Is it just me, or is bike insurance exceptionally cheap?

PardonTheWait · 19 Apr 2010 at 23:38

Since I got my car license in December I've not been insured on a bike, but a combination of the nice weather, seeing all the other bikes out, and expensive parking at work coupled with the comparative economy of running a (cheap) bike, I decided to get myself insured again on the family workhorse bike, a 650 Pegaso.

I'm 25, two full years no claims. I'm not registered as the owner or keeper of the bike, it'll be garaged overnight in a nice enough postcode and used for commuting to work, it's also got luggage attached which I declared.

I didn't go with the cheapest quote as a) this is with Bikesure who are Adrian Flux, so known to me and trusted by others, and it included legal cover, so for £20 or so I figured it worth it. My dad's on the policy with me, he had a fault claim at the end of '08.

£135 TPFT

If we were to sign the bike over to be owned and kept by me, and without my dad on the policy, it came out at £90 without legal cover! I pay that per month on my 306!

Alright, granted I have three years on my bike license, no fault claims, two years no claims and so on, but jesus, the difference is insane. I've never paid more than about £500 for a bike.

First was a Z750, that was I think £500 then on renewal £400.

Then I got a Fazer 1000, I think it went back up to about £500, then dropped to around £400 or £350 or something again next year.

Then I got my Mille, I don't know the exact figure offhand because it just got added to my monthly but I think it was about an extra £100-£150 or so, certainly under £600 in total I'm sure of it.

The Z makes about 105hp, the Fazer and Mille are I think 131 (dynoed) and 128.

They'll hit about 140, 160,160 indicated, all will do 0-60 in stupid times, the mille about 3.1sec I think - but basically the last two especially are both obscenely fast vehicles. But the insurance has, at its absolute peak, been half the price of my little french box that makes the same power as the litre bikes I've had while weighing what, 8 times as much?

Just makes me wonder - why? Surely bikers as a demographic are at a far higher risk than car drivers, even young/new ones?

Is it because when bikers lose it, we tend to be the only person involved? Do we do less damage when we hit other vehicles? What is it? Why's it so cheap? Is it just because there's less of us?

PhillyDee · 19 Apr 2010 at 23:49

Its because bike drivers always blame the car driver, despite weaving around traffic, speeding, driving recklessly etc.

/runs

GravyMonster · 19 Apr 2010 at 23:50

That or the biker tends not to claim for an accident as they are dead.

PardonTheWait · 19 Apr 2010 at 23:54

Ok, those were expected. If you kids are quite finished we can continue with the thread

Fr0dders · 20 Apr 2010 at 00:09

they have a point

the claim statistics being low for bikes are easily explained.

Very little parking accidents (not as many woman ride biks as drive cars *runs*
No fender benders from bumping into the back of people from being too close (bikers are always weaving in and out of traffic so rarely go into the back of people)

and if they do crash, its usually in a spectacular fashion that leaves the biker dead and nobody to claim for

that and bikes are much cheaper, so the claims to fix them will be cheaper too.

The_Abyss · 20 Apr 2010 at 00:17

MrLOL said:
and when a car hits them, normally without a clue, its usually in a spectacular fashion that leaves the biker dead and nobody to claim for

Fixed.

PardonTheWait · 20 Apr 2010 at 00:20

MrLOL said:
they have a point

the claim statistics being low for bikes are easily explained.

Very little parking accidents (not as many woman ride biks as drive cars *runs*
No fender benders from bumping into the back of people from being too close (bikers are always weaving in and out of traffic so rarely go into the back of people)

and if they do crash, its usually in a spectacular fashion that leaves the biker dead and nobody to claim for

that and bikes are much cheaper, so the claims to fix them will be cheaper too.

quite possibly - like I said in OP, the big bike shunts tend to involve a biker and no one else.

Not sure about the value thing - I don't think that's so much about what you crash, but what you crash *in to*. but then as above, hedges are cheap...

PardonTheWait · 20 Apr 2010 at 00:23

It's also even easier to write off a bike than a car... Extreme example - buells carry fuel in the frame, you can write one of them off by knocking it over from stationary.

Overengineered swingarms on lots of sportsbikes are instant write off if you bend them.

Sin_Chase · 20 Apr 2010 at 04:14

Spunkey said:
That or the biker tends not to claim for an accident as they are dead.

Call me morbid but this tickled me....lots

Scania · 20 Apr 2010 at 05:21

MrLOL said:
and if they do crash, its usually in a spectacular fashion because some bloody truck driver has dumped a load of diesel from his over-filled tank(s) all over the road that leaves the biker dead and nobody to claim for.

Fixed #2

Ahem.

i-bert · 20 Apr 2010 at 05:37

Sin_Chase said:
Call me morbid but this tickled me....lots

I'm calling you something and it isn't morbid.

ChrisJSY · 20 Apr 2010 at 05:58

i-bert said:
I'm calling you something and it isn't morbid.

Relax, no need to resort to invisible name calling :mad:

:babyface::tonguecheek:

:rolleyes:

I found it funny.

Fireskull · 20 Apr 2010 at 06:31

I think most are correct.

soooo many bike accidents are just the rider and usually just a low slide its not worth claiming, I would say prob 80% of the bikers I know have had accidents but never had to claim.
Most of the time all you need to replace is a footpeg/bar end/lever etc, and anything bigger if the rider isnt injured could be a complete write off, and I think I read somewhere average was £4-5k or something like that, and Ive heard some car accidents can be in the thousands for just panel and door replacements + airbag etc.