,



The below track day has been approved and the following conditions will apply:

Excess will be $2,000; this can be brought down to $1000 for a one off payment of $50.

- No timing

- No death benefit

- Only named policy holder will be covered

- Bike must remain in a WOF standard at all times.

- Excludes ‘fast group’



If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.



Regards,

I have emailed back seeking clarification on a few things will update with the response

It may be slightly different for me as I have driving charges etc listed on my insurance and I'm only on a 250cc bike insured for 3k and gear covered at 2.5k

I am guessing your bike is worth alot more

[FJRider]

Just got myself approved for the Victoria motorcyles club track day next month, assuming I don't have work and decide to go.

Got this reply

Hi Alan,



The below track day has been approved and the following conditions will apply:

Excess will be $2,000; this can be brought down to $1000 for a one off payment of $50.

- No timing

- No death benefit

- Only named policy holder will be covered

- Bike must remain in a WOF standard at all times.

- Excludes ‘fast group’



If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.



Regards,

I have emailed back seeking clarification on a few things will update with the response

It may be slightly different for me as I have driving charges etc listed on my insurance and I'm only on a 250cc bike insured for 3k and gear covered at 2.5k

I am guessing your bike is worth alot more


Have you got the $50 that may save you $1000 .. ???

And have you got $1000 should you bin it .. ???

If the answer to either is no ... Flag it ...

But get a WoF check the day prior. Written proof ... should you have an "off" ...

[Marmoot]

An unfortunate slip of the keyboard!

LOL I know. I chuckled!

[Dragon]

Have you got the $50 that may save you $1000 .. ???

And have you got $1000 should you bin it .. ???

If the answer to either is no ... Flag it ...

But get a WoF check the day prior. Written proof ... should you have an "off" ...

Talked with Dave and was told I only have the 1k access to worry about if I bin it.

I also don't have to have an l plate

plan is im getting a 10000km service done before I head up so should be all good just need to make sure I don't have other commitments when its on

[FJRider]

Talked with Dave and was told I only have the 1k access to worry about if I bin it.

I also don't have to have an l plate



And you wont have an insurance record. (And under 25 ??) But unless you have enough funds to pay the excess should you bin .. you may have the bike put in for repair. But until that excess is paid ... it probably WONT be released back to you.

Even if you HAVE the funds ... but can't afford to "miss" $1000 .. flag the track day.

The worst that can happen ... may ...

And adhere to THEIR conditions if you do it.

[jimichelle]

mate hit a 4x4 what turned in front of him at the lights
totalled his harley and him
the coppers turned up 3 times to go over his bike checking the tyres all 3 times too

[tzrmike]

I am with the same insurer, and I just checked my acceptance, and it has these words on it:
"Bike must remain at WOF standard"
I queried the insurer about this, and they re-affirmed this.

As a result, I no longer remove mirrors or other bits from my bike wen on the track - because it would no longer remain at WOF standard.

This seems ridiculous. How can it be better to smash your mega-dollar factory abs fairings, mirrors, lights, etc, rather than a cheap set of fibreglass "race" bodywork?!? You would think they would actually INSIST you fitted a cheap set of aftermarket fairings.

[discotex]

This seems ridiculous. How can it be better to smash your mega-dollar factory abs fairings, mirrors, lights, etc, rather than a cheap set of fibreglass "race" bodywork?!? You would think they would actually INSIST you fitted a cheap set of aftermarket fairings.

Following this logic you wouldn't need to bother with insurance if aftermarket fairings reduce the claim costs that much... I'm sure Star have hundreds of claims before and after this came in and know if they're saving money.

By limiting to WOF standards they cover all the majors mechanical risks in one go and as a byproduct limit racers (and wannabies) from using a road policy to insure a dedicated track bike (which is far more likely to be written off).

You'd think they wouldn't bother with the hassle of covering track days like most insurers. Star almost went that route. Instead they're managing the loss/risk through excess, WOF requirement, and case-by-case approval. I'm personally bloody grateful for that and have no issues with the conditions.

[FJRider]

Following this logic you wouldn't need to bother with insurance if aftermarket fairings reduce the claim costs that much... I'm sure Star have hundreds of claims before and after this came in and know if they're saving money.

On a $3000 bike ... it doesn't take much fairing damage to write it off. Even if the engine still runs and the bike is still rideable.


