Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Clear up insurance/license debate

  • 03-07-2009 11:29pm
    #1
    podge82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭


    Hi, I'm 28 ride a Bandit 600 and am currently insured for €350 third party only with Quinn. I only have a provisional license and my insurance company knows this and told me my quote would be the same if I fitted a restrictor or not. According to my license though, I should restrict my bandit to 33bhp to conform with my license. I have asked 4 members of the garda siochanna from the traffic corp about this and as far as they are concerned once the bike is taxed and legitimate insurance is produced they have no issue. My insurance has confirmed that they will cover in the event of an accident and are not concerned about the 33 bhp restriction. Does this mean that the licensing legislation is unofficially irrelevant?


Comments

  • #2
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Your bike does not conform to the power/weight limit, so in effect your not licenced to drive your bike unless you restrict it. I could well be wrong though, the whole bike licence system here is a confusing mess.


  • #3
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭KamiKazi


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Your bike does not conform to the power/weight limit, so in effect your not licenced to drive your bike unless you restrict it. I could well be wrong though, the whole bike licence system here is a confusing mess.

    There are rumours floating around that initially the insurance co.s won't pay out, but should it go to court the 33bhp argument won't stand up and the insurance will have to pay out.

    It's a big chance to take though...


  • #4
    Idleater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Idleater


    I was under the impression that
    1) yes you are insured
    2) yes you have a licence
    3) in the event of an accident and you are deemed to be at or partly at fault the insurance company will pay out
    4) and this is the important one, the insurance company assumes ownership of the vehicle and they have the right to investigate if they so wish to determine if they can pursue you for costs that they have paid out on your behalf if they think that you may have given incorrect information at the time of taking out the policy.

    In this case, like said above, though you have a licence it specifically states that you should be driving a bike within the restricted parameters, and effectively you were in fact not licenced to drive the bike that you were doing when you were involved in the accident.

    Net result, the person who claimed from you gets paid by your insurance, and the insurance company gets that (plus costs) back from you.

    This is done in civil courts eg circuit or high, as it is outside the normal scope of insurance claims/payouts.


  • #5
    seanybiker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,898 ✭✭✭✭seanybiker


    your not insured. Driving the bike illegally. I cant say anything i done it for two years meself.


  • #6
    EvilMonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,823 ✭✭✭EvilMonkey


    podge82 wrote: »
    Hi, I'm 28 ride a Bandit 600 and am currently insured for €350 third party only with Quinn. I only have a provisional license and my insurance company knows this and told me my quote would be the same if I fitted a restrictor or not. According to my license though, I should restrict my bandit to 33bhp to conform with my license. I have asked 4 members of the garda siochanna from the traffic corp about this and as far as they are concerned once the bike is taxed and legitimate insurance is produced they have no issue. My insurance has confirmed that they will cover in the event of an accident and are not concerned about the 33 bhp restriction. Does this mean that the licensing legislation is unofficially irrelevant?

    Ask Quinn for that in writing, see if they change their mind.
    Your licence only allows you to ride a bike up to 33bhp or 0.16 kW/kg if your bike is over it you are driving without a licence, its not up to Quinn to force you to comply with the law.
    Chances are you will get away with it, just dont give a Garda a reason to ask about it. ;)

    Oh yeah this will never be cleared up until it is tested in court.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    MrJoeSoap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭MrJoeSoap


    EvilMonkey wrote: »
    Ask Quinn for that in writing, see if they change their mind.

    +1 Exactly


  • #8
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,790 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    seanybiker wrote: »
    your not insured. Driving the bike illegally. I cant say anything i done it for two years meself.

    Not so, as the OP, and nereid has already pointed out, you are covered under the terms as required by the RTA 1963 (iirc...).

    However, in the event of an accident, the insurer will pay out, and can elect to recoup the losses from you, in a civil suit. You can't be prosecuted under RTA for 'no insurance'.

