Bike insurance
View Full Version : Bike insurance
To resurrect yet another perennial subject, I just got my
bike insurance renewal through from CTC. It is much more
expensive than I remember last year's being, but my
household policy (currently with a part of the Norwich
Union group, I'm told by my broker) won't touch any bike
over £600. So I either pay CTC £260 to insure about £6,500
worth of bikes, or I split them between the policies. Which
is a faff.
The real nuisance here is that this is the only bit of
insurance which doesn't go through our brokers. Normally
they do all the legwork for
me. However, since I've been given a sick note and told I
have 'flu (not bloke-flu, the real thing) I suppose I
have nothing better to do with my afternoon...
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
In article <39c0e098469ktk712dsnlb0seknohgqm1q@4ax.com>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.chapman+usenet-reply@spamcop.net> wrote:
> To resurrect yet another perennial subject, I just got my
> bike insurance renewal through from CTC. It is much more
> expensive than I remember last year's being, but my
> household policy (currently with a part of the Norwich
> Union group, I'm told by my broker) won't touch any bike
> over £600. So I either pay CTC £260 to insure about £6,500
> worth of bikes, or I split them between the policies.
> Which is a faff.
Why not move your house insurance to one that _will_ cover
bikes over 600 quid? For example, LloydsTSB (ours is a staff
policy, but I don't have the slightest reason to believe
that that makes any difference other than price). They
didn't blink an eye over a two grand bike, modulo wanting to
have a valuation on file.
I suspect that the terms and conditions over things like
locks will be a great deal more relaxed when talking about
the all-risks extension on your house and contents than a
specialist bike policy, because in general people who have
house and contents policies are a better risk than people
living in shared and/or rented accomodation (fewer keys to
the premises, for example). Certainly mine makes no more
requirement on me than the ``reasonable care'' of the rest
of the policy.
ian
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> To resurrect yet another perennial subject, I just got
> my bike insurance renewal through from CTC. It is much
> more expensive than I remember last year's being, but
> my household policy (currently with a part of the
> Norwich Union group, I'm told by my broker) won't touch
> any bike over =A3600. So I either pay CTC =A3260 to
> insure about =A36,=
500
> worth of bikes, or I split them between the policies.
> Which is a faff.
Nuisance, isn't it? We ended up using CTC and it came in at
quite a=20 chunk(IIRC =A3350) for the year IIRC, which was
frankly a bit silly but w= e=20 were running out of time and
patience for alternatives.
What we did find was BoS/Halifax seemed to cover the bikes
fairly well=20 on household contents if you paid a
reasonably reasonable supplmenet, as =
well as generally a pretty good deal all round.
Unfortunately having a=20 tenant at the mo threw a major
spanner in the works with them, but we'll =
quite possibly move over to them next year when she's gone.
I was a bit underwhelmed with the CTC's offer, to be
honest. Quite why=20 only tandems get discounts I don't
understand. Apparently they used to=20 discount 'bents and
trikes too, but on the somewhat baffling grounds=20 that
they were insuring far more tandems the other class
discounts have=20 been dropped. So as it is my 8 Freight,
which sticks out like a sore=20 thumb with additional neon
*HEY, OVER HERE!* notices attached, doesn't=20 get ridden
at great speed or over awkward ground and doesn't look
like=20 an obvious joyrider's treat, costs the same to
insure as a pretty decent =
hardtail MTB from a Big Name. Preposterous, and not really
quite what I =
expected from people who ought to Know About Bikes :-(
Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44
1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
<I.G.Batten@batten.eu.org> wrote in message <cbpc09$j7c$1@news-
out.ftel.co.uk>:
>Why not move your house insurance to one that _will_ cover
>bikes over 600 quid?
Because our household policy, which we've had for several
years, is a homeworker policy primarily designed to cover
"tools of the trade" - in our case computers, books and
musical instruments, not bikes. I've asked the brokers to
look at alternatives when it comes up for renewal.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:17:22 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
<cbpcjo$8hb$1@dux.dundee.ac.uk>:
>my 8 Freight, which sticks out like a sore thumb with
>additional neon *HEY, OVER HERE!* notices attached, doesn't
>get ridden at great speed or over awkward ground and
>doesn't look like an obvious joyrider's treat, costs the
>same to insure as a pretty decent hardtail MTB from a Big
>Name. Preposterous, and not really quite what I expected
>from people who ought to Know About Bikes :-(
I can hear you writing that letter to Cotterell House
right now ;-)
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> To resurrect yet another perennial subject, I just got my
> bike insurance renewal through from CTC. It is much more
> expensive than I remember last year's being, but my
> household policy (currently with a part of the Norwich
> Union group, I'm told by my broker) won't touch any bike
> over £600. So I either pay CTC £260 to insure about £6,500
> worth of bikes, or I split them between the policies.
