Insurance premiums

[yachtie10]

The weight of the bike has nothing to do with the injury of the rider. Simple school physics should have taught this to Nick and he claims to be an engineer.

Let me explain:

First the exception to the statement. When dropping a bike on your foot while stationary, yes the higher the weight the more damage can be done. But this is not the point when talking about ACC. These are minor injuries compared.

Scenario one: Bike hits object. (front on collision)
Bike travels at the same speed as the rider. The weight of the bike has nothing to do with its speed. 100kph are always 100kph. On impact, the bike is decelerated from this speed due to resistance (friction, crumple zones, etc) or even stopped. The rider however, has yet not hit the same point of impact as he is sitting further back. This results in a speed differential. Biker faster than bike. The biker then leaves his position to "travel" without the bike until he hits something. By this time, the only weight that has an impact on the biker is his own. The weight of the bike has no part in the damage to the biker.

Scenario two: Biker comes of bike.
The same principal is used here. The biker is separated from the bike and his own weight determines the amount of damage he will suffer.

Scenario three: Object hits bike. (side on collision)
The bike is hit by an object. The weight of the bike does not come into the equation as the rider is hit independently of his bike, same as a pedestrian would be. The weight of the object and its speed determines the amount of injury.

Now to answer the question where does bike weight come into this equation:
In scenario one, the heavier the bike, the more damage to the object that was hit. Usually the car, wall etc. Not a case for ACC but insurance.
In scenario two, if the bike by chance is overtaken by the rider and later on crashes into the rider again. In this case the heavier the bike the more damage. Usually this is neglect-able as the amount of damage done by the surrounding objects have already had major impact on the rider prior to his bike hitting him. You need a lot of speed to get ahead of your bike.
In scenario three, if the object is another bike, it will do damage according to its weight, but to the other rider.

As I said this is simple physics and my post is not written in a scientific matter. If need be I can sit down and provide the formulas and theories behind it, but at this stage a rough description should do.

Exactly
Not much point going into more detail as I think this is another of Nicks myths used for propaganda i.e. the detail doesn't matter as long as he pushes his agenda

[yachtie10]

First the exception to the statement. When dropping a bike on your foot while stationary, yes the higher the weight the more damage can be done. But this is not the point when talking about ACC. These are minor injuries compared.

Scenario one: Bike hits object. (front on collision)
Bike travels at the same speed as the rider. The weight of the bike has nothing to do with its speed. 100kph are always 100kph. On impact, the bike is decelerated from this speed due to resistance (friction, crumple zones, etc) or even stopped. The rider however, has yet not hit the same point of impact as he is sitting further back. This results in a speed differential. Biker faster than bike. The biker then leaves his position to "travel" without the bike until he hits something. By this time, the only weight that has an impact on the biker is his own. The weight of the bike has no part in the damage to the biker.

Scenario two: Biker comes of bike.
The same principal is used here. The biker is separated from the bike and his own weight determines the amount of damage he will suffer.

Scenario three: Object hits bike. (side on collision)
The bike is hit by an object. The weight of the bike does not come into the equation as the rider is hit independently of his bike, same as a pedestrian would be. The weight of the object and its speed determines the amount of injury.

Now to answer the question where does bike weight come into this equation:
In scenario one, the heavier the bike, the more damage to the object that was hit. Usually the car, wall etc. Not a case for ACC but insurance.
In scenario two, if the bike by chance is overtaken by the rider and later on crashes into the rider again. In this case the heavier the bike the more damage. Usually this is neglect-able as the amount of damage done by the surrounding objects have already had major impact on the rider prior to his bike hitting him. You need a lot of speed to get ahead of your bike.
In scenario three, if the object is another bike, it will do damage according to its weight, but to the other rider.

As I said this is simple physics and my post is not written in a scientific matter. If need be I can sit down and provide the formulas and theories behind it, but at this stage a rough description should do.

Exactly
Not much point going into more detail as I think this is another of Nicks myths used for propaganda i.e. the detail doesn't matter as long as he pushes his agenda

[yachtie10]

Mr oscar is an insurance broker (I think, summit to do with insurance anyway).

He means he can send you representative figures.

I'd suggest the easiest way would be to ask a couple of typical car insurer (say State and AA ) for a quote for a imaginary car worth $8000 (pick something off Trademe). Normal middle of the road car. Use your own actual details for age, experience etc.

Then get similar quotes from Swann , David Baker, Kiwibiker for a bike worth $8000. Typical middle of the road bike. Say a Hornet, Bandit maybe.

That will eliminate a lot of the apples vs apples issues.

Thanks and you are right (always my intention to get quotes)
but the speadsheet has some advantages in getting some broad figures from the real world
It is also showing that some people may need to look at who they insure their bike with

Just to be clear I spent a couple of years working in an actuarial department of an insurance company in my youth so I think I understand the basics of risk assesment. that being said different companies take quite different approaches to calculating the risk

[yachtie10]

I'm a Commercial Underwriter now, and I can tell you that what Smith is saying is the usual propaganda with a small grain of truth. Dollar for dollar, bikes cost more to insure than cars, but the actual rate is dependent on too many individual factors to generalise.

