Drivers face compulsory third-party insurance

[Dodger]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4478220a10.html



The Government is poised to introduce compulsory third-party insurance for all New Zealand drivers.
It is too soon to say how much it will cost motorists, but premiums are likely to be high for young drivers or those with modified cars. Third-party insurance costs about $100 a year for experienced motorists with little or no record of traffic offences.

[YellowDog]

IMO - This will be a very good thing for ALL motorists.

If this is introduced, it will hopefully address or remove the potential issue of irresponsible 15 year old kids with 3.5 litre cars destroying the lives of others.

Why don't you set this up as a 'Good Thing 'Bad thing' vote?

[Ms Piggy]

IMHO this is a good move. It may (unfortunately) mean things will become financially tighter for those on low incomes but currently it's a lose/lose situation all round. I always shudder when someone says they have no car insurance at all.

[gunnyrob]

Good stuff, about time.

[HDTboy]

I think it's fucking stupid.

[tide]

mmm personaly I think it is a good idea... I'm insured anyway so doesn't affect me... but to think if I get hit and it's the other drivers fault I have a claim... and don't have to fight someone for money throught he courts...

[scracha]

I think it's fucking stupid.

Why? Have you got 200K in the bank in-case you clip someone's Lamborghini?

[YellowDog]

Insurance costs will come down for all except 'HDTboy'

[Dodger]

poll posted...

[Owl]

I think it's fucking stupid.

I'd love to know the reason behind that.

[HDTboy]

Insurance costs will come down for all except 'HDTboy'

Bwahahahaha, do you think costs will come down for a captured market? think about it for a few minutes.

If it is compulsory (like fuel is), the prices will go up.

[Owl]

Bwahahahaha, do you think costs will come down for a captured market? think about it for a few minutes.

If it is compulsory (like fuel is), the prices will go up.

Fuel is hardly a good example. When was the last time you saw massive differences in the price of fuel between companies? There is a lot more competition with insurance!
I'm just curious as to how the government will work and enforce it.

[TimeOut]

Great idea, I can't see why it wouldn't bring the cost down (for those of us already insured)
Enforcement shouldn't be a problem, everyone stopped WOF,Reg, breath test, insurance. No insurance vechicle impounded till it has cover:crybaby:

[Dodger]

At a guess 3rd part will go up, Doubt it will affect full cover, but you never know.

On the plus side it may put a damper on young the boy racer tossers in their 4Lt turbo, modified cages.

[Usarka]

Great idea, I can't see why it wouldn't bring the cost down (for those of us already insured)

And make it 10 times higher for new drivers/riders.

This is a good reason why any young guys or gals who are doing the old dodgy trick of getting the olds to insure their bike/car should stop immediately and bite the bullet and get insurance under your own name now.

If you dont have an insurance history when this comes in then it will likely cost you a lot more......

[JimO]

so the clowns who drive around without rego and wof are going to have 3rd party..yea rite..those out there who dont give a rats arse still wont and those of us who already insure our vehicles will end up paying more for rego to cover the comp 3rd party

[YellowDog]

Bwahahahaha, do you think costs will come down for a captured market? think about it for a few minutes.

If it is compulsory (like fuel is), the prices will go up.
There are many NZ Insurance brokers plus AUS ones too. With this huge amount of new business they will all be after as bigger slice of the cake as they can get.

It's called competition!

[YellowDog]

so the clowns who drive around without rego and wof are going to have 3rd party..yea rite..those out there who dont give a rats arse still wont and those of us who already insure our vehicles will end up paying more for rego to cover the comp 3rd party
Good point jimjim, but it will give Police more power to keep such idiots off the road.

[Dodger]

so the clowns who drive around without rego and wof are going to have 3rd party..yea rite..those out there who dont give a rats arse still wont and those of us who already insure our vehicles will end up paying more for rego to cover the comp 3rd party

But now when they do get caught it will be for "no rego", "no wof" and "no insurance" so all good :)

[Owl]

so the clowns who drive around without rego and wof are going to have 3rd party..yea rite..those out there who dont give a rats arse still wont and those of us who already insure our vehicles will end up paying more for rego to cover the comp 3rd party

I agree with you jimjim. So why not make penalties tough to encourage compliance. Missing one of those three things could be considered an oversight and warrant a fine. Miss any two and your vehicle is confiscated and sold.

[Manxman]

And make it 10 times higher for new drivers/riders.

This is a good reason why any young guys or gals who are doing the old dodgy trick of getting the olds to insure their bike/car should stop immediately and bite the bullet and get insurance under your own name now.

If you dont have an insurance history when this comes in then it will likely cost you a lot more......

Good point. Plus, if it's anything like the way that it works in the UK, the ins co will look at who the 'main' driver is, regardless of whose name the policy is in.

ie if you ins under yer old man's name and you have the bump - it's highly likely the ins co won't cough up.;) They will 'look through' the technical side and look at the practical side of the situation.

This has gotta be good in getting those fecken outta control boy racers off the road, and is about the only decent thing this govt has done in the past three years.

Agree with someone else's point that education has to play a big part of younger kids being allowed on the road. However, it seems that things are almost outta control in some cities, therefore punitive action is this instance is probably justified.

Driving is a right to be earned and respected. With that comes responsibility.

[scracha]

I agree with you jimjim. So why not make penalties tough to encourage compliance. Missing one of those three things could be considered an oversight and warrant a fine. Miss any two and your vehicle is confiscated and sold.

Crash into someone, no insurance, can't afford to pay them....oh dear...go to gaol, do not collect $200. Same should apply to banned and drink drivers.

As I've already stated a dozen or so times, the threat of a good shag up the arse would make a lot of these arseholes (no pun intended) act a bit more responsibly.

[Disco Dan]

It's bad. Very bad.

Personal responsibility? Personal choice? Looks like those words will be deleted from the dictionary.

What happens if you have more than one bike? Going to cost a smegging fortune, but at least the bikes/cars sitting at home tucked up in your garage are insured while your out and about in/on another vehicle....

There has been no mention of licenses...? Riding a bike without the correct class will deem any insurance void straight away, good for increasing compliance, also good for revenue gathering... bad for the poor sod in a merc that slammed on the anchors in front of you...

Will be a good move towards bringing all those geay boi racers into line... bad for bikers. Bad for bikers that also have a car and have to pay two premiums. Bad for bikers sitting on big bikes on wrong licenses.

Although I was just thinking how it would be good to bring this in at the same time the motorcycle cc-license thing was changed... then I remembered it will be!

Overall, I guess it would be good. Right now? Heck, I never like change.

[Ixion]

$100 a year for experienced motorists with few traffic offences? Utter total pig swilling CRAP.

That statement has to be the prime piece of bull shit of this century. Try adding at least one zero. For every vehicle you own!

I fit the criterion. NEVER hit another vehicle in 40+ years. Never done any damage that I would have claimed for. One speeding ticket in 50 years . $100 ? Yeah. Tui

I tried it , with one of those on line insurance things. Tried seeing what it would cost to insure the BMW. Set a value of $4000 . Comprehensive? Nearly $3000! With a $1000 excess ! OK, try third party fire and theft. Bit over $1000. BUT-- that's with a compulsary $2000 theft excess ON TOP OF the standard $1000 excess. So they want $1000+ a year to insure me for a loss of , um $1000!

Then I tried third party only . It was more than TPFT !

Insurance in NZ (and I guess most other countries) is just an out an out swindle.

There won't be ANYONE getting third party for $100. Reckon on $1000 for minimum third party , FOR EVERY VEHICLE YOU OWN.

And, all you folk going on about how other people will have to pay you. What odds do you reckon on an insurance company paying out, even if the person who hit you DOES have insurance. Based on what we've seen here, about 25% I reckon. And then you'll have to factor in your higher premium, loss of no claims bonus for having made a claim. Lot better odds to take them to court direct.

