Bike in the shop after an accident - do they have to give me a loan bike?

[nzspokes]

Was it a Hyosung?

Nah a Vstorm.

[argada]

Not unless you bought a policy that says that explicitly. You can pay for that service. Try not to crash. It makes life less inconvenient.

How about taking responsibility for own transport issues? Unless someone nice offers to help you, in which case accept the offer. The world isn't there to sort your shit out.

Read what policy? If the fault is completely with the other party, they should be liable for any damages, direct or in-direct.
The rider's insurance policy shouldn't have anything to do with it.

i.e. Guy had a bike for transport, driver came along and f*ked it up for him, now guy has to spend all this $ on alternative transport. Surely driver (or his insurance) is responsible for these damages/inconveniences. Now, extracting the $ from the relevant parties is another story, but what is this; "taking responsibility" and.. "nice offers" bs?

[skippa1]

Read what policy? If the fault is completely with the other party, they should be liable for any damages, direct or in-direct.
The rider's insurance policy shouldn't have anything to do with it.

i.e. Guy had a bike for transport, driver came along and f*ked it up for him, now guy has to spend all this $ on alternative transport. Surely driver (or his insurance) is responsible for these damages/inconveniences. Now, extracting the $ from the relevant parties is another story, but what is this; "taking responsibility" and.. "nice offers" bs?

Thats how it works....they fuck your shit up and you get inconvenienced. Welcome to the real world

[cs363]

Were you riding with your eyes shut?

Wide shut by the sound of it.

That's the trouble with most people these days though, everything is everybody else's fault and the world owes them a living.
I'm reading a book about it at the moment:

[James Deuce]

Read what policy? If the fault is completely with the other party, they should be liable for any damages, direct or in-direct.
The rider's insurance policy shouldn't have anything to do with it.

i.e. Guy had a bike for transport, driver came along and f*ked it up for him, now guy has to spend all this $ on alternative transport. Surely driver (or his insurance) is responsible for these damages/inconveniences. Now, extracting the $ from the relevant parties is another story, but what is this; "taking responsibility" and.. "nice offers" bs?

Blimey, I had no idea people were that naive. You need to take responsibility for organising your own alternate travel plans. You are not going to get any help from insurance companies to get about unless you've paid for that privilege. So you would need to read your policy to see if you'd bought one that provided that sort of cover.

Nice offers? Usually when I'm inconvenienced, a friend will help out until I've got my alternate plans in place. You don't do that for other people?

Irrespective of your beliefs or what is right and fair, the only thing you are entitled to is what is documented in your insurance policy, should your insurance company choose to honour that commitment. Your contract is with your insurance company, not the other bloke's. If you choose to pay extra for a policy that provides for reimbursement for travel costs or a rental vehicle then you can claim that from your insurance company who then may seek reimbursement from the other party's insurance company. I'm gobsmacked that anyone could think that it would work any differently.

[argada]

Blimey, I had no idea people were that naive. You need to take responsibility for organising your own alternate travel plans. You are not going to get any help from insurance companies to get about unless you've paid for that privilege. So you would need to read your policy to see if you'd bought one that provided that sort of cover.

Nice offers? Usually when I'm inconvenienced, a friend will help out until I've got my alternate plans in place. You don't do that for other people?

Irrespective of your beliefs or what is right and fair, the only thing you are entitled to is what is documented in your insurance policy, should your insurance company choose to honour that commitment. Your contract is with your insurance company, not the other bloke's. If you choose to pay extra for a policy that provides for reimbursement for travel costs or a rental vehicle then you can claim that from your insurance company who then may seek reimbursement from the other party's insurance company. I'm gobsmacked that anyone could think that it would work any differently.

For the sake of argument, lets say the victim has no insurance. If the offending driver took off, then fair enough, victim is SOL. But that is not the case. So what? Still can't correspond with the offending driver's insurance company directly? or never mind the insurance company - go after the driver directly? Forget about vehicles, if a drunk person stumbles into your yard at night and damages your property, you should have every right to go after the drunk for compensation.

