Riding w/o ownership?

[the_scientist85]

haha u got no sense of humour. lollllxxxxx

[GuiNNeSS]

Sense of humour is reserved for people who deserve it. Same as my respect.

 

At least now, we got kids asking questions before they get into trouble. Its so much better then those who got into trouble, then come to SBF to grumble and whine and have others supporting their whining which most of you boys like to do.

[SparkEnzo]

hi hi..am a kid here i guess..hope u bro n sis can make tings clear for me..say i wanna ride my bro's 2a bike cuz got 2a ready....in order to do that..he have to put my name as sub rider in his insurance right? but im younger than him say by 8 years? Does the insurance have to be change to the younger party? Heard from ppl if got 2 riders to a bike..insurance must be base on the younger one? is it true?

[GuiNNeSS]

Yes.

 

But that depends on which insurance agency your brother went to. Most needs you or your brother to top up some amount so as to cover you.

 

However, if you are like me, above the age of 31, adding as subrider to a insurance of a motorcycle where the owner is above 40 years old. We are somehow not calculated to the youngest rider of that insurance. (Maybe we are just too old?)

[the_scientist85]

hmmm like i ask lta, legal ride W/O ownership. the officer say cn ride as long got insurance, road tax n liscence. ownership nothing to do wif insurance cover. den i insisted i heard sum1 said no ownership cant ride. n she replied, qte dulan: if so afraid, den dont ride. wait untill owner transfer ownership.

 

hmmm neway lta are liars. onli u say is true. better believe u den lta. u make the rules here, nt the gahmen.

 

 

actuali i heard dis b4 oso. i tink its an old law, last time ownership was a must. same law like revocation. like u kena revoke class 2a. last time onli 2a kena revoke, rest stay. new law now 1 class revoke all class gone.

Edited March 10, 2009 by the_scientist85

[GuiNNeSS]

If he don noe, then you are seriously underestimating him.

 

When was mechs authorised to ride bikes they are testing on? If their name is not in the bikes as sub riders, then its illegal.

 

Its just how people usually close one eye about it. But since you think that it happens, means its legit is kinda showing how much you don noe.

 

Bikes and cars rules are sometimes very different. A sub rider already has his/her name in the insurance. A driver does not.

 

For bikes, subriders riding the motorcycles without the owners consent is legal. Because prior consent is given.

 

For Cars, driving without the owners knowledge meant its illegal.

 

Apparently, somehere here tends to forget what some people are actually du lan about and tries to twist words around.

[GuiNNeSS]

There is a time limit issue. LTA will only recognise one insurance for any bike.

 

If its a matter of transfer, there is a time limit for a new insurance to take effect after the transfer of ownership is successful. Failing to comply with the time limit, the new insurance will be considered void.

 

And that deciding party to decide that insurance is void, is the insurer, not the LTA.

 

Where did it mention that someone has to wait for ownership transfer then can ride a bike?

 

Or did I mistaken that scientise_85 meant another female on this forum that typed that must wait for ownership transfer then can ride bike?

[GuiNNeSS]

watever la.... seriously i tink waste time. i dont come here to argue. jus do wat u tink is rite. if u say illegal den let it be... den jus dun ride if bike not under ur name... n if i wrong so wat? if u rite den so wat? i said IF onli, i still dun agree dat u r rite. Singapore is a free country so u cn tink wat u wan.

 

btw if ur flat not under ur name n u contribute to the household, i suggest u better move out coz its illegal. the owner may be charged under illegal renting of the house. u are not the owner mah....hahaha. of coz i noe this is nonsense but its funny to me.

 

I distinctly remembered that it wasnt me that typed that.

 

And its now obvious, that what I typed earlier was answered in its own way.

 

And to think everyone complains that females are the ones that twist people's words.

 

Looks like the world is changing. Someone is twisting people's words, putting into other peoples mouth and telling the rest of the world that the female say it. When it was the twit twisting peoples words to suit his 'reputation'.