On the basis of the figures they quoted, I've saved , in 2008 dollars , around $1,220,000 by not being insured. Annual premiums $3000, times average of four vehicles owned over the period, at 5% tax paid compounding for 40 years . That should MORE than cover any claim anyone's likely to have on me.

[Kickaha]

I think it's fucking stupid.

Me too, we're about to get fucked good and proper

I currently pay $27 a year for my bike, so even if it is $100 a year it's a substantial % increase

[Coyote]

So are we going to see lower premiums with more people paying for insurance?

Or are they going to get higher since there's no choice not to get insurance?


I think it'll be the latter, and the government will let it happen. It's a good idea in theory, possibly a properly run government not-for-profit system doing it, but I have more chance of winning an air race on a pig then that happening.

[MaxB]

So are we going to see lower premiums with more people paying for insurance?

Or are they going to get higher since there's no choice not to get insurance?


I think it'll be the latter, and the government will let it happen. It's a good idea in theory, possibly a properly run government not-for-profit system doing it, but I have more chance of winning an air race on a pig then that happening.

I agree, it will be more $$$$.

They say that Labour is the party of the poor, this a way of creating some more.

[Zookey]

about bl#### time Once in a life time ago third party insurance was part of your rego,then that was stopped but they kept on charging :devil2:

[PrincessBandit]

It's bad. Very bad.

Personal responsibility? Personal choice? Looks like those words will be deleted from the dictionary.

What happens if you have more than one bike? Going to cost a smegging fortune, but at least the bikes/cars sitting at home tucked up in your garage are insured while your out and about in/on another vehicle....

There has been no mention of licenses...? Riding a bike without the correct class will deem any insurance void straight away, good for increasing compliance, also good for revenue gathering... bad for the poor sod in a merc that slammed on the anchors in front of you...

Will be a good move towards bringing all those geay boi racers into line... bad for bikers. Bad for bikers that also have a car and have to pay two premiums. Bad for bikers sitting on big bikes on wrong licenses.

Although I was just thinking how it would be good to bring this in at the same time the motorcycle cc-license thing was changed... then I remembered it will be!

Overall, I guess it would be good. Right now? Heck, I never like change.

Well done Disco Dan, some good self arguing going on there. Basically anyone with multi vehicles already knows it costs a great deal more than owning only 1 (or maybe 2). e.g. my husband and I each have a car we drive, and we own 2 motorbikes. That is going to be plus a big scoot soon. We have to budget for these things, just as we budget for household insurance, health insurance rah de rah rah. If we were unable to afford to do it we wouldn't be owning them. Self righteous rant over!
Seriously though, the system seems to be geared at the moment for the benefit of those who don't have any insurance at all - it's all "covered" by those of us who do pay our premiums, whether we think it's fair, nice, or annoyingly unjust.

[Ixion]

about bl#### time Once in a life time ago third party insurance was part of your rego,then that was stopped but they kept on charging :devil2:

Incorrect. New Zealand has NEVER had thrid party property insurance. Before teh ACC scheme we had third party INJURY insurance. injury cover only. Which, logically , was discontinued when ACC was introduced. And the premium (which was separate) was no longer charged.

[Ixion]

Me too, we're about to get fucked good and proper

I currently pay $27 a year for my bike, so even if it is $100 a year it's a substantial % increase

Absolutely will NOT be $100. trry adding another zero. For each vehicle.

[Ixion]

W..We have to budget for these things, just as we budget for household insurance, health insurance rah de rah rah. If we were unable to afford to do it we wouldn't be owning them. Self righteous rant over!
Seriously though, the system seems to be geared at the moment for the benefit of those who don't have any insurance at all - it's all "covered" by those of us who do pay our premiums, whether we think it's fair, nice, or annoyingly unjust.

That's all very well for wealthy people like you. For poor people an extra $1000 a year (in your example $4000) is a very significant expense. So what you are REALLY saying is that poor people should be driven off the road , for the crime of being poor? And of course, no transport probably menas no job too. Serves 'em right 'eh, for being poor.

And far from the system being geared for the ebnefit of thos ewho don't have insurance at all - you ELECT to pay for insurance, presumably because you recognise that you are not a good driver/rider. and are likely to have a crash. Those who do not have insurance do so because they choose to ENSURE that they do not crash, thus costing neither themselves nor others anything.

[HornetBoy]

That's all very well for wealthy people like you. For poor people an extra $1000 a year (in your example $4000) is a very significant expense. So what you are REALLY saying is that poor people should be driven off the road , for the crime of being poor? And of course, no transport probably menas no job too. Serves 'em right 'eh, for being poor.

And far from the system being geared for the ebnefit of thos ewho don't have insurance at all - you ELECT to pay for insurance, presumably because you recognise that you are not a good driver/rider. and are likely to have a crash. Those who do not have insurance do so because they choose to ENSURE that they do not crash, thus costing neither themselves nor others anything.

Agreed ,i personally would put the big thumbs down for this law too,you make some valid points in your past posts Ixion

[swbarnett]

$100 a year for experienced motorists with few traffic offences? Utter total pig swilling CRAP.

That statement has to be the prime piece of bull shit of this century. Try adding at least one zero. For every vehicle you own!
I don't know where you get your figures from. I just did a quick quote at Swann with the following details:

Date of birth: 01/01/1940
Use: Private
CC Rating: Over 1000cc
Year of manufacture: 1990
Market Value: $4000
North Island
Claim free for five years or more.
Full licence.

Quoted prices as follows:
Third Party Only: $130.00 per annum
Third Party Fire and Theft: $232.00 per annum
Comprehensive: $282.00 per annum

[Ixion]

That's a cage. And for someone already insured. try a bike.

[jonbuoy]

That's all very well for wealthy people like you. For poor people an extra $1000 a year (in your example $4000) is a very significant expense. So what you are REALLY saying is that poor people should be driven off the road , for the crime of being poor? And of course, no transport probably menas no job too. Serves 'em right 'eh, for being poor.

And far from the system being geared for the ebnefit of thos ewho don't have insurance at all - you ELECT to pay for insurance, presumably because you recognise that you are not a good driver/rider. and are likely to have a crash. Those who do not have insurance do so because they choose to ENSURE that they do not crash, thus costing neither themselves nor others anything.

If you don't have insurance and someone else without insurance rear ends you at the traffic lights, you don't stand a shit show of getting a penny out of them without taking them to court, paying for lawyers time off work out of your own pocket. If your fully comp or they have third party only you claim off your insurance and leave it up to them to chase the third party or insurers up. Everyone should have it.

[Coyote]

That's all very well for wealthy people like you. For poor people an extra $1000 a year (in your example $4000) is a very significant expense. So what you are REALLY saying is that poor people should be driven off the road , for the crime of being poor? And of course, no transport probably menas no job too. Serves 'em right 'eh, for being poor.

And far from the system being geared for the ebnefit of thos ewho don't have insurance at all - you ELECT to pay for insurance, presumably because you recognise that you are not a good driver/rider. and are likely to have a crash. Those who do not have insurance do so because they choose to ENSURE that they do not crash, thus costing neither themselves nor others anything.
Not judging the lass, don't know the full story. However;

What I've learnt in my relatively short existance is there's a lot of "better off people" that believe that everyone deserves what they have. The CEO that gets the bonus for firing all those workers really did work harder than that one person he fired that scrubbed the toilets, 60 hours a week. Less money = you worked less hard and you deserve to be where you are.

According to the government, I belong to a rich family. Well, we're not any richer. The bank is.

By the way, my girlfriend says she communist, but then she complained about me having some very deep hatred for "no reason" towards any big corporation, and in fact she doesn't mind living in a capitalist society. Should I be concerned?

[Owl]

That's a cage. And for someone already insured. try a bike.

I priced up insurance for my Harley back in 1999 and State came back with $1271=comprehensive and $8=third party. I thought she was having me on but it was legit. Her comment was "cheap eh" and it was. Third Party for a bike is not bad at all!

