What we all need to watch out for is the fact that insurance companies are constantly adding restrictions to their policies. In the past, policies certainly would not have mentioned MoT, although the possession of it would have influenced the write-off value of a bike or car. Now, they routinely include "The vehicle must have a valid MoT certificate when required to do so" (so you are OK riding to a pre-booked test without a certificate, but not if you simply have an expired one because you have not bothered). Clearly, it's the roadworthiness aspect which would be relevant, but they cover that separately, so the MoT requirement is simply a "get out of paying" clause (bearing in mind that the MoT does not prove roadworthiness except at the time of the test). Of course insurers may try to have their cake and eat it (it might not stand up in court) when it comes to the MoT aspect. As long as an exhaust is not marked "Not for Road Use", then it seems perfectly possible to have one that has been declared to the insurer, passes the MoT, but might not strictly be "road legal". Note too that modern policies say that the driver will not be covered if over alcohol limit, drugged etc. Again, I don't know whether this is legal for them to do, and as far as I know those convicted of drink driving are not routinely done for having no insurance (unless they really have none). Perhaps there is quite a difference between having no policy and having one where the insurer could argue about whether the claim is valid? What I'd like to know is how Harleys can all have such noisy exhausts.
The noise test for the MOT is at the tester's discretion. So a fruity pipe may pass with one and not with another "Exhaust system:complete,secure and not too noisy" from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/219090/your-motorbike-and-the-mot.pdf. Testers notes here: m1s07000101
If your bike is fitted with an illegal "not for road use" exhaust, and gets stolen from your locked garage then it was not actually on then road - it's reasonable to expect the insurance company to pay out. The justification "I only had it fitted because I was going to take it to a track-day in my van, not use it on the road like that" would seem to me to be a valid one. The exhaust does not affect the circumstances. That same bike, being ridden on the road, is not road legal. If you have an accident I would fully expect then insurance company to walk away from it - it's not legal to be on the raod, why would they pay? They have no way of knowing if the illegal exhaust was a contributing factor, but given any doubts you should expect them not to pay up. There will always be people who had non-standard exhausts who have been paid, just as there are those that haven't. From your point of view, it's a gamble. Do you want to take the chance of them not paying out if you bin it? Or worse, get hit with a big third-party claim? My own dealings with insurance companies over the years would tend to make me very cynical... But, it's your choice !
Surely ducati make the race exhaust because they deal with a worldwide market not just the uk hence it's available , not as noisy as most Harley's either
When a Ducati dealer (as all bike dealers) sells a bike it has to be legal and road worthy, so I'm confused as to why Termis are fitted by dealers as a general rule if they don't comply with UK rules for road use. For some models such as the Panigale R they are standard. However the bike doesn't come from Italy with them fitted where the rules may be different, the Termis come in a box and the UK dealer fits them for the customer, so surely the dealer is making the bike not fit for road use even though it is obvious by the fact it has a number plate, lights and indicators fitted and has been registered by the new owner that, that is it's intent!?. I think it comes down to how arsey the insurance company is, some are worse than others and will do anything to wriggle out of paying. We all generally go with the cheapest quote but that's not necessarily the best. I think all insurance companies should disclose their figures as to how many claims they actually pay out for and how many they reject, as I think if they did it would highlight the bad payers and we all might look a bit closer at the insurance companies track record when it came to renewing our policies instead of favouring the cheapest.
It's simple if you don't want to chance it don't do it , if anybody out there is having doubts about running a full termi pipe on a 2014 multistrada because they are running illegal I will be quite happy to take it off for you and fit it to my bike because I really wouldn't want you to get into trouble I will send regular pics and noise updates so least you won't miss it cheers
While I see the argument that if you have a off then put the bike to standard before the assessor sees it, if it's a bad accident it's unlikely you'll get the chance. It'll go straight from the scene to a Police compound, and the insurance company will view it then recover it from there.
Most are missing the OP point. Its not about being paid out, its about being illegal in the same way an uninsured driver is, so if you plough into a line of people at the bus stop, insurer says not insured and compo doesn't get paid Except...its a third party claim so expect the insurer to pay out to those affected and come after you personally to recover the cost. So he's wrong.
A very good point. I checked my car insurance wording after making my earlier comment about MoT certificates, driving whilst drunk etc. For the car (and I'd be surprised if the bike is different) the insurer effectively states that they will be obliged under "Road Traffic Act" to pay a third party claim, but if you were drunk, they will come after you to reclaim what they have paid out (and of course not pay anything for your own damaged vehicle). On the other hand, it gets more complicated with the exhauist thing, because there is usually a clause to say that if you have provided false information or witheld something (an example might be previous claims or convictions) then the policy could be void - it seems to me that they would then pay nothing! This must mean that it is very unwise to take out a policy without even mentioning that an exhaust has been "modified". Then we get to the contentious areasof what is a "modification" ? Indicators? Fork internals? Stickers (I have heard of one company that includes those!)? Non-standard rear tyre size? And what of roadworthiness? There's a big difference between having bald tyres and having a noisy (and possibly "illegal") exhaust - one affects the likelihood of crashing and the other does not (I'd argue that the noiser the better in terms of people hearing you coming). "Roadworthy" can mean several things. I haven't checked the small print here. I have previously cancelled a policy (cooling off rules) after the documents came through and I could not reconcile what they had said on the policy with what I felt I had told them (we got into an argument about what %age power increase the exhaust might provide, and I think they felt that I had said it was < 5% when I had in fact said that I could not measure it but did not believe ot to be a significant factor).
In a world of belt and braces, every i dotted and T crossed and everything checked and double checked to be legally water tight, that lots a bit vague isn't it!?.
My bikes are insured on a 'custom' policy due to the extensive modifications - modifications that are listed with the insurer and therefore covered. I also have an agreed value for both which is in excess of double the 'market' value. To get this cover the ins. co. wanted photos of the bikes from all angles and it is quite clear what exhausts etc. are fitted on the pictures. Hopefully I won't need to claim but I'd expect a hassle free experience if I did...
You have to be very careful with insurance... I was seriously involved in the Mini scene a few years ago. I know of a woman who had a claim refused because she had failed to declare a "modification". What she had done was fit Rover alloy wheels to her Rover Mini. OEM wheels, as fitted to the "sports pack" edition. Supplied and fitted by the local Rover dealer. Thousands of cars running about with the same wheels on... When she drove it into a post the insurance company refused to pay out - "sorry madam, undeclared modifications". Insurance companies - twats, most of them...
insurance companies make money .....not people happy. I've never known a drink driver to be prosecuted for no insurance as a result of them being a drink driver...
Just to add another dimension to the insurance discussion.... Scots biker in insurance hell after legal loophole forces him to pay thousands for death crash on his old bike - British Bikers Association - British Bikers Association News
