Day time mot - insurance?

[BusLane]

Is there anyone on here who ride bikes with no lights with MOT & Insured, declaring no lights as a modification?

I am asking for friend, who I think was hoping to use his track bike as road bike in the day occasionally. Problem is his insurance broker doesn't like it.

Yes, I know there is no such thing as a daytime mot, it is an advisory... not lights, use in daytime good visability.
I also seem to have found.... there is mention of, if a bike leaves the factory with lights, construction and users act etc...

However, there are people who do ride bikes with no lights with MOT. Maybe they are no declaring it to insurance, but...

A quick google mentions, mce, Carol Nash, Benetts have allowed this in the past, even Honda insurance with this mod declared.

I think he's pretty annoyed at the moment, so I'm trying to help.
I suspect being in London might be a factor too, and having had a bike stolen in the past.

[Dog Star]

I’ve never actually declared that there are no lights. Never had an issue when the KTM was nicked, and they didn’t bat an eyelid when they asked for the keys and I told them there weren’t any as it didn’t have an ignition switch etc.

[BusLane]

Will see what occurs when he calls some different insurance companies.

[Matt_E_Mulsion]

If you sit back, look at the facts I can see why no-one wants to insure it. He lives in London, he's already got a theft claim under his belt and he wants to take a 'barely legal' racing motorcycle out onto the public roads. I can't imagine he'll just be pootling down to the local shop at 30mph on it...

[Prof Prolapse]

There's nothing "barely legal" about it. It's legal.

You will have a roadworthy bike, it will conform to the "The Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) Regulations 1996" like any other, and it also will be issued an MOT which will demonstrate that at the time of the test it similarly met the requirements of said test, but as an advisory it will state that it did not have lights fitted at the time of test.

I'm curious under what possible justification an insurer could add risk to a policy on that basis given the fact they are not free to simply bump up premiums as they please. I would write to an ombudsman for sure if they told me they were doing so on the singular basis of not having lights fitted.

As for insurers, in my limited experience they didn't know what to make of it. I'm not sure who actually insured by the bike but I declared to the broker (Adrian Flux) the fact it had no lights (or mirrors). There was no cost increase, although on one of the two renewals, I was asked to provide evidence of the MOT certificate, I believe this is not required usually, but as it was due an MOT anyway I did send them it.

I ran my bike for about two years without lights. I was never stopped by the police, and never had issues with insurance. It didn't affect any quote either, and as per the above, I don't understand why it would.

[BusLane]

It's all done and sorted. Thanks.

[garypotter]

I suspect being in London might be a factor too, and having had a bike stolen in the past.


[/quote]

That may be more the issue with insurers with a theft and living in London, also check the policy wording as most insurers require minimum security for theft cover at least a barrel and key lock, most off roaders do not have this. A few years agho a friend had a KTM insured, it was stolen but as it had no lock they refused to pay out.

[Jakey123]

No such thing as a 'daytime MOT'

It's a standard MOT with and advisory for 'lights not fitted at time of test'

[dern]

Jakey123 said:

No such thing as a 'daytime MOT'

It's a standard MOT with and advisory for 'lights not fitted at time of test'

Everyone knows this, it's just short hand.

[Parkette]

I had a trials bike with no lights and it needed to be riden on the road between sections, no lights were fitted as standard by the manufacturer and of course MOt'd and registered.