[Usarka]

Got a quote online for an £800 1992 GN125 on a provisional licence for an 18 year old with no insurance history. Living in NW London.

Cheapest for Third Party only:

£385.35

(equivalent to around $800)


£214.88 for 3rd party for a 35yr old with licence for 10yrs insuring a 2006 CBR600rr

£903.88 for the same with comprehensive insurance.

[YellowDog]

Tower Insurance quoted me $1,876.50 for my new Tiger. I told them they were over $1000 more than the competition and they said Huh?

[homer]

Why? Have you got 200K in the bank in-case you clip someone's Lamborghini?

Its not the cost of the car . its the car +

if it was me and someone hit me , then theres the car , the damage to what ever else is in the car , maybe medical costs , id sue for that .

The main point i have is since i pay insurance , how will they collect it .
I thought they would collect it in the cost of the rego , do i now pay twice
or will the rego get cheaper , if they do it this way.
Also if the idea may actually work which i doubt, then is the acc premium going to be lowered?

[Ixion]

By the way, my girlfriend says she communist, but then she complained about me having some very deep hatred for "no reason" towards any big corporation, and in fact she doesn't mind living in a capitalist society. Should I be concerned?

well, I am a communist, and I do indeed have a very deep hatred towards big corporations. Sort of goes with the territory. Don't think you can be a communist and approve of big corporations.

[BiK3RChiK]

I agree with you jimjim. So why not make penalties tough to encourage compliance. Missing one of those three things could be considered an oversight and warrant a fine. Miss any two and your vehicle is confiscated and sold.

heh! Do you think these type of people care about their vehicle being confiscated? They will just go out tomorrow and buy another $200 car or go and steal another one and use that for their life of crime.

Personally, I can't see it working, but, all the best bringing it in! I would be for it.

[pete376403]

It might be expensive (or not) but I'm sure the guy who used to own the crashed GS1000 I bought wished he had had TPI. In a moment of inattention he rode into the back of a stopped car which was waiting to turn. He was badly injured (two broken legs) his pillion was concussed, the car he hit was written off and his own bike wrecked. He had no insurance. In addition to the court fine, he had to pay the car owner around $10k.

Pretty much right up to the moment of the crash he had been a fairly good rider, no tickets, no other crashes - the sort who believes he is good enough (and safe enough) not to bother with insurance.

Incidentally I just tried the swann online quote for tpi. Old (55) full licence, no previous insurance, '08KLR650, North island -
Policy Type:
Third Party Only

Annual Premium:
$130.00

https://www.swanninsurance.co.nz/Our_Services/Motorcycle_Insurance/Motorcycle_Quote/Post.aspx

[Oakie]

Me and my bike to get third party with Swann = $130 for the year.
Mrs Oakie and her CB250 even with her claim for a stolen bike last year to get third party with Swann = $130 for the year.

We both have comprehensive policies anyway so it's a moot point. Incidentally, the $1000 that's been mentioned for third party would cover both our comprehensive policies for a year.

And yeah, like I'm really going to feel sorry for those people who are riding around on bikes bigger than the current licensing laws allow.

[homer]

Me and my bike to get third party with Swann = $130 for the year.
Mrs Oakie and her CB250 even with her claim for a stolen bike last year to get third party with Swann = $130 for the year.

We both have comprehensive policies anyway so it's a moot point. Incidentally, the $1000 that's been mentioned for third party would cover both our comprehensive policies for a year.

And yeah, like I'm really going to feel sorry for those people who are riding around on bikes bigger than the current licensing laws allow.

Yep exactly , going back a few years mine for 3rd part was $32 dollars for a year.

excess to me was $800
go check out AMI for a third party
swann other wise

[Ixion]

It might be expensive (or not) but I'm sure the guy who used to own the crashed GS1000 I bought wished he had had TPI. In a moment of inattention he rode into the back of a stopped car which was waiting to turn. He was badly injured (two broken legs) his pillion was concussed, the car he hit was written off and his own bike wrecked. He had no insurance. In addition to the court fine, he had to pay the car owner around $10k.

Pretty much right up to the moment of the crash he had been a fairly good rider, no tickets, no other crashes - the sort who believes he is good enough (and safe enough) not to bother with insurance.

Incidentally I just tried the swann online quote for tpi. Old (55) full licence, no previous insurance, '08KLR650, North island -
Policy Type:
Third Party Only

Annual Premium:
$130.00

https://www.swanninsurance.co.nz/Our_Services/Motorcycle_Insurance/Motorcycle_Quote/Post.aspx


All very well for those rich enough to afford 2008 model bikes

Swann won't even *QUOTE* on my bikes ! They say "Due to the age of your motorcycle we are unable to provide you with an Online Quote"

So, I infer from that that bikes over a certain age will be uninsiurable and thus not able to be ridden on the road. If you can't afford new, boo sucks.

Moreover, what difference should it make for *third party* what value YOUR bike is (they're not going to be paying out on it) ; or how old it is (same reason). Which I think shows the true attitude of the insurance companies. Weasels, sharks and bloodsuckers are phrases that come to mind.

[The Pastor]

ixion, I think they said the $100 was the current average for 3rd party.

I pay $300 for 3rd party. Per vechical. Crazy excess.

I had an accident while being uninsured. I think it was better than having insurance (I didnt have the money, but i worked overtime to get it).

Ixion, I agree with you on all the points you raised. This is a very bad idea.

IT WILL NOT STOP BAD/DANGEROUS/IDIOT DRIVERS. THEY SIMPLY WONT GET THE INSURANCE.

Now, if they had 3rd party (not incl theft) for anything you drive/own (i.e policy per person, not per car) I would be very happy to have it. If it was the price up to $1000.

[slopster]

I think its a bad idea for the following reasons:
*The price will go up if having it is not an option.
*People will still not be covered if they are driving outside their licence conditions, pissed, driving recklessly etc etc.
*If I have a single rider policy and my mate wants to borrow my bike will he be breaking the law.

People should be able to make their own choices. If you are paranoid about being hit by an uninsured driver you should consider full insurance for yourself.

[Ixion]

ixion, I think they said the $100 was the current average for 3rd party.

...

Now, if they had 3rd party (not incl theft) for anything you drive/own (i.e policy per person, not per car) I would be very happy to have it. If it was the price up to $1000.



So, that $100 will include large corporates and government departemnts who have huge fleets and even huger other insurances. Who cover their own losses and get third party on the fleet thrown in as good will. Like I said, legislation by the rich, for the rich , at the expense of the poor

Personally, I could live with $1000 for third party , on an 'any vehicle' basis. Not going to happen though, the insurance comapnies wouldn't be driving this if they didn't see a bonanza. And for other people , $1000 is money they just don't have . And for what? Nothing whatsoever. It is just a tax , paid to the insurance companies and sent offshore.

[Jiminy]

NEVER hit another vehicle in 40+ years. Never done any damage that I would have claimed for. One speeding ticket in 50 years.

That's what my dad used to say. Until he made a mistake. And then another one.


And yeah, like I'm really going to feel sorry for those people who are riding around on bikes bigger than the current licensing laws allow.

I'm with you on that one.

[blossomsowner]

Crash into someone, no insurance, can't afford to pay them....oh dear...go to gaol, do not collect $200. Same should apply to banned and drink drivers.

As I've already stated a dozen or so times, the threat of a good shag up the arse would make a lot of these arseholes (no pun intended) act a bit more responsibly.

all we need is for the government to stop shagging around and make tough penalties stick..........drink driving........wof, rego, insurance lacking, take the vehicle and sell it.

[pete376403]

All very well for those rich enough to afford 2008 model bikes

Swann won't even *QUOTE* on my bikes ! They say "Due to the age of your motorcycle we are unable to provide you with an Online Quote" I infer from that that bikes over a certain age will be uninsiurable and thus not able to be ridden on the road.

