Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Classic Cars (UK group) / January 2009
Will your car be 'Historic' or not?...
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Jerry - 07 Dec 2008 14:28 GMT Anyone seen the latest issue of PC, looks like the FIAI [1] is trying to define what will be classed as a historic vehicle, it seems to come down to the vehicle being 30 or more years old, maintained in original condition (does that mean period extras or how it would have come off the production line?) and *not* used as the owners main method of motoring. The point of all this is, whilst we might well think otherwise the legislators (such as the EU) that this organisation will have the ear of will make it very important for the future of classic cars. Whilst I welcome any move to stop people taking a classic car and 'modernising' it I'm not so sure that these vehicles should be forced to become all but museum items, there is no reason why a 30 plus year old car can't be used as daily transport and preserved- the tow are not mutually exclusive!
[1] I think that is who they said, I was only browsing a copy
 Signature Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Chris Bolus - 07 Dec 2008 18:37 GMT >Anyone seen the latest issue of PC, looks like the FIAI [1] is trying >to define what will be classed as a historic vehicle, it seems to come [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >plus year old car can't be used as daily transport and preserved- the >tow are not mutually exclusive! Absolutely. I have four Mini variants, all of which are over 30 years old, and one of which is my daily transport. It's marginally modified - what Mini isn't? - so why should it not be regarded as historic? My Elf has also done its share of the daily run, and that _is_ as original bar the fitment of an alternator. So should the fact that I drive it to work (last year it was may main vehicle) make it any less historic?
Some of these people just talk b*ll*cks for I living I think.
 Signature Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email) ------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------ --1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--
Adrian - 07 Dec 2008 18:55 GMT Chris Bolus <chrisB@RILEYELFb0lus.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>Anyone seen the latest issue of PC, looks like the FIAI [1] is trying to >>define what will be classed as a historic vehicle, it seems to come down [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>car can't be used as daily transport and preserved- the tow are not >>mutually exclusive!
> Absolutely. I have four Mini variants, all of which are over 30 years > old, and one of which is my daily transport. It's marginally modified - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Some of these people just talk b*ll*cks for I living I think. It's the definition that FIVA agreed with the German authorities last year, for the exemption from urban bans on pre/non-Euro-emission-standard cars.
All they've done is say "Well, this is as good as we're going to get to a standard definition of 'classic'". Does it fit every situation? No. Is it better than "built before 1/1/73"? Very probably.
Are you really suggesting that some bastardised heavy rebuild, wrapping an old shell around modern mechanicals, is "historic"? All those coil- spring series Landies, "split" Beetles, 602/disk "ripple bonnet" 2cvs. They're not. They're taking the piss, and putting the current historic tax class into jeopardy.
I very much doubt that a simple and easily reversible modernisation like an alternator or radial tyres or electronic ignition will make a car fall outside these regs.
The "non-daily-use" is certainly more controversial - but classic insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either. <shrug>
SteveH - 07 Dec 2008 18:58 GMT > It's the definition that FIVA agreed with the German authorities last > year, for the exemption from urban bans on pre/non-Euro-emission-standard > cars. It also means another 13 years before my 75 will officially be categorised as 'historic'.
Which may well have implications on running it over the next decade or so, especially with local authorities seemingly falling over themselves to ban anything considered 'polluting' from their cities.
 Signature SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Alfa 156 TSpark Sportwagon Veloce Selespeed Alfa 156 TSpark Lusso - Alfa 75 TSpark Lusso - Ducati 750SS
Willy Eckerslyke - 08 Dec 2008 09:59 GMT > The "non-daily-use" is certainly more controversial - but classic > insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either. <shrug> I suppose that's down to interpretation. Footman James simply insist that you have the use of another (non classic) car as well. They don't tell you which one you have to drive to work every day.