By limiting to WOF standards they cover all the majors mechanical risks in one go and as a byproduct limit racers (and wannabies) from using a road policy to insure a dedicated track bike (which is far more likely to be written off).

Track days are not race days. Don't confuse the two. Even timed laps on road bikes are frowned on by the insurance companies. The WoF base standard makes it fair for ALL policy holders. Regardless of the excess they are individually bound to.


You'd think they wouldn't bother with the hassle of covering track days like most insurers. Star almost went that route. Instead they're managing the loss/risk through excess, WOF requirement, and case-by-case approval. I'm personally bloody grateful for that and have no issues with the conditions.

There would be more chance of breaking the conditions of the policy on a track day ... than on the open road.
Track days push the limits of the riders abilities ... and boys will be boys.

A "tidy little earner" for them ...

[discotex]

On a $3000 bike ... it doesn't take much fairing damage to write it off. Even if the engine still runs and the bike is still rideable.


On a $3000 bike isn't going to be on anything other than 3rd party insurance anyway. Even if you're mug enough to pay $500 a year on a $3k bike you've only got $2k of cover after your excess...



Track days are not race days. Don't confuse the two. Even timed laps on road bikes are frowned on by the insurance companies. The WoF base standard makes it fair for ALL policy holders. Regardless of the excess they are individually bound to.


Are you agreeing by arguing with me or something here cause you seem to be making the same point? I've only done 10+ track days and watched a few races so yeah, I might be getting them mixed up :blink:



There would be more chance of breaking the conditions of the policy on a track day ... than on the open road.
Track days push the limits of the riders abilities ... and boys will be boys.

A "tidy little earner" for them ...

How is it an earner for them? Aside from the $50 option to reduce your excess from 15% of insured value to $1k they make no more money from track days.

Refusal to pay out on trackday claims is very low as far as I know. Had the OP crashed on SH16 he'd be in the same position given a non-WOF tyre.

I'm as skeptical as the next person about insurance companies but Star and others than insure us for trackdays are doing us a favour. Not the other way around. As far as I can tell they consider it a marketing tool to get people away from AMI/State/etc. They certainly don't profit by offering the cover.

[Dragon]

And you wont have an insurance record. (And under 25 ??) But unless you have enough funds to pay the excess should you bin .. you may have the bike put in for repair. But until that excess is paid ... it probably WONT be released back to you.

Even if you HAVE the funds ... but can't afford to "miss" $1000 .. flag the track day.

The worst that can happen ... may ...

And adhere to THEIR conditions if you do it.

The 1k isnt an issue to pay so im not overly worried

bike is insured for 3k and gear is covered at 2.5k so means ive got 5.5k worth of cover or 4.5k after I shell out for the excess

Chances are I come off and it would get written off

[R650R]

Is your riding gear new? In my experience they ask to see when you bought it and depreciate its value at their rates. Your protective gear is regarded as an item that degrades over time, bit like business insurance and laptops older than two years...

As for the aftermarket fairings, probably down to being able to get replacements etc. If they insured your bike with aftermarket ones and those parts became unavailable a simple claim could turn into a 'unrepairable' as like for like parts not available which would be write off on their books. Don't forget you'd likely be running your original tank and none of them are cheap these days...

[Dragon]

Is your riding gear new? In my experience they ask to see when you bought it and depreciate its value at their rates. Your protective gear is regarded as an item that degrades over time, bit like business insurance and laptops older than two years...

As for the aftermarket fairings, probably down to being able to get replacements etc. If they insured your bike with aftermarket ones and those parts became unavailable a simple claim could turn into a 'unrepairable' as like for like parts not available which would be write off on their books. Don't forget you'd likely be running your original tank and none of them are cheap these days...

Gear is covered under replacement value

And yeah I brought my gear recently had it arrive on the 15/1/13

If I come off the gear gets replaced with what I currently have so ill get new qmoto gear brought, new shoei xr1100 and then boots will be at whatever is left over

Helmet 699rrp
Jacket 549rrp
Pants 469rrp
Gloves 189rrp

Total 1906 so gives me 594 left over my boots are about $300 so I should be sweet as :)

[Filterer]

He is the one that suggested I obtain an independent report to give a bit of weight to my case.

Yes, this!

