Will your car be 'Historic' or not?...

Absolutely. I have four Mini variants, all of which are over 30 years old, and one of which is my daily transport. It's marginally modified - what Mini isn't? - so why should it not be regarded as historic? My Elf has also done its share of the daily run, and that _is_ as original bar the fitment of an alternator. So should the fact that I drive it to work (last year it was may main vehicle) make it any less historic?

Some of these people just talk b*ll*cks for I living I think.

Chris Bolus gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

It's the definition that FIVA agreed with the German authorities last year, for the exemption from urban bans on pre/non-Euro-emission-standard cars.

All they've done is say "Well, this is as good as we're going to get to a standard definition of 'classic'". Does it fit every situation? No. Is it better than "built before 1/1/73"? Very probably.

Are you really suggesting that some bastardised heavy rebuild, wrapping an old shell around modern mechanicals, is "historic"? All those coil- spring series Landies, "split" Beetles, 602/disk "ripple bonnet" 2cvs. They're not. They're taking the piss, and putting the current historic tax class into jeopardy.

I very much doubt that a simple and easily reversible modernisation like an alternator or radial tyres or electronic ignition will make a car fall outside these regs.

The "non-daily-use" is certainly more controversial - but classic insurance will rarely touch daily-use cars, either.

It also means another 13 years before my 75 will officially be categorised as 'historic'.

Which may well have implications on running it over the next decade or so, especially with local authorities seemingly falling over themselves to ban anything considered 'polluting' from their cities.

I suppose that's down to interpretation. Footman James simply insist that you have the use of another (non classic) car as well. They don't tell you which one you have to drive to work every day.

There's nothing stopping someone having 2 classics and insuring one as regular "daily use" car, just won't get classic discount. Even in Germany could have one insured and taxed as a daily driver but banned from city center and other as limited use classic that is allowed into city centers. If you have to go to the city every day, have more, use a different "classic" every day on a rota and use the "daily use" one at weekends when you don't have to go to the city.

If you live and work in the city WTF do you need a "daily driver" car for anyway?

When the SD1 insurance came up a couple of years ago I shopped around after the renewal on my classic policy went up by far more than inflation. And ended up insuring it with the same company - Direct Line - as my main car as with second car discount the premium was less than the classic one I'd been quoted, and about the same as the lowest I could find. Of course there's no agreed value - but in event of a major claim I'd expect to have to argue anyway.

It's the EU's motor makers intention (PSA/VW/??) to have the EU pass laws that make keeping any car over 15 years old almost impossible. So there will come a time when no new cars can become "historic" unless laid up in a shed for 15 years from age 15 to 30. And then they will come looking for them asking why you haven't recycled it.

Anyway it seems PC is now listing the 200SX S13 in the price guide.

So why do all my classic policies have "commuting" specified?

Every policy that I have had from Footman James has permitted daily use of the car and has also, on request, added business use of the car. They also provide European Assistance and Breakdown cover which was damned useful for club outings in France.

Commuting doesn't imply daily use.

Ian

It doesn't? What *does* it imply then? I've got a couple of FJ policies, both of which grant unlimited mileage (I only wanted 3K each, but they gave me unlimited anyway) AND commuting along with SDP. If none of those conditions include daily use, do you want to point out what extra condition *does* do that which is included on 'normal' policies?

Yes it does! What else would 'regular travelling' refer to in the context?

Phileaus Leaius gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Use for commuting. Occasionally.

Even then, not all classic policies will include that - I've had to ask for it before, and I've had it refused before.

Then shouldn't it say "occasional commuting" rather than "commuting"? I reckon an ins.co. would have a hard time not paying out on a policy on the grounds of 'excessive use for commuting' when the policy has made no mention of there being any potential limit on that!

I have to have business use on mine because I don't travel to the same place of work but I had to ask for it because, as you pointed out, not all policies have commuting on.

Even my wifes' bog standard policy didn't have commuting on unless you specified it.

We're not asking whether all policies include it. We're asking what it

The date being 9 Dec 2008, Phileaus Leaius decided to write:

Commuting means daily travelling to and from a place of work, so "occasional commuting" is a contradiction in terms. However insurance policies are usually worded something like "includes travel to and from a fixed place of employment" (or excludes ...) which doesn't stipulate how many times a week you do it.

Travel to and from usual place of employment. It's a type of use (as opposed to "social, domestic and pleasure") and not a frequency.

Ian

Not as far as insurance policies are concerned, it doesn't. You try having an accident on your one trip into work this year in a car insured for social, domestic and pleasure use only.

Ian