Motorway, open road and harbour bridge?

[sleemanj]

Arguing with you I can see will be pointless as your mind is made up. However, I will guarantee you, if you want to believe it or not, that the ILRA1977 precludes any such "get out of jail free". You can not contract out of law.

[davereid]

Question remains then: what happens if someone steals the plate while you're parked, or it comes off in the accident and can't be found? Tough luck, no insurance?

As I commented, technically you are unlicensed without it.

Which is just part of the crappy learner licensing system. I would hope that a reasonable insurer, with a reasonable assessor would still give you cover.

But you would be a fool to deliberately remove it, and take that chance.

[davereid]

Arguing with you I can see will be pointless as your mind is made up. However, I will guarantee you, if you want to believe it or not, that the ILRA1977 precludes any such "get out of jail free". You can not contract out of law.

Fair enough mate. Its your insurance, I hope you never get to find out. But they are not contracting out of law - as you are un licenced they are not obligated to pay.

[GOONR]

If you are in breach of your licence conditions you are unlicensed.

I read it as.. if the bike doesn't show the L plate then you are not authorised to use that bike but you are still the holder of a learner licence. I can't find anywhere that says you are unlicensed opposed to being in breach of licence.

Are the penalties different for a learner driver in a car without a full licence holder present as opposed to a person driving a car with no licence at all. Serious question, I don't know the answer to that.

[firefighter]

Dont they tell you this stuff before you get your L Plate?

Fair enough mate. Its your insurance, I hope you never get to find out. But they are not contracting out of law - as you are un licenced they are not obligated to pay.

Does this include not being registered?

[firefighter]

Fair enough mate. Its your insurance, I hope you never get to find out. But they are not contracting out of law - as you are un licenced they are not obligated to pay.

Does this include not being registered?

[Sentox]

As I commented, technically you are unlicensed without it.

Which is just part of the crappy learner licensing system. I would hope that a reasonable insurer, with a reasonable assessor would still give you cover.

But you would be a fool to deliberately remove it, and take that chance.

Insurers are hardly renowned for their goodwill, sadly. Keeps the profit margins healthy, I guess.

[davereid]

I read it as.. if the bike doesn't show the L plate then you are not authorised to use that bike but you are still the holder of a learner licence. .

Your licence is only valid for a motorcycle of less than 250cc that carries L plates. Riding a bike without L plates, or a bike of greater than 250cc means you ride unlicensed. Its a crappy law. But it is the one we are stuck with.

[davereid]

Does this include not being registered?

I discussed this at length with my broker.

No license or not being licensed for the class of vehicle you are driving = no insurance
Drunk = No insurance. In fact insurers have declined claims when the driver has been drinking but is not legally drunk, ie < .08
No vehicle registration = not relevant
No WOF = insurer may decline claim if vehicle defect is relevant

I am sure there will be those who have had insurance accepted when drunk, unlicensed etc. But I wouldn't bet on it.

[Ixion]

No , it is a breach of license conditions. You can't break licence conditions unless you have a licence.

Same as not wearing spectacles if that is a condition of your licence.

If you were riding unlicensed you could be forbidden to drive and your vehicle impounded if you did

[Virago]

No you are wrong. Riding without an L plate (if one is a condition of your licence), means you don't have a licence.

And riding without a licence is directly relevant to your insurance.

Unlicensed drivers are not insured.


So you are wrong. Wronger than a wrong thing.

Twaddle.

A minor breach of law does not render you "unlicenced". Are you saying that anyone who accidentally leaves their licence at home when they go out is unlicenced and uninsured...?

For an insurance company to decline a claim, they must show that any law breach at the time contributed to the accident.

[davereid]

Twaddle. A minor breach of law does not render you "unlicenced". Are you saying that anyone who accidentally leaves their licence at home when they go out is unlicenced and uninsured...? For an insurance company to decline a claim, they must show that any law breach at the time contributed to the accident.

Hmm.. Not riding without carrying your licence is illegal, but does not make you unlicensed. I agree there.

But, I'm not sure I agree that you would still be licensed if your were riding a 350 on a learners licence, as your licence does not authorise that class of vehicle. By the same token your licence authorises you to ride a 250 or less, that is fitted with L plates.

So riding without L plates effectively means you are unlicensed.

Nonetheless I would be extremely pleased to find I am wrong !

[Ixion]

Different issues regarding insurance versus law . Legally you either have a license or you don't. The rest is conditions endorsements etc.

But an insurance company could probably argue that if you have no bike icence then there is no evidence that you know how to ride at all and that they would not have insured you in the first place if they had known that

[barty5]

Back to the original question this being the Auckland harbor bridge when dose it ever really get up to its posted speed limit anyway half the time it would be quicker to walk.

[auvicua]

Thanks for all the (different) advices!
To sum it up, I think it will be ok for me to ride cross the harbor bridge but will not be very wise to ride on the motorway. And I think I will have my L plate displayed for now.