Flippin' 'eck. We don't spend a great deal on bikes (we have
4, but the only two I'm interested in insuring were my new
Specialized hybrid, and SWMBO's Raleigh MTB), so about £600
to replace both. An order of magnitude less than your bikes,
but Direct Line charged me £15.75 to insure both for the
year on top of our household insurance.
Not exactly a linear scale, is it?
--
jc
Remove the -not from email
Jeremy Collins <jd.collins@ntlworld-not.com> writes:
>Flippin' 'eck. We don't spend a great deal on bikes (we
>have 4, but the only two I'm interested in insuring were my
>new Specialized hybrid, and SWMBO's Raleigh MTB), so about
>£600 to replace both. An order of magnitude less than your
>bikes, but Direct Line charged me £15.75 to insure both for
>the year on top of our household insurance.
Direct Line doesn't want to insure bikes over £1500. And
they don't insure 'new for old', they deduct an amount for
wear and tear.
They are however much more sensible about our tenant, just
adding a clause that we're not insured if she robs or
demolishes the place.
Roos
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:58:47 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote:
>To resurrect yet another perennial subject, I just got my
>bike insurance renewal through from CTC. It is much more
>expensive than I remember last year's being, but my
>household policy (currently with a part of the Norwich
>Union group, I'm told by my broker) won't touch any bike
>over £600. So I either pay CTC £260 to insure about £6,500
>worth of bikes, or I split them between the policies. Which
>is a faff.
>
>The real nuisance here is that this is the only bit of
>insurance which doesn't go through our brokers. Normally
>they do all the legwork for
>me. However, since I've been given a sick note and told I
> have 'flu (not bloke-flu, the real thing) I suppose I
> have nothing better to do with my afternoon...
Attaching bikes to your home contents' insurance is cheaper
because all those people who keep their expensive MTBs
securely in their lofts, and never use them, subsidise the
likes of us who regularly use our bikes and occasionally
have the locks cut and bike stolen while they've been left
outside the library.
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> To resurrect yet another perennial subject, I just got my
> bike insurance renewal through from CTC. It is much more
> expensive than I remember last year's being, but my
> household policy (currently with a part of the Norwich
> Union group, I'm told by my broker) won't touch any bike
> over £600. So I either pay CTC £260 to insure about £6,500
> worth of bikes, or I split them between the policies.
> Which is a faff.
>
> The real nuisance here is that this is the only bit of
> insurance which doesn't go through our brokers. Normally
> they do all the legwork for
> me. However, since I've been given a sick note and told I
> have 'flu (not bloke-flu, the real thing) I suppose I
> have nothing better to do with my afternoon...
>
I've given up on bike insurance. They're covered at home,
locked with a Kryptonite New York 3000 at work and otherwise
they're never out of sight.
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:19:40 +0100, in <40e054ab.0@entanet>, Zog The
Undeniable <hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've given up on bike insurance. They're covered at home,
>locked with a Kryptonite New York 3000 at work and
>otherwise they're never out of sight.
The only bike I've ever had stolen was taken from me whilst
I was sitting on it! [1] Are you insured for this on your
household policy?
[1] Technically I was actually lying in the road when it
was taken.
--
DISCLAIMER: My email box is private property.Email which
appears in my inbox is mine to do what I like with. Anything
which is sent to me (whether intended or not) may, if I so
desire, form a legal and binding contract.
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> To resurrect yet another perennial subject, I just got my
> bike insurance renewal through from CTC. It is much more
> expensive than I remember last year's being, but my
> household policy (currently with a part of the Norwich
> Union group, I'm told by my broker) won't touch any bike
> over £600. So I either pay CTC £260 to insure about £6,500
> worth of bikes, or I split them between the policies.
> Which is a faff.
>
> The real nuisance here is that this is the only bit of
> insurance which doesn't go through our brokers. Normally
> they do all the legwork for
> me. However, since I've been given a sick note and told I
> have 'flu (not bloke-flu, the real thing) I suppose I
> have nothing better to do with my afternoon...
>
> Guy
I've said it before and I'll say it again, go to the
insurance broker in the back of the CTC magazine. They
sorted out a household policy with a major insurer with
all the bikes for a tiny fraction of what the CTC wanted
to charge.