Peter Hill - 08 Dec 2008 19:03 GMT >> The "non-daily-use" is certainly more controversial - but classic >> insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either. <shrug> > >I suppose that's down to interpretation. Footman James simply insist >that you have the use of another (non classic) car as well. They don't >tell you which one you have to drive to work every day. There's nothing stopping someone having 2 classics and insuring one as regular "daily use" car, just won't get classic discount. Even in Germany could have one insured and taxed as a daily driver but banned from city center and other as limited use classic that is allowed into city centers. If you have to go to the city every day, have more, use a different "classic" every day on a rota and use the "daily use" one at weekends when you don't have to go to the city.
If you live and work in the city WTF do you need a "daily driver" car for anyway?
 Signature Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Dave Plowman (News) - 08 Dec 2008 23:56 GMT > >> The "non-daily-use" is certainly more controversial - but classic > >> insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either. <shrug> > > > >I suppose that's down to interpretation. Footman James simply insist > >that you have the use of another (non classic) car as well. They don't > >tell you which one you have to drive to work every day.
> There's nothing stopping someone having 2 classics and insuring one as > regular "daily use" car, just won't get classic discount. Even in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a different "classic" every day on a rota and use the "daily use" one > at weekends when you don't have to go to the city.
> If you live and work in the city WTF do you need a "daily driver" car > for anyway? When the SD1 insurance came up a couple of years ago I shopped around after the renewal on my classic policy went up by far more than inflation. And ended up insuring it with the same company - Direct Line - as my main car as with second car discount the premium was less than the classic one I'd been quoted, and about the same as the lowest I could find. Of course there's no agreed value - but in event of a major claim I'd expect to have to argue anyway.
 Signature *Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition.
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Chris Bolus - 09 Dec 2008 17:00 GMT >Chris Bolus <chrisB@RILEYELFb0lus.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >they were saying:
>The "non-daily-use" is certainly more controversial - but classic >insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either. <shrug> So why do all my classic policies have "commuting" specified?
 Signature Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email) ------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------ --1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--
Ian - 09 Dec 2008 19:28 GMT > >Chris Bolus <chr...@RILEYELFb0lus.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > >they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So why do all my classic policies have "commuting" specified? Commuting doesn't imply daily use.
Ian
Phileaus Leaius - 09 Dec 2008 19:58 GMT >>> Chris Bolus <chr...@RILEYELFb0lus.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>> they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Commuting doesn't imply daily use. It doesn't? What *does* it imply then? I've got a couple of FJ policies, both of which grant unlimited mileage (I only wanted 3K each, but they gave me unlimited anyway) AND commuting along with SDP. If none of those conditions include daily use, do you want to point out what extra condition *does* do that which is included on 'normal' policies?
Adrian - 09 Dec 2008 20:22 GMT Phileaus Leaius <whos@prettyboy.then> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>> The "non-daily-use" is certainly more controversial - but classic >>>> insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either. <shrug>
>>> So why do all my classic policies have "commuting" specified?
>> Commuting doesn't imply daily use.
> It doesn't? What *does* it imply then? Use for commuting. Occasionally.
Even then, not all classic policies will include that - I've had to ask for it before, and I've had it refused before.
Phileaus Leaius - 09 Dec 2008 20:23 GMT > Phileaus Leaius <whos@prettyboy.then> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Even then, not all classic policies will include that - I've had to ask > for it before, and I've had it refused before. Then shouldn't it say "occasional commuting" rather than "commuting"? I reckon an ins.co. would have a hard time not paying out on a policy on the grounds of 'excessive use for commuting' when the policy has made no mention of there being any potential limit on that!
Richard Porter - 10 Dec 2008 00:07 GMT The date being 9 Dec 2008, Phileaus Leaius <whos@prettyboy.then> decided to write:
>> Phileaus Leaius <whos@prettyboy.then> gurgled happily, sounding much like >> they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Even then, not all classic policies will include that - I've had to ask >> for it before, and I've had it refused before.
