Insuring a second bike

kellen said:
No, the TW200 is only a couple hundred a year, because it's a TW200, and they cost a couple hundred a year to insure.

If you had your VTR and say, a 600RR, you would pay your 1100 for the VTR and another 1100 for the 600RR. A 5 or 10% discount on two sport bikes is basically nothing.
Click to expand...

I get that, but what would be the point in insuring two bikes in the same class? OP is stating that his current bike is his commuter. Why would you want a supersport commuter, and a larger displacement supersport for a weekend bike? I ride that T-dub because I can beat it like a redheaded stepchild and not care about it if it drops or blows the motor.
 
matt365 said:
I get a multi bike discount through TD Meloche Monnex. I ride a Honda VTR1000F, and a Yamaha TW200 as my commuting/around town/trail bike. The TW is only a couple hundred a year because of the multi bike, and the VTR is under $1100 a year. I'm 33, no tickets, and riding for 13 years. Got my truck and the wife's car with them as well.
Click to expand...

I was referring to SF and also MOTORCYCLE ONLY insurance policies. You have a car, wifes car, and probably home and life insurance. The more business you give them, the more they can give to you.
 
crankcall said:
Not only did we have to pay nearly double rate for two bikes, when my wife got a scooter and was M licensed I had to have her on the policy as a new rider zero experience and a 1000cc and a 620cc and she couldn't start one if she wanted to let alone ride one.
Click to expand...

If she wasn't going to ride them, you could have got her to sign the form saying she won't ride them and if anything happens you are not covered and they wouldn't have charged you double?
 
SF, got second bike year older than first, otherwise identical. Insurance on second bike was dollar less. I told them that I can kill myself only on one bike at the time but they were not open for any discussion of logic applied...
 
Typically companies will offer a Multi-Bike discount ranging from 5% - 15%. This still means that you pay close to full price for both bikes. The logic is this: insurance companies understand that I can only ride one bike at a time. However, what is to prevent me from letting a friend ride bike #2 every day of the week? If insurance didn't charge me full price for bike # 2, I could insure multiple bikes for the price of one on a single policy and let other people ride them simultaneously.

In reality most people are honest and wouldn't do this, but insurance companies only care about covering their own *** and making money.
 
Luke Michaelis said:
Typically companies will offer a Multi-Bike discount ranging from 5% - 15%. This still means that you pay close to full price for both bikes. The logic is this: insurance companies understand that I can only ride one bike at a time. However, what is to prevent me from letting a friend ride bike #2 every day of the week? If insurance didn't charge me full price for bike # 2, I could insure multiple bikes for the price of one on a single policy and let other people ride them simultaneously.

In reality most people are honest and wouldn't do this, but insurance companies only care about covering their own *** and making money.
Click to expand...

That's what named drivers only policy are for, in situation like this, they dont have to be liable for drivers other than those who are listed. Especially if there is only 1 driver listed, then I dont see how they need to charge double the premium. If they are really that worry, write some conditions that only one bike can operate at a time or else they wont cover it, things like this. I totally understand they need to make profit, so if we have to pay 20% more to insure a second bike, with the conditions above, the insurance company just made 20% pure profit like this.

But I also understand, if they charge double the premium for two bikes, they get almost 100% profit minus the multi discount.

So it seems like insurance company dont want to work with us because they want every penny out of us. In return, people ride without insurance, make false claims, causing even higher insurance. This cycle never stops.
 
elton_t said:
That's what named drivers only policy are for, in situation like this, they dont have to be liable for drivers other than those who are listed. Especially if there is only 1 driver listed, then I dont see how they need to charge double the premium. If they are really that worry, write some conditions that only one bike can operate at a time or else they wont cover it, things like this. I totally understand they need to make profit, so if we have to pay 20% more to insure a second bike, with the conditions above, the insurance company just made 20% pure profit like this.

But I also understand, if they charge double the premium for two bikes, they get almost 100% profit minus the multi discount.

So it seems like insurance company dont want to work with us because they want every penny out of us. In return, people ride without insurance, make false claims, causing even higher insurance. This cycle never stops.
Click to expand...


It's because in Ontario, insurance is on the bike, not the rider. Yes, you can only ride one of your bikes at once, but theoretically, you can loan your other bike out to a buddy every weekend, or ride together all the time. That's why the coverage on the second bike is almost as much as the 1st bike.

Not agreeing with it, but that's the way it's set up.
 
BusaBob said:
It's because in Ontario, insurance is on the bike, not the rider. Yes, you can only ride one of your bikes at once, but theoretically, you can loan your other bike out to a buddy every weekend, or ride together all the time. That's why the coverage on the second bike is almost as much as the 1st bike.

Not agreeing with it, but that's the way it's set up.
Click to expand...

Never heard of auto insurance on the driver... of course and always on the vehicle. However they can amend the policy so that the coverage only takes place when named driver is operating the vehicle. If anyone other than those on the policy drives the car, the coverage does not apply. However most insurer don't budge on conditions like this in order to save a few bucks for the customer, they want every penny.
 
By that logic should find someone that has been riding for 40 years and lives in middle of nowhere and has dirt cheap insurance. Have him insure the bike and ride it as I please? I mean hey, it is the bike that is insured? And if bike is insured and not the rider why do they care about the tickets or anything else rider related? Same vehicle will have wildly different insurance cost depending on person insuring it. I do not see how is it vehicle that is insured if that is the case.