Bit of selective quoting there, Ixion. I just tried an online quote for my 1982 GS1100GK and what is says is:
"Due to the age of your motorcycle we are unable to provide you with an Online Quote. Please contact Swann on 0800-807-926 if you still wish to proceed with a quote for your motorcycle insurance."
So you can ring them to discuss, doesn't say there is a blanket refusal to insure older bikes.

[Coyote]

All very well for those rich enough to afford 2008 model bikes

Swann won't even *QUOTE* on my bikes ! They say "Due to the age of your motorcycle we are unable to provide you with an Online Quote"

So, I infer from that that bikes over a certain age will be uninsiurable and thus not able to be ridden on the road. If you can't afford new, boo sucks.
It's funny that. I'd only consider getting 3rd party on an older, rougher condition vehicle I didn't need to fully cover. I'd have full cover for a new vehicle.

well, I am a communist, and I do indeed have a very deep hatred towards big corporations. Sort of goes with the territory. Don't think you can be a communist and approve of big corporations.
That's what I was thinking. Mmm, this girl is still the best I've ever met but still need to sort things like this out, and get her a bike.

[Ixion]

Bit of selective quoting there, Ixion. I just tried an online quote for my 1982 GS1100GK and what is says is:
"Due to the age of your motorcycle we are unable to provide you with an Online Quote. Please contact Swann on 0800-807-926 if you still wish to proceed with a quote for your motorcycle insurance."
So you can ring them to discuss, doesn't say there is a blanket refusal to insure older bikes.

"if you still wish to proceed". Pretty obvious what the answer is going to be. Yes, they'll insure anything AT A PRICE. But the price is clearly more than they can risk putting up in public. I'm sure that for $10000 a year I can get third party. So farm the only company that's been willing to put up a quote in public is $1000. I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that they're going to be the cheapest, that's why they're willing to quote.

[Owl]

"if you still wish to proceed". Pretty obvious what the answer is going to be. Yes, they'll insure anything AT A PRICE. But the price is clearly more than they can risk putting up in public. I'm sure that for $10000 a year I can get third party. So farm the only company that's been willing to put up a quote in public is $1000. I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that they're going to be the cheapest, that's why they're willing to quote.

How can you say its “obvious” when you haven’t bothered to pick up the phone? Didn’t it cross your mind that maybe the online system is geared to work within certain parameters and your request just falls outside those parameters?

[Ixion]

Obviously my request falls outside their parameters. If they dont have the guts to publish their figures, I'll take a very safe bet that they're horrific. Not to mention that a company so archaic that you have to use a phone to deal with them inspires zero confidence.

I wasn't looking for insurance. I don't want it. But, I went and found a quote. $1000. Now, no company is going to be way out of line with its competition. If it was , it wouldn't stay in business long. So, if one company quotes $1000, it's quite certain that the others will be roughly about the same. Maybe a bit more, a bit less, but around that figure.

Then , a lot of rich people came in and claimed "Oh nonsense, I have a quote from Swann for my nice new bike of only [much smaller sum]". Implication being, that Swann would quote me , too, a [much smaller sum]. Except, they won't . They won't even quote at all. So much for the rich mans' argument. If you're rich and can afford a new bike/car, Swann will quote you a cheap rate. If you're poor and can only afford an old bike, Swann don't want to know you at all, and the only quotes you'll get will be around the $1000 mark . Rich man's law, poor man pays.

The original argument was that third party insurance would only cost $100. The input I have is that is crap.

It's interesting that KB has a LOT of members who are in the insurance industry. Not ONE of them has fronted up int his discussion.

[Motu]

"if you still wish to proceed". Pretty obvious what the answer is going to be. Yes, they'll insure anything AT A PRICE. But the price is clearly more than they can risk putting up in public. I'm sure that for $10000 a year I can get third party. So farm the only company that's been willing to put up a quote in public is $1000. I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that they're going to be the cheapest, that's why they're willing to quote.

I generally drive or ride vehicles off the valuers radar.I pick them up cheap as unrepairable,and then with what to me is fairly small effort turn them into something good.But several times I've had insurers refuse to give me even 3rd party because of the value of my vehicles - $1,000 was the usual cutoff figure.I've either had to trump up the value with lies or run uninsured.Looking on TradeMe my 1990 Diamante is going to struggle to net $1,000,same with the Pajero.....and what will they value the Lada at? This could be another method the Government use to get older vehicles off the road.

[Ixion]

I generally drive or ride vehicles off the valuers radar.I pick them up cheap as unrepairable,and then with what to me is fairly small effort turn them into something good.But several times I've had insurers refuse to give me even 3rd party because of the value of my vehicles - $1,000 was the usual cutoff figure.I've either had to trump up the value with lies or run uninsured.Looking on TradeMe my 1990 Diamante is going to struggle to net $1,000,same with the Pajero.....and what will they value the Lada at? This could be another method the Government use to get older vehicles off the road.

Exactly so. My Pajero wouldn't fetch $1000. But it's registered, Wofed, completely legal. Never hit anything (except a tree, backwards, jumped in front of me it did (well, behind me cos I was sliding backwards down a bank) , and that didn't have insurance - so how is the government going to deal with uninsured trees? )

But because it's of little value the insurance companies won't want to know. "Oh , look, he drives a cheap car. ohh he must be poor. Oh hissss . we don't want to be associated with his sort. Quote him $1000. With a $5000 excess. nassssty poor people, polluting our country, just as well the government apssed those laws to enabel us to drive poor people off the roads. "

[Owl]

I wasn't looking for insurance. I don't want it. But, I went and found a quote. $1000. Now, no company is going to be way out of line with its competition. If it was , it wouldn't stay in business long. So, if one company quotes $1000, it's quite certain that the others will be roughly about the same. Maybe a bit more, a bit less, but around that figure.

Not true!!! Quotes for my bike ranged between $850 and $2300 last year and I'm now paying $560.

[Ixion]

Not true!!! Quotes for my bike ranged between $850 and $2300 last year and I'm now paying $560.

And you still reckon insurance companies aren't crooks !

[skidMark]

...I am so fucked.

[Owl]

And you still reckon insurance companies aren't crooks !

I never said that Ixion! Those quotes were for comprehensive insurance based on $17000. Many of them were ridiculous figures! Third party will only be a fraction of that.

[nick69]

Driving and riding is a privelege not a right as some think. Yes it is expensive and if you can afford to have multiple cars and bikes then you should pay for the right to use them. Coming from the UK i could never understand why we dont have compulsory insurance, in the UK we dont have problems worrying about who is insured and not. I had a hit and run some years ago and we never found out who it was but my insurance company paid for the damage under no blaim claim, brilliant! I really dont understand people stating that it is not a good idea, it will certainly sort out the idiots with those souped up cars. It will be good to price these idiots off the road, its stupid that we allow 15 year old in what ever they want to drive and then when they wipe out a family say never mind its an accident. NO its not it could have been avioded. We should look to the UK for the law, there if you dont have insurance (done at a roadside check with the insurnce database) the the xar gets impounded, 2nd time and it gets crushed! bloody excellent will stop all these people who want to dodge paying and will get some crap cars off the road. Have no problem in compulsory insurance as i wouldnt have my cars and bikes without it and before people start jumping up and down i have 2 cars and a bike (all insured).

[swbarnett]

That's a cage. And for someone already insured. try a bike.
No, that was specifically for a bike.

[jonbuoy]

Insurance will stay reasonable as long as NZ keeps the ACC compensation rule - it went crazy in UK and OZ after the "no win no fee" companies set up. People started suing each other left right and centre for "whiplash" every time they had a prang.

[swbarnett]

That's a cage. And for someone already insured. try a bike.
I just tried it again stating no previous insurance, same results.

Also, I tried it with a learner licence and a 250cc, same result - $130 per annum third party only.

[fergie]

nothing will change in this household, all our vehicles are reg'd,wof'd and insured so same old same old.i welcome the proposed change.

[Guided_monkey]

So if this becomes law will the premiums drop???

Or is this another excuse for a private sector to make more money on the back of a good idea.