> Then shouldn't it say "occasional commuting" rather than "commuting"? Commuting means daily travelling to and from a place of work, so "occasional commuting" is a contradiction in terms. However insurance policies are usually worded something like "includes travel to and from a fixed place of employment" (or excludes ...) which doesn't stipulate how many times a week you do it.
 Signature Richard Porter rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk "You can't have Windows without pains."
Chris Bolus - 10 Dec 2008 19:04 GMT >> Phileaus Leaius <whos@prettyboy.then> gurgled happily, sounding much like >> they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the grounds of 'excessive use for commuting' when the policy has made no >mention of there being any potential limit on that! Especially as one of said policies is also unlimited mileage. I do 250 miles a week in my 30-year-old Mini (that's my newest one ;-)
 Signature Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email) ------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------ --1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--
Ian - 10 Dec 2008 21:44 GMT > Then shouldn't it say "occasional commuting" rather than "commuting"? I > reckon an ins.co. would have a hard time not paying out on a policy on > the grounds of 'excessive use for commuting' when the policy has made no > mention of there being any potential limit on that! Mileage limits amount of use. SDP/Commuting/Business/Commercial limits amount of use. As several of us have been trying to point out, there is no such thing - to an insurance company - as "occasional commuting". You can either use it to go to and from you usual place of employment or you can't.
Ian
Ian - 11 Dec 2008 08:50 GMT > > Then shouldn't it say "occasional commuting" rather than "commuting"? I > > reckon an ins.co. would have a hard time not paying out on a policy on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Mileage limits amount of use. SDP/Commuting/Business/Commercial limits > amount of use. Sod it. Should have been
"Mileage limits amount of use. SDP/Commuting/Business/Commercial limits type of use."
Ian
Charles Hamilton - 17 Dec 2008 23:11 GMT I have a W reg Xantia HDi estate and a 1948 Vauxhall 14, my commute is a daily 36 mile round trip consisting of 15miles each way of unrestricted mud and cow sh.t splattered country roads and 3miles each way of nose to tail crawling city traffic at the peak rush hours, no question what my commuting chariot is and always will be!! Wouldn't dream of using "Dolly"
>> Then shouldn't it say "occasional commuting" rather than "commuting"? I >> reckon an ins.co. would have a hard time not paying out on a policy on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ian Richard Porter - 18 Dec 2008 14:05 GMT The date being 17 Dec 2008, "Charles Hamilton" <dyolfknip@btinternet.com> top-posted:
> I have a W reg Xantia HDi estate and a 1948 Vauxhall 14, my commute is a > daily 36 mile round trip consisting of 15 miles each way of unrestricted mud > and cow sh.t splattered country roads and 3 miles each way of nose to tail > crawling city traffic at the peak rush hours, no question what my commuting > chariot is and always will be!! Wouldn't dream of using "Dolly"
>>> Then shouldn't it say "occasional commuting" rather than "commuting"? I >>> reckon an ins.co. would have a hard time not paying out on a policy on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> commuting". You can either use it to go to and from you usual place of >> employment or you can't. Quite correct. If you have an accident on the way to work the insurance company doesn't know whether you've been making the same journey every day or once in a blue moon.
 Signature Richard Porter rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk "You can't have Windows without pains."
Jim Warren - 23 Dec 2008 18:07 GMT > The date being 17 Dec 2008, "Charles Hamilton" > <dyolfknip@btinternet.com> top-posted: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > insurance company doesn't know whether you've been making the same > journey every day or once in a blue moon. But what would happen if the Xantia refused to start?
I had a relative who (some years ago) had a 15 mile commute to work, and he was expected to arrive and start work before the first bus in the morning.
He had a Sierra to commute daily to work, but in the barn was an early cone-suspension Mini Countryman with tax and MOT. On the few mornings when the Sierra wouldn't start, the Mini always did - first time - and it took him to work. It was probably not more than half a dozen times a year, but technically he did commute in it.
