DropDeadFred

We've talked about it before and I have actually been looking around and found a few different companies to get insurance on my bike. Wondering if anybody else has it specifically for their bike. What company are you using, are any of the big named companies allowing you to "combine" your policies? I have satefarm on my home and planned on adding the bike if they would also offer some sort of bicycle coverage as well, I'd add it.

Bikerumor just ran this:

https://www.bikerumor.com/2012/07/08/...es-nationwide/

found it a bit helpful as well.

KoolAidnPizza

these threads come up as often as "is this a good bike for me" threads. At least we can all take something away from these kind of threads.
But no, i do not have separate insurance on my bike. If it gets stolen from my house, homeowners insurance should cover it. If i get hit by a car, i would like to think that my injuries and bike would be covered by the drivers insurance. And if my bike were to be stolen while i was in a store, well that's just my fault for not looking after it properly.

Jfitalia

My insurance is through USAA and they offer no separate coverage for my bike.

Velo Gator

DaveWC

My cycling season lasts about six months so paying the extra rider seems really unnecessary and costly. So I screwed in some large eye lags into the 2x4s in my garage and using two locks and a Kryptonite bike cable I lock my bike in the garage. Beats insurance.

Bacciagalupe

If you insure your bike, keep in mind they will a) have a deductible, and b) very likely pay you "actual cash value" (i.e. what they think it's worth) rather than replacement value (i.e. what you paid for it and put into it).

So let's say you have a $3,000 bike with $1,000 wheels that is 2 years old. The deductible could be $750, and they determine the market value is $2,500. You get back $1,750. Let's say you spent $50 a year for the policy, that means your savings are $1,650.

Theft is also usually covered by a renter's / homeowner's policy. So the only time you'd probably need the insurance is if you get hit by a car whose driver has sucky coverage.

IMO there are times when insurance is well worth its cost. Unless you own a Specialized McLaren Venge, or a Pinarello Dogma 2 with Super Record and Zipp 303 FC's, bike insurance might not be worth it.

I prefer a different approach: Don't buy a bike if you can't afford to replace it.

Jfitalia

I never understand this whole "don't buy a bike you can't afford to replace". That's the elitist attitude that gives cyclists a bad name. I know a lot of you on here on rolling in cash and can drop more than 3 grand for a bike and then more on wheels. Now of tie able to shell out another 5 grand when it gets jacked then great.However for myself I had save to be able to buy my new bike last month. Now can I afford to spend another 2 grand to replace? not right away but maybe I could later. So according to your quote I should not have bought my bike? That's just freaking stupid

ColinL

I looked into this with my insurer, Shelter. Ins companies can vary a little by state, so please don't flame me if you have Shelter and found the following to be untrue. It's true for me.

They won't cover a bicycle for crash damage inflicted by the rider. Period. No policy they have can do that.

They do cover bicycles under your un-/underinsured motorist coverage, of which I've got 100k per person / 300k per accident (imagine some ******* hitting my whole family of 3 in one shot. yay). So if someone hits me and they stop or catch the bastard, I'm good even if they don't have insurance.

If I have items stolen from my house there are limits for specific things and it wouldn't cover the loss of all my bikes. If my house burns, everything is covered. To get theft coverage on my bicycles, I would need get an inland marine policy which would cost about 20% the value of the bike per year. I decided that was not worth it, and I didn't care enough to go get competing quotes. Theft is not a statistically significant problem where I live.

pgjackson

When your bike is stolen or destroyed you will understand the wisdom of not buying something you can't afford to replace...especially something you can't specifically insure. How old are you?

pgjackson

I have USAA renter's insurance. I think I pay $40/month for about $75,000 in coverage. Used it to cover my Felt Z85 that was stolen at work. I itemized every single bolt and nut I added to the bike and USAA cut me check within a week, minus the deductible.

From previous threads on this issue, there isn't any insurance you can get to cover you wrecking your bike. If it's stolen, hit by a car, house burns down...you are covered under renter's/homeowner's insurance. You crashing your bike on a fast downhill? You better be able to afford another bike because you are SOL.

rjones28 

What's stupid and elitist about not spending more than you can afford?

ColinL

+1

there's a huge difference between wanting to replace your bike and simply having the means to replace it. No one wants to total their bike, it doesn't matter what the bike costs or what they have in their bank account.

but if your bike is totaled and you cannot buy at least a basic replacement that is a sad thing. if your bike were totaled or stolen and you chose to replace it with a cheaper bike, or take up running, that's different than being actually unable to purchase a bike even if you want it.


I would hope everyone in this economy is living beneath their means. If you're living check to check and spending nearly all your spare cash on cycling, that probably isn't a wise decision. ("You" is generic, not directed at anyone in this thread.)

unterhausen

I'm guessing they would write you a rider for the bike, we had them do this for some jewelry. Although if you meant a crash policy, probably not.

AK404

It's not stupid. It's basic wisdom: "do not live beyond your means."

I wouldn't say that anyone here is "rolling in cash," but another way of saying it is "don't race it if you can't replace it." For example, you have a $2,000 road bike. It can be damaged or destroyed during a race. Murphy's Law says it does: if you can't replace it soon, then you've not only missed that race, but the next as well. You're out $2,000 because your bike is out of commission, and you're out another $2,000 because you have to replace it.

