bike storage.
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: Ace on 22 Jul 2010 05:36 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:21:17 +0100, Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: >On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:50:57 +0100, YTC#1 <bdp-spambin(a)ytc1.co.uk> >wrote: > >>Or have I missed something somewhere ... > >Yes. > >At a guess, I'd say it was the early years classes on reading and >comprehension. He's a national treasure, isn't he?
From: crn on 22 Jul 2010 07:06 Beav <beavis.original(a)ntlwoxorld.com> wrote: > > > > The INSURED is not necessarily the legal OWNER or the person allowed to > > ride the VEHICLE. If the policy specifies that the OWNER or THE INSURED > > must hold a current licence you could have a problem. > > > > When all else fails - read the instructions. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't policies usually include something along > the lines of > > "The insured must hold a license or at least not have been banned"? Thats the reason I wrote "read the instructions". Most policies keep the insured seperate from the rider(s) but some daft ones assume that the rider, the owner, and the insured are all one and the same. <reads policy> In my case only a person riding needs a licence. Does anyone have a policy that requires THE INSURED to have a licence ? - read the legalese. -- 03 GS500K2 76 Honda 400/4 project 78 Honda 400/4 in black 06 Sukida SK50QT (Slanty eyed shopping trolley)
From: SIRPip on 22 Jul 2010 08:37 Ace wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:21:17 +0100, Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:50:57 +0100, YTC#1 <bdp-spambin(a)ytc1.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > > > Or have I missed something somewhere ... > > > > Yes. > > > > At a guess, I'd say it was the early years classes on reading and > > comprehension. > > He's a national treasure, isn't he? Only insofar as he'd be better off in a secure facility with no access to the outside world, under guard 24/7. -- SIRPip : B12
From: darsy on 22 Jul 2010 09:01 On Jul 22, 1:37 pm, "SIRPip" <gingerbl...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ace wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:21:17 +0100, Champ <n...(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:50:57 +0100, YTC#1 <bdp-spam...(a)ytc1.co.uk> > > > wrote: > > > > > Or have I missed something somewhere ... > > > > Yes. > > > > At a guess, I'd say it was the early years classes on reading and > > > comprehension. > > > He's a national treasure, isn't he? > > Only insofar as he'd be better off in a secure facility with no access > to the outside world, under guard 24/7. I was thinking more along the lines of him being sealed in a large wooden crate, and then shipped off to an anonymous government-owned warehouse, a la "Raiders of The Lost Ark". -- d.
From: cat on 22 Jul 2010 09:22
central wrote: >>> When all else fails - read the instructions. >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't policies usually include something >> along the lines of >> >> "The insured must hold a license or at least not have been banned"? > > Historically, its been 'holds or has held and is not disqualified from > holding', although I'm not sure what the view would be on a temp > suspension. Aside from that, everyone is rewriting their conditions > nowadays, partly in the name of 'TCF' (1). > > 1: 'Treating Customers Fairly' Yea, right... I can entirely understand that given my set of circumstances I shouldn't be allowed to throw the bike at bus stops packed with school children. But it seems a bit rich that through no direct fault of my own I'm disallowed from *keeping* this motor vehicle, and with no warning. That said, it's my own damn fault for being too cheap to afford a house with off street parking, which would render everything 'simple'. Be less poor and be less sick. I don't see why I have to hand my whole licence back, rather than be flagged as; 'if driving, is committing an offence'. Fingers crossed, licence comes back in short order and I get on with my happy bike riding life, eating at minimum one apple a day. |