I'm not naive, I wouldn't expect the stars to magically align and make things right.
I'm not saying it will be easy or even practical, but you have every right to pursue what you are fairly owed.

I'm a little surprised by the attitude of the majority of responses. So the general consensus is; "Tough luck, suck it up, and shame on you for thinking you could get compensated for alternative transport arrangement. How naive of you, take some responsibility!? You are entitled to f- all"
I don't know, maybe its late and I my brain cannot comprehend the other side of the argument - but... WTF?
Once again, I'm not saying Santa clause should pop out of thin air and hand out rolls of cash to make things right. You should have every right to sue to guy and let the judge decide what you are entitled to.

I acknowledge the most practical thing to do, most likely, is to take what the insurance company wants to pay you in this instance. Realistically, in the real world, anything else might not be worth the trouble. But I don't get why the responses here are so... hostile.

[gammaguy]

Sorry better clear up that his admission of liability is in writing with his insurance company so my excess has been waived and it's all being covered by his insurer. I'll see what I can do. Cheers

It wasn't my fault I crashed, as I stated. I shouldn't have to cover them, I pay a lot less taking the bike rather a bus throughout Auckland city; that should be covered by the guy that pulled in front of me.

It comez under the heading of consequential loss and unless you are covered for it.. Well you aren't covered for it

[DanielM8]

I don't get why the responses here are so... hostile.

You must be new here.... Welcome to KiwiBiker.


Sent from my iShit using Tapatalk

[skippa1]

you should have every right to go after the drunk for compensation.

you have every right to pursue what you are fairly owed.

my brain cannot comprehend the other side of the argument

Santa clause should pop out of thin air and hand out rolls of cash to

what you are entitled to.

e.

Let me see now, your sense of entitlement indicates to me that you are probably on some sort of benefit.
your lack of comprehension of the facts is a sign that you are young.....probably under 25

Rights and entitlements in this case a a fallacy. You may be morally entitled to help, but legally, you are not......unless your own insurance policy expressly includes this. You will pay more for your insurance to get it.

This isn't hostile.....it's life. Put your big boy pants on

[swbarnett]

You may be morally entitled to help, but legally, you are not......unless your own insurance policy expressly includes this.

So, are you trying to say that if the innocent party is uninsured they aren't entitled to any compensation at all? Not even for the damaged behicle?

If an uninsured innocent party is entitled to have their vehicle fixed at offending party's expense, why should the same not hold true for intangible damages i.e. loss of use of said vehicle?

[TheDemonLord]

Insurance aside, you may be able to take the other person to court for consequential losses.

[Laava]

Insurance aside, you may be able to take the other person to court for consequential losses.

Yep! And if you were uninsured in the first place, you may have to do this to get anything.
This is the time where you think you are fuckin glad you were insured.
No-one wins in an auto accident.

[BoristheBiter]

So, are you trying to say that if the innocent party is uninsured they aren't entitled to any compensation at all? Not even for the damaged behicle?

If an uninsured innocent party is entitled to have their vehicle fixed at offending party's expense, why should the same not hold true for intangible damages i.e. loss of use of said vehicle?

Yep you're right you can get the other person to pay by...........

Insurance aside, you may be able to take the other person to court for consequential losses.

..........what he said.

[Oscar]

It's like employment issues. What does the (contract) policy say. If it's not stipulated in there ye be out of luck.

Not quite.
If it's not stipulated on your policy, then it becomes an uninsured loss which the insured may take up direct with the other party (or the other party's insurer).
The swiftest way to get some action would be to send the other guy an e-mail saying that you're going to charge him for a rental whilst your bike is off the road.

[Jackpot]

I understand the POV but someone seems to be forgetting that insurance is a business, not a charity where you get a pat on the back for "not being at fault"