Insurance & Dark Visors
Discussion
Insurance due for renewal in a few days, been looking at different policies etc.
Anyway going through cover details with broker this morning and he was reading the list of what's covered or not, when he mentioned that the particular company do NOT cover if rider is wearing a dark or tinted visor at time of incident! Obviously I understand the law (which is wrong on this issue!) on visors etc.
When I questioned it the guy said most if not all ins co's have the same clause but I've never heard it before and have been riding for over 25 yrs.
I have been stopped a few times by BiB for 'making progress'
whilst wearing the offending visor and not one has even mentioned it.
So is using a dark visor tantamount to riding without insurance?
>>> Edited by cazzo on Thursday 6th May 10:01
Anyway going through cover details with broker this morning and he was reading the list of what's covered or not, when he mentioned that the particular company do NOT cover if rider is wearing a dark or tinted visor at time of incident! Obviously I understand the law (which is wrong on this issue!) on visors etc.
When I questioned it the guy said most if not all ins co's have the same clause but I've never heard it before and have been riding for over 25 yrs.
I have been stopped a few times by BiB for 'making progress'
whilst wearing the offending visor and not one has even mentioned it. So is using a dark visor tantamount to riding without insurance?
>>> Edited by cazzo on Thursday 6th May 10:01
Cazzo.
Good question! I think if the case went to court, it would be a case of whether something which isn't BSI approved was a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR towards an accident. If you had a crash in bright sunlight, I don't think they could refuse the insurance cover?
Although I have heard of cases where people have had an insurance wrangle due to have naughty cans (i.e. wouldn't pass an MOT)...
Good question! I think if the case went to court, it would be a case of whether something which isn't BSI approved was a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR towards an accident. If you had a crash in bright sunlight, I don't think they could refuse the insurance cover?
Although I have heard of cases where people have had an insurance wrangle due to have naughty cans (i.e. wouldn't pass an MOT)...
fergus said:
Cazzo.
Good question! I think if the case went to court, it would be a case of whether something which isn't BSI approved was a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR towards an accident. If you had a crash in bright sunlight, I don't think they could refuse the insurance cover?
Mmm.. What struck as odd was that the broker mentioned it, they've never done so before, is it some new PC scheme or something?
fergus said:
Although I have heard of cases where people have had an insurance wrangle due to have naughty cans (i.e. wouldn't pass an MOT)...
My bike passed an MOT last week, with Termignoni cans fitted (& KPH speedo) so what is the definition of 'wouldn't pass an MOT'?
I had a claim a few years ago at which: I was wearing a 'safety' visor and the Bike was wearing the Termi's so strictly speaking I was breaking the rules but all was paid OK.
In reality I don't think there has been a massive problem but if they are given an excuse not to pay! - seeing as they are becoming more 'weasel-like' (must be catching from Nu-Labia
) then will they be cashing in on it more in the future. What's next? no cover if you are shown to have been speeding..........
Anyone know any ins co's that are happy with Dark visors/Cans etc, I don't mind paying a bit more to a company that is more 'realistic'.
I think that the machine has to fall within the realms of the Road Traffic Act (1988), in which case it has to meet certain criteria (pass an MOT, etc) - although as we all know, an MOT is only really vaild on the day of the test. I am surprised that the non BSI marked (i.e. road legal) cans got passed the tester. Also, the kph speedo ideally needs an mph equivalent which is easily legible. It doesn't bother me, as I used to ride with an akropovic full system for a couple of years - but I used to change it over come MOT time!
'Nu-labia' ROTFLMAO!!!
'Nu-labia' ROTFLMAO!!!
fergus said:
I am surprised that the non BSI marked (i.e. road legal) cans got passed the tester. Also, the kph speedo ideally needs an mph equivalent which is easily legible.
4th time it's passed (at the same test station
) plus it also did have 'wrong-side' headlight dipping ( changed a couple of years ago though) which also made no difference to the MOT. Incidentally, at the test the guy had no assisitant and so asked me to assist with the brake test i.e. sit on & hold upright, with brakes on, whilst he 'winched' it against a weighing 'thingymajig' - what a pathetic test FFS - my 4 year old kids pushbike would have passed!