This applies to components too. Don't blow a ton on components if you can't afford to replace them when they break.

It's like those guys who blow insane amounts of money on their cars, but don't have enough money left over for a Plan B if that car gets stolen or totaled. And those guys blow everything into their car: they eat poorly, they're behind on rent, and they work crappy jobs, but they've got an awesome car! But when Murphy comes a-calling, now what?

Me, I wash dishes and won't own a single bike that costs more than two grand because I know it'd break me: I own two that cost $1K, but if I bust one up on the trail or the cyclocross, at least I know that replacing one or the other won't mean Kraft Mac & Cheese for a month, spending more than I want to on my CC, or hitting up my bank for a loan.

Jfitalia

My age means nothing but if you must know I'm 30. Like I said I can afford to replace mine wether that be me paying in cash our credit. However there are plenty of people that can't. Maybe there was point when they could but now their finances have changed. Are those people now stupid for buying it. It's just a stupid saying that drives me nuts.

Sorry I wasn't some teenager that you could talk down to

milkbaby

Agreed, plus we are talking about bikes. A $1000 bike will typically work perfectly fine as a replacement for a crashed $10000 bike for the vast majority of riders. So no need to have $20000 lying around to buy a $10000 bike because of the don't-buy-what-you-can't-afford-to-replace rule! If somebody can only afford a $100 bike then they shouldn't buy it if they can't afford to replace it immediately? Silly...

009jim

In Australia we have a saying "you never know whether you have insurance until you try to make a claim". Basically there are enough clauses in any policy that they never have to pay unless they decide they want to.

diverguy

OP, like you, I have a homeowner's policy through State Farm. Ask your agent about something called a Personal Articles policy. I added my bike to one. It covers at replacement cost, is "all risk" which means it doesn't matter who does what to it, and there is no deductible. I was surprised how reasonable the cost was. Good luck. Let us know what you decide to do.

TheRedWolf

The "don't buy what you can't afford to replace" is a bit out of context. Step back and ask about insurance in general- why carry it? A better way to say it is, carry insurance for what you can't afford to replace- your house, your car (if you can't afford to replace it), catastrophic health insurance. For most people (stress on "most"), that's about it.

Bikes could be a gray area- it depends on your means and how expensive the bike. I suspect for most of us, if we wrecked our bike (as in totaled it), we'd gripe but could replace it. Same applies if you have an older car. It doesn't make sense to carry collison insurance on a car worth $2000 (again- assuming you could afford to replace it). Getting off point here, but in my opinion, insurance has gotten over used in this country (the US- and maybe others). If you have a $10k bike, if insurance were available, it may very well make sense to carry it. If you have a $2000 bike, probably not.

And couldn't agree more with the comments that if you total your bike, your bigger worry by far is the accompanying medical bills, not the replacement cost of the bike.

Bacciagalupe

As others have pointed out, you don't understand the point of the maxim.

The idea is that you should not spend so much money on your bicycle that it would present a financial hardship for you to replace it, in the event of theft or a crash.

That could mean buying a $2000 bike instead of an $8000 one, or a $750 entry-level bike instead of a $2000 one, or a hybrid or used road bike for $350 instead of a new $750 one.

Further, if you can't afford to replace a $350 bike, insurance will not help you -- because even if you can afford the insurance, your deductible will probably be $700 or more anyway. You wouldn't see a dime from the insurance company if it was stolen or damaged.

I really don't see how spending less money on a bicycle qualifies as "elitism."


If they bought it when things were going well, and had reasonable expectations that would continue, then they made a reasonably intelligent choice.

DropDeadFred

You wouldn't know, you've been here since April and I'll tell you I haven't seen but 1 thread on it THIS year. I brought this up last year but figured the info in the article was relevant enough to bering up. For somebody like me, who does not have health insurance and my largest risk is my cycling this makes sense because a crash would most definitely cost me if I really got hurt. Ps not all drivers stop and not all carry valid insurance.
with a bike value at over 8700 new (it's less than a week old now) I think the insurance is worth it to a point. I wouldn't insure a 2 year old bike
I can afford it, but why not wisely cover something if you can. As somebody who is more than financially stable, I've realized it's not about being able to only buy what you can afford and replace but to protect what you have so you aren't wasting money later.
I'll look into that.

AMFJ

^you have a bike that cost $8700 but no health insurance?

ColinL

+1

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. If you love cycling and your bike is crashed, stolen, whatever.. you will replace it with whatever you can. Besides, N+1 is rampant and I bet many forum members could ride *something* the next day.

DaveWC

My home insurance covers bicycles up to $1,000 max per bike. Then you've got your deductible of $500. So really, my bikes aren't covered. To get them fully covered I'd have to pay an additional rider of about 1.7% of the additional covered value. So to cover my Madone including the wheels it would be about $60 more per year. That would cover replacement value.

StanSeven

You don't need seperate coverage. Your bike should be part of your household belongings that's covered. If it isn't, switch comapnies.