[2_wheeler]

hmmm like i ask lta, legal ride W/O ownership. the officer say cn ride as long got insurance, road tax n liscence. ownership nothing to do wif insurance cover. den i insisted i heard sum1 said no ownership cant ride. n she replied, qte dulan: if so afraid, den dont ride. wait untill owner transfer ownership.

 

hmmm neway lta are liars. onli u say is true. better believe u den lta. u make the rules here, nt the gahmen.

 

 

actuali i heard dis b4 oso. i tink its an old law, last time ownership was a must. same law like revocation. like u kena revoke class 2a. last time onli 2a kena revoke, rest stay. new law now 1 class revoke all class gone.

It is TRUE that you do not need to be the owner of the bike in order ride it.

 

 

 

It is TRUE that you need insurance (which is NOT under LTA) for the bike in order to ride it legally. However, if you DO NOT WISH TO BE THE OWNER of the bike but would like to rider it, your name HAS TO add into the OWNER's Insurance.

[GuiNNeSS]

For the record.

 

I am dulan, that a so called scientist_85 is telling a actual Insurance adviser that he dont noe.

 

I am also dulan, that this so called scientist_85 has not apologised for his attempts to mislead the rest of the new forumers about what he thinks he saw at bike shops, without actually enquiring with the mechanics whether they have the trade insurance to ride a bike. And that he is mis informing everyone on this forum, that anyone should be able to ride the bikes without ownership because he thinks that the insurance time limit for transfer is bullshit.

 

Or, he thinks that subriders in any insurance is lumped with any tom **** and harry mechanic to a certain bike, thus making whatever he thinks he says is okay.

 

In the event of a death, accident & injuries for riding a bike with a invalid insurance, on a bike that does not have you as subrider or transfer of ownership.

 

Please advise that scientist_85 might not pay for your damages. Good Luck.

[SparkEnzo]

Yes.

 

But that depends on which insurance agency your brother went to. Most needs you or your brother to top up some amount so as to cover you.

 

However, if you are like me, above the age of 31, adding as subrider to a insurance of a motorcycle where the owner is above 40 years old. We are somehow not calculated to the youngest rider of that insurance. (Maybe we are just too old?)

 

ahaha..thx for the clarification anyway.

[cynic]

ok so i'm officially confused now. by everyone, not just one party or the other.

 

see, i used to own a bike but i've never had a 2B license - my friend needed someone above 21 to register as the owner of the bike and he asked to use my name. so legally i was the owner of the bike, but i never rode it. my friend was the one who rode it the whole time.

 

so you're saying that doing this was illegal?

[aceboi]

LAW state that one do not need a licence to own a vehicle, the owner of the vehicle just need to be above 18 years old.. But you will need a valid insurance+road tax to ride the vehicle......- quote from a lta officer...

[wX]

The arguement has probably gone on for long enough. The answer for the question is somewhere within the many posts. There seem to be no reason for this arguement to keep going on. Let's sum up:

 

In order to ride a bike, you need not be the legal owner of the bike. On the assumption that road tax is valid, you will need to be covered under a valid insurance to ride the bike. For the insurance to be valid, the legal owner's name MUST be in the insurance. If you are not the legal owner, you will need to be included in the valid insurance as a sub-rider, so that you can ride the bike legally.

 

The insurance will not be valid, if the legal owner of the bike is not in the insurance. Therefore, If I were to purchase insurance to cover myself for another person's bike, it will not be valid.

[cynic]

ah finally, some clarity...

[the_scientist85]

LAW state that one do not need a licence to own a vehicle, the owner of the vehicle just need to be above 18 years old.. But you will need a valid insurance+road tax to ride the vehicle......- quote from a lta officer...

 

ya dats wat i was trying to say all the time.. n let me add, valid liscence too. the officer emphasize on valid liscence. haha.

 

n she oso said insurance cover n ownership got nothing to do wif each other. dun confuse ownership n ridership is 2 different thing.

[the_scientist85]

look at ur ins cover note. it states ther main rider n subrider rite? it doesnt state main owner n sub owner.

 

n like i said before, things u dunno doesnt mean it doesnt exist. mechs are using trade insurance, n they are not owners of bike. neither are they subriders. they are jus legal riders. n fyi trade insurance cost a bomb n onli those wif registered motor business cn buy.

Edited March 11, 2009 by the_scientist85

[the_scientist85]

It is TRUE that you do not need to be the owner of the bike in order ride it.

 

 

 

It is TRUE that you need insurance (which is NOT under LTA) for the bike in order to ride it legally. However, if you DO NOT WISH TO BE THE OWNER of the bike but would like to rider it, your name HAS TO add into the OWNER's Insurance.

 

dat is as good as adding as a subrider. everybody in hell noes subriders are legal riders

[GuiNNeSS]

dat is as good as adding as a subrider. everybody in hell noes subriders are legal riders

 

And everyone on this hell is trying to tell you, that Riding w/o Ownership .......(I think I should forget it, this is so totally not worth it.)

 

And Mechs & dispatch riders has different insurance schemes. Which you tend to lump together, and support whichever crap you try to sprout all along.

 

 

BTW, I need to apologise. A Insurance Broker just advised me. There is no time limit to valid insurance & ownership transfer.

 

In the event, that a Rider buying over a bike from another Rider, did up a 2nd insurance to include his name and his sub rider's name.

 

On the way to the LTA, they crashed the bike. The insurance companies can refuse to pay, on the point that its not transferred ownership yet.

 

So in that event, the claim will be on the Seller's insurance. But if the Seller's insurance does not have the buyer's name as sub rider. Then its considered that the Seller is riding without insurance, even though he already has a insurance he purchased in his pocket while riding the bike to LTA to do ownership transfer.

 

Now........this event is based on Insurer's actions, before LTA/TP actions comes in, to summon the Buyer for riding without Insurance. (Even if the Buyer did have his insurance in his pocket.)

 

 

In the event that scientist_85 says he spoke to a LTA officer, and she advises that its okay to ride without ownership, meaning not using a trade licence or as as subrider.

 

Please do sue scientist_85 who can then in turn sue LTA for compensation in such a accident/death/arrest event.

 

BTW, when I typed NO LIMIT. It means........there is no grace period.

 

And insurers wont be borthered about contacting you to tell you that because you never transfer ownership to yourself, they will cancel or refund the premiums to you. Its afterall monies into their pockets......and chances are, you never cancel the policy yourself, you go cancel few days later, they will refund you 80 percent of the unused portion of your policy.

[2_wheeler]

ya dats wat i was trying to say all the time.. n let me add, valid liscence too. the officer emphasize on valid liscence. haha.

 

n she oso said insurance cover n ownership got nothing to do wif each other. dun confuse ownership n ridership is 2 different thing.

 

May I know what does Valid Insurance mean?

[wX]

look at ur ins cover note. it states ther main rider n subrider rite? it doesnt state main owner n sub owner.

 

n like i said before, things u dunno doesnt mean it doesnt exist. mechs are using trade insurance, n they are not owners of bike. neither are they subriders. they are jus legal riders. n fyi trade insurance cost a bomb n onli those wif registered motor business cn buy.

 

I believe this is where the arguement started:

 

http://www.singaporebikes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5064962&postcount=21

 

In this case, 2_wheeler was referring specifically to TS's post, which is:

 

http://www.singaporebikes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4863631&postcount=17

 

I seriously don't see a flaw in 2_wheeler's reply to that question. I'm quite sure, with your vast knowledge in the biking scene, you will agree that 1 bike can only have 1 valid insurance, which bears the owner's name. So do you not agree that 2_wheeler got it right when he said that?

 

In response to TS's queries to his problem, I don't see a point to bring up the trade insurance. That has totally nothing to do with the question in the first place.