Brun

My mate's Son has just been killed in a motorbike accident. Being 17, his 400cc bike should have been restricted but wasn't!!!! The accident was at very high speed! I'm quite sure the insurance company will be made aware that the bike was de-restricted which will invalidate the insurance - yes??????????
In this case who pays for the other vehicle which was involved in the accident - written off in this case!!!

Kev_turbo

Wouldn't necessarily have to have bene restricted, depends on his license.

Can you not do a direct access at 17?

If the insurance is invalid then there is a pot of money the courts have available for uninsured drivers I am sure.

Kev

P.S. Sorry about the death

Brun

I believe he only had a licence for a restricted bike...........

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

Being 17 he would have only of had a 33bhp limit license.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

OMG............his poor parents. How ON EARTH do you cope with that

My thoughts are with them.

Alcazar

douglasb

I think that the insurer will generally pay for third party claims but would not pay for the damage to the bike (assuming that your mate's son was at fault).

I guess though that the last thing on your mate's mind at the moment is whether or not the bike gets paid for.

Sorry to hear this.

Sbradley

Hi,

First of all, sorry for your mate's loss.

On a practical side, f you want to mail me the details offline I'll furnish you with all the technical info you need.

Anything else I can do, please let me know.

All the best,

S(imon)B

Brun

Thanks for all your input.
The bike was a CBR 400 i believe. You're right - it'll be the last thing on his mind. The point was just raised today in conversation.
Simon - you have PM

Sbradley

Brun, you have an offlist reply. Before I read this...

But basically a CBR400 would certainly fit what I have said. Which is probably a Good Thing.

SB

MikeCardiff

iTrader: (2)

IIRC the CBR4 is around 60bhp unrestricted, and has a top speed of around 130 - 140 depending on the year. If he was 17 he wouldnt have been able to to direct access, nor could he ride any bike over 33bhp legally, which would mean his insurance could be invalid.

If his bike was restricted, he would have a certifictate of restriction from the dealer who did it etc.... not sure if the insurance company would insist on seeing this before insuring him ?, but if they dont then they should do for the sake of safety.

Its always gutting to hear of fellow riders being killed, especially when they are young kids, but an unexperienced rider on a bike as quick as a CBR400 ( and they are fast as they weigh next to nothing ) added to how invincible all 17 years olds think they are sadly it isnt that uncommon and doest surprise me that much.

Sbradley

Hi Brun,

Public so that people's minds can be put at rest. Perhaps...

I've just had a chat with Honda and with a couple of insurance brokers I deal with. Basically there's no requirement for the rider to provide a copy of the restriction certificate to an insurer in advance of a claim, though they must be able to provide it in the event of a claim being made or when required to do so by the police.

However.

A restricted CBR400 will easily top 100mph. The restriction is in the throttle bodies - basically it's 4 washers which site between the carbs and the inlet valves - and the main effect is on top end speed with an added 'bonus' of some rougher running and reduced urge in the mid range. So the speed involved doesn't necessarily mean that the bike was illegal, especially if the road was a fast one.

In perspective, a restricted CBR400 with the average skinny as a rake 17 year old on board will have a similar performance up to the ton to a standard UK Impreza turbo.

Hope that helps. Oh, the company who do the restrictors are called FI International - http://www.fiinternational.com who may be able to confirm the restrictor was fitted if you call them with the registration details...

As before, if you need anything let me know.

Cheers,

SB

TonyFlow

Firstly - sorry to here for the sad loss of a young life.

If the insurance is found to be invalid, and they will not pay for 3rd party damage (unlikely) then the claim will be against MIB uninsured (a group set up to provide a means of getting an insurance claim in the case of an uninsured or untraceable driver causing an accident).

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

Sorry to hear of the loss.

Maybe I should keep this to myself but I find it amazing parents let kids have a motorbike at such a young age. The things are death traps. You could be the best rider in the world but there are so many idiots on the road you are asking for trouble IMHO.

Paulo P

iTrader: (42)

You cannot blame the parents. By that age you are old enough to make your own mind up and do what you do with your money. My parents felt strongly against me getting quick cars so I bought one of them without telling them until I walked out of the house to collect it. I had an accident that wasn't my fault when a van changed lanes in front of me at 20mph and everyone was quick to blame my parents for letting me have "a car like that"

Sbradley

STi, this isn't the thread to give you the response your post really deserves.

So I'll respectfully point you to the last line of the "Four candles" sketch at the bottom of the Ronnie Barker thread in this very forum.

Maybe we could open another thread to discuss in more detail...

SB

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

I'm not balming the parents. I'm just saying if it was me I would do everything I could to stop my son or daughter getting a motor bike at that age. I would help them buy a car and learn to drive. They may still get a bike at an later date but by then maybe they will have greater road sense and more maturity.

Richard_P

At some time youngsters have to be given responsibility, I don't see how a determined young man could be stopped from buying a bike. I know I couldn't have been at that age and I'm sure my parents would back that up.

The deaths of youngsters on the roads is the fault of the government for letting pople untrained to control vehicles on to the road, not the parents fault. The driving test teaches you to drift around worrying about indicating on empty roads and not crossing hands on the wheel. It doesn't teach you control and speed awareness.

Really sorry to hear about your mates loss, it's a horrible thing to happen.

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

Ok I disagree but I'll leave it at that.

MikeCardiff

iTrader: (2)

Sounding boring, I do think something should be done really - one problem is kids getting bikes that are too quick for them to handle in a lot of cases - I've been riding since I was about 14, but worked my way up from 50's to 125's, then to 250's, 400's and upwards - having a bike that could only do 30mph or 65mph was a good learning curve before moving on to something quicker ( and TBH probably saved my life ).

I know 17 years olds also go out and buy quick cars ( or slow cars that they drive too quick ) but the difference between crashing a car at 60 and a bike is generally a fatal one.

I think its going to happen soon that the laws are changed and power limits are introduced in bands for certain ages, so you have to spend 2 years riding a slower bike before you can jump on a sports 600.

This isnt just for kids, a lot of the fatalaties on bikes are caused by 'born again bikers' who hit 40 and go out and buy an new 1000cc sports bike when the last thing they rode was some crappy 250 20 odd years ago, and first time out they lose it on a bend.

To illustrate this, someone I know passed his direct access test at 43 riding a 500cc Kawasaki that would struggle to 80 - he now has a license that will allow him to go out tomorrow and buy a bike capable of almost 200mph.

He was thinking of getting a GSXR750, so I told him to have a go on my Ducati and see how he got on - after a ten minute ride he handed it back looking a bit pale and decided he may be better off getting something smaller to start off with until he got used to that much speed.