[binx_19]

Hopefully we can keep this discussion on the adult level.

Should Insurance companies offer itemized coverage for the type of gear you wear while operating a motorcycle?

this is something i have been thinking to help control the cost of coverage and keep the government from making laws.

For instance if you are in an accident and you are not wearing a helmet the insurance company should reserve the right to deny coverage right?

 

[Nick Name]

I think they should. But, I can think of a couple different views on it.

Should the insurance policy reflect the increased value of the gear being added to the policy?

Should you have to register your gear with them for it to be insured? This would avoid "gear fraud".

Should the insurance company give you a rebate for registering that you are indeed a gear wearer? You will have a lower likelihood of injury.

I think they obviously should cover your gear, I just think that there are a few issues to be ironed out.

 

[binx_19]

no doubt about ironing out the issues, that is why i brought the topic up to discuss. i think one time use gear should be covered for sure, ie helmets, but your scuffed up leather jacket that can be used again does not need to be covered.

 

[kman458]

I am moving this to the general motorcycle area as it will get more people to see it there.

 

[Nick Name]

no doubt about ironing out the issues, that is why i brought the topic up to discuss. i think one time use gear should be covered for sure, ie helmets, but your scuffed up leather jacket that can be used again does not need to be covered.

Then you would be out riding in potentially compromised gear.

I think a smarter option would be for gear manufacturers to offer a crash warranty for a little more money. You pay 10% more, and for a set period of time they replace or repair your gear. If you don't opt for it, and don't pay the 10% then you're SOL.

 

[binx_19]

Then you would be out riding in potentially compromised gear.

I think a smarter option would be for gear manufacturers to offer a crash warranty for a little more money. You pay 10% more, and for a set period of time they replace or repair your gear. If you don't opt for it, and don't pay the 10% then you're SOL.

but how compromised is that gear really? racers wear the same suit all season and never replace it, which would be an argument that if they can make it through a season on crashed gear, you should be able to do the same.

 

[w cole]

I think whether or not its a good idea is kind of a moot point considering how little medical coverage these insurers offer. If they were interested in offering more coverage it may be worthwhile.

When I tried to get medical coverage through my motorcycle insurance policy it was rediculously expensive with the maximum coverage being $6,000. If you go to the insurance websites like progressive, etc. they only offer $2,000-$3,000 of medical coverage max. Thats not going to get you very far. I'm guessing everyone else is like me and relies on their health insurance for coverage in case of an accident?

 

[User Name]

When I tried to get medical coverage through my motorcycle insurance policy it was rediculously expensive with the maximum coverage being $6,000. If you go to the insurance websites like progressive, etc. they only offer $2,000-$3,000 of medical coverage max. Thats not going to get you very far. I'm guessing everyone else is like me and relies on their health insurance for coverage in case of an accident?

This is correct. I pay my insurance company (progressive, geico, et al.) to insure the hardware and pay for damages to other people's property and person in the event I'm at fault in an accident. It's irrelevant what gear I choose to, or not to, wear.

Now if the OP is talking about medical insurance, as opposed to vehicle/liability insurance, that's another story. But even then, I'd be reluctant to open the door to allowing insurers to cherry pick what activities they cover. Trip at a party after a few beers and break your leg, can the insurers deny coverage because you had been drinking? In reality, that would be no different.

 

[binx_19]

This is correct. I pay my insurance company (progressive, geico, et al.) to insure the hardware and pay for damages to other people's property and person in the event I'm at fault in an accident. It's irrelevant what gear I choose to, or not to, wear.

Now if the OP is talking about medical insurance, as opposed to vehicle/liability insurance, that's another story. But even then, I'd be reluctant to open the door to allowing insurers to cherry pick what activities they cover. Trip at a party after a few beers and break your leg, can the insurers deny coverage because you had been drinking? In reality, that would be no different.

i originally started this topic in the p&r section because i didnt want people to have the assumption i was only talking motorcycle insurance. but if you think about it Life insurance opperates on your behaviors, so why not regular health insurance?

 

[User Name]

i originally started this topic in the p&r section because i didnt want people to have the assumption i was only talking motorcycle insurance. but if you think about it Life insurance opperates on your behaviors, so why not regular health insurance?