Thanks
I would love to have any information you could provide along those lines
I will be getting quotes directly but as most of the main insurance companies seem to have an aversion to motorcycle insurance (there staff have admitted this to me on the phone to explain their high premiums) The figures can be tainted easily

[yachtie10]

Well, I'll leave my figures out of this I think. My bike insurance IS about 3x more than my car pretty much. Maybe because the bike is a sports machine I'd say. But still I have a '05 Legacy ("high-theft" apparently - crap) and a 08 Daytona.

up to you
Im not trying to fudge the figures though
I dont know who you insure your bike with or what your history is but maybe talk to kiwibike as when i discussed with them that my bike had no expensive fairing and ABS they said it made no difference as they worked on the value insured

[ckai]

up to you
Im not trying to fudge the figures though
I dont know who you insure your bike with or what your history is but maybe talk to kiwibike as when i discussed with them that my bike had no expensive fairing and ABS they said it made no difference as they worked on the value insured

yeah i'm with kiwibike. no claims until last week, and from the speed they deal with things makes me glad i'm with them.

[yachtie10]

Bump bump bump

[FastBikeGear]

Exactly
Not much point going into more detail as I think this is another of Nicks myths used for propaganda i.e. the detail doesn't matter as long as he pushes his agenda

This link provided by 'Candor' may be of interest to you in your research on this topic. http://www.allianz.com.au/allianz/cict+sa.html

Premium calculator here http://www.mac.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/...al%20aug09.pdf

[sinned]

When I was sold a life insurance policy - many moons / decades ago the insurance company rated three activities as risky. They were, motor sport, mountain climbing and flying. Interesting that driving a car and riding a motorcycle were not on the high risk list.

How times have changed.

[davebullet]

Why don't I just send you the premium rates?

Who do you work for? Can you send them to me too please?

Dave - bloody good idea. I'll upload mine when I dig out my last renewal notices.

From what I recall, my $7,000 bike is only slightly more than my $3,000 car - supporting your inclination.

I personally think insurers under-insure bikes, when you consider the likelihood of a drop or knock over (fairing and /or radiator / tank etc.. damage), and that the cost of parts is usually considerably more than cars. eg. You can panel beat a fender or get a replacement from many wreckers, but a plastic fairing requires more specialist repair work, or OEM replacement.

I think insurers don't have the data to price bikes correctly, or use high volume risk classes (such as cars) to subsidise the minority risk classes (bikes).

[Owl]

but the speadsheet has some advantages in getting some broad figures from the real world
It is also showing that some people may need to look at who they insure their bike with

How do you figure that? The spreadsheet currently has no provision for excess, therefore very relevant data is incomplete!

[Grahameeboy]

I was at the meeting with Nicks myth last night and was disappointed in one comment in particular made by the minister

"That insurance premiums for motorcycles are about 3-4 times higher than for cars of the same value". This I find hard to believe as in my case my motorcycle is significantly cheaper to insure by value

I have made a google spreadsheet that we can all list this information
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...vaEwwMGc&hl=en

please add your details

If this is too hard then please post the details here and I will add them for you

please add fill all the fields if you can so the data is meaningful

Cheers

The value is not the only factor...bike parts are more expensive v cars and of course the risk of an accident is higher...a bike is more likely to be written off than a car

[Grahameeboy]

Who do you work for? Can you send them to me too please?

Dave - bloody good idea. I'll upload mine when I dig out my last renewal notices.

From what I recall, my $7,000 bike is only slightly more than my $3,000 car - supporting your inclination.

I personally think insurers under-insure bikes, when you consider the likelihood of a drop or knock over (fairing and /or radiator / tank etc.. damage), and that the cost of parts is usually considerably more than cars. eg. You can panel beat a fender or get a replacement from many wreckers, but a plastic fairing requires more specialist repair work, or OEM replacement.

I think insurers don't have the data to price bikes correctly, or use high volume risk classes (such as cars) to subsidise the minority risk classes (bikes).

Actually Insurer's rely on the value from the insured...

[cowboyz]

Actually Insurer's rely on the value from the insured...

this is true before an accident. after an accident the insurance companies seem to know exactly what they think something is worth.

this is my big gripe with insurance companies.

If *I* decide that my 1998 ZX9r is worth 4 million dollars and arrange insurance and an insurance company *agree* to insure it for 4 million dollars and base my premium on that ammount then if I crash it then they should either fix it to the value of 4 million dollars or write it off and pay out the full ammount.

What annoys me is they go, well tell us how much your bike is worth.. Righto.. lets say 8k. then you crash and they go.. market value.. its only worth 4k. here you go.

I am really (not considering this is NZ) surprised that people put up with it.

[Grahameeboy]

this is true before an accident. after an accident the insurance companies seem to know exactly what they think something is worth.

this is my big gripe with insurance companies.

If *I* decide that my 1998 ZX9r is worth 4 million dollars and arrange insurance and an insurance company *agree* to insure it for 4 million dollars and base my premium on that ammount then if I crash it then they should either fix it to the value of 4 million dollars or write it off and pay out the full ammount.

What annoys me is they go, well tell us how much your bike is worth.. Righto.. lets say 8k. then you crash and they go.. market value.. its only worth 4k. here you go.

I am really (not considering this is NZ) surprised that people put up with it.

The problem is that an insurer has no idea what your bike is worth when you ring for a quote...condition, mileage etc all unknown...also what you think your bike is worth may not actually be it's market value...

You can have agreed value with say Classic Insurance which allows a 20% leeway...