Simon Brooke said:in message <[email hidden]>, "Jon
Senior' jon_AT_restlesslemon.co.uk ('') said:"anonymous coward" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
My bike would cost £160 a year to insure, but is only
worth £600 second hand...
Only worth? Surely at these prices it makes sense.
Only if your bike is stolen on average once every four
years. I haven't had a bike stolen in fourteen years, so
I'm currently winning out 'carrying my own risk', as I
believe the insurance johnnies put
it. And seeing I have on average had two bikes over that
time, that's actually 28 bike-years, or £4,480 saving.
You could buy a very nice bike with that.
My thoughts exactly. Even if though I live in a high risk
area this is my choice for the future - after all,
insurance premiums reflect the cost of replacing your bike;
the cost of paying off fraudsters; and no small
administration costs. If my bike gets stolen once every 4
years, I'll still be ahead. If it gets stolen more
frequently than that then I doubt the insurers will pay up
anyway - why lose the money twice.
Insurance only makes sense for risks you can't afford to
cover or that are relatively unlikely - e.g. my house
burning down; knock for knock with a Ferrari; braindamaging
a pedestrian and needing to provide them with nursing care.
I'll come clean - my bike got nicked recently and it grates
that the insurance people spent a good deal longer
investigating _me_ than the police spent investigating the
theft. Apparently the police in this area recover £100,000s
worth of stolen bikes each year but can't return them to
their owners because there's no national database of stolen
property. Contrast and compare the number of different
databases the insurance companies have up & running...
Screwed up priorities, in my view,
AC