[Dodger]

So if this becomes law will the premiums drop???

Or is this another excuse for a private sector to make more money on the back of a good idea.

Yes?
(If I could predict the future I would be rich.)


My guess is that premiums will go up. If you can charge something and people will pay it, why lower the price? (look at NZ broadband, Cellphone calls)

[Jantar]

...Yes, they'll insure anything AT A PRICE. But the price is clearly more than they can risk putting up in public. I'm sure that for $10000 a year I can get third party. ....
Ixion, I've just recieved the account for the next 12 months premium for my RE5. Its a similar age and value as your Petal, and I'm paying $399.72 pa for comprehensive insurance.

I will admit that it is exactly double the premium I pay for my Chrysler. :crybaby:

[YellowDog]

If the insurance companies attempt to expoit this situation, then that is a totally different issue and you should take this up with your MP.

NZ 20 years ago, then yes the insurance companies would exploit this situation. NZ today is a great deal more competitive, hence the wide variance in quotes.

Buyers beware and don't be a complete mug by paing more than you have to.

[Mikkel]

Anyone who chooses to not get at least 3rd party insurance on the basis of "I have never had an accident and therefore never will..." are only exercising arrogance of the highest degree. It is bullshit and we all know it! -Shit WILL happen and to err is human. Not accepting this and acting responsibly in that regard is inexcusable!

That leaves us with the "I honestly don't give a fuck about anything but my wallet - so I'll just take my chances" attitude for reasoning...
How is this much different from the bulletproof attitude that is common among young bold motorcyclists? An attitude that seems to be generally frowned upon by the collective assembly that is KB...


well, I am a communist, and I do indeed have a very deep hatred towards big corporations. Sort of goes with the territory. Don't think you can be a communist and approve of big corporations.

A communistic regime is just ONE BIG cooperation that doesn't work properly...


Bit of selective quoting there, Ixion. I just tried an online quote for my 1982 GS1100GK and what is says is:
"Due to the age of your motorcycle we are unable to provide you with an Online Quote. Please contact Swann on 0800-807-926 if you still wish to proceed with a quote for your motorcycle insurance."
So you can ring them to discuss, doesn't say there is a blanket refusal to insure older bikes.

Shhh - that's entirely too much sense for one post :rolleyes:


As for insurance prices - consider these numbers:

Me: Male, 27 years, no claims or accidents worth mentioning, 40 demerit points in two speeding offenses (14 and 18 km/h above the limit respectively).

Comprehensive cover:
1989 ZXR250 insured at $6,000 - Premium: $204,00 p.a. excess: $400.
1996 ZX7RR insured at $7,000 - premium: ~$330,00 p.a. excess: $250(can't ride it legally until I get my full class 6).
1998 Legacy GT-B insured at $12,500 - premium: ~$600 p.a. excess: $400.

Yeah, protecting your assets is terribly expensive :rolleyes:

With more even years of awesomeness I suspect it should be possible to reduce those numbers a bit more. Then again maybe the insurance companies realise that risk doesn't decrease with age beyond a certain point (deterioration of eyesight, reaction time and mental acuity might factor into this).

Or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there are external factors that actually doesn't depend upon your skills at operating a vehicle, factors that are beyond your control, factors that means shit can happen no matter how AWESOME you might be...

I can't wait for this to become legislation! :2thumbsup

[Ixion]

Anyone who chooses to not get at least 3rd party insurance on the basis of "I have never had an accident and therefore never will..." are only exercising arrogance of the highest degree. It is bullshit and we all know it! -Shit WILL happen and to err is human. Not accepting this and acting responsibly in that regard is inexcusable!



With that attitude , I can guarantee that you will indeed crash. The only question is when. When you do, you may find that property insurance is irrelevant. To all except your executors.

I suggest that you give up motorcycling and buy a nice safe car.

[Mikkel]

With that attitude , I can guarantee that you will indeed crash. The only question is when. When you do, you may find that property insurance is irrelevant. To all except your executors.

I suggest that you give up motorcycling and buy a nice safe car.

I suggest you start learning to read.

[jetboy]

Now I can really start ripping you all off by charging what I like.

Now, what shall I spend the money on first?

[Ixion]

Those in favour of compulsary insurance seem to be running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

On the one hand we are jubilantly told that insurance will be so expensive that many will be unable to afford it and will be forced off the roads (those rejoicing always categorise those thus forced as 'boiracers' or 'youf', but without any reason why they should specifically be thus affected).

On the other hand they claim that it will be cheap as chips, 'only' $100.

So, which is it? Expensive enough to force people off the road (my guess)? Or cheap as? make up your minds, you can't have it both ways.

[Mikkel]

Those in favour of compulsary insurance seem to be running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

On the one hand we are jubilantly told that insurance will be so expensive that many will be unable to afford it and will be forced off the roads (those rejoicing always categorise those thus forced as 'boiracers' or 'youf', but without any reason why they should specifically be thus affected).

On the other hand they claim that it will be cheap as chips, 'only' $100.

So, which is it? Expensive enough to force people off the road (my guess)? Or cheap as? make up your minds, you can't have it both ways.

I thought this was so logical that it could be considered selfexplanatory.

18 year old with no prior experience getting insurance for a ~60 hps toyota corolla - no problem.

18 year old with no prior experience getting insurance for a 200+ hps "eatyourheartoutracecar" - big problem.

While 3rd party shouldn't be about the value of your vehicle it should still contain a risk assessment for the driver-vehicle combination. I think everyone on here agree that letting an inexperienced, testosterone fueled pilot loose on a modern liter-bike is likely to end in tragedy - i.e. there's a higher risk of him fucking up than if he's on a mighty GN250.

Your insurance premium should reflect that risk assessment. In some cases the insurance company might even say "NO! - we will not insure you for that vehicle." - e.g. the 18 year old with the 700 hps godzilla skyline.

If the authorities were to take possession of your vehicle should you get caught driving it without 3rd party insurance I'm pretty sure you'd see a noticeable change very quickly.

[madbikeboy]

well, I am a communist, and I do indeed have a very deep hatred towards big corporations. Sort of goes with the territory. Don't think you can be a communist and approve of big corporations.

Communism has proven to work really well so far hasn't it. Name one wealthy marxist country, with fundamental human rights? China? Soviet Union (oops, I mean Russia and crumbs), Somalia?

Communism is about making sure that everyone gets an equal share of a very small pie. Capitalism makes a bigger pie. If you're struggling in a capitalist environment, refine your skills to make them marketable, or work harder.

Rant over.

[skidMark]

Now I can really start ripping you all off by charging what I like.

Now, what shall I spend the money on first?


Buy me a bike, and insurance.

[Ixion]

Observation of 'boi racers' indicates that most spend their money on bling, not go faster goodies. The go faster guys are usually a lot older than 18

How do blue lights , doof doof stereos (horrible though they be), body panels and such like make for a vehicle mor elikely to hit me?

The youff I worry about are not the bling boys, they are the dozy chicks in Corollas.

And you have still not addressed the fundamental. If boiracer is to be charged $10000 for his insurance, how much is Granny going to be charged on her Morris 1000? And, as Mr Motu noted, insurers won't even AGREE to insure a Morrie thou at all. As I am finding with my bike (I'm sure that if I apply some pressure of the I can GET insurance. At a cost. A high one). So, where does that leave Granny ?

I'll give you a real world specific example. Mrs Ixion. Mrs Ixion USED to have insurance on her 1986 Nissan Sunny. Owned from new, only done 40 something thousand kilometres. She does about 1000 kilometres a year now (yes, one thousand).

Now, Mrs Ixion is the MOST infuriatingly careful, defensive driver you will ever find. Never had a ticket, not even a parking one. Never drives on the motorway, never had an accident , never had an insurance claim , in over 30 years of being insured. Could not possibly get a better risk.