Tony
In news:cbpc09$j7c$1@news-out.ftel.co.uk,
Ian G Batten <I.G.Batten@batten.eu.org> typed:
> In article <39c0e098469ktk712dsnlb0seknohgqm1q@4ax.com>,
> Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.chapman+usenet-
> reply@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> To resurrect yet another perennial subject, I just got my
>> bike insurance renewal through from CTC. It is much more
>> expensive than I remember last year's being, but my
>> household policy (currently with a part of the Norwich
>> Union group, I'm told by my broker) won't touch any bike
>> over 600. So I either pay CTC 260 to insure about 6,500
>> worth of bikes, or I split them between the policies.
>> Which is a faff.
>
> Why not move your house insurance to one that _will_ cover
> bikes over 600 quid? For example, LloydsTSB (ours is a
> staff policy, but I don't have the slightest reason to
> believe that that makes any difference other than price).
> They didn't blink an eye over a two grand bike, modulo
> wanting to have a valuation on file.
When LloydsTSB was trying to sell me one in 2001, they
didn't cover bikes over 600 quid, but it was up to me to
point out that he was trying to sell me a policy that
wouldn't cover either of my bikes.
A
In article <2kbdo7Fdge2U1@uni-berlin.de>,
Ambrose Nankivell <$FirstnameInitialofSurname$@gmail.com> wrote:
> When LloydsTSB was trying to sell me one in 2001, they
> didn't cover bikes over 600 quid, but it was up to me to
> point out that he was trying to sell me a policy that
> wouldn't cover either of my bikes.
They have to be specified items on the all risks
components. I assumed that no-one would (a) mind listing
their bikes and (b) want insurance that didn't operate
outside their boundary.
ian
Roos Eisma wrote:
> Direct Line doesn't want to insure bikes over £1500. And
> they don't insure 'new for old', they deduct an amount
> for wear and tear.
Makes sense; I think that's about their limit for single
items on the household insurance. They didn't mention wear
and tear deductions, though, I'll have to clairfy that. If
it's a sensible percentage then I won't mind, seeing as the
cover was so reasonable.
--
jc
Remove the -not from email
Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> I've given up on bike insurance. They're covered at home,
> locked with a Kryptonite New York 3000 at work and
> otherwise they're never out of sight.
Belt 'n' braces for me. I've got my favourite bike insured,
which is (almost) never out of sight. I use an old MTB for
trips into town if it's going to be "parked" for a while.
--
jc
Remove the -not from email
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<39c0e098469ktk712dsnlb0seknohgqm1q@4ax.com>...
> To resurrect yet another perennial subject, I just got my
> bike insurance renewal through from CTC. It is much more
> expensive than I remember last year's being, but my
> household policy (currently with a part of the Norwich
> Union group, I'm told by my broker) won't touch any bike
> over £600. So I either pay CTC £260 to insure about £6,500
> worth of bikes, or I split them between the policies.
> Which is a faff.
>
> Guy
We just moved to the AA - they treat bikes as personal
possesions. Their basic cover means all bikes under £500
are included. If contents insured for £40k, then all bikes
under £1500 included and anything over that just needs to
be listed.
The advantage of bikes as personal possesions - five
bikes insured at no extra cost. I asked about adding the
Speedmachine (£2,000) when it arrives. We'll list it as
a valuable now, they said, because it won't cost
anything more!
So over £4,000 of bikes insured for no extra cost. Yippee
PhilO
In news:bdd01691.0406290744.34604c3e@posting.google.com,
PhilO <goo18731@yahoo.co.uk> typed:
> We just moved to the AA - they treat bikes as personal
> possesions.
Load of breadheads the lot of them.
<john lennon> Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you
try,... </john lennon>
IGMC
a
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:28:12 +0100, Jeremy Collins wrote:
> Roos Eisma wrote:
>
> > Direct Line doesn't want to insure bikes over £1500.
>> And they don't insure 'new for old', they deduct an
>> amount for wear and tear.
Isn't that what 'new for old' actually means?
AC
In article <pan.2004.06.29.22.35.22.349551@nospam.nowhere>,
anonymous coward <anonymous.coward@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
> >> And they don't insure 'new for old', they deduct an
> >> amount for wear and tear.
>
> Isn't that what 'new for old' actually means?
No.
ian
anonymous coward wrote:
>>Roos Eisma wrote:
>>>And they don't insure 'new for old', they deduct an
>>>amount for wear and tear.
> Isn't that what 'new for old' actually means?
No, it means if I crash my fairly well used Streetmachine
and write it off they'll pay me the cost of a new bike of
equivalent spec. Since the Streetmachine is still in
production, it would be a new Streetmachine (but with the
better Meks fork and Aheadset that's now standard) with
dynohub lighting and hydraulic brakes and full racks and
mudguards, just like my existing one.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111
ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382
640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
