Is the correct answer. So why are you arguing that 'commuting' does not
mean daily?

On 10 Dec, 10:16, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID>
wrote:

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.

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"

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!

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

Yes it does! What else would 'regular travelling' refer to in the
context?

Commuting doesn't imply daily use.

Ian

So why do all my classic policies have "commuting" specified?

Chris Bolus <chrisB@RILEYELFb0lus.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

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>

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.

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