Insurance charges what they do because they can. If there was anything else to consider beside their interest it could be as simple as not allowing anyone else to ride the vehicle.
I have seen policies where they clearly state no drivers below 26 years of age I think.
Same type of restriction could easily be applied.

Nobody likes it, I am sure we all agree on that :)



BusaBob said:
It's because in Ontario, insurance is on the bike, not the rider. Yes, you can only ride one of your bikes at once, but theoretically, you can loan your other bike out to a buddy every weekend, or ride together all the time. That's why the coverage on the second bike is almost as much as the 1st bike.

Not agreeing with it, but that's the way it's set up.
Click to expand...
 
elton_t said:
Never heard of auto insurance on the driver... of course and always on the vehicle. However they can amend the policy so that the coverage only takes place when named driver is operating the vehicle. If anyone other than those on the policy drives the car, the coverage does not apply. However most insurer don't budge on conditions like this in order to save a few bucks for the customer, they want every penny.
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums it up right there.


Germax said:
By that logic should find someone that has been riding for 40 years and lives in middle of nowhere and has dirt cheap insurance. Have him insure the bike and ride it as I please? I mean hey, it is the bike that is insured? And if bike is insured and not the rider why do they care about the tickets or anything else rider related? Same vehicle will have wildly different insurance cost depending on person insuring it. I do not see how is it vehicle that is insured if that is the case.

Insurance charges what they do because they can. If there was anything else to consider beside their interest it could be as simple as not allowing anyone else to ride the vehicle.
I have seen policies where they clearly state no drivers below 26 years of age I think.
Same type of restriction could easily be applied.

Nobody likes it, I am sure we all agree on that :)
Click to expand...

That would be the case, if you could find someone willing to do that for you. You'd also have to transfer ownership of your vehicle to this person you didn't know, since you cannot insure a vehicle that does not belong to you (eg. I cannot insure your bike for you). That would be two hurdles to overcome. The third problem you'd run into, I believe, is that insurance policies specifically void this type of scheme. Case in point: a friend of mine was using her dad's car (he lived in Bancroft, or thereabouts) while she lived in Toronto. Car was under her dad's name, as was the insurance, which was significantly cheaper, than had she insured the same car as her own in Toronto. This went on for a couple years, until she got into a collision and needed to utilize the insurance. Once they found out, the insurance company refused coverage and cancelled the insurance policy. Something about "fraud" etc.

The insurance is on the vehicle, not the driver. They do indeed use the driver's (owner's) driving record (as well as those in the same household who will use the vehicle) to determine what the insurance rate is going to be, but make no mistake: the insurance is on the vehicle.

another example: if you loan your car out to your friend and your friend gets into an accident, it isn't your friend's car insurance which pays for the damage (even if he has insurance on his own vehicles), it is your insurance which will pick up the tab, and your insurance history and premiums that will be affected.

but I do agree with you that nobody likes it :)
 
If I ride without insurance, and caught by police, tell him I didnt bring my slip, would my bike get impounded?

Also if I only get fire and theft on the bike (i.e no liability), then mysteriously my bike appears at my work place and got stolen on the lot, would it be covered for it??
 
elton_t said:
If I ride without insurance, and caught by police, tell him I didnt bring my slip, would my bike get impounded?

Also if I only get fire and theft on the bike (i.e no liability), then mysteriously my bike appears at my work place and got stolen on the lot, would it be covered for it??
Click to expand...

1. Yes. And you would be fined $5,000

2. No
 
kellen said:
1. Yes. And you would be fined $5,000

2. No
Click to expand...

1. But last time my friend didn't bring the slip, was only given a ticket, no tow. So do they tow your bike/car or not? $5000 is stilll cheaper than my insurance : D

2. Why is that? My bike right now has fire and theft along with liability, if I leave it at work and got stolen, I will be covered.
 
It's a ticket for no slip. Failure to produce (proof of insurance, or current). I got one a few yrs back and can recite my policy number. Slip was missing from my vehicle, no idea where it went.

No insurance - it's a tow and up to $5000 fine
 
meme said:
It's a ticket for no slip. Failure to produce (proof of insurance, or current). I got one a few yrs back and can recite my policy number. Slip was missing from my vehicle, no idea where it went.

No insurance - it's a tow and up to $5000 fine
Click to expand...

^^ 5K first offence, and only goes up from there.
 
elton_t said:
1. But last time my friend didn't bring the slip, was only given a ticket, no tow. So do they tow your bike/car or not? $5000 is stilll cheaper than my insurance : D
Click to expand...

If you don't provide proof within 48 hours or so, they can upgrade the ticket from failure to provide proof to operating without.

5000 is cheaper than your insurance for 1 year, but you forgot to account for your insurance doubling for the next 5 years after. Also, assuming the worst happens and you hurt somebody, are you willing to lose everything you own in the settlement?
 
Sorry, misread the riding with no insurance. Didn't think that he meant that. My bad.

5g may be cheaper than your insurance, but it'll be a long time before you see anything cheaper, if you get caught
 
GreyGhost said:
If you don't provide proof within 48 hours or so, they can upgrade the ticket from failure to provide proof to operating without.
Click to expand...

Never heard of this, and I have got a no slip ticket multiple times. Never did anything about it for about 2 weeks after each case too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom