Car insurance compulsory?

[caesius]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10465761

Good move I say, it says nowhere in the article if bikes are to be included though. Although it could just be the Herald forgetting that bikes actually exist.

I don't think we should be included, without being hypocritical the stats are stacked against boy racers and we all know they are too scared to ride bikes :baby: Can't blame everyone for their idiocy.

[sAsLEX]

Yeah but it going to fuck normal responsible kids as well as we all know how the insurance companies use statistics.

Lowering the financial boom on any male under the age of 25 to drive.

[HenryDorsetCase]

If its bought in, it will cover all vehicles.... motorcycles are vehicles and thus it will be compulsory. But registration fees and ACC levies won't go down, and insurers (which in all cases are profit oriented businesses) will have a huge say (through leveraging premiums) as to who can and cant (maybe should or shouldnt) be on the road. Of course it will give the pleece another stick to beat any driver with (May I see your drivers licence, registration and insurance card please, sir/ma'am").

On balance I think a positive thing potentially, but like all these measures, it is only us law abiding middle aged citizens who will pay: I can afford it, and I am seen as a good risk by insurers.

Fuckwit boy racers (sorry "car enthusiasts") won't be affected: they know their POS shitboxes have no show of being covered, plus anyone with a bad driving record will be seen as a bad risk and premium loaded accordingly. These cock smokers dont pay their fines OR their rego OR their WOFs already, why would you think one more thing they wont pay will make a bit of difference?

[caesius]

Yeah but it going to fuck normal responsible kids as well as we all know how the insurance companies use statistics.

Lowering the financial boom on any male under the age of 25 to drive.

Why would the price of 3rd party insurance go up if it was made compulsory?

[caesius]

Fuckwit boy racers (sorry "car enthusiasts") won't be affected: they know their POS shitboxes have no show of being covered, plus anyone with a bad driving record will be seen as a bad risk and premium loaded accordingly. These cock smokers dont pay their fines OR their rego OR their WOFs already, why would you think one more thing they wont pay will make a bit of difference?

Yea agreed that maybe we could bring in a law where you actually have to pay fines. Someone once had a good idea for the morons who have ~ 20k in fines.

One night in jail = $200.

Now pay the fines.

[imdying]

Why would the price of 3rd party insurance go up if it was made compulsory?Look at other countries that have it... for some reason, insurance companies equate 'compulsory' with 'thou shalt go and rapeth all thy customers'. Wankers.

Anybody that thinks compulsory insurance will make a worthy dent in the activities of boy racers needs their head read.

[LilSel]

Yeah but it going to fuck normal responsible kids as well as we all know how the insurance companies use statistics.

Lowering the financial boom on any male under the age of 25 to drive.

My car is registered in my mums name because of this...
I have never had an accident in my 8years on the roads... but because I drive a 2L turbo subaru & im under 25 I fall into the 'risk/racer/whatever' category....

The first year of having this particular car I had it in my name & insurance in my name, it was $2500/year to be covered... & excess was even more!!

Now that it is in mums name with myself on the insurance policy as named driver etc... It only costs me $49/month (was $55 last year but no claims=lowered premiums) now.

Its crazy... because I have a clean record (& licence) etc... but that doesnt seem to matter whatsoever... im still gonna go race n crash n write my car off into a porsche or something right?! :done:

EDIT: my excess is still around 2-3k or something but thats due to mags & modifications etc, so they added on a grand to excess when I phoned them to say I'd put the mags etc on it. wouldnt want to not tell them about mods n have something happen n not be covered for those bits.

[Timber020]

The only winners in this will be those that have pushed to get this through- the insurance companies. Look at 3rd party insurance costs in most other places on the planet, fuck this, its bullshit.

Its going to cost us all a bundle. fuck the insurance companies, they now have the license to print money that they have been pushing for for years.

[arsnik]

Why would the price of 3rd party insurance go up if it was made compulsory?

Liken it to something you should have been through, NZ\'s stupid < 250cc laws, what a 250 prices like? Enough to buy far superior better handling bikes of greater cc\'s? SRAD 750\'s for 5k on average, cbr/zxr 250 for 6.5k+

I POWER was what the government wanted to restrict thats what the laws should say! Ridding a NSR250 putting out 50 horse at the wheel is legal on day 1!!!

To quote the article


Compulsory third-party insurance is expected to improve road safety by making it more expensive for boy-racers to use high-powered cars.



Automobile Association spokesman Mike Noone said he remained unconvinced that compulsory insurance would restrict access by young racers to vehicles without imposing an unnecessary burden on the rest of society..

To liken it to motor bikes, lots of people ride unsuitable bikes on there learner and restriced whist nto breaking the law. I dont think compulsory third party insurance will stop any boy racer from driving dangerously and unskillfully on the roads. Infact, they already break the law anyway, those dangferous boy racers, scum of all criminals eh, why would they care about some insurance bizzo?

[sAsLEX]

Why would the price of 3rd party insurance go up if it was made compulsory?

As it will.

We can take the bet if you wish but as imdying alludes the cost of insurance will increase.

[imdying]

It's all going to get very messy and complicated... what of those with a few old bikes that might get ridden once or twice a year? Do they all have to be 3rd part insured as well? If not, just how complicated is this system going to be? Complicated enough to charge plenty for it? :rolleyes:

[sAsLEX]

It's all going to get very messy and complicated... what of those with a few old bikes that might get ridden once or twice a year? Do they all have to be 3rd part insured as well? If not, just how complicated is this system going to be? Complicated enough to charge plenty for it? :rolleyes:

We have individual licenses. Why not individual insurance?

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Compulsory 3rd party insurance is a must, I believe. Your annual premium would depend on the power/value of vehicle, no claims bonus (which is earned), and your driving history (demerit points, bans, etc, raise premium). This would encourage people to keep their premiums lower. No insurance - no drive.

Following on from this, the offence of driving without insurance would have to carry stiff penalties, a ban perhaps is in other countries.

Currently, if I get hit up the arse by someone without insurance I have to cover the damage. How can that be fair?

As far as "boy racers" go, I believe that the ability to get finance here is too easy. In NZ, with the flood of cheap "Jap turbos" and easy finance, any young kid can go get himself a fast car and that's not good.

[arsnik]

It\\\'s all going to get very messy and complicated... what of those with a few old bikes that might get ridden once or twice a year? Do they all have to be 3rd part insured as well? If not, just how complicated is this system going to be? Complicated enough to charge plenty for it? :rolleyes:

If there registered they have to be insured. Pretty simple. If on exemption they won\\\'t. If any of you were in the insurance industry and you were given this gift of compulsory third party I think you\'d put prices up a wee bit to..

Interestingly this will not only affect joe blogs but big businesses like mine where the fleet is over 80 cars, we dont bother insuring through an agent as prices would be phenomenal, and do it ourselves, as it works out cheaper. The NZ police and all Governement Health Boards will no doubt have more expenses to pay.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE. TO INSURE??? HELENGRAD FOR ANOTHER TERM!

[sAsLEX]

Currently, if I get hit up the arse by someone without insurance I have to cover the damage. How can that be fair?


Surely your insurance covers it? And the excess you can get through small claims.



I you are hit by an uninsured driver in the UK there is a magic fund that covers your losses....... paid for by those with insurance..... not quite sure how it works though.

[arsnik]

As far as \"boy racers\" go, I believe that the ability to get finance here is too easy. In NZ, with the flood of cheap \"Jap turbos\" and easy finance, any young kid can go get himself a fast car and that\'s not good.

GREAT thinking. SO fast cars are only for rich kids. I SEE THE LOGIC. NOT!

[arsnik]

It\\\'s all going to get very messy and complicated... what of those with a few old bikes that might get ridden once or twice a year? Do they all have to be 3rd part insured as well? If not, just how complicated is this system going to be? Complicated enough to charge plenty for it? :rolleyes:

If there registered they have to be insured. Pretty simple. If on exemption they won\\\'t. prices will SKY ROCKET.

Interestingly this will not only affect joe blogs but big businesses like mine where the fleet is over 80 cars, we dont bother insuring through an agent as prices would be phenomenal, and do it ourselves, as it works out cheaper. The NZ police and all Governement Health Boards and anyone else with a fleet will no doubt have more expenses to pay.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE. TO INSURE??? HELENGRAD FOR ANOTHER TERM!

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Surely your insurance covers it? And the excess you can get through small claims.



