davidwalton;80901][quote name= said:
I think 10% is about the norm, yes.
So basically, they are saying that the risk is too high; and that a cycle insured will be stolen at some point, no matter the protection and steps taken; as well as the loopholes jumped through to pass insurance companies requirements.
[/quote]
er... no, if it's 10% of the value of the cycle, then they are saying that they think the risk is such that on average the cycle is likely to be stolen every 10 years. Longer, in fact, as if it was stolen every 10 years they would only just break even and they have to make profit.
davidwalton said:
I know insurance has always been there to rip people off
Yes, they are annoying in that they find any way they can to make their cut, like a clause in my policy for example is that if the value of the exact same cycle has gone up, they will only pay the original amount, but if it's gone down (unlikely, but possible) then they will take advantage of this and won't give me the change. But it's worth bearing in mind that legally as long as you uphold your half of the bargain (giving them correct information, paying correct premiums and assisting them in the event of an insured event* occurring) then they have to uphold theirs, i.e. to pay out. Now that doesn't mean giving you exactly what you want - but it's worth remembering that their responsibility is to restore you to the state you were in before the insured event* took place.
*Technically, they don't insure
an item as such (e.g. 'your cycle'), they insure
against an event (e.g. 'your cycle being stolen'), this is what's known as the 'insured event'.
davidwalton said:
- like , but this is at a cost where it is worth while thinking of a savings plan to offset any theft. Buy insurance only for the first x months, then once there are reasonable savings, use that as your insurance. (Needs will power not to use if for anything else though).
If I had savings in the bank, investments, or a suitably large float in my bank account, equal to the value of my bike, I would put that away and just buy another bike with that if it ever got stolen, unless the premiums were particularly cheap, e.g. only 1% of the value of the bike rather than 10%.
As it happens, I don't - I only take out a policy with a company because even though the chances of my bike being stolen are miniscule, I wouldn't want to be without it and I wouldn't be able to afford a new one half as good without an insurance payout if that did happen.
davidwalton said:
However, if theft was considered a real crime where those responsible actually got punished, then perhaps there would be fewer thefts, and as a result insurance SHOULD also be cheaper.
Well that debate's a whole different kettle of parrots.