Because of the age of the car, a couple of years ago, the insurance comapny told her they were reducing the value to $1000. Well, it's worth a lot more than that to her, but, on the market, maybe so. OK. Oh, and they were putting up her premium. To $980 a year. With a $500 excess. Hm. $980 a year for $500 of cover. Spot the problem here?

She rang them up. Said, doesn't seem right. After a few pass the bucks, they finally admitted. They didn't want to insure her car. Not interested in anything that old. "Not worth insuring" they said. If she REALLY wanted it insured, then $980 it was.

Now, that's what is going to happen to a LOT of grannies with their Morrie Thous. "Can I please have this new compulsary insurance?". "No piss off, your bike/car is too old, we don't want to know. If you are not rich and cannot afford a new car you should not be allowed to drive".

What do you have to say to Mrs Ixion, then?

You claim that compulsary insurance will have the same effect as the capacity restrictions on bikes. If so, why not simply impose a capacity restriction on cars. What magic knowledge do insurance companies have that is unavailable to the government? And, since novice riders are already restricted in capacity, why should such compulsion apply to them?

[Mikkel]

Who said that compulsory 3rd party insurance would have the same effect as capacity restrictions?

Anyway, Ixion I think you need to get on the telephone and dial up at least 3 insurance companies and get a personalised quote. When you have done that report back here with the figures and we can discuss whether your paranoia is justified.

There is actually a fairly good reason for pricing old cars off the roads. Newer cars are safer, better handling and better for the environment - this is of course a generalisation, but I'm sure you see what I am getting at.

As for the blingsters - no worries, if no go fast bits have been added to your 1.3l '85 Corolla hatchback I'm sure you could get 3rd party even if you are 18 years old and have no black marks on your history.

[YellowDog]

You need to wake up to the fact of life for the developed world, that all road vehicles need to have a minimum of third party insurance. It is a mandatory cost of owning a road vehicle.

Yes, NZers are generally far more honest and trustworthy than in other developed countries however the sense of fair play and the general ability of people to behave with honour is radiply erroding. Insurance companies sort out all issues associated with a road incident and remove the potential for an argument. If your bike gets nicked, they give you the money to buy another.

If you want to bring the cost down to insure your bike, ask for the maximum excess to be applied to your policy.

Compulsory insurance is long overdue in coming to NZ. Get used to it. It ain't going away.

[Ixion]

Who said that compulsory 3rd party insurance would have the same effect as capacity restrictions?

You did


18 year old with no prior experience getting insurance for a ~60 hps toyota corolla - no problem.

18 year old with no prior experience getting insurance for a 200+ hps "eatyourheartoutracecar" - big problem.

While 3rd party shouldn't be about the value of your vehicle it should still contain a risk assessment for the driver-vehicle combination. I think everyone on here agree that letting an inexperienced, testosterone fueled pilot loose on a modern liter-bike is likely to end in tragedy - i.e. there's a higher risk of him fucking up than if he's on a mighty GN250.

Your insurance premium should reflect that risk assessment. In some cases the insurance company might even say "NO! - we will not insure you for that vehicle." - e.g. the 18 year old with the 700 hps godzilla skyline.





Anyway, Ixion I think you need to get on the telephone and dial up at least 3 insurance companies and get a personalised quote. When you have done that report back here with the figures and we can discuss whether your paranoia is justified.


Got one quote . $1000. (and Mrs Ixion's experience); and one failure who wouldn't even quote. And bear in mind I'm the demographic that Harry claims it should be all good for. And, this is when it's still not compulsary, so the companies know that if they get to greedy their customers will tell them to get stuffed. Once it's compulsary, the sky's the limit. You have to have it, and they can charge whatever they want.



There is actually a fairly good reason for pricing old cars off the roads. Newer cars are safer, better handling and better for the environment - this is of course a generalisation, but I'm sure you see what I am getting at.


Ah. So on that we agree at least. It IS intended to force older vehicles off the road. Older vehicles being , of course, those owned by the poor. Very nice, lot sof tree hugging fuzzies. So long as you are rich , of course. No problem to those who can go right out and buy a nice new car. But Granny can't afford that. I'll tell her that you think she should be forced to walk.



As for the blingsters - no worries, if no go fast bits have been added to your 1.3l '85 Corolla hatchback I'm sure you could get 3rd party even if you are 18 years old and have no black marks on your history.

Bet you a chocolate fish the insurance companies will have a quite different view. ANY modification they say. And, if you are correct, then please explain how it will force them off the road? Which is the excuse put forward for the legislation.

[Ixion]

..
Yes, NZers are generally far more honest and trustworthy than in other developed countries however the sense of fair play and the general ability of people to behave with honour is radiply erroding. Insurance companies sort out all issues associated with a road incident and remove the potential for an argument. If your bike gets nicked, they give you the money to buy another.


What planet are you on? read all the many threads in here about people ahving MASSIVE arguments with insurance companies. The arguments still take palce, just with an insurance company. And they only 'give you the money to buy another' if they can't find a way to weasel out of it. Which, by obervation, is only about 25% of the time.



You need to wake up to the fact of life for the developed world, that all road vehicles need to have a minimum of third party insurance. It is a mandatory cost of owning a road vehicle.


This claim keeps being made (mainly by immigrants who demand that NZ become exactly like the UK). But it's a weasel claim, and not really true.

Yes, almost all countries have third party INJURY insurance. So does NZ. It's called ACC.

Some countries that have privately run personal injury insurance tack on compulsary third party property insurance. Usually because the insurance companies ask for it, so they can make some more money.

But, can you, or anyone else , list the countries that have SEPARATE compulsary third party PROPERTY insurance (not tagged on to compulsary personal injury insurance).That's what is being proposed here.

Bet there's bugger all.
The claim that NZ "has no compulsary third party insurance" is palpably false. In simple terms, it's a lie. We have no compulsary third party PROPERTY insurance. A big difference.

[Mikkel]

You did

Got one quote . $1000. (and Mrs Ixion's experience); and one failure who wouldn't even quote. And bear in mind I'm the demographic that Harry claims it should be all good for. And, this is when it's still not compulsary, so the companies know that if they get to greedy their customers will tell them to get stuffed. Once it's compulsary, the sky's the limit. You have to have it, and they can charge whatever they want.

Ah. So on that we agree at least. It IS intended to force older vehicles off the road. Older vehicles being , of course, those owned by the poor. Very nice, lot sof tree hugging fuzzies. So long as you are rich , of course. No problem to those who can go right out and buy a nice new car. But Granny can't afford that. I'll tell her that you think she should be forced to walk.

Bet you a chocolate fish the insurance companies will have a quite different view. ANY modification they say. And, if you are correct, then please explain how it will force them off the road? Which is the excuse put forward for the legislation.

I must say that you are putting words in my mouth - you are reading into my post exactly what you want. I see no reason to continue debating this issue given those reasons. As before I suggest you start learning to read - and with an open mind this time (there's a challenge for you!).

Quite frankly, I find it rather difficult to believe that a distinguished gentleman with a unblemished record such as yourself could not obtain a better price on insurance for your vehicles than a obstinate disrespectful primple-faced youth such as I.

[jetboy]

....

On the other hand they claim that it will be cheap as chips, 'only' $100.

....

You really think they will be charging people $100?
I'll tell you something for nothing - if I had an 18yo client after insurance driving anything more than a 3 cylinder Daihatsu you'd be looking at much much more. Why? Because the third party (Section 2) bit of insurance is the part that covers the damage you cause another person, and although we do not cover the 18yo's Evo IV or whatever he may have, we cover the damage he will cause some poor old lady at the traffic lights when he looses control trying to race some other space invader.

Sorry guys, insurance bills may go up because of this (mine included).

[Ixion]

You really think they will be charging people $100?
I'll tell you something for nothing - if I had an 18yo client after insurance driving anything more than a 3 cylinder Daihatsu you'd be looking at much much more. Why? Because the third party (Section 2) bit of insurance is the part that covers the damage you cause another person, and although we do not cover the 18yo's Evo IV or whatever he may have, we cover the damage he will cause some poor old lady at the traffic lights when he looses control trying to race some other space invader.