Yea, life insurance companies do charge based on the risk one assumes. I guess medical insurance companies would theoretically be justified in doing the same, but as I said, where would you draw the line? You might always wear gear and consider it foolish to do otherwise, and as such, support an insurers ability to deny coverage to those who don't wear proper gear. That's fine. Personally, I don't drink, and would be equally justified in recommending an insurer not cover any injuries people sustain during or after consuming alcohol.

This type of thinking could very quickly get out of hand. My wife and I enjoy hiking, an activity with more risk than sitting on a couch. Would an insurer be justified in denying coverage if I'm injured in a slip or fall because I willfully took on a greater risk than doing nothing at all, or charging a premium because I assumed that risk? Where does it end?

I don't know. People need to be allowed to live an actual life, and insurance companies are making handsome profits as it is, so I guess I'm opposed to allowing them greater flexibility to increase costs and/or deny coverage.

 

[User Name]

Just something to add: The very nature of insurance is to spread the cost of medical care across a large group. The odds are that a minority of those within that group will need medical care, but since that care is so prohibitively expensive, it's worth it to everyone to pay a small amount so in the unfortunate event they need care, it'll be covered.

Within any group, individuals all assume a certain amount of risk in their lives, whether by engaging in activities with inherent risks, or at the same time, by engaging in no activities at all and the resulting health issues that result. I ride motorcycles, hike, and scuba dive, activities which certainly carry risk. But at the same time, they're indicative of an active lifestyle which has health benefits. I have friends who's primary activities are drinking and watching TV, things which, while immediately less risky, carry significant health risks long term.

Some people don't brush or floss their teeth, and are subsequently more likely to need more dental care. Some people have terrible diets, and are subsequently more likely to end up with diabetes. By fracturing the large group into smaller pieces to tailor coverage to individual activities and/or lifestyles, you remove exactly that which makes insurance work - a large group over which a cost can be spread without prohibitively high individual premiums.

As motorcyclists, we are already in the minority, and already assume a significantly greater risk than everyone else. Turning on a small subset of our own group would give the general population perfect justification to turn on us as a whole. We willing accept more risk by riding as opposed to driving, so why not allow insurers to not coverage injuries sustained in our chosen activity, regardless of the gear we wear?

You have to think things through and be careful what you wish for because, as they say, you just might get it.

 

[PhilB]

The insurance companies should have that option -- to offer policies that cover you only if you are in your gear, for less money, and if they wish, policies that will cover you without your gear for more money, etc. Although this must be spelled out in the policy as it is written and sold; it would NOT be right for the company to sell you a policy and decide after the accident to deny coverage because you weren't wearing a helmet if the policy didn't specifically state that exclusion.

Although it should be noted that the motorcycle policies don't offer, or pay for, very much injury coverage, so this wouldn't make much difference on motorcycle coverage. For the purposes of their insurance, they already (more-or-less) do what they need to do with regard to charging different rates for different bikes, ages, genders, etc. So your idea wouldn't likely have much effect on the cost of motorcycle insurance, because helmetless riders don't have much effect on the cost of motorcycle insurance.

Where your idea might have value is in health insurance, where they could charge a higher premium if you ride without a helmet, just as they already do for smokers, etc. (Although do note that would likely also translate into a higher premium if you motorcycle at all.)

PhilB

 

[User Name]

Where your idea might have value is in health insurance, where they could charge a higher premium if you ride without a helmet, just as they already do for smokers, etc. (Although do note that would likely also translate into a higher premium if you motorcycle at all.)

Exactly, and if they were to go that far, it's only the next logical step to break coverage down based on the type of motorcycle being ridden. Since we (sportbike riders) already make up only a small percentage of riders, to say nothing about the overall population in general, you'd likely see your insurance premiums increase dramatically since there would so many fewer members to divide the cost among.

Again, as I said, it would undermine the very logic that makes insurance work. Ever heard the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face?" Judging by the poll results so far, it appears not many have.

 

[serpentracer]

progressive offers this coverage.
I say its 100% depending on the coverage you choose.

and it would be absolutely wrong of them to deny coverage if you don't wear a helmet.

in fact, I think it should be illegal for any insurance company to deny you of anything that is in your policy agreement. if you have medical, they should be obligated to pay for anything medically related.