Jim
Ian - 23 Dec 2008 22:56 GMT > He had a Sierra to commute daily to work, but in the barn was an early > cone-suspension Mini Countryman with tax and MOT. On the few mornings > when the Sierra wouldn't start, the Mini always did - first time - and > it took him to work. It was probably not more than half a dozen times a > year, but technically he did commute in it. That's why my classics all have commuting cover (the DS has full business use as well) - I don't use them to get to work, but I like to be able to, if required.
Ian
Chris Bolus - 24 Dec 2008 09:57 GMT >He had a Sierra to commute daily to work, but in the barn was an early >cone-suspension Mini Countryman FWIW, all Countrymans were cone suspension - hydro is unsuitable for estates as the back end would sit down when loaded. And later cars all reverted to cone as it was cheaper. I still have two hydro cars - the ride is lovely!
 Signature Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email) ------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------ --1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--
Jim Warren - 24 Dec 2008 15:07 GMT >> He had a Sierra to commute daily to work, but in the barn was an early >> cone-suspension Mini Countryman [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reverted to cone as it was cheaper. > I still have two hydro cars - the ride is lovely! I didn't know the Countryman never went hysro - but I do now. Though the one I mentioned was 1961 so pre-hydro anyway.
Jim
Charles Hamilton - 07 Jan 2009 23:05 GMT 1st option, phone work and tell them I'll be late and phone RAC, 2nd option, phone work, explain situation and beg a lift from them. 3rd option get under the bonnet!!
>> The date being 17 Dec 2008, "Charles Hamilton" <dyolfknip@btinternet.com> >> top-posted: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Jim Conor - 09 Dec 2008 20:40 GMT > Even then, not all classic policies will include that - I've had to ask > for it before, and I've had it refused before. I have to have business use on mine because I don't travel to the same place of work but I had to ask for it because, as you pointed out, not all policies have commuting on.
Even my wifes' bog standard policy didn't have commuting on unless you specified it.
 Signature Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Phileaus Leaius - 09 Dec 2008 21:07 GMT >> Even then, not all classic policies will include that - I've had to ask >> for it before, and I've had it refused before. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Even my wifes' bog standard policy didn't have commuting on unless you > specified it. We're not asking whether all policies include it. We're asking what it *means*.
Conor - 09 Dec 2008 22:51 GMT > >> Even then, not all classic policies will include that - I've had to ask > >> for it before, and I've had it refused before. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > We're not asking whether all policies include it. We're asking what it > *means*. In regards to insurance,
Commuting:
Travelling to and from a single place of work.
If you work at multiple locations, such as I do with agency work, "commuting" doesn't cover that and you have to have Class A business use, the f.ckers.
 Signature Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Ian - 10 Dec 2008 09:31 GMT > > Commuting doesn't imply daily use. > > It doesn't? What *does* it imply then? Travel to and from usual place of employment. It's a type of use (as opposed to "social, domestic and pleasure") and not a frequency.
Ian
Roger - 10 Dec 2008 11:32 GMT The message <f8ffd738-8fcf-4982-983f-444724059984@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com> from Ian <ian.groups@btinternet.com> contains these words:
> > > Commuting doesn't imply daily use. > > > > It doesn't? What *does* it imply then?
> Travel to and from usual place of employment. It's a type of use (as > opposed to "social, domestic and pleasure") and not a frequency. Which particular dictionary did you extract that definition from?
Collins (FWIW) has:
"To travel some distance regularly between one's home and one's place of work".
 Signature Roger Chapman
Ian - 10 Dec 2008 13:10 GMT > The message <f8ffd738-8fcf-4982-983f-444724059...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com> > from Ian <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> contains these words: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "To travel some distance regularly between one's home and one's place of > work". As far as insurance policies go, "commuting" is normally used as shorthand for "travelling to and from the driver's usual place of work". Anyway, "regularly" still does not mean "daily".
