Capt Sisko

It's the TV show style that I hate. Coming up. After the break. Next Time. I find that and the general dumbing down style very patronising. Henry Cole has mastered it to the point it puts me off watching anything he does. I also equally agree with rob m, many YouTubers are equally annoying but for different reasons.

The Facebook group below is quite good, but I guess it's one of many. One comment that does seem to pop up quite often is people's tyres wearing out a lot quicker than they expected they would whilst on the route. I can't see why Scotland would use a more abrasive tarmac than anyone else, but people saying they thought they had enough tread, only to find out they didn't is a frequently mentioned comment. https://www.facebook.com/groups/NC500Bikers

This is nothing new, youngsters get hammered by insurance companies regardless of whether it's a motorbike, car or even your mobile phone. Insurance companies know they're more likely to get a claim against a young person's policies rather than older & boring old farts. The second part is although what you ride/drive does make a difference, insurance companies are more concerned about paying out for what you'll hit. With some pretty mundane cars now costing £25k and decent stuff a lot more, the insurance companies know that the third party claims is going to cost them a lot if you hit them, hence they charge you more. It's nothing personal, it's just simple basic business.

One thing that's worth checking if you regular 'long way from home' type rider is what exactly does the recover to home bit consist of. With some it is literally a door to door service, same breakdowwn truck and you sit in the cab with the driver, bike on the back. Others however pass you through a chain of recovery agents with each one not being allowed to go 100miles from their base. OR You're expected to fund bus, taxi & train tickets home (which they may repay you for, eventually), whilst your bike turns up several days to week later. As with everything insurance, check, double check and even then watch your back.

A couple of years ago and feeling I bit flush I bought a pair of Rukka Stancer all singing & dancing Gore-Tex laminated leather glove. And bloody good they were, very comfortable and keeping my hands 100% dry. Then the lining started pulling out when I took them off. One of the things they advertised about them is that the lining is also bonded so it won't pull out, but it did. Sportsbikeshops said they'd send them back to Rukka and a couple of weeks later a replacement pair arrived. Fair enough and these were also as good at keeping my hands dry, but again, albeit it took a bit longer and not as bad as with the originals, but the lining started to pull out again. By now the gloves are out of warranty. Now if this had been a cheapo pair from Amazon I would have thought, well that what you get, but they're not, they're Rukka and not cheap . Reading up on the web I'm not the only one who's had this problem. Rukka seem to have a quality issue.* My fix for this was quite radical, but simple and extremely effective. I pulled out the liner all the way and cut it off! I already had a pair of very thin black silk inner gloves which I now slip onto my hands first, slip on the gloves and everything just fine now thank you. In fact, the gloves are now more comfortable than before and for cold weather a pair of similar but thicker Merino inners adds more than enough warmth. I know I shouldn't have had to have done such radical surgery, but my guess is the Gore-Tex just does breath well enough, your fingers get a bit clammy & sticky and that's enough to pull the liner out if not properly stuck down in the first place. Lastly, I also have two pairs of Richa Gore-Tex winter gloves. The heavy duty pair were half the price of the Rukka and the short cuffed a third of the price, both are what I call 99% waterproof, there's an occasional is that or isn't that a touch of tip of the finger damp uncertain feeling in really heavy rain, but the liners, after nearly five years of use are still where the manufacturer put them! *Having taken out the lining you can see the Gore-Tex laminate, and it reaffirms what I thought about the quality. The laminate is essentially the wrong size for the glove. It's scrumpled up, creased, folded back on itself generally looks poorly made. The gloves look great from the outside, but from the inside where the customer isn't supposed see, the quality is disappointing.

True, but what plod don't like is no insurance. If a vehicle has failed it's MOT with the testing station saying there are sufficient grounds to say it can't be driven away, then an insurance company is very likely to say that your insurance is invalid if you do and almost certainly will in the event of a claim. We all know insurance companies will look for the tiniest of small print clauses to avoid paying out.

Much as I wish, but I learned to drive at about 14, driving my dads Land Rovers off road, at night, with the headlights off, whilst a friend spotted Deer & Foxes with a red lamp and my father shot them with a rifle.

The crucial point of the video for me is that the armour was, and still is built to a low standard that was agreed on by the industries main players in 1997 for EN1621-1 and 2003 for '2. Okay that's not good, but it's history and we can't change that, however very few other things automotive are still using a 20yr & more standards. EURO 1, 2, etc for emissions, NCap, Helmets and many many more have been updated, made more stringent, safer or whatever since their initial introduction to either keep up the momentum of improvements in safety, emissions or just keep up with technology. So why are we either seeing 'the authorities' issuing updated & tougher standard for armour? They obviously do look at things periodically as we've just seen the introduction of a new helmet standard that none of us users asked for, but someone somewhere thought necessary.

Staying with BMW, have a look at the F800gt. Sounds like it might tick quite a few of your boxes.

One of my pets hates is not just too bright a dashboard, but the plethora of other illuminate buttons and now these ever bigger infotainment screens. Going back I had Land Rovers & Jeeps that you could turn the lot (not that they had much), but you could turn them off. It made a tremendous difference when driving in the proper dark (as opposed to street light dark).

Don't forget part of the job of the operators is to be a buffer and if the computer says no, often as not those operators have very little power but to do as the computer tells them, so don't be afraid to ask to speak to a Manager. I also think you need to change your vocabulary if you are using the same terms with them as you are using with us. You've used the expression "somehow (still don’t know how) they found out" as if it's their fault you'd given them false information and how dare they check up on you. You've said, "I don't think it’s fair", "because of this technicality" and above "did not receive and support" & "after my complaint." You have to remember in their eyes you are the perpetrator of the crime, not a victim of it. That may sound harsh, but put yourself in their position. They have done nothing wrong. Moving on, it's really time to start looking for specialist insurers. As I said, people who commit more heinous crimes are still able to find motor insurance, it'll just be a case of getting on the phone and talking to insurers & brokers rather than filling forms in online. Best of luck.

I take it that because that was done on Easter Sunday, you did that online. Whilst that is functional may I suggest you might stand a better chance of success if picked the phone up and spoke to someone. At least you then can state your case person to person and they may have some sympathy rather than have some unidentifiable middle manager, bit of AI or the computer say no.

That's going to be difficult, particularly if you take the insurers point of view. They'll look at it as they asked for photographic proof the bike was kept at address A. The client sent photos of a different place. That's not a technicality or like someone accidentality ticked the wrong box, in their eyes that's a deliberate attempt at fraud or whatever the technical term for it is. Insurance companies really don't like people who do that. The OP needs to be grateful they hadn't had an 'at fault' claim against them. The insurance company would have had to pay out to the third party, but they could have come back the the policy holder to recover that money (plus expenses).

Can't disagree with you about the food, and it's not cheap either but the good news is you don't have to buy it. The place does however it's merits and chewing the cud with the sun on your back at 1,400ft and with like-minded folk isn't a bad way to while away an hour or so. Mind you, I was also up there about 3 or 4 weeks ago and there was both the remains of snow in the ground and a stiff wind blowing straight from the north. I didn't hang around.