Agreed.

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

The message
<41ac835a-4493-4279-bdd6-9be63a38568d@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>
from Ian <ian.groups@btinternet.com> contains these words:

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".

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

The above sentence is fundamentally incorrect. Sorry. You're wrong and
you know 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

You said "Commuting doesn't imply daily use". Everyone else said "yes it
does". There, that wasn't difficult, was it?

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

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...

On 10 Dec, 15:25, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID>
wrote:

You gave one definition of the word. I gave the one insurance
companies use. We were talking about insurance. No problem.

Ian

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...

On 10 Dec, 14:23, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID>
wrote:

Do you have any evidence that insurance companies differentiate
between occasional and regular trips to and from usual places of work?

Ian

<snip>

Whhhoooossshhhh.....

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