I have a perfectly good grasp on reality. I'm prepared to accept that if I'm driving a vehicle off raod and have an accident its my own fault. You seem to believe that any excuse for your own incompetance will do.
You seem to be saying that accidents, both on and off road, or indeed in any area of human activity, should never happen since it is always operator error. Sadly life's not like that. Having a policy for an off-road vehicle that doesn't cover off-road is rather like having a policy for an aircraft that doesn't cover flying - i.e it's pointless.
He may have been a tad harsh, but if this wasn't a.f.l I'd venture you would have got a considerably stronger reposnse containing some very rude words indeed. Richard
Thats exactly what I'm saying.
1 I choose to off road. 2 I choose to take calculated risks 3 Sometimes I make a mistake and misjudge the risk 4 I admit my own mistake and learn from it 5 I put right the damage that I've doneThere seems to be a school of thought here that believes that there is some sort of mysterious third party or force that absolves folks from having to put their hands up to their own mistakes. If they're not prepared to admit the mistakes how the hell can they learn from them?
Theiur version would appear to be.
1 I go off roading 2 I have an accident 3 It wasn't my fault guv. 4 Someones going to have to pay for the damage to my vehicle.I admire your bravery for the Nissan Micra analogy, I started to type a very similar post and then thought better of even implying that any of the more touchy denizens of a.f.l. might be better suited to driving Nissan Micras ;)
Personally I use a S111 I enjoy it, its exceedingly capable off road and its cheap and easy to fix when i f*{k up ;)
But it's the risk, and pushing the limits, that makes it fun. One only finds out the limits by trial and error. "I wasn't expecting that track to collapse" might not be the tracks fault, but one only learns to spot it's potential to collapse by seeing it happen (preferably to someone else of course). Without taking the risk, it is impossibe to gain the experience. If I could not take any risks when off-road I'd simply not bother - I might as well buy a Micra and drive round Cheadle for bit (though, actually, that is a very risky activity!), so a no off-road policy is useless to me, and I suspect, virtually every a.f.l "member". Insurers won't pay out anyway if one has tried to do something stupid, just the same as on the road.
At least until Honest Gordon works out a way to tax them!
Richard
On or around Sat, 19 May 2007 09:33:21 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) enlightened us thusly:
to be fair, it sounds as though life has been "interesting" in the antipodes recently. I think in general EMB is a reasonable sort of bloke.
and in terms of where we started... Mark recently (ish) put one on it's ear and caused sundry damage, which he had to repair 'cos the insurance company were a wunch (as indeed I for one would expect). Whether the said insco actually covered off-road use, I don't know, but I can't blame him for thinking along the lines of insurance on his newer-and-shinier one.
In general, you pay for insurance so as to cover yourself against the possibility that yours or another person's c*ck-up leaves you in the financial do-dos. You decide whether or not to insure against any risk by judging the likelihood of being in the do-do against the cost of the insurance to cover it. I don't think Mark was denying that it was his error that landed him in the ditch before, but once bitten and all that, he was wondering if he could get cover against the financial losses that resulted.
ferexample: I wouldn't bother paying extra to insure Edward II against off-roading damage. If I damage him, I'll fix him out of my own pocket, or not bother. However, Edward is not my everyday transport on which I rely for my income - if I were going off-roading in a vehicle that I couldn't easily afford to replace and which I DID use every day, I might think otherwise. Mind, didn't stop me with the 110, which I took to PORC and hacked around in the mud to a degree. I didn't do anything really risky, mind - we also took mother's disco there and had a play in that, although it didn't do the side steps much good :-)
Ha ha, you've not been here long have you.
That seems a very poor excuse for joining a thread by chucking random abuse about. That isn't the action of "a reasonable bloke" however hard things may be at work.
I said no such thing - I said that off road driving without risk is about as exiting as driving a Micra round Cheadle and I wouldn't want to do it!
I'm affraid you've completely lost me - your original post moaned about "having to pay for others carelessnes" via insurance, yet you are now saying that they shuold get out there and have fun. If insureres don't charge extra - why are you worried? The no off-road cover companies seem, from anecdotal evidence, to be more expensive anyway!
Richard
Good god, what have i started!!!
On or around Sat, 19 May 2007 12:30:28 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) enlightened us thusly:
I'm sure you've had days like that. In fact I know you have... the best course is not to post anything on such days, I find. I thought, personally, that the explanation of having been dumped on from on high at work was by way of a non-explicit apology...
You're nothing but trouble! Less hastle rolling the 90 after all.
:-)
Lee
And I say that those who can't accept the risk without knowing that they're insured if they get it worng should get a LR they can afford to repair or stick to Nissan Micras ;)
My first post pointed out that its very easy to offroad to quite a high level without damaging your vehicle, any reference to insurance was an aside to that. Someone else (EMB??) then took off on one because he somehow believes that LRs spontanaously fall over all on their own!
We all have occasional bad days and go off on one at those we feel are responsible. IMO its another thing altogether to fire abuse at someone else who just happens to be having a random conversation with someone else.
If his excuse was an attempt at an apology he needs to apologise to the person he abused and to learn the difference between an apology and a piss poor whining excuse.
I've been around usenet and various email and web forums for along enough to know that the correct reply to any post is " Yes, you must be right as we're all buddies and drive the same vehicle, anyone who says otherwise is a self-righteous, ignorant, c*ck."
Unfortunately I also have an unfortunate tendency to think for myself and speak true to my mind ;)
On or around Sat, 19 May 2007 17:45:07 +0100, Mark Solesbury enlightened us thusly:
it is rather fun, isn't it.
popcorn?
Where we on the other hand are just a bunch of idiots who don't know our arses from our elbows, now you've figured out what we really are I'd suggest you go and find somewhere where your brand of stupid comments and daft assumptions might be appreciated. You really are coming across very badly, Austin's mate or not.
No point, since Nige isn't saying anything.
:) (Note to Tim: this is a humorous response. It does exist)
Stuart
Oh the irony!
Personally I think he's coming across rather well, I agree with much of his argument(s) and he was quite right to object to EMB's unnecessary comment IMO. OTOH your comments (repeated above) show breathtaking arrogance.
Julian.
Why does that not surprise me?
No two of you in particular are coming over rather badly. We can all have our own opinions without needing to turn abusive. I'm sure you know who they are!
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.