Ok so you shop around for insurance and find $2200 for 3 vehicles. If you go down to one you're going to paying almost 1/3 of that. So you're still paying almost 3x what you would pay to have one vehicle but you can only use one at a time (because you are only one person). Of course multiple drivers/rider is a different situation.
Seriously, what is up with multiple vehicle rates?
- Thread starter drumstyx
- Start date
You can definitely shop around, however the major issue is for those that want to have multiple bikes and are the only rider in the household...why should you have to have a policy for every bike when you can only be riding one at a time. Insurance companies do not give a decent enough break for multiple vehicles (especially MC), I would have saved $5 a month on my MC policy with state farm if I brought both cars over (cars were more expensive but the bike policy dropped a bit), want to add a second bike...oh look another 1800+ a year for that second bike.
You yourself may be able to operate only one vehicle at a time, but there is nothing keeping you from having a friend operate another vehicle that you have insured.
Think about the potential for abuse. Two or three friends could get together and have one person act as a strawman to buy and own two or three cars in his name, and insure them under one policy. Under your one policy for all owned vehicles idea, the other friends could effectively have free insurance on cars that they operate but don't actually own in name.
The only way your idea could work is if insurance policies for multiple designated vehicles are tied to ONE set of license plates, with an option to purchase and tie in additional license plate sets at added insurance cost if you do require two vehicles to be in use at any given time. The owner of multiple vehicles would then have to decide which vehicle will wear the set(s) of available license plates on any given day, and move the plates from one designated vehicle to another when he wants to switch vehicles up. That works to help ensure that only the one vehicle (or a second or third is you have purchased additional coverage) is on the road at any given time.
Unfortunately for multiple vehicle owners, our vehicle registration/licensing/insurance system is not set up that way. Also unfortunate is that we have many among us who will game and cheat the system at any chance they get, and in doing so raise the cost of insurance for those of us who do act honestly.
Once you understand that motorcycles are a tolerated nuisance in Ontario and Canada, that there's a very few of us to have a voice and change anything, you stop wasting time regarding insurance and nothing, nothing will ever surprise you. Once you think that the BS boiled over, you sell bikes and cancel insurance and you are done ... LOL
I must say it's getting there ... because essentially in those 6 mths riding season the bike gives me no advantage on the road, nor fun during commute (idling mostly in traffic). If it was not for vacation riding in the states, I would hang up the street riding, just keep one bike for track.
I must say it's getting there ... because essentially in those 6 mths riding season the bike gives me no advantage on the road, nor fun during commute (idling mostly in traffic). If it was not for vacation riding in the states, I would hang up the street riding, just keep one bike for track.
It's not even just motorcycles. A second car would also nearly double my car rate.
The bottom line is, I don't drive more because I have more vehicles (except maybe the bike, just because it's fun, in which case, fine, charge me for one bike and one car).
And speaking of how much I drive, I hardly want to start on this, but I've gone from driving and riding a combined, 25,000km or so, to driving maybe 10,000km. Let me tell you that my rates have certainly not dropped 3/5.
I've actually been doing some reading and digging, and it seems that there do exist rates as crazy as ours down south, but they apply to different, and much fewer combinations of rider, bike, and location. So it seems that the real reason is hardly a broken system, but completely incompetent actuaries.