Ian
Phileaus Leaius - 10 Dec 2008 15:13 GMT >> The message <f8ffd738-8fcf-4982-983f-444724059...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com> >> from Ian <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> contains these words: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > shorthand for "travelling to and from the driver's usual place of > work". Anyway, "regularly" still does not mean "daily". Gibberish. One's place of work is where one, in a conventional job, travels to 5 days out of every 7, 50 weeks out of 52. If you really dont beleive that 'commuting' cover means you are covered for as many days of the year that you choose to go to work at the same place then you are clearly not able to understand English.
Jerry - 09 Dec 2008 20:07 GMT >> >Chris Bolus <chr...@RILEYELFb0lus.com> gurgled happily, sounding >> >much like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Commuting doesn't imply daily use. Yes it does! What else would 'regular travelling' refer to in the context?
 Signature Regards, Jerry. Location - United Kingdom. In the first instance please reply to group, sorry, Emails to the reply-to address are deleted unread.
Ian - 10 Dec 2008 09:35 GMT > "Ian" <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > Commuting doesn't imply daily use. > > Yes it does! Not as far as insurance policies are concerned, it doesn't. You try having an accident on your one trip into work this year in a car insured for social, domestic and pleasure use only.
Ian
Jerry - 10 Dec 2008 10:16 GMT >> "Ian" <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > having an accident on your one trip into work this year in a car > insured for social, domestic and pleasure use only. Err but the message I replied to was talking about "Commuting" as used on insurance documents, in that context Commuting does imply daily use (to and from a fixed place of work)... Perhaps you should try reading the context to what you are replying to rather than snipping out all the context when it doesn't suit your argument!
 Signature Regards, Jerry. Location - United Kingdom. In the first instance please reply to group, sorry, Emails to the reply-to address are deleted unread.
Ian - 10 Dec 2008 13:27 GMT On 10 Dec, 10:16, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >> "Ian" <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > on insurance documents, in that context Commuting does imply daily use > (to and from a fixed place of work)... And your source for that is? The general hierarchy of use is pretty simple:
* Social, Domestic and Pleasure (SD&P). Self explanatory, excludes all use in connection with employment
* Travel to and from usual place of work (Commuting). Includes journeys between home and a single place of work. Note that "single". No mileage claims allowed.
* Business use. Covers travel to multiple places of work, mileage claims and travelling on own or employer's business - which is carried out at fixed sites.
* Commercial travelling. When the driving (as opposed to work at the destination) is the employer's business.
"Commuting" is the universally accepted shorthand for the second of these. If you have cover to travel to and from your usual place of work you can do it once or twice a year (as I do) or twice a day. If you only have S,D&P you can't do it even once.
> Perhaps you should try reading > the context to what you are replying to rather than snipping out all > the context when it doesn't suit your argument! The context is easy: insurance policies. And "commuting" on insurance policies means "travel to and from the driver's usual place of work", regardless of how often that trip is done.
Ian, current with two cars insured "SDP and Commuting" and two insured "SDP, Commuting and Travel on Own or Employer's Business"
Jerry - 10 Dec 2008 14:23 GMT <snip>
Whhhoooossshhhh.....
Ian - 10 Dec 2008 15:16 GMT On 10 Dec, 14:23, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:
> <snip> > > Whhhoooossshhhh..... Do you have any evidence that insurance companies differentiate between occasional and regular trips to and from usual places of work?
Ian
Jerry - 10 Dec 2008 15:25 GMT > On 10 Dec, 14:23, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > between occasional and regular trips to and from usual places of > work? Try reading what I replied to originally FFS. all I did was define the meaning of "Commute", if anything what I said then is in agreement with what you are saying now! You seem to be picking arguments for the sake of it...
 Signature Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Ian - 10 Dec 2008 17:50 GMT On 10 Dec, 15:25, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:
> "Ian" <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > Do you have any evidence that insurance companies differentiate > > between occasional and regular trips to and from usual places of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with what you are saying now! You seem to be picking arguments for the > sake of it... You gave one definition of the word. I gave the one insurance companies use. We were talking about insurance. No problem.
Ian
Phileaus Leaius - 10 Dec 2008 18:32 GMT > On 10 Dec, 15:25, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You gave one definition of the word. I gave the one insurance > companies use. We were talking about insurance. No problem. Yep, we found that 'commuting' actually means 'going to work in it every bloody day you want to'. Which is exactly what you'd been told throughout the thread. Congratulations on your discvery that you were wrong, and welcome to the fallible world the rest of us inhabit.
Its a pity you cant say "Oops, I got it wrong", though...
Ian - 10 Dec 2008 21:42 GMT > > You gave one definition of the word. I gave the one insurance > > companies use. We were talking about insurance. No problem. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Its a pity you cant say "Oops, I got it wrong", though... You need what insurance companies refer to as "commuting" cover whether you go to work in it every day or once per year. As far as they are concerned, frequency. has. nothing. to. do. with. it.
There, that wasn't difficult, was it?
Ian
Phileaus Leaius - 10 Dec 2008 22:08 GMT >>> You gave one definition of the word. I gave the one insurance >>> companies use. We were talking about insurance. No problem. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > There, that wasn't difficult, was it? You said "Commuting doesn't imply daily use". Everyone else said "yes it does". There, that wasn't difficult, was it?
Ian - 11 Dec 2008 08:52 GMT > > You need what insurance companies refer to as "commuting" cover > > whether you go to work in it every day or once per year. As far as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You said "Commuting doesn't imply daily use". Everyone else said "yes it > does". There, that wasn't difficult, was it? Except that to insurance companies, it does not imply daily use. It implies use to travel to and from your usual place of work, and you need "commuting" cover whether you do that every day or once a year. Context is all, dear boy, context is all.
I drive to my office, on average, twice per year. I need "commuting" cover, as a very minimum, to do this.
Ian
Phileaus Leaius - 11 Dec 2008 13:54 GMT >>> You need what insurance companies refer to as "commuting" cover >>> whether you go to work in it every day or once per year. As far as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Except that to insurance companies, it does not imply daily use. The above sentence is fundamentally incorrect. Sorry. You're wrong and you know it.
Ian - 11 Dec 2008 14:26 GMT > > Except that to insurance companies, it does not imply daily use. > > The above sentence is fundamentally incorrect. Sorry. You're wrong and > you know it. All you have to do to prove your point is give an example of an insurance company which
(a) distinguishes between occasional and daily trips to and from the usual place of work and
(b) calls only the daily trips "commuting"
Can you do that?
I really can't see the point of being so hostile. Insurance companies - in my experience - define "commuting" as /any/ travel to and from usual place of work: they don't distinguish between regular trips and occasional ones.
So, for insurance purposes, "commuting" does not imply daily travel. For insurance purposes.
So what's to get so worked up about? Relax, man. It's only usenet.
Ian
Phileaus Leaius - 11 Dec 2008 16:48 GMT >>> Except that to insurance companies, it does not imply daily use. >> The above sentence is fundamentally incorrect. Sorry. You're wrong and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > usual place of work: they don't distinguish between regular trips and > occasional ones. I really dont get what you're trying to say, apart from the blindingly obvious 'it does not imply daily use'. That statement *appears* to imply that you think that it does not imply daily use. ANY insurance policy for a car implies as much use as you want (limited mileage policies notwithstanding) for the travel types that you are covered for. Having a clause that permits travel for commuting purposes, it is absolutely categorically valid that you can go to work in it every single day of the year. All you have been saying to defend your position is that going once a year or every day still requires commuting cover, and I've not suggested otherwise. Yes, you need commuting cover if you ever want to use it for commuting. However, you DONT need 'lots of commuting special cover' if you go every day, as opposed to vanilla flavoured 'commuting cover'. Thats it. Its not hard to grasp. You have commuting cover? Great! Go to work as often as you like. There isn't a limit. The cover does imply that you can use it every day.
