<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>

Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.

Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether there were
bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's probably just the one. Took
until Friday to get into MSM.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:27:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
>2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
>
>Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
>height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.
>
I don't think stupidity is in the exclusions otherwise our insurance
premiums would be a lot less.

>Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether there were
>bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's probably just the one. Took
>until Friday to get into MSM.

In message <cnrvsit5efsthhfdnjgf3p60ngijblp0fi@4ax.com>, at 23:26:47 on
Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:27:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
>>2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
>>
>>Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
>>height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.
>>
>I don't think stupidity is in the exclusions otherwise our insurance
>premiums would be a lot less.

The exclusions, of course, are in van insurance regarding bridge bashes.

Indicative example: "Driver accepts full liability for any overhead
damage".

>>Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether there were
>>bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's probably just the one. Took
>>until Friday to get into MSM.

--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:17:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <cnrvsit5efsthhfdnjgf3p60ngijblp0fi@4ax.com>, at 23:26:47 on
>Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:27:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
>>>2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
>>>
>>>Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
>>>height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.
>>>
>>I don't think stupidity is in the exclusions otherwise our insurance
>>premiums would be a lot less.
>
>The exclusions, of course, are in van insurance regarding bridge bashes.
>
>Indicative example: "Driver accepts full liability for any overhead
>damage".
>
Too general to be valid.
Blue Ice under the approach paths to Heathrow etc.?
Road surface built up under a bridge?
Dangling cables/structures?
Vandalism/theft attempts?
etc.

Standard exclusions pivot around fair wear and tear for which driving
into a bridge hardly needs specific mention**. Around Ely it could be
an expected necessary reminder rather than repetition of a specific
exclusion.

>>>Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether there were
>>>bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's probably just the one. Took
>>>until Friday to get into MSM.

** On the subject of specific mention, one might wonder what misuse
Enterprise has experienced to need this verbose exclusion:-
(v) for deliberately causing personal injury or property damage or for
any illegal purpose;

In message <v6l3ti5slbjh9tucfq8jaogdse4bopuprl@4ax.com>, at 10:21:22 on
Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:17:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <cnrvsit5efsthhfdnjgf3p60ngijblp0fi@4ax.com>, at 23:26:47 on
>>Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:27:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
>>>>2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
>>>>
>>>>Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
>>>>height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.
>>>>
>>>I don't think stupidity is in the exclusions otherwise our insurance
>>>premiums would be a lot less.
>>
>>The exclusions, of course, are in van insurance regarding bridge bashes.
>>
>>Indicative example: "Driver accepts full liability for any overhead
>>damage".
>>
>Too general to be valid.

You over-read things far too much. It clearly excludes bridge-bashes.

>Blue Ice under the approach paths to Heathrow etc.?

Or wheels dropping off a plane onto the roof of the van?

>Road surface built up under a bridge?

Height restrictions are always pessimistic by at least three inches. And
highways departments, despite your overpowering Dunning-Kruger bias, are
not going to put an extra three inches on tarmac on the road and then
fail to update the signs.

>Dangling cables/structures?

Few of those are going to affect a 7ft tall van. Not least because a
previous HGV or 8ft tall van will have swept them away.

>Vandalism/theft attempts?

Vans have typically 1k excesses for theft, but what sane thief will then
drive it under a too-low-bridge. But if they did, they probably didn't
take our their own insurance, so the claim would be against the MIB.

>Standard exclusions pivot around fair wear and tear for which driving
>into a bridge hardly needs specific mention**. Around Ely it could be
>an expected necessary reminder rather than repetition of a specific
>exclusion.

Wrong. In the sense that it's something which applies to all the vans,
everywhere.

>>>>Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether there were
>>>>bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's probably just the one. Took
>>>>until Friday to get into MSM.
>
>** On the subject of specific mention, one might wonder what misuse
>Enterprise has experienced to need this verbose exclusion:-

>(v) for deliberately causing personal injury or property damage or for
>any illegal purpose;

