CIHAGM NIP - oh dear what to do ?

Well it had to happen[2], the mille has been gatsoed at 40 in a 30[1],
after weekend in Wales a month or so back with a few mates not of this
parish. Bummer.

A letter to the Sarf Wales Camera unit furnished a rather nice black
and white set of stills, with the mille, a gxsr-750 and a car.
Another for the collection i thought.

wehhhhaay - i looked - it really wasn't me guv!

I was elsewhere - i was on Chaos's[4] 'blade at the time. I know as
Chaos's leathers are on the mille. Bwhahahaha.

I've no recollection of the event[3] other than there was a bit of a
CIHAGM-fest that day, and some banter that evening about someone might
have been gatsoed but he too had no recollection.

Now i'm wondering what will happen next.

I guess i have to write in saying i believe it to be Chaos and i'm
110% he'll take the endorsement.

But not without a fight - Chaos will write in asking for proof,
question, probe delay etc.[5]

Now here's the conundrum, i may be asked to produce insurance
documentation[6] indicating that Chaos was insured to ride it.

So if i complete the NIP honestly, can i then expect to see an
insurance producer arrive in the post?

Is CIHAGM with no insurance an endorsable offense ?

If an offense, any idea as to the penalty and points ?

Is the NIP sufficient evidence?

Who gets stung rider, keeper or both?


So what is the next move ukrm ?



[1] allegedly.
[2] keeping the mille down under 30 mph is not easy.
[3] i'm a bit disappointed i'm not in the photo tbh.
[4] an apt nickname
[5] which i concur is his right. The photo has three vehicles and
there could be some room for question.
[6] based on experience.

 

Insurance is the rider / driver's responsibility, so they'll hit this
chaos person for insurance documents.

Yes, driving without insurance.

 

6 points I think. But most insurances have a clause allowing TPO cover
for bikes not owned by but loaned to the policy holder. So Chaos is
probably covered by his own insurance.

 

Just out of interest do you know Chaos's real name and address? The thought
occurred to me that in UKRM we often have these CIHAGM Fest things and
although I know some poster's real names and in a few cases their addresses,
there are many who I just know by their posting names. Therefore, I wouldn't
necessarily know where to point the authorities if a UKRMer were Gatsoed on
my bike.

As for the insurance angle it only reinforces the importance of getting a
riding other bikes endorsement on your policy then all you have to worry
about is mending it if you bend it.

 

6 points I think. But most insurances have a clause allowing TPO cover
for bikes not owned by but loaned to the policy holder. So Chaos is
probably covered by his own insurance.
[/QUOTE]
Not Nessie Celery. Unless the policy owned by Chaos either for bike or
car clearly states that Chaos is covered to ride a motorbike not owned by
them (but the vehicle is insured by the owner, obviously, and with
consent) then Chaos, at that point in time, is not covered.

Chaos had best check any policies to hand.

--
Lesley
ZXR400SP
"Not bad for a Scouser"
SBS#11[with oak-leaf cluster]
BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12
BONY#54P BOB#18

Un-cork me to reply

 

Eh? Do what?

Chaos borrowed the bike, in full knowledge of his insurance status on
it.

If he's covered[1], cool.

If he's not, then *he* has the responsibility to "take the rap". Ozmick
should not lose out in any way from lending the bike out.

[1] And it's very likely he is

 

Isn't there an offence relating to allowing someone without insurance to
borrow your vehicle? - and, ISTR, the onus is on you to prove that you
thought they had insurance.

 

<snip complex story>

Why not just tell PC plod that it wasn't you. That people were riding other
peoples bike & while you think some guy called Chaos was riding yours, you
don't know his full name or address but are sure that he was insured 'cos
you asked him before hand.

Does that work for getting off tickets any more ?

Tim S

 

Hence my question.... a couple of weeks ago another mate said "it was
me mate Judas[1] from dowunder" driving. He received a producer,
which he duly did to the station, which showed Judas was not insured.
The ancient william said it was not possible to loose license over it
but i'm not sure of the offence and whether it was endorcible.

[1] another apt nickname.

 

Not Nessie Celery. Unless the policy owned by Chaos either for bike or
car clearly states that Chaos is covered to ride a motorbike not owned by
them (but the vehicle is insured by the owner, obviously, and with
consent) then Chaos, at that point in time, is not covered.

Chaos had best check any policies to hand.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that needs to be determined.

 

Hmm, somehow this sounds too easy.

 

Nigel Eaton wrote:

(Snip)

When I was done for no license and no insurance (admittedly in 1970) the
bloke who owned the bike was done for aiding and abetting on both counts and
was fined and endorsed exactly the same as me.

Rgds

Kevin

 

Surely, Chaos is an aussie chum of yours who had third party on other motor
vehicles insurance and is now off travelling around the world. You don't
know where he is now but he'll be at this address[1] in Aus in 8 months
time.

1. Which you may make a mistake transcribing when you copy into your
covering letter.

 

Nice one, Tony. That's the way to go.

It does however, leave a question over HAGM responsibilities. If you
ask A.N.Other if they have insurance to cover them (and you) while
they're riding your bike - and they say they have - is that good
enough?

It is precisely this question (and not being in the position to fix
some other bugger's bike) that stops me riding anybody else's bike, as
a rule - and why I don't invite anybody to ride mine (not that they'd
want to (if sane)).

 

Heh how did you know, and he made the mistake in transcribing the
address, not i.

 

IANAL but it seems that if a person tells you that they have cover and you
have no reason to disbelieve them then surely you have done enough. If they
get caught later, that's between them and the authorities. Afterall you have
been lied to so why should you be punished?

If it is the law that we must insist on seeing insurance details and driving
licences where will it end? What would happen if someone had a forged
documentation? Would you still be liable?

In the case of the Mick's mate from Aus there is no reason to think he
doesn't have insurance just because he is not easily contactable. If he had
been stopped by a real policemen at the time he could of produced his
documentation as requested and the matter would have been cleared up.

If the authorites choose to save money by using cameras instead of policemen
then they have to accept there will be times when they have to give people
the benefit of the doubt.