Your argument appears to be that it isn't an orange, so its an apple. I've agreed it isn't an orange. But it isn't an apple either. The fact that any commuting at all requires commuting travel doesn't mean automatically that its only a given amount thats covered. Show any unlimited mileage policy that covers commuting, but LIMITS the amount of times you can use that cover.
> So, for insurance purposes, "commuting" does not imply daily travel. > For insurance purposes. No, thats categorically not so, and what you've written to justify your position is completely unrelated, since all you've said is that you must HAVE that cover in order to use it for that purpose.
> So what's to get so worked up about? Relax, man. It's only usenet. > > Ian Ian - 11 Dec 2008 18:02 GMT > No, thats categorically not so, and what you've written to justify your > position is completely unrelated, since all you've said is that you must > HAVE that cover in order to use it for that purpose. I think we're talking at cross purposes here. All I mean was that "commuting cover is needed for occasional trips to work" ie it doesn't have to be daily to require the cover. Once you have the cover then of course you are quite right - you can make the trip as often as you like, subject to mileage restrictions.
So we're both right, really , because we're saying different things
IJ: "Commuting cover isn't only needed for daily travel to work"
PL: "Commuting cover allows you to make daily journeys to work"
Regards,
Ian
Roger - 11 Dec 2008 17:16 GMT The message <41ac835a-4493-4279-bdd6-9be63a38568d@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com> from Ian <ian.groups@btinternet.com> contains these words:
> All you have to do to prove your point is give an example of an > insurance company which
> (a) distinguishes between occasional and daily trips to and from the > usual place of work and
> (b) calls only the daily trips "commuting"
> Can you do that?
> I really can't see the point of being so hostile. Insurance companies > - in my experience - define "commuting" as /any/ travel to and from > usual place of work: they don't distinguish between regular trips and > occasional ones.
> So, for insurance purposes, "commuting" does not imply daily travel. > For insurance purposes. Commuting doesn't imply daily travel in any event. It implies regular travel to and from a place of work which of course includes daily travel but doesn't exclude regular travel at a lower frequency.
If an insurance company is misguided enough to actually use 'commuting' in its policy it would need to define what it means by it as the person who only occasionally attends a place of work is not a commuter. OTOH a commuter who occasionally uses his car but generally has another means of travel is still a commuter should he use his car to travel to work on any occasion.
My covernote is commendably clear. On the front it says I am insured for "Use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes" and in the notes on the reverse it says "Social, domestic and pleasure use includes travel to and from one permanent place of business, duty or study provided business calls are not made en route".
 Signature Roger Chapman
Ian - 11 Dec 2008 18:05 GMT > If an insurance company is misguided enough to actually use 'commuting' > in its policy it would need to define what it means by it as the person > who only occasionally attends a place of work is not a commuter. OTOH a > commuter who occasionally uses his car but generally has another means > of travel is still a commuter should he use his car to travel to work on > any occasion. Agreed.
> My covernote is commendably clear. On the front it says I am insured for > "Use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes" and in the notes on the > reverse it says "Social, domestic and pleasure use includes travel to > and from one permanent place of business, duty or study provided > business calls are not made en route". My experience is that companies ask if you want "commuting" cover, but then issue a policy which avoids the word and instead talks about journeys to usual (or permanent) places of work. I'm interested to see that your SDP cover includes it - I've had to specify it, albeit at no cost, for the last couple of policies I've taken out.
Moral: if you want to drive to work, check your insurance.
Ian
Phileaus Leaius - 10 Dec 2008 15:16 GMT > If you have cover to travel to and from your usual place of > work you can do it once or twice a year (as I do) or twice a day. Is the correct answer. So why are you arguing that 'commuting' does not mean daily?