You aren't allowed to insure people for breaking the law.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <v6l3ti5slbjh9tucfq8jaogdse4bopuprl@4ax.com>, at 10:21:22 on
> Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
> remarked:
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:17:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <cnrvsit5efsthhfdnjgf3p60ngijblp0fi@4ax.com>, at 23:26:47 on
>>> Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:27:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
>>>>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
>>>>> height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think stupidity is in the exclusions otherwise our insurance
>>>> premiums would be a lot less.
>>>
>>> The exclusions, of course, are in van insurance regarding bridge bashes.
>>>
>>> Indicative example: "Driver accepts full liability for any overhead
>>> damage".
>>>
>> Too general to be valid.
>
> You over-read things far too much. It clearly excludes bridge-bashes.
>
>> Blue Ice under the approach paths to Heathrow etc.?
>
> Or wheels dropping off a plane onto the roof of the van?
>
>> Road surface built up under a bridge?
>
> Height restrictions are always pessimistic by at least three inches. And
> highways departments, despite your overpowering Dunning-Kruger bias, are
> not going to put an extra three inches on tarmac on the road and then
> fail to update the signs.
>
>> Dangling cables/structures?
>
> Few of those are going to affect a 7ft tall van. Not least because a
> previous HGV or 8ft tall van will have swept them away.
>
>> Vandalism/theft attempts?
>
> Vans have typically 1k excesses for theft, but what sane thief will then
> drive it under a too-low-bridge. But if they did, they probably didn't
> take our their own insurance, so the claim would be against the MIB.
>
>> Standard exclusions pivot around fair wear and tear for which driving
>> into a bridge hardly needs specific mention**. Around Ely it could be
>> an expected necessary reminder rather than repetition of a specific
>> exclusion.
>
> Wrong. In the sense that it's something which applies to all the vans,
> everywhere.
>
>>>>> Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether there were
>>>>> bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's probably just the one. Took
>>>>> until Friday to get into MSM.
>>
>> ** On the subject of specific mention, one might wonder what misuse
>> Enterprise has experienced to need this verbose exclusion:-
>
>> (v) for deliberately causing personal injury or property damage or for
>> any illegal purpose;
>
> You aren't allowed to insure people for breaking the law.

Not quite. If my car was struck by a drunk driver, their insurer couldn’t
wriggle out of my claim against the drunk driver’s policy because the dd
had broke the law.

In message <uqt7fe$18a5q$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:24:30 on Sun, 18 Feb
2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <v6l3ti5slbjh9tucfq8jaogdse4bopuprl@4ax.com>, at 10:21:22 on
>> Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>> remarked:
>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:17:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <cnrvsit5efsthhfdnjgf3p60ngijblp0fi@4ax.com>, at 23:26:47 on
>>>> Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:27:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
>>>>>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
>>>>>> height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think stupidity is in the exclusions otherwise our insurance
>>>>> premiums would be a lot less.
>>>>
>>>> The exclusions, of course, are in van insurance regarding bridge bashes.
>>>>
>>>> Indicative example: "Driver accepts full liability for any overhead
>>>> damage".
>>>>
>>> Too general to be valid.
>>
>> You over-read things far too much. It clearly excludes bridge-bashes.
>>
>>> Blue Ice under the approach paths to Heathrow etc.?
>>
>> Or wheels dropping off a plane onto the roof of the van?
>>
>>> Road surface built up under a bridge?
>>
>> Height restrictions are always pessimistic by at least three inches. And
>> highways departments, despite your overpowering Dunning-Kruger bias, are
>> not going to put an extra three inches on tarmac on the road and then
>> fail to update the signs.
>>
>>> Dangling cables/structures?
>>
>> Few of those are going to affect a 7ft tall van. Not least because a
>> previous HGV or 8ft tall van will have swept them away.
>>
>>> Vandalism/theft attempts?
>>
>> Vans have typically 1k excesses for theft, but what sane thief will then
>> drive it under a too-low-bridge. But if they did, they probably didn't
>> take our their own insurance, so the claim would be against the MIB.
>>
>>> Standard exclusions pivot around fair wear and tear for which driving
>>> into a bridge hardly needs specific mention**. Around Ely it could be
>>> an expected necessary reminder rather than repetition of a specific
>>> exclusion.
>>
>> Wrong. In the sense that it's something which applies to all the vans,
>> everywhere.
>>
>>>>>> Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether there were
>>>>>> bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's probably just the one. Took
>>>>>> until Friday to get into MSM.
>>>
>>> ** On the subject of specific mention, one might wonder what misuse
>>> Enterprise has experienced to need this verbose exclusion:-
>>
>>> (v) for deliberately causing personal injury or property damage or for
>>> any illegal purpose;
>>
>> You aren't allowed to insure people for breaking the law.
>
>Not quite. If my car was struck by a drunk driver, their insurer couldn’t
>wriggle out of my claim against the drunk driver’s policy because the dd
>had broke the law.