A friend at work binned on the road with tread depth somewhere just below WOF standard - insurance was decliend - however as referenced elsewhere in the thread the insurance reform act means that they can only decline based on contributing factors, not arbitary clauses in the contract.

His tyre was assessed by an independant assesor and was found to have enough grip on the given surface and day to be considered 'normal' and not a contributing factor - was paid out fully.

[schrodingers cat]

It is a well known fact that I am not very clever.
I am really struggling to understand people who use race track and insurance in the same paragraph.

In my world, when you drive/ride through the gates you are dicing with WHEN not IF.
Can't afford to pay - don't play.

[DEATH_INC.]

So, have they actually declined your claim? Or is it still in the investigation process?
No tyre manufacturer will support using a worn tyre, so I wouldn't even bother with that. Worn tyres are usually not grippy, even slicks loose grip with a bit of wear on 'em.
Just wait to see what they come back to you with (if they haven't already)
At the end of the day, you did break their rules (and they are very specific about this one) so you may just have to suck it up.
And when you get going again, don't use a shot tyre again eh?

[DEATH_INC.]

It is a well known fact that I am not very clever.
I am really struggling to understand people who use race track and insurance in the same paragraph.

In my world, when you drive/ride through the gates you are dicing with WHEN not IF.
Can't afford to pay - don't play.

It's called 'rider training' basically. Hence the no timing, fairings or slicks rule.

[Howie]

Hey all,

In a bit of strife with an insurance claim of mine.

Managed to lay my bike down mid-way through a tight turn



So which end let go front or back?

[nakedsv]

So did you actually have plenty of tread before you started on the track? I'm assuming here you gave your bike a very thorough check over before taking it to the track and pushing its limits?

[schrodingers cat]

It's called 'rider training' basically. Hence the no timing, fairings or slicks rule.


Oh I know the rule (loophole) but really...

[Dave-]

What were your tyre pressures?

Was it a stinking hot day?

Just out of curiosity more than anything, I think you're probably screwed by paperwork sorry dude.

[Zrex]

Couple of things about tyres not mentioned yet guys. Once you 'square off' a tyre, you do not have the same contact patch on the edge anymore and the bike will tend to tip into the corner and wander on the line. For track use, more important than tread depth are 'heat cycles'. I get 4 trackdays on a set of BT016's, after that even though the tread looks fine, I'm lucky if they still have 30% of the grip they started with.

You brought old worn tyres on a powerful motorcycle to a race track. And turn 3 at HD is a hard left over the crest of a hill where the bike becomes unweighted. They simply didnt have the grip left in them that you demanded from them.

[macka77]

Yes I am dealing with Dave but dont get me wrong, he has been nothing but awesome and very easy to deal with. He is the one that suggested I obtain an independent report to give a bit of weight to my case.

Independent assessor from Star checked it out and picked up on the tire now its up to me to prove him wrong...

I am simply wanting to get opinions and advice. I am no insurance sage and really not sure if I have a case or not. From a bit of reading it seems 50/50 as I do not believe the low tread in the centre contributed to my accident. I am not saying I have been cheated out of any payment or that the accident wasnt my fault.

Kiwibike simply up my excess a bit for track cover. I transfered from Golightly as they didnt offer track cover

well its a simple case then is the bike of warrant standard? as it is less crash damage if yes the ball is in your favour if no the ball is not

[pritch]

But the "Up to WoF Standard" clause is common with some insurance companies.

I seem to recall track day organisers stipulating that as well.

Definitely recall seeing advice that you use good tyres on the track.

[FJRider]

I seem to recall track day organisers stipulating that as well.

Definitely recall seeing advice that you use good tyres on the track.

When you are pushing your own personal boundaries on a track day .... (even without speed being a factor) GOOD tyres should be fitted. Money spent on them could save the cost of the excess ... ($1000 excess Vs $300 tyre ... no contest)

I recall the OP mentioning the organisers did stipulate tyres to WoF standard, and he stated he did have on the form.

