So I’m curious. At what point is not carrying collision insurance worth it to you? Assuming no loans so you’re not required to carry collision. I’m sure some will say to carry it because it’s worth something. Ok, so what’s the cut off before it’s just not worth carrying it? I’m not trying to spark a debate about being too cheap. I’m just simply curious. At what point is the extra cost not worth it?
View all comments
That’s one aspect but that’s also why I said assuming no loans. People can own a brand new bike with no loans too so I didn’t want to consider that. What’s the cutoff for you? Me personally, I don’t carry collision on cars that are worth less than 10k even if I do drive them much more than my bikes. Now my bikes are worth double what that car is but I don’t ride them anywhere near the amount of time I do the car so would you still carry collision in this case?
As I have a company issued car and get a new one every three years, fully insured with all bells and whistles, I can't answer to that. It really depends on how you feel about it. Like, what's the bike? How old is it? Production or vintage? Would you hang on to it or move on w/o tears? What is it's realistic (!) market value? There is always the "... and I bought tires and chrome wheels and service ...". Forget that, as insurance (usually) doesn't cover any of that. And don't forget, insurance can write the wreck off. So you might not get as much as you think. If it's trashed, would you need to save or just go out and get one? If you don't need to worry about that, there you have it.
My gut feeling would be five years or so. If I bike is older, I would at least dial it back to fire, theft, third-party. Depending on where you park you might cancel that as well. As I said, mine is under lock and key and seven years old, a weekender, and I am keeping it easy. So third-party only it is. Plus, if its really gone, I can just get me another one like it without breaking the bank.
All good points. Thanks. In my case, I can afford to replace the bike if I caused a crash. I suppose what I’m truly asking is what the odds of us causing a crash where collision would benefit is vs someone else hitting us where collision wouldn’t benefit us? I can’t see it being higher since I would like to believe we in general are more careful on bikes and it’s usually the cars that don’t pay attention to us. While mistakes can be made, I feel like mistakes are made more easily in a car vs a bike. Am I wrong?
I'd contest that it's easier to make a mistake that leads to consequences on a bike than a car. It's a lot easier to lose control of a bike (lock up/ slide out) while trying to avoid a collision than in a car, and in that situation you may become responsible for damage caused by your bike.