I you are hit by an uninsured driver in the UK there is a magic fund that covers your losses....... paid for by those with insurance..... not quite sure how it works though.

Yeah, but why should I have to f*ck around with small claims. Yes, my insurance would cover it but then I get a premium hike next renewal.

Agreed, in the UK if I get hit by an uninsured driver I have to cover but there aren't amny uninsured drivers as the penalties are pretty severe.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

GREAT thinking. SO fast cars are only for rich kids. I SEE THE LOGIC. NOT!

Not the point I was making.

[Bass]

Compulsory 3rd party insurance is a must, I believe. Your annual premium would depend on the power/value of vehicle, no claims bonus (which is earned), and your driving history (demerit points, bans, etc, raise premium). This would encourage people to keep their premiums lower. No insurance - no drive.

Following on from this, the offence of driving without insurance would have to carry stiff penalties, a ban perhaps is in other countries.

Currently, if I get hit up the arse by someone without insurance I have to cover the damage. How can that be fair?

As far as "boy racers" go, I believe that the ability to get finance here is too easy. In NZ, with the flood of cheap "Jap turbos" and easy finance, any young kid can go get himself a fast car and that's not good.


I'm with this guy.
It's always been a sore point with me that while I get screwed over and maintain full cover on all my vehicles, so that if I do ever fuk up and stove in someone's pride and joy, they are covered. Better, they are covered regardless of my circumstances.
However, if some dick with no regard for anyone else and so no insurance, creams me, because they have no money, they pretty much walk away free.
I in the meantime, lose my no claim bonus with no recourse.
At least with this system, the law can slam them (criminal matter) where I can't (civil matter).
Whether it actually happens..... well that's another topic altogether, but at least the possibility would be open.

[sAsLEX]

Yeah, but why should I have to f*ck around with small claims. Yes, my insurance would cover it but then I get a premium hike next renewal.

Agreed, in the UK if I get hit by an uninsured driver I have to cover but there aren't amny uninsured drivers as the penalties are pretty severe.

ummm yeah there are. If I had a mirror I would be looking at one lol

And why would the fund exist if it wasn't used?



I don't see why we need more legislation to fix a problem that stems from crap parenting. We have the all powerful boy racer act, which can fuck them over more than compulsory insurance ever will, how about that get on to enforcing that in the manner it was envisaged?? What too hard, not enough police? They keep promising us more front line cops....... elections aren't that far off are they?

[ManDownUnder]

Thus removing the option of being self insured... WTF? ACC is bad enough, now insurance is becoming a tax too (oh that's right - it's a levy - I remember... )

More cops = less boi racers. Fix the problem at source.

[Devil]

Fuck this idea in the arse with a red hot poker.

I had to pay through the godamn nose for insurance on my cars when I was between the age of 19-25 because of the brainless dropkicks out there. $2k per year to have a non-turbo 300zx fully insured with a clean driving record. My crimes? Being male and under 25. Then onto a Mitsi VR4.
Just because I like my toys to be zippy doesn't mean I drive like a fuckwit.

[imdying]

We have individual licenses. Why not individual insurance?Yep, another point for another thread though... many bikes, one rego sticker... I can only ride one at once.

Following on from this, the offence of driving without insurance would have to carry stiff penalties, a ban perhaps is in other countries.Right.... cause a ban stops them driving... don't you read the papers?

I you are hit by an uninsured driver in the UK there is a magic fund that covers your losses....... paid for by those with insurance..... not quite sure how it works though.Oh, but why have a magic fund... everyone has insurance! Yeah.... right :rolleyes:

GREAT thinking. SO fast cars are only for rich kids. I SEE THE LOGIC. NOT!That's what they're talking about... You can be responsible as you like, but if you're poor, you're screwed.

Agreed, in the UK if I get hit by an uninsured driver I have to cover but there aren't amny uninsured drivers as the penalties are pretty severe.What uninsured drivers??? It's compulsory!!! You're not, shock horror, telling us that the system can't and won't work.

Not the point I was making.But valid enough anyway.

However, if some dick with no regard for anyone else and so no insurance, creams me, because they have no money, they pretty much walk away free.
I in the meantime, lose my no claim bonus with no recourse.If you're dumb enough to sign a policy that waves your NCB in the event of a no fault accident, then that's you're problem... :rolleyes:

[Bass]

Fuck this idea in the arse with a red hot poker.

I had to pay through the godamn nose for insurance on my cars when I was between the age of 19-25 because of the brainless dropkicks out there. $2k per year to have a non-turbo 300zx fully insured with a clean driving record. My crimes? Being male and under 25. Then onto a Mitsi VR4.
Just because I like my toys to be zippy doesn't mean I drive like a fuckwit.

Stop and think!!
If everyone had third party insurance, the only reason you would have comprehensive accident cover is if you want to cover your own fuk-ups.
If you were confident that you wouldn't make any, then you would only need third party,fire and theft.
It could actually be cheaper all round, depending on how much self control you actually have

[scumdog]

My car is registered in my mums name because of this...
I have never had an accident in my 8years on the roads... but because I drive a 2L turbo subaru & im under 25 I fall into the 'risk/racer/whatever' category....

The first year of having this particular car I had it in my name & insurance in my name, it was $2500/year to be covered... & excess was even more!!

Now that it is in mums name with myself on the insurance policy as named driver etc... It only costs me $49/month (was $55 last year but no claims=lowered premiums) now.

Its crazy... because I have a clean record (& licence) etc... but that doesnt seem to matter whatsoever... im still gonna go race n crash n write my car off into a porsche or something right?! :done:

EDIT: my excess is still around 2-3k or something but thats due to mags & modifications etc, so they added on a grand to excess when I phoned them to say I'd put the mags etc on it. wouldnt want to not tell them about mods n have something happen n not be covered for those bits.

Beware.

Should you need to claim insurance and the insurance company finds out you were NOT the prinipal driver there's a good chance they will turn down your claim.
Insurance companies have used this 'out', believe me, I've seen it so I'd make it 100% clear with them that they WILL pay out in the event you are the driver at the time of the damage occuring.

After all, reading between the lines it seems the reduction in premium is because it's your mum who is the main person being covered - you're just an 'add-on'.

[sAsLEX]

Yep, another point for another thread though... many bikes, one rego sticker... I can only ride one at once.


But we are talking about insurance here. You can get insurance that will cover you for other vehicles here(UK), I am pretty sure, I know it states in my car insurance I am not insured to drive others cars.

You see it is physically impossible for you to ride two bikes at the same time legally, but your four bikes could be ridden by you mrs and kids for example, so the one rego sticker would be open to abuse.......

[LilSel]

Beware.

Should you need to claim insurance and the insurance company finds out you were NOT the prinipal driver there's a good chance they will turn down your claim.
Insurance companies have used this 'out', believe me, I've seen it so I'd make it 100% clear with them that they WILL pay out in the event you are the driver at the time of the damage occuring.

After all, reading between the lines it seems the reduction in premium is because it's your mum who is the main person being covered - you're just an 'add-on'.

I am covered... I have full access to call up and discuss the account etc as well... I am DEF named as the driver of the vehicle on the policy etc and so on... & we have made sure thru our business solicitor/lawyer person guy that its all safe n legal n im covered etc...

Just means that parking infringments & speed camera tickets come in the mail with mums name :innocent:... (only happened a few times... but its still rather amusing when it does...) :Police:

[Bass]

If you're dumb enough to sign a policy that waves your NCB in the event of a no fault accident, then that's you're problem... :rolleyes:

You are assuming that fault can always be determined. It's not always clear cut and the Insurance companies often figure out a compromise between themselves.
Honesty is often the first fatality in motorvehicle accidents

[Devil]

Stop and think!!
If everyone had third party insurance, the only reason you would have comprehensive accident cover is if you want to cover your own fuk-ups.
If you were confident that you wouldn't make any, then you would only need third party,fire and theft.
It could actually be cheaper all round, depending on how much self control you actually have

Example 1) Tyre blows, you leave the road, car is written off.

Example 2) Traffic accident, fault can't be proven (for whatever reason), car damaged/written off.

Full cover is quite relevant unless you drive around in a shitter.

[imdying]

It could actually be cheaper all round, depending on how much self control you actually haveYeah, cause TPFT wouldn't cost nearly as much as full cover anyway.... good one :rofl:


But we are talking about insurance here.
Thus:

Yep, another point for another thread though.

[imdying]

You are assuming that fault can always be determined. It's not always clear cut and the Insurance companies often figure out a compromise between themselves.
Honesty is often the first fatality in motorvehicle accidentsSee Devil's post below your own.

[imdying]

I am covered... I have full access to call up and discuss the account etc as well... I am DEF named as the driver of the vehicle on the policy etc and so on... & we have made sure thru our business solicitor/lawyer person guy that its all safe n legal n im covered etc...Regardless... the policy is cheap because your mother is considered the 'main driver', you're merely a 'named driver'. If they do a little detective work, they'll find that in fact you are the main driver. On that basis the policy was obtained fraudulently, and it will be canceled, and you'll have to declare that your insurance was canceled any time you open a new policy, else you risk having that one canceled for the same reason. Scummy is quite correct on this.

[scumdog]

GREAT thinking. SO fast cars are only for rich kids. I SEE THE LOGIC. NOT!


No ya dork.

Fast cars are for any kid who wants to get themselves in hock to a rapidly depreciating import at exorbitant interest rates.

Any town you go to will have a "Nothing Down - Walk-in, Drive off" type car yard.

And then they drive to Mag&Turbo and put bling,tyres&mags on tick

And then they scoot around to WildSoundz and get a cd player and boom box on tick.

All on the wages of a shopping-trolley gatherer at Pak'n'Slave.

NOT just 'rich' kids eh!

(And I never picked it as being a comment on 'only rich kids have fast cars')

[Bass]

Example 1) Tyre blows, you leave the road, car is written off.

Example 2) Traffic accident, fault can't be proven (for whatever reason), car damaged/written off.

Full cover is quite relevant unless you drive around in a shitter.

I'll grant you your first example, but I'll also bet you that you could negotiate a cheapie no-fault deal to cover this.

Your second example is dealt with by both parties having third party cover. If the Insurers cannot detrmine fault they have to carry their own clients

In any case, I wasn't implying that full cover was irrelevant. I was just saying that you could decide to carry your own risk without being a financial threat to anyone else.

[LilSel]

Regardless... the policy is cheap because your mother is considered the 'main driver', you're merely a 'named driver'. If they do a little detective work, they'll find that in fact you are the main driver. On that basis the policy was obtained fraudulently, and it will be canceled, and you'll have to declare that your insurance was canceled any time you open a new policy, else you risk having that one canceled for the same reason. Scummy is quite correct on this.

They dont need to do any 'dectective' work... I am the 'main driver'... that is why the excess is around 3k... if mum ever drives my car n has an accident... for her its only like $500!!!
Mum's got a new 30k ford territory... why would she be the 'main driver' of a lowered/mags/stereo/tints turbo subaru? :lol:... we have covered all this stuff... trust me... long history with the company... family business=lots of insurance for toys + commercial equipment etc...
The policy thingie was passed onto the legal peoples that do...legal reading stuff n... well... stuff (I dont know... lol)

[Bass]

Yeah, cause TPFT wouldn't cost nearly as much as full cover anyway.... good one :rofl:


Thus:

It's a bloody sight cheaper for me - what's your driving history like?

[LilSel]

When I 'grow up' (turn 25) I'll be able to afford insurance in my own name again :D:wari:

EDIT:... funny that insurance for my bike 1/4 of the price of my car when its in my name... *scratches head*

[Ewan Oozarmy]

No ya dork.

Fast cars are for any kid who wants to get themselves in hock to a rapidly depreciating import at exorbitant interest rates.

Any town you go to will have a "Nothing Down - Walk-in, Drive off" type car yard.

And then they drive to Mag&Turbo and put bling,tyres&mags on tick

And then they scoot around to WildSoundz and get a cd player and boom box on tick.

All on the wages of a shopping-trolley gatherer at Pak'n'Slave.

NOT just 'rich' kids eh!

(And I never picked it as being a comment on 'only rich kids have fast cars')

Thank you.

[imdying]

It's a bloody sight cheaper for me - what's your driving history like?Yes, and I'd bet you'd like to keep it that way.... in a free and open market, that's a far more likely scenario.

[Karma]

I brought my first car in the UK at the age of 18 having only just got my full car licence. I paid approx £1000 for a ford fiesta 1.1, which for those who don't know is a small runabout car, roughly equivilent to a suzuki swift or something...

Anyways... on this car I got 3rd party, fire and theft insurance, and this cost me the grand total of £1200. This only covered me for hitting someone else, or if someone stole or set my car on fire... in no way did it cover me for anything else.

That's what happens when insurance becomes compulsary.

$3000 car

$3600 TPFT insurance for one year

Hope you're looking forward to it.

[ManDownUnder]

Stop and think!!
If everyone had third party insurance, the only reason you would have comprehensive accident cover is if you want to cover your own fuk-ups.
If you were confident that you wouldn't make any, then you would only need third party,fire and theft.
It could actually be cheaper all round, depending on how much self control you actually have

... ok - picture me this.

...my car gets stolen, and driven in a manner totally disresectful of the beautiful vehicle that it is, and coming around a left hander at speeds in excess of the posted speed limit (as naughty people sometimes do) it runs wide and into the path of an oncoming car.

Who's insurance pays?

3rd party cover on a stolen vehicle??? I think not
The cover on my own vehicle? None - they didn't cause the accident and aren't liable.

Or the old chestnut or driving into a tree (ask Xile why you'd do that - I have not idea... anyway... ). It's nice to know the tree is covered but... the car?

MDU
PS - sorry Xile LOL...

[Ewan Oozarmy]

ummm yeah there are. If I had a mirror I would be looking at one lol

Your choice, of course, but see what happens if you get caught, god forbid as the result of knocking someone over.

1st time you get caught = hefty fine + (demerit) points thus raising your next premium.

2nd time = heftier fine + ban + uninsurable on anything faster than a mini

3rd time = I hope you like porridge............

[scumdog]

They dont need to do any 'dectective' work... I am the 'main driver'... that is why the excess is around 3k... if mum ever drives my car n has an accident... for her its only like $500!!!
Mum's got a new 30k ford territory... why would she be the 'main driver' of a lowered/mags/stereo/tints turbo subaru? :lol:... we have covered all this stuff... trust me... long history with the company... family business=lots of insurance for toys + commercial equipment etc...
The policy thingie was passed onto the legal peoples that do...legal reading stuff n... well... stuff (I dont know... lol)

So how does merely having the car insured/registered in your mums name make it cheaper to insure when YOU are the principal driver?

After all, what advantage to the insurance company is it to have your mum insure (they wouldn't drop the premium etc unless they could see it would benefit THEM - they ain't a charity) the car when she is not the one likely to 'create a claim' if you know what I mean?

[Bass]

Yes, and I'd bet you'd like to keep it that way.... in a free and open market, that's a far more likely scenario.


Quite so and maybe I have got it wrong but my understanding was that third party would become compulsory but that you could still choose where you bought your cover.

[Bass]

... ok - picture me this.

...my car gets stolen, and driven in a manner totally disresectful of the beautiful vehicle that it is, and coming around a left hander at speeds in excess of the posted speed limit (as naughty people sometimes do) it runs wide and into the path of an oncoming car.

Who's insurance pays?

3rd party cover on a stolen vehicle??? I think not
The cover on my own vehicle? None - they didn't cause the accident and aren't liable.

Or the old chestnut or driving into a tree (ask Xile why you'd do that - I have not idea... anyway... ). It's nice to know the tree is covered but... the car?



MDU
PS - sorry Xile LOL...

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1219347&postcount=35


Yoo hoo !!! Up here!

[imdying]

So how does merely having the car insured/registered in your mums name make it cheaper to insure when YOU are the principal driver?

After all, what advantage to the insurance company is it to have your mum insure (they wouldn't drop the premium etc unless they could see it would benefit THEM - they ain't a charity) the car when she is not the one likely to 'create a claim' if you know what I mean?Don't spoil her fantasy scummy... after all, the insurance company loves them and all their business, they're not going to look for obvious things to deny a claim on :niceone:

[arsnik]

As far as boy racersgo, I believe that the ability to get finance here is too easy. In NZ, with the flood of cheap Jap turbosand easy finance, any young kid can go get himself a fast car and thats not good.

You haven\'t quite said why its not good? Great for the economy, Helen loves it, and creates more \"boy racers\" for her peoples to blame for creating new laws like impounding cars on the spot and now compulsory insurance that won\'t get rid of these boy racers......