Sorry guys, insurance bills may go up because of this (mine included).

Well, there's the word from the stable.

[YellowDog]

What planet are you on? read all the many threads in here about people ahving MASSIVE arguments with insurance companies. The arguments still take palce, just with an insurance company. And they only 'give you the money to buy another' if they can't find a way to weasel out of it. Which, by obervation, is only about 25% of the time.



This claim keeps being made (mainly by immigrants who demand that NZ become exactly like the UK). But it's a weasel claim, and not really true.

Yes, almost all countries have third party INJURY insurance. So does NZ. It's called ACC.

Some countries that have privately run personal injury insurance tack on compulsary third party property insurance. Usually because the insurance companies ask for it, so they can make some more money.

But, can you, or anyone else , list the countries that have SEPARATE compulsary third party PROPERTY insurance (not tagged on to compulsary personal injury insurance).That's what is being proposed here.

Bet there's bugger all.
The claim that NZ "has no compulsary third party insurance" is palpably false. In simple terms, it's a lie. We have no compulsary third party PROPERTY insurance. A big difference.
I certainly know which planet I am on. If anyone thinks it is reasonable to allow uninsured vehicles on the road, then I ask them to consider if they are indeed on the right planet.

FACT: If an uninsured driver of any vehicle runs into you, you will be screwed. Why leave it to chance?

Get real, grow up, ya-di-ya-di-ya.

You'd soon change your mind if you had the misfortune to be the cause of a serious accident with another vehicle. I hope you don't need such an horrendous experience to help you see the light.

If your glass is always half empty, then I am sorry for you. And if you believe yourself to be a communist, then you are heading for an entire life time of disappointment. Move to Albania (not Albany) you’ll like it there. The light at the end of the tunnel is not always a train about to flatten you.

[scumdog]

There is actually a fairly good reason for pricing old cars off the roads. Newer cars are safer, better handling and better for the environment - this is of course a generalisation, but I'm sure you see what I am getting at.

WHO cares about the safety or lack of with older cars? the insurance companies?
"I don't think so Tim" - I suspect they don't give a fat rats arse about vehicle safety.

[Ixion]

Actually, the assertion that "newer cars are safer" is often made. I am not convinced it's true. I'd definately rather be in my old Pajero, or your F100 , well belted up (that bit is important) in a crash than in a modern flea car.

Everytime you see a news report of a crash involving two such disparate vehicles, it almost always has "occupants of fleamobile dead or critical, occupants of old battlewagon suffered minor injuries".There's a LOT to be said for solid steel.

[Mikkel]

You really think they will be charging people $100?
I'll tell you something for nothing - if I had an 18yo client after insurance driving anything more than a 3 cylinder Daihatsu you'd be looking at much much more. Why? Because the third party (Section 2) bit of insurance is the part that covers the damage you cause another person, and although we do not cover the 18yo's Evo IV or whatever he may have, we cover the damage he will cause some poor old lady at the traffic lights when he looses control trying to race some other space invader.

Sorry guys, insurance bills may go up because of this (mine included).


Well, there's the word from the stable.

Well, again you are reading into it exactly what you want. Please notice the MAY in that sentence. jetboy seems to be in the know - and he's not throwing around doomsday scenarios and absolutes. FFS!


WHO cares about the safety or lack of with older cars? the insurance companies?
"I don't think so Tim" - I suspect they don't give a fat rats arse about vehicle safety.

Nope, they might not care about safety - but they certainly care about risk management based on accident statistics. The term safety generally implies accident statistics - big difference there.


Actually, the assertion that "newer cars are safer" is often made. I am not convinced it's true. I'd definately rather be in my old Pajero, or your F100 , well belted up (that bit is important) in a crash than in a modern flea car.

Everytime you see a news report of a crash involving two such disparate vehicles, it almost always has "occupants of fleamobile dead or critical, occupants of old battlewagon suffered minor injuries".There's a LOT to be said for solid steel.

I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from. At the core of your arguments is nothing but an extremely selfish disregard for other people, their safety, their property, etc. Why should you indeed give a rat's arse about anyone but you, yourself and yours? What should it matter that your way of life might inconvenience, cull or deny other people living their life?
Is it really that simple that you do not think about anyone but yourself? Because in that case I begin to see the logic behind your arguments against 3rd party insurance - and I see that logic for the subversive lie it is.

If that indeed is the case, then you, and people like you, are the only reason why 3rd party insurance NEEDS to be made compulsory.

[jetboy]

Just for the record - insurers aren't as over-the-moon about all this either. At present they are well within their rights to refuse cover on someone for whatever reason. But with the compulsory T.P. insurance coming in it means they HAVE to insure people they otherwise would not, which in turn drives up premiums to cater for these people. (e.g. 35yo driving a Ford Falcon with 10 x DIC convictions and a string of car conversions behind him. No - the Ford isn't the reason why they would normaly decline cover...although I can see why!!!).

Bear in mind that although T.P. insurance is only (roughly) $100 - $200 for the average person....if that person writes off somebody elses $250k Merc the insurer has only recieved $100 odd and has to pay $250,000. I would suggest (personally) they would rate a premium based on the likelihood of this happening.

I doubt we need to worry now, it'll take Unkie Helen 5 lightyears to get her act together and get it all through Parliament anyways.

[Jantar]

This is another good reason to tie insurance to the person rather than the vehicle.

[Ixion]

Well, again you are reading into it exactly what you want. Please notice the MAY in that sentence. jetboy seems to be in the know - and he's not throwing around doomsday scenarios and absolutes. FFS!



Nope, they might not care about safety - but they certainly care about risk management based on accident statistics. The term safety generally implies accident statistics - big difference there.



I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from. At the core of your arguments is nothing but an extremely selfish disregard for other people, their safety, their property, etc. Why should you indeed give a rat's arse about anyone but you, yourself and yours? What should it matter that your way of life might inconvenience, cull or deny other people living their life?
Is it really that simple that you do not think about anyone but yourself? Because in that case I begin to see the logic behind your arguments against 3rd party insurance - and I see that logic for the subversive lie it is.

If that indeed is the case, then you, and people like you, are the only reason why 3rd party insurance NEEDS to be made compulsory.

Doubt that there's a living soul that could say I've ever "culled" or "denied" them life (or injury). In a motor vehicle or otherwise.

But if I am going to be in a car crash, and one vehicle's an F100 and one is a flea car, I know which one I want to be in. Don't like that, go take it up with the regulatory authorities that push for ever flimsier vehicles. I'm quite happy if everyone is in Pajeros. If you want to be in a fleamobile because you think its safer, thats fine. I don't share your optimism and I refuse to allow you to force me into danger. So I explicitly reject your implicit argument that you (or Frau Helen) should have the right to force me into danger.

Just as when riding my bike I refuse to allow you, or any other road user , to put me into danger. Because unlike you I don't accept crashing as a routine of life.

[Mikkel]

Just as when riding my bike I refuse to allow you, or any other road user , to put me into danger. Because unlike you I don't accept crashing as a routine of life.

Refuse all you want - the day the bus rolls over you, you might be surprised at how little say you have in it.

I don't accept crashing as a routine of life - what on earth gave you that idea. But it would be ignorant not to realise that it is a possibility that can never ever be completely disregarded.

Oh, no doubt about you being better off in your pajero hitting something smaller - that wasn't what I was getting at.
Only that if you were in a pajero and hit another pajero you'd be far worse off than hitting another fleamobile (a derogatory term that I use with proper sarcasm in your direction here) while in your own fleamobile. Besides, you might find that you have a higher risk of being involved in a collision in a pajero than in your fleamobile due to poorer handling...
But, as you were!

[Ixion]

Besides, you might find that you have a higher risk of being involved in a collision in a pajero than in your fleamobile due to poorer handling...
But, as you were!