    As for the licence......hmm, yes you are in breach, and you could be prosecuted for same. But that's a separate issue -don't mix them up.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • #9
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,790 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    Actually, we're getting sidetracked: what OP actually asked was:
    podge82 wrote: »
    Does this mean that the licensing legislation is unofficially irrelevant?

    Answer: anecdotal evidence would suggest that, yes, it is unofficially irrelevant.

    I think it is an attempt to just cut ptw's from the road, actually. Pure bureacracy, nothing else.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • #10
    podge82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭podge82


    Thanks guys, still a lot of confussion out there it seems.
    I think I'll get back to Quinn and see if I can get it in writing.
    That might help in a small way to clear things up.


  • #11
    Del2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    podge82 wrote: »
    Thanks guys, still a lot of confussion out there it seems.
    I think I'll get back to Quinn and see if I can get it in writing.
    That might help in a small way to clear things up.

    There isn't really much to clear up. The licence you have only allows you to ride a bike of <33bhp or 0.16kw/kg. If you ride anything else on the road you have no licence for it and therefore you have no insurance. At the monent no one is enforcing this rule but would you lile to be the 1st person done.

    The insurance companies don't care about fitting aftermarket restrictors kits, as they can be so easily bypassed, but will give you a discount for a factory restricted bike. The law always places the responsiblity on the rider/driver to make sure they are legally allowed to ride/drive the vehicle they are using.

    The Gardai aren't clamping down on this, but they can if and when they want. And when they say all they care about is that it's taxed and insured that's only with you standing beside then when there are in a good mood. If they stop you on an unrestricted bike, they can confiscate it off you. As you have no licence to be driving it, therefore you have no insurance, it's up to you to prove that you are legally entitled to ride it as use of the roads is a privilage not a right.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    jmck87
    Closed Accounts Posts: 197 ✭✭jmck87


    Del2005 wrote: »
    ..As you have no licence to be driving it, therefore you have no insurance, it's up to you to prove that you are legally entitled to ride it as use of the roads is a privilage not a right.

    Incorrect. You have insurance. As said before the insurance will pay out to third parties but will come claim for loss off you.

    Driving is a right, just with some rules attached to it. Never could I say that Im given the priviledge to drive on Ireland's silky smooth pot hole free roads.

    For anyone who cares or would like to research further - all acts require your individual consent to be enforced, including the road traffic act. Consent in most or all cases being the signature on your driving licence.


  • #13
    EvilMonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,823 ✭✭✭EvilMonkey


    jmck87 wrote: »
    Incorrect. You have insurance. As said before the insurance will pay out to third parties but will come claim for loss off you.
    Doesn't sound like insurance to me :o


  • #14
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    jmck87 wrote: »
    Incorrect. You have insurance. As said before the insurance will pay out to third parties but will come claim for loss off you.

    How can you be insured on a vehicle your not licenced to drive? Which is against the law anyway. Of course the insurance company will be all too happy to take your money but if anything happens you'll be up sh*t creek without a paddle.


  • #15
    Del2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    jmck87 wrote: »
    Incorrect. You have insurance. As said before the insurance will pay out to third parties but will come claim for loss off you.

    The purpose of insurance is to indemnify you against having to pay out in case something bad happens. Why would you go to the bother of handing over several hundred Euro for a piece of paper that's essentially worthless once you ride outside the conditions of your licence?

    Doesn't sound like insurance to me when you have to give the company money and then still have to pay out when sh*t happens.
    Driving is a right, just with some rules attached to it. Never could I say that Im given the priviledge to drive on Ireland's silky smooth pot hole free roads.

    For anyone who cares or would like to research further - all acts require your individual consent to be enforced, including the road traffic act. Consent in most or all cases being the signature on your driving licence.

    I thought the recent case from the EU where UK drivers where refusing to identify the driver of a speeding vehicle when the got the NIP said that we don't have a right to be on the roads, we are allowed to drive on the roads and by virtue of holding a licence we have accepted the rules/laws of these roads. But I could have got the story wrong, never really read into it.