[LilSel]

So how does merely having the car insured/registered in your mums name make it cheaper to insure when YOU are the principal driver?

After all, what advantage to the insurance company is it to have your mum insure (they wouldn't drop the premium etc unless they could see it would benefit THEM - they ain't a charity) the car when she is not the one likely to 'create a claim' if you know what I mean?

I dont know lol... valued customer?... I have no idea...
I am def covered and am noted as being the main driver... the excess is huge for me but not for mum... car is in mums name...

its the same with the company vehicles... they are in our name... n our 'boys' (employees) drive them... they are covered... I dont know about insurance etc and so on... it was all sorted for me... but from what I understand... thats how it is... the direct debit payments come from my bank account... I am authourised on the account... named... written into the policy... something like that... but what happened in the start was that I couldnt even get insurance cuz under 25 turbo subaru etc... then the one place that would insure me it was 2500/year... then options were discussed with insurance people n thats what they sorted out... *shrugs* ... I have peace of mind when out driving... and here's hoping for another 8 years of no accidents/claims... :)

[Ocean1]

Don't know if it's still true, but several years ago I talked to a head honcho for one of the big insurance Co's, he said insurance Co's simply break even on car insurance. It was more of a courtesy service, they want to keep the house/contents/commercial insurance so they cover your car too. If you read the article you’ll see that the insurance council has been against compulsory third party insurance for years, probably because there’s simply no profit in it. Those companies that offer significantly cheaper premiums can do so simply because they pay out less often.

The fact is those who are uninsured are currently getting something for nothing, everyone else’s premiums are higher because they need to cover the eventuality of a prang caused by an uninsured driver. So the argument about added cost is largely bullshit, the costs would simply be re-assigned to where they belong. As for insurance companies raping the poor motorist? well there’s plenty of them, they have to be competitive to stay in business.

Compulsory insurance is common overseas, in the UK you need a quote from an insurance company before you even get to own the vehicle. That does have the effect of keeping dangerous driver/vehicle/behaviour combinations down. Insurance companies live and die by statistics, they can tell you precisely what the risks are of any particular combination of car/bike to personal demographic are, and the correct cost of covering that risk. I remember the difference in price for me owning a Mini and an Opal Manta in the UK was more than the difference in the price of the cars. I have no doubt that extra cost was a genuine reflection of the extra risks involved.

I can make a good case for it either way, but if the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that each of us pays for what we get then one thing must change. We’ve got to start enforcing the fekin’ law. I’m not holding my breath, I don’t see repeat transgressors of existing law receiving the penalties that might control their behaviour. Fer fuck’s sake if they have outstanding fines or if they’re disqualified take the fekin’ cars and squash the fekin things. Oh, and then go after the finance companies that set it up in the first place.

[imdying]

I dont know lol... valued customer?... I have no idea...
I am def covered and am noted as being the main driver... the excess is huge for me but not for mum... car is in mums name...You are covered on the assumption that you're not the main driver... that's why your premium is low, and your excess is different for you. That's what being a named driver is all about... you're only driving it occasionally, so the premium is calculated based on the main driver (your mum, that's why it's her policy), and a nominal fee is added for each named driver. If you're found to be the main driver, and thus the policy should be for you, and thus charged accordingly, in the event of a claim, they'll simply cancel your insurance.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

[QUOTE=arsnik;1219395]So making expensive compulsory third party insurance LAW, will not affect get rid of those \"BOY RACER\" I doubt it will get rid of any bor racers. If your happy to drive around with no rego, wof or licence, do you think having insurance is going to worry you?[QUOTE]

It will if the resulting penalty is deterrent enough.....

[LilSel]

That's what being a named driver is all about... you're only driving it occasionally.

... yeah... I drive it occasionally... I ride my bike & drive my other cars as well... its just the subaru being 2L turbo that the insurance was an issue...

[imdying]

It will if the resulting penalty is deterrent enough.....Which of course it won't be... you can drink n drive 6 times before going to jail, they hardly ever confiscate cars for 'racing', hell, you even get let off speeding tickets if you smile sweetly at a police officer. Compulsory insurance will add nothing to NZ but an increase in the cost of operating a car.

[arsnik]

No ya dork.
Fast cars are for any kid who wants to get themselves in hock to a rapidly depreciating import at exorbitant interest rates.
Any town you go to will have a \"Nothing Down - Walk-in, Drive off\" type car yard.
And then they drive to Mag&Turbo and put bling,tyres&mags on tick
And then they scoot around to WildSoundz and get a cd player and boom box on tick.
All on the wages of a shopping-trolley gatherer at Pak\'n\'Slave.
NOT just \'rich\' kids eh!
(And I never picked it as being a comment on \'only rich kids have fast cars\')



NO ya dork comment was in refernce to the guy supporting the complusory insurance to get rid of \\\\\\\"boy racers\\\\\\\" created in situations described above

I agree about the guy with the sacked out Evo owning, PakNSave employee comments yet, part of the finance laws in NZ say that you can not lend money to someone for a motorvehicle if its not fully insured. You may find that sacked out Evo owner has FULL insurance built into massive price of HP or sourced by the dealer at massive rates as mentioned by LILSEL 2500K per year!!! His sacked out on chromes with big muffler with screamer blow off valves and sounds system louder than the pubs he likes to drive up an down past on friday/ saturday nights. Whether its under his mums name or not, it will be insured, or repo\\\\\\\'d.

So making expensive compulsory third party insurance LAW, will not affect get rid of those \\\\\\\"BOY RACER\\\\\\\" I doubt it will get rid of any boy racers. If your happy to drive around with no rego, wof or licence, do you think having insurance is going to worry you?

Stop labelling and blaming boy racers, the government in NZ likes to use them as a scapegoat and scare average jane doe into agreeing with certain laws...

[Bass]

Don't know if it's still true, but several years ago I talked to a head honcho for one of the big insurance Co's, he said insurance Co's simply break even on car insurance. It was more of a courtesy service, they want to keep the house/contents/commercial insurance so they cover your car too. If you read the article you’ll see that the insurance council has been against compulsory third party insurance for years, probably because there’s simply no profit in it. Those companies that offer significantly cheaper premiums can do so simply because they pay out less often.

The fact is those who are uninsured are currently getting something for nothing, everyone else’s premiums are higher because they need to cover the eventuality of a prang caused by an uninsured driver. So the argument about added cost is largely bullshit, the costs would simply be re-assigned to where they belong. As for insurance companies raping the poor motorist? well there’s plenty of them, they have to be competitive to stay in business.

Compulsory insurance is common overseas, in the UK you need a quote from an insurance company before you even get to own the vehicle. That does have the effect of keeping dangerous driver/vehicle/behaviour combinations down. Insurance companies live and die by statistics, they can tell you precisely what the risks are of any particular combination of car/bike to personal demographic are, and the correct cost of covering that risk. I remember the difference in price for me owning a Mini and an Opal Manta in the UK was more than the difference in the price of the cars. I have no doubt that extra cost was a genuine reflection of the extra risks involved.

I can make a good case for it either way, but if the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that each of us pays for what we get then one thing must change. We’ve got to start enforcing the fekin’ law. I’m not holding my breath, I don’t see repeat transgressors of existing law receiving the penalties that might control their behaviour. Fer fuck’s sake if they have outstanding fines or if they’re disqualified take the fekin’ cars and squash the fekin things. Oh, and then go after the finance companies that set it up in the first place.

You must spread some bling around etc
Cogently and succinctly put

[Ocean1]

You must spread some bling around etc
Cogently and succinctly put

Was actually rethinking this bit:


if the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that each of us pays for what we get

Hullin's not noted for supporting such policy...

[PirateJafa]

What can I say, besides this is a law that I've been in favour of for a loooong time.

Speaking as a 18-year-old with a car with third-party and a bike with full insurance, if you get off your arse, get a fucking job and spend a little less money on ricing up your piece of shit civic or evo, insurance is not the massive financial obstacle that many people make it out to be.

The main benefit here is not "taxing" the boyracers off the road (a policy I personally would not object to though - knowing a number of people who really shouldn't be driving - but rather saving the asses of those unlucky people who get hit by a uninsured driver, and are then forced to take the pricks through the courts etc if they decide to deny liability.

In any case, it would get a thumbs-up from me.

[imdying]

What can I say, besides this is a law that I've been in favour of for a loooong time.

