[net.cycle] To insure or not to insure

joel (06/10/82)

Just trying to hash out the age old question of whether to buy full
coverage insurance or not.

I'm sure that looking into the insurance situation for new, large
bikes is not a new horror for anybody.  However, not having had a
motor worth full coverage for some 10 years, and being once again in
the market for something new, I'm finding that full coverage insurance
just might make owning a new machine cost prohibitive.  It seems that
it is not PL&PD nor collision that makes me gasp, but good ol' theft.
It is with a great deal of pain that I part with some $25 per month
just to pay for ripped off bikes.

There is only one solution to the problem, as I see it.  Pay cash for
the motor, buy PL&PD and take a chance on the rest. (OUCH!)  If one
does not buy collision and comprehensive and does not cause an
accident and does not become involved in an accident with an
un-insured motorist and does not get ripped off by someone who wants a
new motor and can't afford one, etc. etc. ....

What is all this rambling about?  Having caused one mishap in some 14
years of riding that cost me about $25 and having been involved in one
other minor accident (the other persons fault), perhaps I'm a pretty
good risk in the collision area.  I can't do anything (or much, at
least) about the un-insured motorist.  But surely there must be some
good answers to the biggest culprit of all, namely theft, which is why
I'm sending out this somewhat involved query.  I'm looking for GOOD
ways to discourage thievery.  Cheap, expensive, or in between, but
methods that have been tried and at least seem to be effective.

Any kinds of advice in this area would be appreciated.  Even advice
like "you're stupid to not buy full coverage" or "I never thought full
coverage was very expensive.  What are you talking about?".

Please send responses to:

	decvax!ittvax!qumix!joel

mark (06/11/82)

$25/month for comprehensive sounds AWFULLY expensive!  You must live
in an area with a high population density (Boston?)  The rates are
much more reasonable in smaller cities.  But even when I lived in
Berkeley, comprehensive was pretty cheap.  (But then again, I owned
a 1973 Cl175 - not a new or expensive bike by any means.)  Sorry - I
have forgotten the numbers, but I bet I only paid $20 for 6 months.

The thing that really irked me about insurance was that, even though
I had a bike with no provision for a passenger, I still had to pay
an extra $2/month for passenger insurance.  Required by law.  Mumble.

	Mark

michaelh (06/11/82)

Insurance is a bet. You are betting that your bike will be stolen;
the insurance company is betting that it won't. On the average you
will pay more money for insurance than you would have to have paid
for the calamities you are insuring yourself against. (Otherwise
insurance companies would quickly go out of business -- they win
the bet more often than you)

My own rule of thumb is to insure myself against those things which
might ruin me or my family financially (fire insurance, life, 
liability auto, etc.), and to avoid owning non-essential things which
I cannot afford to lose. 

Mike Henry