Steve Firth - 09 Dec 2008 17:46 GMT > classic > insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either. Every policy that I have had from Footman James has permitted daily use of the car and has also, on request, added business use of the car. They also provide European Assistance and Breakdown cover which was damned useful for club outings in France.
Peter Hill - 09 Dec 2008 07:53 GMT >Anyone seen the latest issue of PC, looks like the FIAI [1] is trying >to define what will be classed as a historic vehicle, it seems to come [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >[1] I think that is who they said, I was only browsing a copy It's the EU's motor makers intention (PSA/VW/??) to have the EU pass laws that make keeping any car over 15 years old almost impossible. So there will come a time when no new cars can become "historic" unless laid up in a shed for 15 years from age 15 to 30. And then they will come looking for them asking why you haven't recycled it.
Anyway it seems PC is now listing the 200SX S13 in the price guide.
 Signature Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Chris Bolus - 10 Dec 2008 19:11 GMT >It's the EU's motor makers intention (PSA/VW/??) to have the EU pass >laws that make keeping any car over 15 years old almost impossible. So >there will come a time when no new cars can become "historic" unless >laid up in a shed for 15 years from age 15 to 30. And then they will >come looking for them asking why you haven't recycled it. You know, it's bullshit and burocracy like that (among a few other things) that had led me to seriously consider emigration across the pond. If they get that through I'm definitely going, and taking my Minis with me!
 Signature Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email) ------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------ --1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--
Dave Plowman (News) - 11 Dec 2008 15:29 GMT > You know, it's bullshit and burocracy like that (among a few other > things) that had led me to seriously consider emigration across the > pond.
> If they get that through I'm definitely going, and taking my Minis with > me! Think you might find there are plenty of places in the US where you'd not be allowed to use them.
 Signature *Forget the Joneses, I keep us up with the Simpsons.
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jerry - 11 Dec 2008 18:30 GMT >> You know, it's bullshit and burocracy like that (among a few other >> things) that had led me to seriously consider emigration across the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you'd not > be allowed to use them. Like most places, at least until they complied with the relevant US C&U regs, assuming that they allowed the non bonded front and rear screens! Chris should remember that much of the bullshit he complains about started in the USA, who remembers those high rubber bumpers that had to be fitted to UK and European sports cars in 1970s, and the Mini wasn't exempt from the nonsense either (although they never had to succumb to rubber bumpers)...
 Signature Regards, Jerry. Location - United Kingdom. In the first instance please reply to group, sorry, Emails to the reply-to address are deleted unread.
Chris Bolus - 12 Dec 2008 17:42 GMT >>> You know, it's bullshit and burocracy like that (among a few other >>> things) that had led me to seriously consider emigration across the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >wasn't exempt from the nonsense either (although they never had to >succumb to rubber bumpers)... I wasn't actually thinking of the US...
 Signature Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email) ------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------ --1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--
Jerry - 12 Dec 2008 18:27 GMT <snip>
>>Like most places, at least until they complied with the relevant US >>C&U regs, assuming that they allowed the non bonded front and rear [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I wasn't actually thinking of the US... So unless you are thinking South America you're still going to have the same sort of issues, even Australia/New Zealand have issues for those importing cars from the UK - I know someone who worked out in OZ for a while, with the intention of emigrating (could have done so there and then, had all the papers etc.) and actually got to the point of arranging for a container to put is EU manufactured car into and then decided that it would be cheaper and quicker to just buy a car out in OZ...
 Signature Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Peter Hill - 13 Dec 2008 00:50 GMT ><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >then decided that it would be cheaper and quicker to just buy a car >out in OZ... OZ has classified cars as importable only if no equivalent is mass marketed in OZ and it has to meet other requirements as an "enthusiast's car". Cut off date before which no approval is needed was set at 15 years in 2005 and is fixed until it reaches 30 at which time it will start rolling.
 Signature Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
|
|
|