Speaking as a 18-year-old with a car with third-party and a bike with full insurance, if you get off your arse, get a fucking job and spend a little less money on ricing up your piece of shit civic or evo, insurance is not the massive financial obstacle that many people make it out to be.Right... and when they calculate that the risk on an 18yo riding a GSF250 is $4500 per year, and it's compulsory, how are you going to feel about it then? But that'll never happen they cry!

[Ocean1]

Right... and when they calculate that the risk on an 18yo riding a GSF250 is $4500 per year, and it's compulsory, how are you going to feel about it then? But that'll never happen they cry!

I'd feel that at last an 18yo was being asked to take responsibility for his choices, rather than being encouraged to expect the rest of us to. I'd hope more such initiatives might be instituted for 15yo's etc etc.

[imdying]

How is severly restricting his choices making him take responsibility for them?

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Right... and when they calculate that the risk on an 18yo riding a GSF250 is $4500 per year, and it's compulsory, how are you going to feel about it then? But that'll never happen they cry!

I've been riding bikes since I was 16 and driving cars since I was 17 and I can assure you my 1st of each weren't a 50cc scooter and 850cc Mini respectively and I was no rich kid.

[Finn]

I think it's a good idea. A few years back, some punk rear ended my car and caused over 35k of damage. No insurance so I had to claim on mine. He didn't give a shit either.

[imdying]

Ahhh, good for you? :confused:

[Ocean1]

How is severly restricting his choices making him take responsibility for them?

I don't have a problem with him owning whatever he can afford. Why should everyone else subsidising his choice? Nobody's offering to help me pay the mortgage on a house I can't afford.

[Bass]

How is severly restricting his choices making him take responsibility for them?

By making him understand that if he wants his vehicle to be his toy as well, then he's gonna have to pay accordingly.

[Griff]

I'd feel that at last an 18yo was being asked to take responsibility for his choices, rather than being encouraged to expect the rest of us to. I'd hope more such initiatives might be instituted for 15yo's etc etc.

I would hope that most parent would not like having to fork out for their speeding little munchkins and buy them bus tickets instead.

That would be sweet!

[imdying]

I don't have a problem with him owning whatever he can afford. Why should everyone else subsidising his choice? Nobody's offering to help me pay the mortgage on a house I can't afford.Can afford? I would guess that plenty of people are driving cars they 'can't afford'. The insurance, just put that on the finance... this country doesn't need compulsory insurance, it needs finance market regulation more.

[imdying]

By making him understand that if he wants his vehicle to be his toy as well, then he's gonna have to pay accordingly.How will hocking another few k on the finance do that?

[Ewan Oozarmy]

How will hocking another few k on the finance do that?

I think the point here is only borrow what you can afford to repay. Ever noticed how much finance co. repo stuff there is available these days?

[Bass]

How will hocking another few k on the finance do that?
Isn't your argument getting a bit circular here?
On the one hand you are saying that the cost of insurance will limit his choice.
On the other hand you are saying it won't cos he will just put it on tick anyway.
Which is it to be?

[Ocean1]

Can afford? I would guess that plenty of people are driving cars they 'can't afford'. The insurance, just put that on the finance... this country doesn't need compulsory insurance, it needs finance market regulation more.

Dude you can't stop idiots spending more than they can afford, you're up against the advertising behemoth, the single largest budget on the planet.

You can, however decline to pay for that idiocy yourself. If you do this for a teenager you stand some chance that the workload involved in digging themselves out might teach ‘em somat.

Oh, and the finance regulation thing: I agree, long overdue.

[Griff]

Can afford? I would guess that plenty of people are driving cars they 'can't afford'. The insurance, just put that on the finance... this country doesn't need compulsory insurance, it needs finance market regulation more.

I think it DOES need compulsory Insurance :clap:

1. I would hope that vehicles caught without insurance should be impounded. :2guns: No questions..:2guns:

2. I also hope that if they opt to put their insurance on finance and drive like twats, then they will reach a level where they will be refused insurance (return to Point 1).

[imdying]

Isn't your argument getting a bit circular here?
On the one hand you are saying that the cost of insurance will limit his choice.
On the other hand you are saying it won't cos he will just put it on tick anyway.
Which is it to be?It'll limit the choice of smart people, and not of idiots...


I think it DOES need compulsory Insurance :clap:

1. I would hope that vehicles caught without insurance should be impounded. :2guns: No questions..:2guns:

2. I also hope that if they opt to put their insurance on finance and drive like twats, then they will reach a level where they will be refused insurance (return to Point 1).1. Ha, you're living in a dream world.

2. Of course they'll reach that level, and they'll drive anyway, just like they do now... having no license doesn't stop people from driving and crashing into you, why would compulsory insurance?

[Griff]

It'll limit the choice of smart people, and not of idiots...

1. Ha, you're living in a dream world.

2. Of course they'll reach that level, and they'll drive anyway, just like they do now... having no license doesn't stop people from driving and crashing into you, why would compulsory insurance?

Go back and see "Point 1." Give the Police the power to automaticly impound vehicles without insurance.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

It'll limit the choice of smart people, and not of idiots...

If they're smart then they will only buy/finance what they can afford.

[Bass]

It'll limit the choice of smart people, and not of idiots...

1. Ha, you're living in a dream world.

2. Of course they'll reach that level, and they'll drive anyway, just like they do now... having no license doesn't stop people from driving and crashing into you, why would compulsory insurance?


You are fighting a very valiant rearguard action mate, but I think this one might just be a lost cause

[imdying]

I don't think so... this will do nothing for regular honest people, the people who have insurance anyway. The government has already proven itself to be unable to enforce the current legislation they have, they are surely not going to have any further success with this. All this will do is give the insurance companies a license to print money, when they need to start 'putting the real cost on to the customer'. There isn't a country with compulsory insurance where the consumer isn't raped over it, there is no reason to believe that NZ will be any different.

When they figure out how to make people pay their fines, half the battle will already have been one.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

I don't think so... this will do nothing for regular honest people, the people who have insurance anyway. The government has already proven itself to be unable to enforce the current legislation they have, they are surely not going to have any further success with this. All this will do is give the insurance companies a license to print money, when they need to start 'putting the real cost on to the customer'. There isn't a country with compulsory insurance where the consumer isn't raped over it, there is no reason to believe that NZ will be any different.

When they figure out how to make people pay their fines, half the battle will already have been one.

I agree that the government have to get on board with this too. But still can't see why only "regular honest people" should have to purchase insurance.

[imdying]

I agree that the government have to get on board with this too. But still can't see why only "regular honest people" should have to purchase insurance.You can't fight human nature, no matter what legislation you have in place... dumb people are always going to do dumb shite... all making insurance compulsory will do is drive the cost up.

We don't need compulsory insurance, we need the courts to enforce their verdicts.

[Swoop]

An interesting poll, on the harold website, is running at 90% favouring compulsory.

[imdying]

One other thing. I'm driving along in my car, wasted as, and I crash into you. Since I was driving drunk (or speeding, or no license, or whatever), does my compulsory third party insurance still pay for the damage to your car? Or are we back to the courts that can't enforce shite?

/edit: And apparently it'll stop boy racers getting high performance cars... plenty of boy racers doing stupid shite and killing people in 'low performance' cars...

[Coldrider]

Insurance companies are just another financial investor. They invest the continual cashflows for greater returns and take out secondary risk insurance, and pay out liability when required.
Compulsory insurance will be subsidised by any of their cash inflow streams, whether they stick to vehicle policies or not, anyone who has a policy will have to pay, insurance companies won't run at a loss.
Note fire service levies are compulsory in household insurance, but not everyone insures their houses. Those that pay, pay for all.

[arsnik]

We don\'t need compulsory insurance, we need the courts to enforce their verdicts.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHA, thats gold.

[Griff]

Based on the general concensus, I think I have the answer!

It is every Kiwi's right to do exactly as they please and at the same time, not to be held accountable for their actions, or to be liable for the actions of other Kiwis.

Simple! Job Done! Next Topic please!

[Coldrider]

Based on the general concensus, I think I have the answer!

It is every Kiwi's right to do exactly as they please and at the same time, not to be held accountable for their actions, or to be liable for the actions of other Kiwis.

Simple! Job Done! Next Topic please!

How much would insurance premiums escalate in a state of anarchy, till the point that we are uninsurable.
A question for Lloyd's ?

