Insurance Cover or Rape?

If you own a motorcycle, you've probably been fleeced by the sky-high premiums charged by your insurer and perhaps, more than once gone 'shopping' for better prices.

But the fact is that all insurers charge high premiums for motorcycles for two reasons. The first is that they are more likely to be written-off in an accident due to the repair/replacement coefficient used to evaluate loss, or because they are almost unrecoverable when stolen. Both these factors increase the risk to insurers and their underwriters, so without doing anything about reducing this risk, they embrace it and pass the risk to you - the policyholder, through completely ridiculous premiums.

The same could be said for theft and tracking systems. Insurers are quite happy to provide rebates for bikes fitted with car-tracking systems that offer nothing more than a rudimentary attempt at recovery in the event that they are made aware of a theft in the first place. Or they expect bikes to have the equally pointless chasis numbering system before they consider cover. What insurers fail to tell you is that fitting one of these systems simply covers their arse with their underwriters, irrespective of whether your bike is found or not. They have already made their money on its replacement - and, lest you forget, they will screw you for every cent on your claim. Forget systems that provide early-warning ANTI-THEFT alerts and provide accurate, traceable data to the Police, private security and recovery specialists and which actually prevent theft from happening in the first place.

Bike insurance is clearly not about protecting you or your bike. It's about making money from a market insurers perceive can afford the premiums, and because we love our rides so much, we cough-up and pay for the privilege. Wouldn't it be great if they took more than a cursory glance at our wellbeing and the protection of our assets? Wouldn't it be great if they pushed the authorities to enforce insurance on every road vehicle - rather than the miserable 20% of vehicle owners that currently have cover? Better still. Why are they not pressing for improved licencing and moving-violation management by the authorities in an effort to change driver behaviour? Or how about this radical thought! Hold the authorities liable for thefts that take place during current curfew because if they were doing their work, vehicles travelling during these periods would be stopped and checked. In this way, they could reduce our premiums and - let's dream, take a more proactive approach to biker safety.

But that would require intelligent leadership wouldn't it?

4 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All