NSW GreenSlips news.
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
From: Nev.. on 12 Jun 2010 00:43 On 12/06/2010 12:06 PM, CrazyCam wrote: > Zebee Johnstone wrote: >> In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:09:24 +1000 >> CrazyCam <CrazyCam(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> Nev.. wrote: >>>> On 10/06/2010 4:35 PM, CrazyCam wrote: >>>> >>>>> Nobody NEEDS a motorcycle with over 1800cc. >>>>> >>>>> They may well want one, but then they can pay, even more, for the >>>>> privilege. >>>> Who cares about the capacity? Shouldn't the premium reflect the risk? >>> Yes, Nev, it should reflect the risk, but to do that effectively it >>> would have to be based on the rider, rather than the motorbike, apart >>> from the obvious pillion/no pillion split. >>> >> >> Isn't that what they do in the UK? Rider insurance not bike >> insurance? Thus making it almost impossible for anyone under 25 to >> get a bike bigger than 125? > > They certainly used to, and I think they still do. > > Not only does it limit (by pricing) the size of engine that a rider may > have, but it also, effectively, makes folk with really bad accident > records uninsurable. Bad insurance records, I you mean. A person with a $100 bike an no insurance who crashes every week is a much better insurance risk than a person with a $100 bike who crashes once and makes a claim. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: atec7 7 ""atec77" on 12 Jun 2010 01:39 Zebee Johnstone wrote: > In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:30:56 +1000 > atec7 7 <""> wrote: >> Zebee Johnstone wrote: >>> Isn't that what they do in the UK? Rider insurance not bike >>> insurance? Thus making it almost impossible for anyone under 25 to >>> get a bike bigger than 125? >>> >>> Zebee >> It doesn't work as there are daily cases of people riding out of class >> with no insurgence or road tax which short of imprisonment cant be stopped > > Happens here too, ask any copper or magistrate. Been there etc > > While the culture says personal motorised transport is a right, it > will continue to happen. Fact is the nanny has taken over and I for one would like to have that change assuming people can actually accept responsibility for self action This does mean the authorities have a lot less power but self defence once again becomes a right > > Zebee
From: Zebee Johnstone on 12 Jun 2010 02:31 In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:39:45 +1000 atec7 7 <""> wrote: > > > Fact is the nanny has taken over and I for one would like to have that > change assuming people can actually accept responsibility for self action > This does mean the authorities have a lot less power but self defence > once again becomes a right There speaks the ablebodied male with an income eh? Zebee
From: BT Humble on 12 Jun 2010 04:11 CrazyCam wrote: > > Nev.. wrote: > > On 10/06/2010 4:35 PM, CrazyCam wrote: > > > >> Nobody NEEDS a motorcycle with over 1800cc. > >> > >> They may well want one, but then they can pay, even more, for the > >> privilege. > > > > Who cares about the capacity? Shouldn't the premium reflect the risk? > > Yes, Nev, it should reflect the risk, but to do that effectively it > would have to be based on the rider, rather than the motorbike, apart > from the obvious pillion/no pillion split. I feel that there should be a "decibel multiple" applied to the base premium, to encourage the retention of factory exhausts and mufflers. :-) BTH -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: atec7 7 ""atec77" on 12 Jun 2010 04:32
Zebee Johnstone wrote: > In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:39:45 +1000 > atec7 7 <""> wrote: >> >> Fact is the nanny has taken over and I for one would like to have that >> change assuming people can actually accept responsibility for self action >> This does mean the authorities have a lot less power but self defence >> once again becomes a right > > There speaks the ablebodied male with an income eh? > > Zebee Not as able as I once was but I as many others , can own defence mediums and am happy to share that knowledge if others seek . |