An interesting point here, Lloyds Insurance pay dividends to 'names', wealthy old money people. In return for being a 'name' and collecting dividends, 'names' have to provide cash for Llyods liabilities when called upon to do so.

[WRT]

I'm someone who works in the insurance industry, and I can't believe some of the crap that's been written in this thread. I started making notes on the first page of points that needed correcting, but then I saw how many pages there are already and quite frankly I just can't be arsed. As this is a topic of which I do know a reasonable amount, it makes me cringe to think just how far off the mark the rest of the threads on KB are.

Griff mate, you've hit the nail on the head.

[The Pastor]

what happens when ur too pissed to drive and ur mate drives u home?

[Ewan Oozarmy]

what happens when ur too pissed to drive and ur mate drives u home?

He doesn't (unless his own insurance covers him to drive any vehicle with owners consent) and you get a cab or sleep on the floor :)

[The Pastor]

as if insurance wasnt expensive enough! luckly by the time this law comes into effect i'll be over 25 :D and bikes are cheaper to insure than cars anyways

[Ocean1]

I'm someone who works in the insurance industry, and I can't believe some of the crap that's been written in this thread. I started making notes on the first page of points that needed correcting, but then I saw how many pages there are already and quite frankly I just can't be arsed. As this is a topic of which I do know a reasonable amount, it makes me cringe to think just how far off the mark the rest of the threads on KB are.

Griff mate, you've hit the nail on the head.

Ah gwarn, give us the low down.

Ya can't bleat about rampant uninformed opinionated crap if'n ya not prepared to edumicate us. None of dem big words though eh?

[Coldrider]

Ah gwarn, give us the low down.

Ya can't bleat about rampant uninformed opinionated crap if'n ya not prepared to edumicate us. None of dem big words though eh?
Is that like a life insurance salesman explaining how much his fees/commission is, and any other fee.

[imdying]

Is that like a life insurance salesman explaining how much his fees/commission is, and any other fee.No no, I'm sure he's gonna say, 'Hell no, the insurance companies don't want compulsory insurance!' :rofl:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Stop labelling and blaming boy racers, the government in NZ likes to use them as a scapegoat and scare average jane doe into agreeing with certain laws...

Fuck that! Boy (and girl) racers are a bunch of scum sucking arseholes: they clutter up my town with their noisy obnoxious POS rice racer crap boxes, they mean I as a ratepayer have to spend more money fixing up damage they do to my roads, and they make my quality of life suffer by obnoxiously driving round in loud cars being obnoxious. Fucking death to them all. (and by the way, I get to choose.... your problem if you are out and about and I am on a rampage).

I am trying to buy one of those helicopter mounted Gatling guns to put on the roof of my pickup truck so I can paste a few of these mofos and their skanky ho's. No luck so far but I'll keep you posted.

[avgas]

Fixing up damage they do to my roads,
Just to clear something up here for those of you that have no experience in damaged roads or fixing them.
Worst vehicle damage to roads is caused by large heavy objects.
Examples are fully loaded trucks (carrying more than 10 ton), large earth moving equipment, tracked vehicles and misuse of vehicles with large amounts of weight (eg trailer with flat tyre, tray down and 1 ton of mass on it - grader with unbalance blade etc).
Saying boyracers wreck the roads is like saying surfers ruin the beach for everyone. They may piss people off - but they are not the final problem.
(I'm not a boy racer - i know how to drive and i have a shit car, but a hoon....mabey)

[Ocean1]

Just to clear something up here for those of you that have no experience in damaged roads or fixing them.
Worst vehicle damage to roads is caused by large heavy objects.
Examples are fully loaded trucks (carrying more than 10 ton), large earth moving equipment, tracked vehicles and misuse of vehicles with large amounts of weight (eg trailer with flat tyre, tray down and 1 ton of mass on it - grader with unbalance blade etc).
Saying boyracers wreck the roads is like saying surfers ruin the beach for everyone. They may piss people off - but they are not the final problem.
(I'm not a boy racer - i know how to drive and i have a shit car, but a hoon....mabey)

Bit of poetic licence due there dude. Besides, what does it cost to replace a give way/stop/school sign, letter box, fence etc? At least when we fuck up all we usually do is maul a bit of shrubbery.

[scracha]

Fairest way would be in a petrol/diesel tax. Just add a couple of cents per litre and have it go towards a compulsory third party insurance fund. Drive a big vehicle...pay more insurance. Drive more miles, pay more insurance. Drive like a @#4cktard, probably pay more insurance. Take bike out on a wee blat a couple of times a week, pay next to eff all.

Gawd..if only you Kiwi's would let me run this country properly.

[lanci]

Good idea, although there would need to be some government regulation to stop insurance companies going over the top with premiums etc.

Also how many people out there have been hit or know someone who has been hit by an un-insured driver? My mate was hit by a young guy with no insurance and his insurance did not cover him for that event. He repaired the car ($5,000 of his own) and took the guy to court, he now gets $20 bucks a week!

[Ocean1]

Fairest way would be in a petrol/diesel tax.

Yeah that'd work. Like the roads funding tax we already pay when we buy gas. Oh wait...

[lanci]

One other thing. I'm driving along in my car, wasted as, and I crash into you. Since I was driving drunk (or speeding, or no license, or whatever), does my compulsory third party insurance still pay for the damage to your car? Or are we back to the courts that can't enforce shite?

/edit: And apparently it'll stop boy racers getting high performance cars... plenty of boy racers doing stupid shite and killing people in 'low performance' cars...

Does the company not pay out to the third party then re-coup costs from their side?

[Chrislost]

If its bought in, it will cover all vehicles.... motorcycles are vehicles and thus it will be compulsory. But registration fees and ACC levies won't go down, and insurers (which in all cases are profit oriented businesses) will have a huge say (through leveraging premiums) as to who can and cant (maybe should or shouldnt) be on the road. Of course it will give the pleece another stick to beat any driver with (May I see your drivers licence, registration and insurance card please, sir/ma'am").

On balance I think a positive thing potentially, but like all these measures, it is only us law abiding middle aged citizens who will pay: I can afford it, and I am seen as a good risk by insurers.

Fuckwit boy racers (sorry "car enthusiasts") won't be affected: they know their POS shitboxes have no show of being covered, plus anyone with a bad driving record will be seen as a bad risk and premium loaded accordingly. These cock smokers dont pay their fines OR their rego OR their WOFs already, why would you think one more thing they wont pay will make a bit of difference?I think I amsmoked

[Mom]

I admit to not reading through this entire thread but will state my case in favour of third party insurance being compulsory, and no I dont sell insurance.

Third party covers you for damage you do to other peoples property/vehicles etc. My kids have not been allowed to drive their cars unless they had cover. Young guy that works for me parked his car outside our place (as he always does) one morning, it managed to roll down the hill and take out a goodly part of a new brick home a bit further down, he has NO insurance! The people who owned the house have had it fixed, and all their carpets and priceless antiques blah blah, by their insurance company, who are now wanting to be reimbursed for the expense. If insurance had been in place his insurance would have paid out and no worries for him. Sadly as there was none they want him to pay.........he cant....bankrupcy is his only option (he left the hand brake off so is "liable")

Third party insurance is a must!

[imdying]

Fairest way would be in a petrol/diesel tax. Just add a couple of cents per litre and have it go towards a compulsory third party insurance fund. Drive a big vehicle...pay more insurance. Drive more miles, pay more insurance. Drive like a @#4cktard, probably pay more insurance. Take bike out on a wee blat a couple of times a week, pay next to eff all.Interesting suggestion :yes:

Does the company not pay out to the third party then re-coup costs from their side?Don't know, asking the question :yes:

[doc]

This is pretty typical, everyone basically disagres, makes a bit of comment. But as usual, we don't take to the source, typical NZ'r profile. I'm as guilty as everyone I wouldn't even know how to find the Bikers Rights group , but thats where we should be headed collectively. MMP works with lobby groups if you can't beat em join em. 5000 kb'rs that would help the BRO. Please no one suggest forming a committee. We are just going to end up paying more.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Fairest way would be in a petrol/diesel tax. Just add a couple of cents per litre and have it go towards a compulsory third party insurance fund. Drive a big vehicle...pay more insurance. Drive more miles, pay more insurance. Drive like a @#4cktard, probably pay more insurance. Take bike out on a wee blat a couple of times a week, pay next to eff all.

