Premium Higher for Giant than Lotus !

ashtons99

Mad, it's not as if I'm wanting to insure myself, just my bike against some scrote relieving me of it or covering the cost of some idiot driver hitting me and smashing it into small pieces.

The premiums I've found for a £3k bike are £30 a year more than I pay for my £30k Lotus ! How can that ever be right. The logic says it must be down to the likelihood of a claim. Oh well, looks like I will be extra security conscious! I've little
confidence in actually making a successful claim if the need arose anyway, generally there are more holes in these sort of policies than Swiss cheese once the loss adjusters step in !

sloppyschleckonds

Most people add it to their home insurance

pblakeney

^^^^^ This.

shimanobottombracket

Wouldnt insure anything that isnt a legal requirement. The exception would be house insurance and certain travel related ones. **** em, you pay excessively for the insurance only to be screwed over when you need to use it.

fat daddy

ashtons99 wrote:

The premiums I've found for a £3k bike are £30 a year more than I pay for my £30k Lotus ! How can that ever be right. The logic says it must be down to the likelihood of a claim. !

that's exactly what it is

Insurance is just a big risk related gamble on the probability on them paying out and how much they would have to pay out.

Hence its cheaper to insure a 60 year old male driving a £130,000 Ferrari than it is a 18 year old driving a £1500 Ford ..... with the latter the insurance company is more likely to have to pay out £1m in compensation when the kid puts his car through someones house .... the cost of the car is irrelevant.

jgsi

PBlakeney wrote:

^^^^^ This.

but does it pay out effectively, without quibble and without overloading future premiums?

ugo.santalucia

fat daddy wrote:

ashtons99 wrote:

The premiums I've found for a £3k bike are £30 a year more than I pay for my £30k Lotus ! How can that ever be right. The logic says it must be down to the likelihood of a claim. !

that's exactly what it is

Insurance is just a big risk related gamble on the probability on them paying out and how much they would have to pay out.

Hence its cheaper to insure a 60 year old male driving a £130,000 Ferrari than it is a 18 year old driving a £1500 Ford ..... with the latter the insurance company is more likely to have to pay out £1m in compensation when the kid puts his car through someones house .... the cost of the car is irrelevant.

I think the OP is talking about insurance against theft... it is likely bicycles are over 10 times more likely to be stolen than cars, which might justify the cost...

it is also likely fewer bikes are insured than cars, which means there is less competition on the insurance market

term1te

Lotus made an innovative and successful bike a few years back, why not get one of those and ask for the cheaper insurance?

fenix

I did think that's what the thread was going to be about - a Giant premium higher than the Lotus bike. That was a thing of beauty.

Beatmaker

JGSI wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

^^^^^ This.

but does it pay out effectively, without quibble and without overloading future premiums?

My home insurance did to the tune of £8k. Several bikes were stolen from a shed with a poor lock and the insurance paid out without fuss. If I don't have any bikes stolen within the next 13.5 years, only then will I be worse off for paying my premiums.

pblakeney

JGSI wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

^^^^^ This.

but does it pay out effectively, without quibble and without overloading future premiums?

Not had to claim on a bike yet, but household?
Yes, in full, no problem.

Dorset_Boy

My home insurers paid out in full for a replacement from when mine cracked as a result of a crash.