It depends a bit on which damage is being claimed for. Third party
damage will be covered, but there are several policies available
which won't cover damage to *your* car if you are drunk.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uqt7fe$18a5q$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:24:30 on Sun, 18 Feb
> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <v6l3ti5slbjh9tucfq8jaogdse4bopuprl@4ax.com>, at 10:21:22 on
>>> Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:17:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <cnrvsit5efsthhfdnjgf3p60ngijblp0fi@4ax.com>, at 23:26:47 on
>>>>> Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:27:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
>>>>>>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
>>>>>>> height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think stupidity is in the exclusions otherwise our insurance
>>>>>> premiums would be a lot less.
>>>>>
>>>>> The exclusions, of course, are in van insurance regarding bridge bashes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indicative example: "Driver accepts full liability for any overhead
>>>>> damage".
>>>>>
>>>> Too general to be valid.
>>>
>>> You over-read things far too much. It clearly excludes bridge-bashes.
>>>
>>>> Blue Ice under the approach paths to Heathrow etc.?
>>>
>>> Or wheels dropping off a plane onto the roof of the van?
>>>
>>>> Road surface built up under a bridge?
>>>
>>> Height restrictions are always pessimistic by at least three inches. And
>>> highways departments, despite your overpowering Dunning-Kruger bias, are
>>> not going to put an extra three inches on tarmac on the road and then
>>> fail to update the signs.
>>>
>>>> Dangling cables/structures?
>>>
>>> Few of those are going to affect a 7ft tall van. Not least because a
>>> previous HGV or 8ft tall van will have swept them away.
>>>
>>>> Vandalism/theft attempts?
>>>
>>> Vans have typically 1k excesses for theft, but what sane thief will then
>>> drive it under a too-low-bridge. But if they did, they probably didn't
>>> take our their own insurance, so the claim would be against the MIB.
>>>
>>>> Standard exclusions pivot around fair wear and tear for which driving
>>>> into a bridge hardly needs specific mention**. Around Ely it could be
>>>> an expected necessary reminder rather than repetition of a specific
>>>> exclusion.
>>>
>>> Wrong. In the sense that it's something which applies to all the vans,
>>> everywhere.
>>>
>>>>>>> Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether there were
>>>>>>> bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's probably just the one. Took
>>>>>>> until Friday to get into MSM.
>>>>
>>>> ** On the subject of specific mention, one might wonder what misuse
>>>> Enterprise has experienced to need this verbose exclusion:-
>>>
>>>> (v) for deliberately causing personal injury or property damage or for
>>>> any illegal purpose;
>>>
>>> You aren't allowed to insure people for breaking the law.
>>
>> Not quite. If my car was struck by a drunk driver, their insurer couldn’t
>> wriggle out of my claim against the drunk driver’s policy because the dd
>> had broke the law.
>
> It depends a bit on which damage is being claimed for. Third party
> damage will be covered, but there are several policies available
> which won't cover damage to *your* car if you are drunk.

My point is the dd is still being insured against third party claims
despite their criminal act.

