Hmm…seems I am more confused than I first thought
I know what I stated about car insurance is correct in the UK, I thought it was the same here as well but I could easily be wrong. Doesn’t seem to make sense though. So a standard situation is a teenager starts to drive their parents car. Are you (or cwa0513) saying the insurance company does not need to be informed about this? Cause obviously the risk of a claim has just gone through the roof. If the parents are not asked to pay for this increased risk then it means we are all paying for it.
As far as test riding bikes, I read about one person who crashed while on a group test ride and he had little or no insurance. He ended up paying thousands in repairs that he could not afford. The dealership had no insurance on the bike which kind of makes sense. Can you imagine how expensive it would be to insure a test bike that any idiot is allowed to ride? That would be a crippling expense I would think. Then again, that might be why so few dealerships allow test rides.