Gawd..if only you Kiwi's would let me run this country properly.

I think your idea would work as a replacement for rego charges as then everyone would pay as they use, but would probably cost more than a couple of cents per litre if used to cover 3rd party insurance.

Good idea though. You'd get my vote.

[imdying]

I think your idea would work as a replacement for rego charges as then everyone would pay as they use, but would probably cost more than a couple of cents per litre if used to cover 3rd party insurance.

Good idea though. You'd get my vote.Combine that with a single rego per driver, and you've got my vote.

But how would you weight it for 'higher risk' vehicles?

[avgas]

OH I NO I NO.
We could have a set of governing rules that said if you do something, you pay the consequences, crash with no insurance - your kidneys are sold to recover costs etc
Then we could have people go out and enforce these rules, placing a juristiction over said areas where a body exists to checks for innocence.
We could call them laws, the enforcers could be called police, and the body could be called the courts.

[dmouse]

in the uk when you rego your car you have to have wof certificate and insurance at least third party no insurance no rego and if you get caught driving with no rego and insurance you have three choices 1/ the car is towed to a compound at your cost until the right paperwork is shown to the police, 2/ the car can be towed to a private registerd garage/workshop that is approved at your expense. 3/ the car is crushed and recycled if none of the above can be done and if the right documents are not shown in 28 days the car is crushed.

now bring that in with third party insurance and imagine some of these blings cars going through the crusher i think that they should be forced to press the button as well, also you can not buy a car in the uk without insurance whether you take it out through the dealer or allready have insurance its and offence and the dealer gets done and can lose his licence.

i pay full comp on my bike and van why should i pay for some snotty nosed kid to take me out in his bling machine and not have to foot the bill for the damage, last time i got took out the geek went through red lights hit me in the back at 60k and got away with diversion and with the agro from inusrance my bike was off the road for allmost 7 monthes.

[Ocean1]

They enforce laws??!!

How novel, wonder if it'd work here...

[dmouse]

it would not be that hard to impliment and also do away with the stupid green and pink stickers take a lot of junk off of the roads and all modifications would have to be listed on your insurance or the policy would be voided and the insurance would pay out for damage done by the offender and raclaim the costs back through the courts if needed to.

[Ocean1]

Yeah, I know dude. It's just that we wouldn't be even talking about it if the existing rules were effectively enforced, there wouldn't be a problem.

[mbazza]

You are covered on the assumption that you're not the main driver... that's why your premium is low, and your excess is different for you. That's what being a named driver is all about... you're only driving it occasionally, so the premium is calculated based on the main driver (your mum, that's why it's her policy), and a nominal fee is added for each named driver. If you're found to be the main driver, and thus the policy should be for you, and thus charged accordingly, in the event of a claim, they'll simply cancel your insurance.


The esteemed smiley face company tried to back out when out 17yr old son dinged our car and he was an occassional driver. We won! :clap: Cheers.

[MaxB]

In the UK I paid the equivalent of $1050 third party, fire & theft. Clean licence, 5 years no claims, qualified instructor, bike was garaged etc. etc. but I was under 25 and on my OE.

BTW this was for a (pos) Honda 400 in 1985. Welcome to the brave new world.

Hope I'm wrong but if this insurance lark comes in young riders are going to get hammered.

I cannot believe that if you hand an industry a monopoly you wont get higher prices. Remember Telecom in the bad old days?

[dmouse]

but and here is the big BUTT acc is paying out millions of our $ to all these bling drivers that have no regard for other road users either through the damage that they do to others or themselves now if they were made exempt from acc payouts for injuries sustained to themselves or being carried in an uninsured vehicle then that would be fair on the people that pay acc riduculas levies and it should also not pay anyone who is in custody or jail or commiting a crime now matter,

[MaxB]

It would be interesting to know the actual $ amount of destruction that bling drivers cause. A lot of posts on this thread seem to be about the fear or hatred these kids seem to stir up not what actual damage they do.

A death of a young driver is actually quite cheap in insurance terms (God forbid the rest of us think like that). Someone confined to wheelchair needs care for life. For the ACC this is the worse case scenario. What would be done with the boyracers who end up in a wheelchair? Leave 'em to die? Put 'em out of their misery? We are talking about someones kid here. Plus we still end up paying indirectly via taxes for the benefit or the health service.

I do agree with one thing raised on this thread, if you commit a criminal act you do not get ACC. This could include dangerous driving. Theres no way a crim should be compensated for getting injured 'at work'.

[Ocean1]

It would be interesting to know the actual $ amount of destruction that bling drivers cause. A lot of posts on this thread seem to be about the fear or hatred these kids seem to stir up not what actual damage they do.

A death of a young driver is actually quite cheap in insurance terms (God forbid the rest of us think like that). Someone confined to wheelchair needs care for life. For the ACC this is the worse case scenario. What would be done with the boyracers who end up in a wheelchair? Leave 'em to die? Put 'em out of their misery? We are talking about someones kid here. Plus we still end up paying indirectly via taxes for the benefit or the health service.

I do agree with one thing raised on this thread, if you commit a criminal act you do not get ACC. This could include dangerous driving. Theres no way a crim should be compensated for getting injured 'at work'.

Dude the insurance they're talking about compulserising is 3rd party property, not personal. ACC would continue to cover medical costs, (and compensaion) as it currently does.

If you want to know what the value of the destruction any particular demographic causes in a given year ask for a quote from an insurance company. Their prices are directly driven by that data and they know the average costs to the dollar.

[90s]

Don't know if it's still true, but several years ago I talked to a head honcho for one of the big insurance Co's, he said insurance Co's simply break even on car insurance. It was more of a courtesy service, they want to keep the house/contents/commercial insurance so they cover your car too. If you read the article you’ll see that the insurance council has been against compulsory third party insurance for years, probably because there’s simply no profit in it. Those companies that offer significantly cheaper premiums can do so simply because they pay out less often.

The fact is those who are uninsured are currently getting something for nothing, everyone else’s premiums are higher because they need to cover the eventuality of a prang caused by an uninsured driver. So the argument about added cost is largely bullshit, the costs would simply be re-assigned to where they belong. As for insurance companies raping the poor motorist? well there’s plenty of them, they have to be competitive to stay in business.

Compulsory insurance is common overseas, in the UK you need a quote from an insurance company before you even get to own the vehicle. That does have the effect of keeping dangerous driver/vehicle/behaviour combinations down. Insurance companies live and die by statistics, they can tell you precisely what the risks are of any particular combination of car/bike to personal demographic are, and the correct cost of covering that risk. I remember the difference in price for me owning a Mini and an Opal Manta in the UK was more than the difference in the price of the cars. I have no doubt that extra cost was a genuine reflection of the extra risks involved.

Ocean is totally right. Imdying and the other examples of high UK premiums for first small cars do cover the high cost of insurance in context. The mkt is competitive. I too paid more - much more - for my first insurance on my 1970 mini in the late '80s than I then did with 5 yrs no-claims I was paying paying 1/3 of the cost to insure the mini to insure my 306 Pug in London (not a cheap place to insure cars). Why should not young drivers' premiums reflect their risk? When I was young in the UK it was a pain, but it stopped me getting a GTi. And the risk was real - I was about the ONLY one of my peer group not to have had an accident or written of at least one car within 2 yrs of getting wheels. Why should I pay high ACC etc the rest of my life to cover these fools?
The reason UK prices seem a rip-off in comparison with NZ is down to many factors; crucially the ACC. Take in all these costs and I think the prices begin to look more in line.


I can make a good case for it either way, but if the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that each of us pays for what we get then one thing must change. We’ve got to start enforcing the fekin’ law. I’m not holding my breath, I don’t see repeat transgressors of existing law receiving the penalties that might control their behaviour. Fer fuck’s sake if they have outstanding fines or if they’re disqualified take the fekin’ cars and squash the fekin things. Oh, and then go after the finance companies that set it up in the first place.

If uninsured drivers have their vehicles removed from them and can't get them back until the fines are paid how can this not be an effective way to remove the uninsured from the streets?
The argument - present in the NZ Herald articles and others - that people will carry on driving uninsured anyway is ludicrous within the context of some 'teeth' to go with any policy change.
If nothing is done to enforce compliance then insurance costs will rise; but if there is enforcement then this could be a revenue stream for the police that actually is linked to reducing road problems, and lowers the road toll - unlike obviously their current ridiculous focus on speed.