[macka77]

When you are pushing your own personal boundaries on a track day .... (even without speed being a factor) GOOD tyres should be fitted. Money spent on them could save the cost of the excess ... ($1000 excess Vs $300 tyre ... no contest)

I recall the OP mentioning the organisers did stipulate tyres to WoF standard, and he stated he did have on the form.

i got to add i clearly put the club at fault. it is a saftey issue here bad tires are a hazard, good road tyres arnt race tyres and training/hava go day clubs should face up to crashes being minimalized, more effort could be spent addressing the punters before going out on track, iv witnessed a dick riding around with jeans on and a kid on the back with jeans no gloves in a slow group.if money is tight more guys are going to be riding around on unsutable rubber and eating shit, guys on good tyres also think they are safe but go down because of running too higher pressure. all novice stuff but a needless crash can screw up your whole day.

[PeeJay]

i got to add i clearly put the club at fault. it is a saftey issue here bad tires are a hazard, good road tyres arnt race tyres and training/hava go day clubs should face up to crashes being minimalized, more effort could be spent addressing the punters before going out on track, iv witnessed a dick riding around with jeans on and a kid on the back with jeans no gloves in a slow group.if money is tight more guys are going to be riding around on unsutable rubber and eating shit, guys on good tyres also think they are safe but go down because of running too higher pressure. all novice stuff but a needless crash can screw up your whole day.

Thats right, its always someone else's fault.

[FJRider]

i got to add i clearly put the club at fault. it is a saftey issue here bad tires are a hazard, good road tyres arnt race tyres and training/hava go day clubs should face up to crashes being minimalized, more effort could be spent addressing the punters before going out on track, iv witnessed a dick riding around with jeans on and a kid on the back with jeans no gloves in a slow group.if money is tight more guys are going to be riding around on unsutable rubber and eating shit, guys on good tyres also think they are safe but go down because of running too higher pressure. all novice stuff but a needless crash can screw up your whole day.

I call BULLSHIT.

The OP was aware of his own insurance policy conditions (his fault if he didn't)
The OP was told by the organisers that WoF standard tyres must be fitted/used on the track day. And had a form to sign to say/declare he DID have .... which he DID sign(But did not have by his own admission. His fault as he made false declaration)
Usual procedure on track days is signing a waiver to absolve the organisers of any responsibility. Unless NEGLIGENCE is proven ... your problem.
If ANYBODY wants to take THEIR kid out on the track (low or high speed) they are responisible for their safety. Their decisions ... their problem.

About time people started taking responsibility for their own actions ... or inactions. Not bleating on how unfair it is afterwards ...

Bitching about a declined insurance claim (after all that) ... because they were too cheap to fit a $300 tyre is fucking hilairious ...

[Dave-]

Usual procedure on track days is signing a waiver to absolve the organisers of any responsibility. Unless NEGLIGENCE is proven ... your problem.


WRONG.

Usual procedure on track days is scruitineering.

Why wasn't the tyre scruitineered?

[SVboy]

Thats a trolly wee post Dave-. You know full well thats not the usual senario at the track days you and I attend. Something about personal responsibility...

[Dave-]

Thats a trolly wee post Dave-. You know full well thats not the usual senario at the track days you and I attend. Something about personal responsibility...

Yeah I know, I just really wanted to say "WRONG" in the same way he was all "BULLSHIT", I'm sorry.

At the motosoc ones I scrutineered all bikes, earlier track days el did half, the cars were always scruitineered too.

The last have a go day I attended was the first ride on the r6, and I'm sure I was scruitineered there, that was over a year ago I think so I may be wrong.

It has always irked me that we're not more strongly scruitineered at MCI race days, did you see me dodge that exhaust on the main straight once?

I realise the tuesday-friday sessions we attend aren't scruitineered, and you're entirely right, there is a lot of personal responsibility there, but this was obviously a sanctioned official track day, if insurance was on the line why was there no scruitineering?

The guy is still in the wrong though I think the insurance company are equally as wrong, if you're going to get into tread depth and tyre deformation then why not tyre pressures and temperatures too?

[FJRider]

I realise the tuesday-friday sessions we attend aren't scruitineered, and you're entirely right, there is a lot of personal responsibility there, but this was obviously a sanctioned official track day, if insurance was on the line why was there no scruitineering?

The guy is still in the wrong though I think the insurance company are equally as wrong, if you're going to get into tread depth and tyre deformation then why not tyre pressures and temperatures too?

Insurance was only "On the line" to those that took the time to arrange it. And the responsibility of those same people to adhere to the conditions imposed on them to be covered by insurance.

