Rudi Pollard Posted May 28, 2014 Share Well I don't mind them specifying :- 1.) Only myself my ride my own bikes2.) Only one bike is covered at any one stage Seems they don't have problems specifying T&C's.......... I cant see how any insurer will do this as each bike has a different value. The thing with all risk insurance is that each item needs to be specified at current replacement value. Its like saying to the insurance Ive got 4 cars, and 3 of them is always in the garage. Can I only insure 1 of them as I will only be using 1 at any given time, and keep the rest under household(I know you cant do this, its just an example). I will then claim for whichever one I drive off a cliff... I cant tell you if it will be the R250k one or the R1m one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted May 28, 2014 Share I cant see how any insurer will do this as each bike has a different value. The thing with all risk insurance is that each item needs to be specified at current replacement value. Its like saying to the insurance Ive got 4 cars, and 3 of them is always in the garage. Can I only insure 1 of them as I will only be using 1 at any given time, and keep the rest under household(I know you cant do this, its just an example). I will then claim for whichever one I drive off a cliff... I cant tell you if it will be the R250k one or the R1m one... Well quote the most expensive bike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Technically the "on the road" risk is the same. If your cars are covered by household insurance (like the bikes are)when they are at home in the garage then that changes the whole argument. These bikes additional insurance are specifically for outside the house. In other words its insured whilst on my car to the race and on the way back and also when I go on training rides. So yes, the risk is exactly the same no matter which one I ride. (although technically the TT will be less risk as there is no bunch riding) If insurance companies wants to know how many km's you drive per week before quoting then my argument holds water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudi Pollard Posted May 28, 2014 Share Well quote the most expensive bike It will open up the fraud can of worms again. So you take out insurance for R100k and you have 3 bikes. One for R100k, one for R60k and one for R40k. Say the R40k one gets nicked. Now you know you have R100k in insurance so people will make up stories that they had this and this components or wheels or whatever on the bike, in order to get the biggest payout. With my insurance I made sure that anything I changed from factory fitted is listed in my policy. So when claim time comes they will know that I upgraded the wheels and the shifters and and and. Anyone willing to provide you with such an insurance product will have to be incredibly stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Lemme try and explain it this way.. 3rd party insurance - it insures you in case you cock up and cause an accident right? So then it should increase when you have more cars? No it should not. The risk of you being the driver is the same cuz you can only drive one car at any given stage. This is exactly the same. Excuse the triple post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted May 28, 2014 Share It will open up the fraud can of worms again. So you take out insurance for R100k and you have 3 bikes. One for R100k, one for R60k and one for R40k. Say the R40k one gets nicked. Now you know you have R100k in insurance so people will make up stories that they had this and this components or wheels or whatever on the bike, in order to get the biggest payout. With my insurance I made sure that anything I changed from factory fitted is listed in my policy. So when claim time comes they will know that I upgraded the wheels and the shifters and and and. Anyone willing to provide you with such an insurance product will have to be incredibly stupid... No. You have to give all bikes and parts / serials list to them upfront as per normal policy. They quote on worst case scenario so in other words on the most expensive bike. Because worst case, that bike gets stolen. The bike that gets stolen / crashed gets replace. Its actually quit simple. It would in fact be incredibly smart as there is not such a product on the market yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Anyone willing to provide you with such an insurance product will have to be incredibly stupid... Obviously you are not understanding what I am trying to explain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylark Posted May 28, 2014 Share The perceived benefits of self insurance are far outweighed by potential third party liability. Yes, you could probably replace your bike in the event of accident or theft, but can you cover the damage to the brand new Porche or Merc you smashed into, or the medical expenses of the pedestrian you injured? A side wing mirror alone would set you back 50k, respraying a few body panels a lot more. Ambulances and hospitals cost a fortune. What about consequential damages? The ripple effect of an accident goes well beyond just replacing a 15k 2012 Silverback. I urge caution when considering shouldering the burden of self insurance. Does all risks cover on a bike that's on your household insurance policy include 3rd party cover when riding it?3rd party is often in car cover and liability cover in household but first I have heard of it being typically included in bicycle cover, would be nice if it does, my bike is with Miway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudi Pollard Posted May 28, 2014 Share Obviously you are not understanding what I am trying to explain I understand 100% what you are trying to explain. If they do structure such a product they will charge such a big premium for it that it will almost be the same as insuring all 3 bikes separately... The whole idea of out and about or all risk insurance is that you specify something at current replacement value which you cannot cover under household/car insurance. That is why people specify their phones, laptops, bicycles etc, and I agree the insurance companies make a killing out of these types of products. They protect themselves by forcing you to specify each item and they charge you quite a premium for it. The flip side of your argument is what happens if you go on holiday to the Cape for a month and you decide to take all 3 bikes with??? Its not a stupid idea, I just cant see any insurance company providing such a product... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted May 28, 2014 Share I understand 100% what you are trying to explain. If they do structure such a product they will charge such a big premium for it that it will almost be the same as insuring all 3 bikes separately... The whole idea of out and about or all risk insurance is that you specify something at current replacement value which you cannot cover under household/car insurance. That is why people specify their phones, laptops, bicycles etc, and I agree the insurance companies make a killing out of these types of products. They protect themselves by forcing you to specify each item and they charge you quite a premium for it. The flip side of your argument is what happens if you go on holiday to the Cape for a month and you decide to take all 3 bikes with??? Its not a stupid idea, I just cant see any insurance company providing such a product... No you are not getting it. The T&C's will specify only ONE bike is covered at any ONE stage. Your premium is calculated on the most expensive bike in your collection. The instalment will be cheaper because it only covers one bike at any one stage. If you want to go on holiday with all three then its not covered. Under normal insurance, why don't they then also ask you how much you ride before giving the quote? Surely riding 7 times a week is more risky than riding once a week and the premiums should differ? The insurance market for bicycles needs to develop more. I can promise you in a few years time this will have changed and you will get all sorts of insurances. Why must I pay a triple premuim when the risk when I ride outside my house is the same no matter how many bikes I own? Its stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mets Posted May 28, 2014 Share Does all risks cover on a bike that's on your household insurance policy include 3rd party cover when riding it?3rd party is often in car cover and liability cover in household but first I have heard of it being typically included in bicycle cover, would be nice if it does, my bike is with Miway. No - 3rd party insurance is limited to motorized vehicles. If you are the the cause of an accident, causing damage / loss or injury / death to a 3rd party or their property whilst cycling, it will fall under Personal Legal Liability insurance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rata Del Spruit Posted May 28, 2014 Share Okay, hold up! My colleague, the artist formerly known as SomeBloke, just had a very positive call from the marketing manager of Hollard after CycleSure forwarded them our signage proposal. They are going to join us here and clarify a few things. Apparently they are not all as bad as they seem. The guy that called us was helluva decent and they plan to use the situation to get cyclists to help them clear up both the wording and the practicality of cycling insurance. Let's see what they bring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted May 28, 2014 Share 3rd party covers the crap that you cause. If you drive into someone else and it is your fault then 3rd party will pay out on your behalf.. 3rd party takes the risk of you on the road into consideration, not how many cars you have. My argument is based on the same point. Since the bikes are covered at home under household insurance, the additional insurance we need to take out basically covers your "on the road" risk. My opinion is that the risk for this is the same no matter which bike you are riding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rouxtjie Posted May 28, 2014 Share Okay, hold up! My colleague, the artist formerly known as SomeBloke, just had a very positive call from the marketing manager of Hollard after CycleSure forwarded them our signage proposal. They are going to join us here and clarify a few things. Apparently they are not all as bad as they seem. He said the guy that called him was helluva decent and they plan to use the situation to get cyclists to help them clear up both the wording and the practicality of cycling insurance. Let's see what they bring. Awesomeness....the sooner the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mets Posted May 28, 2014 Share No you are not getting it. The T&C's will specify only ONE bike is covered at any ONE stage. Your premium is calculated on the most expensive bike in your collection. The instalment will be cheaper because it only covers one bike at any one stage. If you want to go on holiday with all three then its not covered. Under normal insurance, why don't they then also ask you how much you ride before giving the quote? Surely riding 7 times a week is more risky than riding once a week and the premiums should differ? The insurance market for bicycles needs to develop more. I can promise you in a few years time this will have changed and you will get all sorts of insurances. Why must I pay a triple premuim when the risk when I ride outside my house is the same no matter how many bikes I own? Its stupid. With reference to Hollard's policy wording - it is a weak wording and holds very little benefit to the client. I've been in the insurance industry for almost 20-years now and have had an urge to create a mutually beneficial policy wording for both the insurance companies and clients since I started cycling. I don't insure our bikes simply because I can't justify paying R110pm on my R15 000 bike while my car of R230 000 insured for business purposes costs me R480pm. The cover on the bikes are also subject to more terms and conditions than the car. Carpet can refer this matter to the ombudsman, but the policy is clear:Unattended property must be secured to an immovable object.Theft is restricted to signs of forcible entry / exit.These terms were agreed to at the inception of the policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rouxtjie Posted May 28, 2014 Share With reference to Hollard's policy wording - it is a weak wording and holds very little benefit to the client. I've been in the insurance industry for almost 20-years now and have had an urge to create a mutually beneficial policy wording for both the insurance companies and clients since I started cycling. I don't insure our bikes simply because I can't justify paying R110pm on my R15 000 bike while my car of R230 000 insured for business purposes costs me R480pm. The cover on the bikes are also subject to more terms and conditions than the car. Carpet can refer this matter to the ombudsman, but the policy is clear:Unattended property must be secured to an immovable object.Theft is restricted to signs of forcible entry / exit.These terms were agreed to at the inception of the policy.Were they....not what I saw from carpet's opening post...the schedule was amended and comms were sent out via an email. They still took their premium...but they bother asking carpet is she is ok with the new T&C? Did she sign for the new T&C's agreeing with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.