[sAsLEX]

The argument - present in the NZ Herald articles and others - that people will carry on driving uninsured anyway is ludicrous within the context of some 'teeth' to go with any policy change.


The Boy Racer Act has some very sharp teeth as you put it. If they were used you would see the problem reducing.

CHCH seem to have an alright stab at it every now and again with big busts.......

[arsnik]

Fuck that! Boy (and girl) racers are a bunch of scum sucking arseholes: they clutter up my town with their noisy obnoxious POS rice racer crap boxes,

Look, you choose to live in south auckland, you deal with the consequences/

[sAsLEX]

If you want to know what the value of the destruction any particular demographic causes in a given year ask for a quote from an insurance company. Their prices are directly driven by that data and they know the average costs to the dollar.

Me thinks they do not delve much deeper than rough age and sex demographics.

WRT am I right?

[90s]

Fairest way would be in a petrol/diesel tax. Just add a couple of cents per litre and have it go towards a compulsory third party insurance fund. Drive a big vehicle...pay more insurance. Drive more miles, pay more insurance. Drive like a @#4cktard, probably pay more insurance. Take bike out on a wee blat a couple of times a week, pay next to eff all.

Gawd..if only you Kiwi's would let me run this country properly.

This get my vote for worst idea so far.

The whole point of insurance the problem with ACC is about risk.
As a 17-yr old car driver and a 15-yr-old (legal) motorbike rider I was a much higher risk than a mid-30s driver. My insurance premiums recognise this.

I agree that 4x4s should pay more for the damage they cause to roads.
I'm not so sure that they are dangerous (ie. risky) the more they travel. It seems that they are used on short-haul school runs at great risk of minor accidents.

As far as insurance goes I have been on the roads now since 1988 and in that time never had an accident that was my liability. I DO want my insurance premiums to reflect this.
I DO NOT want some uninsured fool to use my insurance to pay for his mistakes. I do not want to pay the same fuel-based charge as idiots having their arses covered by my fuel tax.

The boy racer thing is a distraction to the main benefits of compulary insurance.

[sAsLEX]

I agree that 4x4s should pay more for the damage they cause to roads.

.

Want to back this up with some evidence?

My 4x4 weighs maybe a ton and has a 1.3 litre engine. How is this bad for the road or the environment?

[90s]

In the UK I paid the equivalent of $1050 third party, fire & theft. Clean licence, 5 years no claims, qualified instructor, bike was garaged etc. etc. but I was under 25 and on my OE.

BTW this was for a (pos) Honda 400 in 1985. Welcome to the brave new world.

Hope I'm wrong but if this insurance lark comes in young riders are going to get hammered.

I cannot believe that if you hand an industry a monopoly you wont get higher prices. Remember Telecom in the bad old days?

Not sure you understand what a monopoly is. It is a measure of concentration within a product-market area (although there are other definitions of industry of course).
The crucial question is: how many FIRMS are in the industry.
A monopoly is one firm - ie. Telecom in the bad-old days.
But there are loads of insurance firms. Current policy is about making it easier for firms - firms from around the world - to enter markets where profits are high in order to stimulate competition.


As for your other point, let young riders get hammered. I was when I was young and it was a fair reflection. In fact one of the highest risk groups on bikes at the moment is me - mid-30s male. I will pay the true cost of my insurance happily. The difference between me and a young rider is I have proved with no-claims bonuses that I am personally a lower risk than some other riders. So I should get hammered less even though I am in a higher-risk group. But young riders have no proof of their risk profile so let them take the responsibility themselves. Where's the problem?

[sAsLEX]

The crucial question is: how many FIRMS are in the industry.
A monopoly is one firm - ie. Telecom in the bad-old days.




One could argue that that is not the case, that it is not the total number of companies but the effective number of companies in the market.

Ie the big 4 petrol retailers in NZ show monapalistic tendencies at times.

[90s]

Want to back this up with some evidence?

My 4x4 weighs maybe a ton and has a 1.3 litre engine. How is this bad for the road or the environment?

4x4 here refers to Range-rover type vehicles (landcruisers, ponsonby tractors) not having four wheel drive as in an Audi Quottro or Scooby (impreza turbo, WRX etc).

What the hell are you driving with 1.3L and 4x4? Is it a Rav?

There is ample evidence around for the damage caused by the class of vehicles I am referring to. Avgas may have the formula somewhere to hand, but damage to roads is a function of axle-weight and tyre size. It is not a linear relationationship so your car 4 times heavier than a mini causes more - much more - damage.
Not only this but once the top seal is breached the 4x4s tear the hell out of the road.
Even a Rav will cause a little more damage than a saloon - although probably not much more.

In NZ gravel rds that were easily negotiable by saloons are now almost impassable because fo the furrows and ripping caused by 4x4s. Ironically, this is seem as the needs for MORE 4x4s by the people that drive them.

The green thing is obvious of course. Your heavier high-cd 4x4s use more gas per mile. Deisels are also damaging because in this country they are not warranted on emissions, and dieseles are far more environmentally damaging unless well tuned.

[90s]

One could argue that that is not the case, that it is not the total number of companies but the effective number of companies in the market.

Ie the big 4 petrol retailers in NZ show monapalistic tendencies at times.

Well yes. A 4-firm concentration ratio of 100% is extremely high. Highly concentrated oligopolies are the main focus of the commerce commission. They rule out for example the mergers of AirNZ and Qantas, the attempt to buy the Warehouse by the other supermarkets etc because this leads to higher concentration.

Petrol companies are on the boudnary of collusive behaviour monitered by the commerce commission. This is the problem with 4 companies. The barriers to entry for oil companies etc are very very high. Woldwide concentration is a problem. (The form of collussion most likely in this case is price-leadership, whihc is on the very boundaries of legal behaviour).

Insurance on the other hand has far fewer of the barriers to entry, is far more competitive world-wide, and has many more players in the market than the oil firms. The commerce commission is there to ensure they are competing and not ripping us off.
I imagine some may well present a cynical reaction about the power of competition authorities to enforce this. Well the combined fines being paid in the last month by BA and microsoft are in excess of 5 billion - yes that's billion - kiwi dollars.

[sAsLEX]

4x4 here refers to Range-rover type vehicles (landcruisers, ponsonby tractors) not having four wheel drive as in an Audi Quottro or Scooby (impreza turbo, WRX etc).

What the hell are you driving with 1.3L and 4x4? Is it a Rav?


I get that, mine is a truck looking thing, and why do you need more power and weight?

[90s]

why do you need more power?

Erm ... error!error! brain does not compute question ... brain does not compute question ...

[MaxB]

Dude the insurance they're talking about compulserising is 3rd party property, not personal. ACC would continue to cover medical costs, (and compensaion) as it currently does.

If you want to know what the value of the destruction any particular demographic causes in a given year ask for a quote from an insurance company. Their prices are directly driven by that data and they know the average costs to the dollar.

I know this. I did not make my point so well. What I have concerns about is that this compulsory property insurance for motorists is the first step in passing over all vehicle related liability (including personal injury) to private insurers. Its a really good way of passing over motoring accicdent costs from ACC to insurance companies. How could this greedy governmant resist?

Does anyone expect the govt. to reduce overall ACC premiums if motoring accident and injury claims are handled privately?

As for the data held by insurance companies, I don't believe they have enough detail for bikes. Statistical research costs $. Their prices are often what the market will stand, if you start to remove competition or introduce compulsion then they will increase prices if they can.

[imdying]

As for the data held by insurance companies, I don't believe they have enough detail for bikes. Statistical research costs $. Their prices are often what the market will stand, if you start to remove competition or introduce compulsion then they will increase prices if they can.No way. That'd never happen. The multinational corporations only have the best interests of New Zealanders at heart, and they'd never screw us if they were able to hold us over a barrel! I can't believe that you'd suggest that the same fate to befall other countries with C3PI would happen here!

[scracha]

This get my vote for worst idea so far.

The whole point of insurance the problem with ACC is about risk.
As a 17-yr old car driver and a 15-yr-old (legal) motorbike rider I was a much higher risk than a mid-30s driver. My insurance premiums recognise this.


I've been hit by an uninsured driver and also haven't caused any accidents. My point is that NZ doesn't like to send peeps to gaol and therefore any compulsory insurance will just be laughed at by the unwof'd and unrego'd arseholes. At least an insurance "fuel tax" would have the ba$tards paying something?