 

[Stick N Move]

Well some insurances policies state that if you are performing dangerous acts or engauge in high speeds they will deny coverage. But I think your question was asked in a way... Should insurance companies be able to set prices based on whatever you are wearing and that they deem safe and appropriate? Like if I was just wearing a helmet and crashed, they would not give me full value? opposed to me wearing a a helmet and jacket, they would give me 50%? Or if I was wearing a full race suit, gloves, boots, helmet, jacket, etc I would get my full policy?

I think it depends. I think it would promote more riders with gear, but It may also appeal to riders who do not because it is another area they can go cheaper on and save money, with no intention to wear gear... only intention is to save money right now. I think insurance companies should have the right to offer any kind of coverage they really want, with a few exceptions.

If I could save 50% on my insurance per year if they stated I had to be wearing a helmet I would take the offer. If it was helmet and jacket, id take the offer. But gloves boots, and pants I may be a little skeptical. I ride in jeans most of the time so I probably wouldnt take that deal. But I always wear boots and gloves when I ride, yet the thought of me accidentally losing one of my gloves or someone swiping my boots may make me a little uneasy knowing that if it happened I wouldnt have full coverage.

If this is more towards health insurance, I wouldnt even tell them I ride a motorcycle unless they specifically state that if I do not it will compromise my insurance if I am ever in a motorcycle related incident.

 

[binx_19]

This type of thinking could very quickly get out of hand. My wife and I enjoy hiking, an activity with more risk than sitting on a couch. Would an insurer be justified in denying coverage if I'm injured in a slip or fall because I willfully took on a greater risk than doing nothing at all, or charging a premium because I assumed that risk? Where does it end?

but in reality hiking is proven to be more healthy then being a couch potato.

 

[kirkeb]

Just something to add: The very nature of insurance is to spread the cost of medical care across a large group. The odds are that a minority of those within that group will need medical care, but since that care is so prohibitively expensive, it's worth it to everyone to pay a small amount so in the unfortunate event they need care, it'll be covered.

Within any group, individuals all assume a certain amount of risk in their lives, whether by engaging in activities with inherent risks, or at the same time, by engaging in no activities at all and the resulting health issues that result. I ride motorcycles, hike, and scuba dive, activities which certainly carry risk. But at the same time, they're indicative of an active lifestyle which has health benefits. I have friends who's primary activities are drinking and watching TV, things which, while immediately less risky, carry significant health risks long term.

Some people don't brush or floss their teeth, and are subsequently more likely to need more dental care. Some people have terrible diets, and are subsequently more likely to end up with diabetes. By fracturing the large group into smaller pieces to tailor coverage to individual activities and/or lifestyles, you remove exactly that which makes insurance work - a large group over which a cost can be spread without prohibitively high individual premiums.

As motorcyclists, we are already in the minority, and already assume a significantly greater risk than everyone else. Turning on a small subset of our own group would give the general population perfect justification to turn on us as a whole. We willing accept more risk by riding as opposed to driving, so why not allow insurers to not coverage injuries sustained in our chosen activity, regardless of the gear we wear?

You have to think things through and be careful what you wish for because, as they say, you just might get it.

this

 

[User Name]

It's interesting to see the poll numbers rise, with the majority in favor of fracturing the group to achieve lower premiums themselves, when almost assuredly the outcome would be a drastic increase in premiums for all of us as our entire group is fractured off that of the general public for the very reason they want to fracture the non-geared riders themselves.

Really makes you wonder... :dunno

 

[stnkbg1]

no doubt about ironing out the issues, that is why i brought the topic up to discuss. i think one time use gear should be covered for sure, ie helmets, but your scuffed up leather jacket that can be used again does not need to be covered.

So by this same logic, if you lay your bike down and the fairing is just scratched up but not structurally compromised should your insurance not have to repair/replace that? A lot of people consider their gear just as much fashion as function and would not be happy with wearing a scuffed up jacket.


BTW, both of my suits have some minor rash on them, and one has had seams repaired, so dont go callin me metro :twofinger

 

[stnkbg1]

So lets say you get in a minor crash where tow trucks and ambulances aren't needed. How does the Insurance company know what you were wearing or not wearing? If you told them on your application that you wore gear, but you crash without gear on do they deny you outright? Seems like this kind of itemized coverage would open a TON of loopholes both for insurance fraud on the insured persons part, and on denial of coverage from the insurance companies side. Neither of those are a good thing, and both will lead to either increased rates or less coverage, or both.