In message <uqt8sh$196vp$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:48:33 on Sun, 18 Feb
2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uqt7fe$18a5q$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:24:30 on Sun, 18 Feb
>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <v6l3ti5slbjh9tucfq8jaogdse4bopuprl@4ax.com>, at 10:21:22 on
>>>> Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:17:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <cnrvsit5efsthhfdnjgf3p60ngijblp0fi@4ax.com>, at 23:26:47 on
>>>>>> Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:27:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
>>>>>>>> height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think stupidity is in the exclusions otherwise our insurance
>>>>>>> premiums would be a lot less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The exclusions, of course, are in van insurance regarding bridge bashes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indicative example: "Driver accepts full liability for any overhead
>>>>>> damage".
>>>>>>
>>>>> Too general to be valid.
>>>>
>>>> You over-read things far too much. It clearly excludes bridge-bashes.
>>>>
>>>>> Blue Ice under the approach paths to Heathrow etc.?
>>>>
>>>> Or wheels dropping off a plane onto the roof of the van?
>>>>
>>>>> Road surface built up under a bridge?
>>>>
>>>> Height restrictions are always pessimistic by at least three inches. And
>>>> highways departments, despite your overpowering Dunning-Kruger bias, are
>>>> not going to put an extra three inches on tarmac on the road and then
>>>> fail to update the signs.
>>>>
>>>>> Dangling cables/structures?
>>>>
>>>> Few of those are going to affect a 7ft tall van. Not least because a
>>>> previous HGV or 8ft tall van will have swept them away.
>>>>
>>>>> Vandalism/theft attempts?
>>>>
>>>> Vans have typically 1k excesses for theft, but what sane thief will then
>>>> drive it under a too-low-bridge. But if they did, they probably didn't
>>>> take our their own insurance, so the claim would be against the MIB.
>>>>
>>>>> Standard exclusions pivot around fair wear and tear for which driving
>>>>> into a bridge hardly needs specific mention**. Around Ely it could be
>>>>> an expected necessary reminder rather than repetition of a specific
>>>>> exclusion.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. In the sense that it's something which applies to all the vans,
>>>> everywhere.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether there were
>>>>>>>> bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's probably just the one. Took
>>>>>>>> until Friday to get into MSM.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** On the subject of specific mention, one might wonder what misuse
>>>>> Enterprise has experienced to need this verbose exclusion:-
>>>>
>>>>> (v) for deliberately causing personal injury or property damage or for
>>>>> any illegal purpose;
>>>>
>>>> You aren't allowed to insure people for breaking the law.
>>>
>>> Not quite. If my car was struck by a drunk driver, their insurer couldn’t
>>> wriggle out of my claim against the drunk driver’s policy because the dd
>>> had broke the law.
>>
>> It depends a bit on which damage is being claimed for. Third party
>> damage will be covered, but there are several policies available
>> which won't cover damage to *your* car if you are drunk.
>
>My point is the dd is still being insured against third party claims
>despite their criminal act.

Do try to keep up! They won't be covered for damage to *their* vehicle.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uqt8sh$196vp$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:48:33 on Sun, 18 Feb
> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <uqt7fe$18a5q$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:24:30 on Sun, 18 Feb
>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <v6l3ti5slbjh9tucfq8jaogdse4bopuprl@4ax.com>, at 10:21:22 on
>>>>> Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:17:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <cnrvsit5efsthhfdnjgf3p60ngijblp0fi@4ax.com>, at 23:26:47 on
>>>>>>> Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:27:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
>>>>>>>>> height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think stupidity is in the exclusions otherwise our insurance
>>>>>>>> premiums would be a lot less.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The exclusions, of course, are in van insurance regarding bridge bashes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indicative example: "Driver accepts full liability for any overhead
>>>>>>> damage".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too general to be valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> You over-read things far too much. It clearly excludes bridge-bashes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Blue Ice under the approach paths to Heathrow etc.?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or wheels dropping off a plane onto the roof of the van?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Road surface built up under a bridge?
>>>>>
>>>>> Height restrictions are always pessimistic by at least three inches. And
>>>>> highways departments, despite your overpowering Dunning-Kruger bias, are
>>>>> not going to put an extra three inches on tarmac on the road and then
>>>>> fail to update the signs.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dangling cables/structures?
>>>>>
>>>>> Few of those are going to affect a 7ft tall van. Not least because a
>>>>> previous HGV or 8ft tall van will have swept them away.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Vandalism/theft attempts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Vans have typically 1k excesses for theft, but what sane thief will then
>>>>> drive it under a too-low-bridge. But if they did, they probably didn't
>>>>> take our their own insurance, so the claim would be against the MIB.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Standard exclusions pivot around fair wear and tear for which driving
>>>>>> into a bridge hardly needs specific mention**. Around Ely it could be
>>>>>> an expected necessary reminder rather than repetition of a specific
>>>>>> exclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. In the sense that it's something which applies to all the vans,
>>>>> everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether there were
>>>>>>>>> bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's probably just the one. Took
>>>>>>>>> until Friday to get into MSM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** On the subject of specific mention, one might wonder what misuse
>>>>>> Enterprise has experienced to need this verbose exclusion:-
>>>>>
>>>>>> (v) for deliberately causing personal injury or property damage or for
>>>>>> any illegal purpose;
>>>>>
>>>>> You aren't allowed to insure people for breaking the law.
>>>>
>>>> Not quite. If my car was struck by a drunk driver, their insurer couldn’t
>>>> wriggle out of my claim against the drunk driver’s policy because the dd
>>>> had broke the law.
>>>
>>> It depends a bit on which damage is being claimed for. Third party
>>> damage will be covered, but there are several policies available
>>> which won't cover damage to *your* car if you are drunk.
>>
>> My point is the dd is still being insured against third party claims
>> despite their criminal act.
>
> Do try to keep up! They won't be covered for damage to *their* vehicle.