  • #16
    jmck87
    Closed Accounts Posts: 197 ✭✭jmck87


    Del2005 wrote: »
    The purpose of insurance is to indemnify you against having to pay out in case something bad happens. Why would you go to the bother of handing over several hundred Euro for a piece of paper that's essentially worthless once you ride outside the conditions of your licence?

    Doesn't sound like insurance to me when you have to give the company money and then still have to pay out when sh*t happens.



    I thought the recent case from the EU where UK drivers where refusing to identify the driver of a speeding vehicle when the got the NIP said that we don't have a right to be on the roads, we are allowed to drive on the roads and by virtue of holding a licence we have accepted the rules/laws of these roads. But I could have got the story wrong, never really read into it.

    I worded it wrong lads....of course its like not having insurance if your insurance company is going to claim for loss. But legally speaking, the insurance company is covering you, and then taking it to civil court for a claim off you.

    Sorry whats an NIP? My understanding of what you said may be wrong but I think the story is that the UK authorities said in a letter of a speeding fine that people dont have a right to be on the roads? Of course they'll use extortinate comments like that to recoup a fine :rolleyes:

    Edit - just noticed you mentioned 'by virtue of holding a licence' we agree to the rules. So what if you dont have a licence? Or your car is not registered? There have been many cases in USA and Canada where people havent consented to the road acts by not getting a licence...cases have been thrown out in court...


  • #17
    Del2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    jmck87 wrote: »
    I worded it wrong lads....of course its like not having insurance if your insurance company is going to claim for loss. But legally speaking, the insurance company is covering you, and then taking it to civil court for a claim off you.

    Sorry whats an NIP? My understanding of what you said may be wrong but I think the story is that the UK authorities said in a letter of a speeding fine that people dont have a right to be on the roads? Of course they'll use extortinate comments like that to recoup a fine :rolleyes:

    NIP - Notice of Intent to Prosecute, it's the fine in the post.
    Edit - just noticed you mentioned 'by virtue of holding a licence' we agree to the rules. So what if you dont have a licence? Or your car is not registered? There have been many cases in USA and Canada where people havent consented to the road acts by not getting a licence...cases have been thrown out in court...

    Don't know, but I'm sure it's well covered.


  • #18
    Richie15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭Richie15


    Deleted User wrote: »
    How can you be insured on a vehicle your not licenced to drive? Which is against the law anyway.
    You're still insured if you're an unaccompanied provisional driver. You're covered if you break a red light. You're even covered if you drive the wrong way up the motorway. Only circumstances you're not covered are if you're drunk, and that's because it's expressly stated on your policy.


  • #19
    podge82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭podge82


    Del2005 wrote: »
    There isn't really much to clear up. The licence you have only allows you to ride a bike of <33bhp or 0.16kw/kg. If you ride anything else on the road you have no licence for it and therefore you have no insurance. At the monent no one is enforcing this rule but would you lile to be the 1st person done.

    I've got it in paper from Quinn, that they'll cover 3rd party claims and that they can't persue me personally there after.

    However, They refused to quote me on a z 750 claiming my license wasn't adequate!!! Whaa.. Looks like Quinn have revised what bikes they'll cover on a provisional and forgot to check the with the licensing authority!


  • #20
    Idleater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Idleater


    podge82 wrote: »
    I've got it in paper from Quinn, that they'll cover 3rd party claims and that they can't persue me personally there after.

    However, They refused to quote me on a z 750 claiming my license wasn't adequate!!! Whaa.. Looks like Quinn have revised what bikes they'll cover on a provisional and forgot to check the with the licensing authority!
    You have just proven what everyone has already said, they will have no problem insuring you on something that you are licenced to drive.

    you are not licenced to drive something above the restricted limit (eg z750 nice bike :pac:) so they won't insure you.

    Just because they don't know which bikes are specifically under or over the limit doesn't absolve you from being truthful, and they have just told you that.


Advertisement