If the claim is denied ... the OP wont get anything from the insurance company. And probably liable for the costs they have paid to recover from the track ... and get it inspected. Which no doubt makes him keen to find reason to get it accepted.

Tyre pressures/temperatures are not on any WoF checklist I've seen.

[Kickaha]

It has always irked me that we're not more strongly scruitineered at MCI race days, did you see me dodge that exhaust on the main straight once?

Why? you sign a form saying your bike and gear all comply, they shouldn't really have to scrutineer at all

[FJRider]

Why? you sign a form saying your bike and gear all comply, they shouldn't really have to scrutineer at all

But if he crashes due to a bike fault ... it wont be his fault.

[Dave-]

Tyre pressures/temperatures are not on any WoF checklist I've seen.

I know, All I'm saying is that if the insurance company want to get really picky on tyre deformation etc they might want to consider all the factors which WOF doesn't do.


Why? you sign a form saying your bike and gear all comply, they shouldn't really have to scrutineer at all


But if he crashes due to another bike fault ... it wont be his fault.

Fixed.

[SVboy]

Yeah I know, I just really wanted to say "WRONG" in the same way he was all "BULLSHIT", I'm sorry.

At the motosoc ones I scrutineered all bikes, earlier track days el did half, the cars were always scruitineered too.

The last have a go day I attended was the first ride on the r6, and I'm sure I was scruitineered there, that was over a year ago I think so I may be wrong.

It has always irked me that we're not more strongly scruitineered at MCI race days, did you see me dodge that exhaust on the main straight once?

I realise the tuesday-friday sessions we attend aren't scruitineered, and you're entirely right, there is a lot of personal responsibility there, but this was obviously a sanctioned official track day, if insurance was on the line why was there no scruitineering?

The guy is still in the wrong though I think the insurance company are equally as wrong, if you're going to get into tread depth and tyre deformation then why not tyre pressures and temperatures too?

In all fairness to you-we all got carefully scruitineered today at the HAGD meet.

[breakaway]

This is exactly why you shouldn't have bothered with insurance. With all the money you could have saved you could go buy a new bike right now and sell the wreck for beer money.

Bet they made you bend over and lube up for track insurance and bumped up your excess as well didn't they :spanking:

[p.dath]

i got to add i clearly put the club at fault....

Negative. The rider has to accept responsibility for their own machine. The rider chose to use their machine on that day on that track at that event. It was all the riders choice, and the riders responsibility.

And it sounds to me like the rider *does* accept responsibility, and was just being rather hopeful that the insurance company would pick up the repair bill.


WRONG.

Usual procedure on track days is scruitineering.

Why wasn't the tyre scruitineered?

It was not scruitineering's fault. It is solely the riders responsibility to ensure their machine meets the standard. Scruitineering merely provides an extra check to try *and help* keep people safe.

[macka77]

Negative. The rider has to accept responsibility for their own machine. The rider chose to use their machine on that day on that track at that event. It was all the riders choice, and the riders responsibility.

And it sounds to me like the rider *does* accept responsibility, and was just being rather hopeful that the insurance company would pick up the repair bill.



It was not scruitineering's fault. It is solely the riders responsibility to ensure their machine meets the standard. Scruitineering merely provides an extra check to try *and help* keep people safe.

what a load of wank if the tyre was the cause of the crash what is the purpose of scrutineering and if theres no scrutineering whats the point of rider responsibilty

. i give example a member on this site with thousands of posts adjusted his chain so tight before going out onto the track it was like a steel rod and lucky someone picked it before him going out up weird things can happen.... 90% assume that their bikes ok and gladly sign that the bike is ok so relying on riders with no mecanical skill to sign a form saying they have inspected their bike to wof standard is even worse because they are putting everyone else at risk .50/50 if you wana play blame game

[p.dath]

...whats the point of rider responsibilty

This bit saddens me the most. No offence but if you don't see the point in taking responsibility for yourself and your own safety you're in for a world of hurt, and will only be able to experience anger as you hunt around for others to blame.

[macka77]

This bit saddens me the most. No offence but if you don't see the point in taking responsibility for yourself and your own safety you're in for a world of hurt, and will only be able to experience anger as you hunt around for others to blame.

its funny how easy it is to get fucked over by people who you think have a lot of personal responsibilty, but your welcome to trust everyone.

[G4L4XY]

any update yet?