I’m challenging your assertion “You aren't allowed to insure people for
breaking the law.” which without qualification is not correct.

In message <uqth53$1cle4$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:09:39 on Sun, 18 Feb
2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uqt8sh$196vp$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:48:33 on Sun, 18 Feb
>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <uqt7fe$18a5q$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:24:30 on Sun, 18 Feb
>>>> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <v6l3ti5slbjh9tucfq8jaogdse4bopuprl@4ax.com>, at 10:21:22 on
>>>>>> Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:17:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <cnrvsit5efsthhfdnjgf3p60ngijblp0fi@4ax.com>, at 23:26:47 on
>>>>>>>> Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:27:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <uqlo65$3elpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:37 on Thu, 15 Feb
>>>>>>>>>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68308352>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully he'll get at least three points for ignoring the compulsory
>>>>>>>>>> height restriction. And no insurer is going to pay to fix the van.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think stupidity is in the exclusions otherwise our insurance
>>>>>>>>> premiums would be a lot less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The exclusions, of course, are in van insurance regarding
>>>>>>>>bridge bashes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indicative example: "Driver accepts full liability for any overhead
>>>>>>>> damage".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Too general to be valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You over-read things far too much. It clearly excludes bridge-bashes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blue Ice under the approach paths to Heathrow etc.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or wheels dropping off a plane onto the roof of the van?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Road surface built up under a bridge?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Height restrictions are always pessimistic by at least three inches. And
>>>>>> highways departments, despite your overpowering Dunning-Kruger bias, are
>>>>>> not going to put an extra three inches on tarmac on the road and then
>>>>>> fail to update the signs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dangling cables/structures?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Few of those are going to affect a 7ft tall van. Not least because a
>>>>>> previous HGV or 8ft tall van will have swept them away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vandalism/theft attempts?

** see below

>>>>>> Vans have typically 1k excesses for theft, but what sane thief will then
>>>>>> drive it under a too-low-bridge. But if they did, they probably didn't
>>>>>> take our their own insurance, so the claim would be against the MIB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Standard exclusions pivot around fair wear and tear for which driving
>>>>>>> into a bridge hardly needs specific mention**. Around Ely it could be
>>>>>>> an expected necessary reminder rather than repetition of a specific
>>>>>>> exclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. In the sense that it's something which applies to all the vans,
>>>>>> everywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fog of war... local reporting very confused as to whether
>>>>>>>>>>there were bashes on Tuesday *and* Wednesday, but it's
>>>>>>>>>>probably just the one. Took until Friday to get into MSM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** On the subject of specific mention, one might wonder what misuse
>>>>>>> Enterprise has experienced to need this verbose exclusion:-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (v) for deliberately causing personal injury or property damage or for
>>>>>>> any illegal purpose;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You aren't allowed to insure people for breaking the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite. If my car was struck by a drunk driver, their insurer
>>>>>couldn’t wriggle out of my claim against the drunk driver’s
>>>>>policy because the dd had broke the law.
>>>>
>>>> It depends a bit on which damage is being claimed for. Third party
>>>> damage will be covered, but there are several policies available
>>>> which won't cover damage to *your* car if you are drunk.
>>>
>>> My point is the dd is still being insured against third party claims
>>> despite their criminal act.
>>
>> Do try to keep up! They won't be covered for damage to *their* vehicle.
>
>I'm challenging your assertion "You aren't allowed to insure people for
>breaking the law." which without qualification is not correct.

You can give Charles his ultra-pedantic tediously boring over-reading
hat back.

Anyway I found a new exclusion in a different policy, which answers one
of Charles's quibbles: "... also does not cover damage caused by
aircraft or other flying devices (or articles dropped from them)".

** "... does not cover damage caused by... theft or attempted theft..."
--
Roland Perry