BTW when I bought the bike it had a 'tacky' MPH overlay sticker on speedo - took it off as soon as I got home
>> Edited by cazzo on Thursday 6th May 10:57
fergus said:
I am surprised that the non BSI marked (i.e. road legal) cans got passed the tester. Also, the kph speedo ideally needs an mph equivalent which is easily legible. It doesn't bother me, as I used to ride with an akropovic full system for a couple of years - but I used to change it over come MOT time!
It doesn't suprise me, most bike shops will mot test your bike if it has illegal cans on because they know you're just going to put them on again when you get home and don't want to waste your time.
I have a case on the go at the moment where the black visor issue is raising its ugly head.
If you are the claimant and were injured through no fault of your own whilst wearing a dark/black visor then by and large it would make no difference to your claim unless it could be proved that the visor contributed to the cause of the crash, for example wearing it at night on a dark country road and you could not see where you are going, in which case the degree of "Contrib" would probably have to be decided by a court.
If you are the defendant and the crash was caused by the wearing of a black visor, then this would by possibly primary causation but it is unlikely that an insurance company could refuse to continue your cover if you have paid up your premiums,and this would be particularly so in bright sunlight, the insurance comapnies would be unable to enforce it as there will I have no doubt be a case before long where there will be a claim (if this is the case) of a breach of human rights that states that an individual is entitled to take whatever reasonable action they deem appropriate to protect themselves which could include the wearing of black visors.
The black visor campaign is not over yet. I was on the BSI committee that recommended approval which was subsequently thrown out by Jamieson, but there are moves afoot to have this overturned, so I will keep you posted.
If you are the claimant and were injured through no fault of your own whilst wearing a dark/black visor then by and large it would make no difference to your claim unless it could be proved that the visor contributed to the cause of the crash, for example wearing it at night on a dark country road and you could not see where you are going, in which case the degree of "Contrib" would probably have to be decided by a court.
If you are the defendant and the crash was caused by the wearing of a black visor, then this would by possibly primary causation but it is unlikely that an insurance company could refuse to continue your cover if you have paid up your premiums,and this would be particularly so in bright sunlight, the insurance comapnies would be unable to enforce it as there will I have no doubt be a case before long where there will be a claim (if this is the case) of a breach of human rights that states that an individual is entitled to take whatever reasonable action they deem appropriate to protect themselves which could include the wearing of black visors.
The black visor campaign is not over yet. I was on the BSI committee that recommended approval which was subsequently thrown out by Jamieson, but there are moves afoot to have this overturned, so I will keep you posted.
what allways made me laugh about the TRRL reports an the making of dark visor illegal....was that the Authorities would be happy for me to wear a $1.99 pair of kiddies sunglasses...with distorting crappy plastic lenses or completely ignore the fact that a visor can be flipped out of the way in 0.5 of a sec, but how much faffing would you have to do if you wanted to take your sunglasses off....say going into a tunnel for eg
and how much manpower do you think the french/italian police devote to stopping people for keeping the sun out of theyr eyes while riding?
As A Partridge would say "This Country"
and how much manpower do you think the french/italian police devote to stopping people for keeping the sun out of theyr eyes while riding?
As A Partridge would say "This Country"
cazzo said:When I phoned around last time when re-insuring the Mille the only broker that would touch me with the race^Wsafety can was CIA, they were only about £30 more than the cheapest, hth.
Anyone know any ins co's that are happy with Dark visors/Cans etc, I don't mind paying a bit more to a company that is more 'realistic'.
saleen05 said:
what allways made me laugh about the TRRL reports an the making of dark visor illegal....was that the Authorities would be happy for me to wear a $1.99 pair of kiddies sunglasses...with distorting crappy plastic lenses or completely ignore the fact that a visor can be flipped out of the way in 0.5 of a sec, but how much faffing would you have to do if you wanted to take your sunglasses off....say going into a tunnel for eg
and how much manpower do you think the french/italian police devote to stopping people for keeping the sun out of theyr eyes while riding?
As A Partridge would say "This Country"
TRL actualy supported the BSi recommendation. The reason it got thrown out was because Jamieson listened to the likes of the Pedestrian Association who thought it was nothing more than a pose thing, and because there was a 1/10,000 chance of someone wearing a dark visor during lighting up times this posed too much of a risk.
The Police and other agencies were all in favour of legalising dark visors.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff