exhaust and insurance in NSW

[samhasa636]

Has anyone had any problems with insurance because of an aftermarket ehaust that doesn't comply with ADR. The NRMA tells me that:

1) I am aloud to fit an aftermarket exhaust, as long as
2) The exhaust passes rego (or be ADR compliant)

As far as I know there is no aftermarke exhaust that is legal. Christ my standard pipe is over the NSW limit of 94db.

[Glen]

From the lack of response this one sounds like a bit of a sticky question. I'm just about to pick up an Akra pipe for the ZX10 and I've got my insurance proposal to send in as well so I've done some checking.

Just reading the Product Disclosure statement (Arista) mine says that they will not cover damage if the bike is considered unsafe or unroadworthy. Therefore anything like bald tyres etc would probably blow your insurance into the weeds. Technically a pipe that would not get your bike registered also falls into that category. There is hope however. My policy states that
"We will not refuse your claim if you can prove that the accidental damage was not caused or contributed to by the unsafe or unroadworthy condition of your motorcycle".

No doubt you could have some problems but I can't imagine your pipe contributing to an accident, rather it will probably contribute to your safety. Unless of course some blind homicidal maniac in 1.5 tonnes of steel on wheels can claim that they were so startled by the sound of your exhaust that they were compelled to aim at you. But then they probably won't hear you over the sound of the doof doof anyway.

I'd go with the pipe as I reckon it's another small but very real defense against dopey drivers.

[samhasa636]

The problem with insurance is THEY like to keep everything nice and "grey". No clear black a& white answers. I rang them to see if they could send me copy of the policy so that I could look at the wording of this sort of stuff. It does not exist. The PDS is the only document they have and it is clearly unable to provide the information that can affect the outcome of a claim.

I am going to get the exhaust and I will invest time and money in making an effective baffle system that will reduce the noise to legal limits.

Look I would rather have a claim denied for an exhaust that will probably save my life one day.

[FuTAnT]

My ZX10R is 97dB, and legal. There's a difference between the stationary and moving noise tests, and difference dB limits for each. I think the ZX10R passes the moving noise test, hence being higher. Meh, it sounds horn anyway just as standard!

As far as insurance goes, I can't see them knocking you back. Most people tell the insurers about the aftermarket exhaust and then it's noted on the policy. It means that if you are in an accident they'll pay for new ones. As far as the insurance company goes, they should be happy. Aftermarket full titanium would be way cheaper than an original muffler system.

[pk]

I have fitted twin remus pipes on my Z1000
told the insurance company they listed them on my
insurance papers no problems bike is covered.

[samhasa636]

Guys, the point here is that an insurance company will insure a 4 stroke bike with an aftermarket system. This is a given.

The problem is that they have a clause in their policy that says they will not insure a vehicle with an "illegal" exhaust. So this is loud 4 stroke exhausts and any 2 stroke with an expansion chamber. Their position is that bikes with these exhausts are inherently risky to insure.

This enables any insurance company with this in their policy to deny a claim. Whether or not a modification contributes to the cause of an accident that leads to a claim would be a decision that rests with them.

It is obvious that an insurance company needs to collect as many premiums as possible and so they will insure your bike if it has an aftermarket exhaust. It would also be in their interest to write a clause into a policy that allows them to deny a claim that would otherwise be payable.

This does not just apply to exhausts. It will also apply to any part we add to a bike including: indicators and braided brake lines. If any item on your bike does not meet ADR you are at risk of voiding your warranty.

I would love to be proven wrong about this, but it makes sense from the point of view of the insurance company.

[Glen]

I have to say though that NRMA tend to be arseholes when it comes to this type of thing. Motorcycles aren't their core business so they don't try and attract business from us. It's no different from about ten years ago when they decided they didn't want to do Green slips so they simply jacked up the price so high and made the policy so shit that noone in their right mind would use them. They've now decided that they can make money out of CTP so they've made themselves more competitive.

Give Arista a call, they're in the directory under IC Frith and they are one of the more motorcyclist friendly companies. They offer a couple of good products ie Occasional use polices, unregisterd bike cover and over 40's cover. I've had five bikes with them including three roadbikes and two dirt bikes and they seem to be OK.

I haven't had a claim with them fortunately but in all other respects they're one of the better insurance companies I've dealt with.

Good luck with it.

[samhasa636]

Arista are not intersted in insuring anyone in the first 12 months of an unrestricted license... but I will be insuring the bike with them next year, that's for sure.

[samhasa636]

I believe the MCC only had a success with the exhaust labels and how they would affect intestate riders. As far as I know there has been no change to the legal limit and the use of aftermarket exhausts. There does not appear to be anything on their website either way.
(http://www.mccofnsw.org.au/)

[ty]

I didn't think that the regs had been repealed, just that the need for a sticker was 'on hold'.
The URL for the relevant part of the MCC site is http://www.mccofnsw.org.au/a/80.html, but isn't up to date.

The following was sent to BikersAnon March 2nd, and AFAIK is the latest:

OK, we had a win in Parliament yesterday, SO WHAT?

It's a stunt with a political agenda.

It is almost meaningless in terms of enforcement changes, it just goes back
to what it was just before Christmas. Retrospective labels and no margins on
sound tests - almost impossible to comply with, but only directed to
motorcycles with aftermarket exhausts. Laws able to be used for other
purposes and failing to actually address the noise problem which EPA aren't
really able to define.

PROTEST
What we did is another way of running a protest, but using the democratic
process and getting it into the public record through Hansard. The NSW
Labour government hates it.

We are still dependent upon the Govt to issue Regulations that can be
complied with. We have been discussing this issue for nearly five years and
finally got the promise of corrections to the Regs early last year. Finally
they arrived on Christmas eve, to be slipped through while no-one was
looking. They are pathetic wishy washy changes and do not give relief from
harassment to riders.

What we have done is to make a lot of public and political noise to throw
the Regs back at the Govt with the message "this is not good enough", "take
them back and re-submit workable Regs".
This method is far more effective than writing yet another letter saying
"'scuse me mister, can we have another useless meeting where you will again
treat us with complete contempt?"

It is also more effective and useful than a street protest, where we would
be exposed to a risky downside.

By using this particular strategy, we get it all recorded in Hansard, to
make public the background issues and contemptuous discussions that had
been hidden from view.

We have attached the motorcycle Tourism issue, particularly relevant to
Ulysses and any regional tourism centre in NSW, by highlighting the fact
that NSW has unique and retrospective laws that EPA assert are enforceable
on out of state riders.

We have got the attention of the EPA at Director level. Now we have cleared
low level idiots from the floor, we can move forward on cleaning up. The big
boys want to talk now.

This Government has become arrogant. Through too many years in power, the
public service has become politicised and lower level functionaries only
tell those above them what they think they want to hear. This became
apparent in our "negotiation" meeting with EPA yesterday.

Oh yes, Chris Turner, Chair of Noise Committee, and myself met with the top
end of town in the EPA along with their political minder, where we had been
invited to negotiate. The meeting was dishonest, as they brought nothing to
negotiate with, other than arrogance, bluff, threats and empty pockets.

With nothing from EPA to trade (like removal of Clause 19) in order to
prevent the Motion from running, we were disinclined to be nice to them and
so puppy was let off the chain yesterday morning. It was a hoot, with the
Democrats, Liberals, Christians & Greens, all taking turns to heap ridicule
upon the EPA and then voting to throw the Regs back in the face of the EPA
regulators.

Some of the banter was terrific. It was an informed debate and the Govt was
very weak in response. The Nationals Richard Colless had a ball, bollocking
the lack of commonsense from EPA and suggesting that John DellaBosca, if he
did ride a bike it would be...a Harley!... yes, a Fat Boy! (and Costa a
Harley Black Knight). Considerable heckling took place as Hatzigeros spoke
weakly for the Government. Charlie Lynne for the Liberals informed
Parliament that a Harley didn't make noise, but made music. The EPA labels
were just laughed at.

Hansard is available @ http://tinyurl.com/6gh2a or
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/p ... ey/LC20050
302

Our thanks to the Australian Democrats for running the Motion and assisting
in making every effort to negotiate with EPA.

A successful protest by MCC of NSW.

The entire NSW Parliament now knows that riders are very unhappy with EPA
Regulations and WHY. It is now on the permanent public record of Parliament
and anyone can quote it at will.

However, remember, this DOES NOT change the law. We have just made it public
that its a set of stupid laws.

Guy Stanford
MCCofNSW

ty

[mike-s]

Arista are not intersted in insuring anyone in the first 12 months of an unrestricted license... but I will be insuring the bike with them next year, that's for sure.

That's why i havent got my GPX insured for more than 3rd party property.
The instant i roll past 12 months of opens i will be making a beeline for their quotes hotline.