Thoughts?

[Mully]

Oh, and "Slow down, Rossi"

(Beat you, Kiwifruit)

[phantom]

As a gardener who won't mow lawns I was getting a bit worried there for a while

[R-Soul]

gald i oot am a sokcing tpyer so nkwo whatt uyo meatn

There are some days when I can't put a finger right...
AAAAARRGGGHH!!

[R-Soul]

first and formost..... explain to me how me losing my licence is an increased risk to them?

Well they work on the basis of risk. People dont lose license unless there is a good reason. Without knowing your specific circumstances, It would be fair to say that those people that lose their license are doing so because they have done silly things like speeding a lot or drinking a lot or whatever caused them to lose their license in the first place.

It is generally fair to say that people who have done enough silly things to lose their license generally have a greater risk of crashing. And therefore present a greater chance of them having to pay out than other people who have a clean record.

Remember that they don't go and investigate every customer's personal circumstances or reasons for losing their license. They have too many customers for that, and an investigation would take a workers time (and salary). They just create rules that account for customers in general, and some can just fall through the administrative cracks. So even if you did not lose your license for doing anything risky, you get swept up in their general rules.

I am not taking their sides here- just explaining their reasoning from a "big corporate" point of view.

[cowboyz]

Well they work on the basis of risk. People dont lose license unless there is a good reason. Without knowing your specific circumstances, It would be fair to say that those people that lose their license are doing so because they have done silly things like speeding a lot or drinking a lot or whatever caused them to lose their license in the first place.

It is generally fair to say that people who have done enough silly things to lose their license generally have a greater risk of crashing. And therefore present a greater chance of them having to pay out than other people who have a clean record.

Remember that they don't go and investigate every customer's personal circumstances or reasons for losing their license. They have too many customers for that, and an investigation would take a workers time (and salary). They just create rules that account for customers in general, and some can just fall through the administrative cracks. So even if you did not lose your license for doing anything risky, you get swept up in their general rules.

I am not taking their sides here- just explaining their reasoning from a "big corporate" point of view.

I understand where your coming from and think its just plain wrong. Not wrong as 'its not like that' but wrong as in 'it shouldnt be like that'

Yes I ride faster than some. Yes I get caught ALOT (its damn shocking really.... but thats another story). So on one side of the equation... I get speeding tickets all the time.. on the other.. I have never had an at-fault claim on insurance. Doesnt history show that I am min risk?

[sinfull]

You insure that bike ?

[cowboyz]

well.. actually.. Its more of a plan.. I insure this bike for one reason only.. I dont think im gonna crash it but when I buy my zx10 soon I want insurance history so I can insure that without paying a fortune for it. unfortunately my plan is not working out being as exceeding 100km/hr makes me a high risk.

[Spyke]

Just put aside the money you would spend on full insurance each year untill you think its enough that it can pay off most of the damages that could happen, but if you dont crash you have a hefty dollop of cash lying around to put toward a new bike.

[cowboyz]

its about building an insurance profile.. soemthing I not actually doing that well.. mostly cause I frikken hate insurance companies! I have been a contract worker most of my adult life.. I know how contracts work.. Insurance companies seem to be able to chop and change their mind at will - and whats worse... is people accept it as normal.

[CookMySock]

Punch him in the head and tell him not to do that again. He'll get the message.

Steve

[WRT]

Doesnt history show that I am min risk?

Techincally, no - I'm playing devil's advocate here but min risk is someone without an at fault claim and without loss of licence. Some might view you instead as an accident waiting to happen, which certainly isn't min risk. Obviously the law thinks this is the case (hence why they think you should no longer be allowed to ride on the roads), so surely a prudent insurer would/should do the same?

However, an insurer that specialise in bike insurance will normally look upon loss of licence from speeding as part of being a motorcycle rider. They'll still want to know the circumstances of how you lost it and may impose a higher premium as a result, but they shouldn't change your cover type.

IMO reducing your cover to 3rd party is a bit of a stupid thing to do anyway as you can't claim for 3rd party damage if you aren't legally allowed to ride the bike. If they were going to reduce the cover, it should have been to Fire and Theft only (or Fire, Theft and Transit if they offer it), as these are the only things you can claim for - and they should definitely have reduced the premium as well.

It's also pretty slack that they never notified your broker.

[ukusa]

have you tried Roundup? You won't need a gardener then!

[Coldrider]

have you tried Roundup? You won't need a gardener then!

Butlers Glyphosate 360 Weedkiller is cheaper now the patent has run out.

[Edbear]

I tend to be the loyal type and reluctant to change gardners. We'd had one gardner forever and had good service but eventually I had to face the fact that 'he' had priced 'himself' off the market and took my whole house, toys and garden and put them in the care of another gardener.

I hope the new gardner will be as good as the last one, and to date they have been very good.

[R-Soul]

I understand where your coming from and think its just plain wrong. Not wrong as 'its not like that' but wrong as in 'it shouldnt be like that'

Yes I ride faster than some. Yes I get caught ALOT (its damn shocking really.... but thats another story). So on one side of the equation... I get speeding tickets all the time.. on the other.. I have never had an at-fault claim on insurance. Doesnt history show that I am min risk?

Risk is assessed on your history of accidents as awell as your potential for future accidents.

What is most concerning to me is that YOU are not gettng the hint (if you still dont understand, let me spell it out for you: If you ride fast, you are more likely to crash - and when you do, it will be very messy and expensive for both you and insurance company).

Rather focus on and enjoy the acceleration from 0 to speed limit (its legal to accelerate hard), but back off after that.

Also, you can argue that you are actually not that bad - like getting caught doing 111km/hr in a 100km/hr zone. To me this is even dumber - you get no speed thrill, you dont get there any faster (ok a couple of seconds) but you do get to waste all the spare cash that you have paying The Man so he can hand your hard earned moola to grafters on the dole.

With the cash you save, you can do track days for speed thrills... hell, it sounds like you could have done all four courses at the superbike school already!