I have a unique and surprsingly successful way of dealing with that problem (works well in other areas, too). It's called "slowing down". Never going to be popular, most people prefer just to crash.

[YellowDog]

"I refuse to allow you to force me into danger"

May be the Compulsory Insurance Policy documents will carry a health warning or a disclaimer about being forced out of a Pajero.

Personally, I think the tank like 4 x 4s tip over far too easily (making them less safe). Great off road, but not so good for the school run.

[Sollyboy]

I'd love to know the reason behind that.

Because it will force the price of all insurance up , even good non boyracer type

[Owl]

Because it will force the price of all insurance up , even good non boyracer type

Bollocks! Third party for sure, but why will that affect my house or travel insurance?

[Ixion]

He means force up the price of TP insurance for all people even non boiracers

[Mikkel]

I have a unique and surprsingly successful way of dealing with that problem (works well in other areas, too). It's called "slowing down". Never going to be popular, most people prefer just to crash.

No, the only way you are "unique and surprisingly successful" is the way in which you derail this debate over and over again. And whether it'll be popular or not I don't care - because you would certainly prefer to crash it!

[Trouser]

There is a little bit of smoke and mirrors around this by the looks of it.

Labour doesn't want to and probably can't legislate what type of car you can drive so they are going to leave it up to the insurance companies to price people out of their cars.

Classic double feint. It's for the good of the people. You are a monster if you don't have insurance. You can still drive any vehicle you like. Freedommmm. yada yada yada. However you MUST have insurance young man;).

They are shutting the gate way after the horse bolted. The CHEAP high performance japanese cars must be giving the safety police a huge head ache.

[Sollyboy]

Bollocks! Third party for sure, but why will that affect my house or travel insurance?

Im talking about car insurance , even third party is expensive in country where compulsary,Im suprised it would need an explanation

[sefer]

What I fail to see is exactly how this is going to prevent any "boy racer" problems?

Let's face it, most of those cars on the road are owned by the finance companies, and as such are already fully insured (as per the requirement when financed). Those that aren't insured are the shitty self modified (mostly) heaps that probably would even pass a good WOF inspection, and even if they were compulsory insured and the owners of these cars pay-up for it do you really think the insurance companies are going to pay out on your car/bike /whatever without going over that car and faulting it on anything and everything possible? And when they do find that self modified suspension, or even that indicator bulb that blew that morning, do you really think they are going not invalidate their insurance?

[Owl]

Im talking about car insurance , even third party is expensive in country where compulsary,Im suprised it would need an explanation

Perhaps you should be a little more specific with your comments. You did say “all insurance” did you not?

[YellowDog]

all motor vehicles on the public highway will need to be insured to a minimum of third party.

it you live out in the sticks, it will cost bugger all. if you live in a city, it will cost a lot more.

the sooner this becomes law the better.
[/b]

[Ixion]

What I fail to see is exactly how this is going to prevent any "boy racer" problems?

Let's face it, most of those cars on the road are owned by the finance companies, and as such are already fully insured (as per the requirement when financed). Those that aren't insured are the shitty self modified (mostly) heaps that probably would even pass a good WOF inspection, and even if they were compulsory insured and the owners of these cars pay-up for it do you really think the insurance companies are going to pay out on your car/bike /whatever without going over that car and faulting it on anything and everything possible? And when they do find that self modified suspension, or even that indicator bulb that blew that morning, do you really think they are going not invalidate their insurance?

Uh uh . And does it occur to no-one that boi-racer is quite capable of figuring that out.

And if he must have compulsary insurance, well, he will give the company such details as ensure he gets a good deal.

Yep, I live in the country. Yep, mature driver. Yep, never had a ticket. Modifed. Oh no, definately not.

Sure, if he does have a crash, his insurance will doubtless be void . But so what. That just leaves him where he is now, except for having to pay an extra tax (just goes to Helen's corporate mates instead of Mr Cullen).

So are the insurance companies going to send an engineer round to check every car they insure before accepting the proposal?

[YellowDog]

The vehicle insurance system works very well all over the world. They use databases and you cannot lie about your history. Yes you can rip them off one or two times by playing games, but shuch people will pay the price in the end.

If some idiot whats to blight their name and reputation, then they will end up exactly where they deserve to be.

Compulsory insurance should have been introduced to NZ many years ago to keep it in line with the rest of the developed world.

[Jiminy]

For me, it's fairly simple. Everyone should have TPI.

If someone drinks and drive and smashes my car, his insurance pays me and then sue him to get the money back because he is at fault. Yes, the insurance will probably raise the premium a bit to cover their losses when they can't recover the money, but so be it. Whereas today, without TPI, I'm left without car and no money while I need to sue the faulty driver. Chances are, with risk profiling, the premium increase will mostly be targeted at risky drivers, which I sure won't complain about.

If insurance companies propose abnormally high premiums or use any pretext to refuse to pay, then there will be room for a new and very successful insurance company in the market. Word of mouth travel fast, especially in a community like ours.

[sefer]

For me, it's fairly simple. Everyone should have TPI.

If someone drinks and drive and smashes my car, his insurance pays me and then sue him to get the money back because he is at fault.


Ah, but will they? My bet is no because the drier would be driving illegally, and of course the insurance company is going to say that this directly caused the accident (in this case probably justifiably so) and as per the terms of the insurance they then won't pay out. Your insurance will pay out on your car, and you'll probably even get out of losing your no claims and excess (though I've heard of people still paying their excess on no fault). Sure they'll get their money back via collections or the courts, their good at that.

In that case it's probably justified action by the company, but going back to what I said regarding regarding modified cars (bearing in mind insurance companies consider some pretty standard changes as "modified"), cars that don't meet warrant standards at the time of accident (whether they have the sticker or not, and it could be a light bulb), people driving outside the conditions, and a bunch of other reasons that insurance companies try to use to get out of paying up on claims. If they do use these things to not pay up they don't pay up at all, not their car, not yours. End result for you...exactly the same as if they had no insurance to begin with.

[davereid]

The vehicle insurance system works very well all over the world. They use databases and you cannot lie about your history. Yes you can rip them off one or two times by playing games, but shuch people will pay the price in the end.

If some idiot whats to blight their name and reputation, then they will end up exactly where they deserve to be.

Compulsory insurance should have been introduced to NZ many years ago to keep it in line with the rest of the developed world.

You will be poorer with third party insurance, but you won't have any better cover.

The idiot who is currently un-insured will be forced to insure.

But, as he will be breaching the conditions of his licence, over the learner drug or alcohol level, or a couple of days short of rego or WOF, his claim will be declined anyway.

Compulsary TPI will push all premiums up, create another level of compliance, and save F. All.

In fact, no doubt we will be levied to cover the cost of insured-but-declined accidents as well.

[Zookey]

I for one have all my unregistered bikes on hold,(Classics)insured for third party fire and theft,i also have my 78 RX7 the same,all with A.A insurance.no hassles.and to the person that stated that third party insurance had never been charged when registering your vehicle one word "WRONG.":done:

[Morcs]

Got a quote online for an £800 1992 GN125 on a provisional licence for an 18 year old with no insurance history. Living in NW London.

Cheapest for Third Party only:

£385.35

(equivalent to around $800)


£214.88 for 3rd party for a 35yr old with licence for 10yrs insuring a 2006 CBR600rr

£903.88 for the same with comprehensive insurance.

Bah mine was better.

a £2000 50cc scooter, 17 years old on a provisional, living just outside north london:

I paid, for TPFT:

£685


The only reason I dont have insurance here, is that a) shit is far far less likely to get stolen. b) accidents involving another vehicle are 99% time not the bikers fault, and c) if im riding on my own, and I screw up, I pay the price - makes you ride slower when you know its gonna cost a shite load for screwing up a corner...

[Ixion]

I for one have all my unregistered bikes on hold,(Classics)insured for third party fire and theft,i also have my 78 RX7 the same,all with A.A insurance.no hassles.and to the person that stated that third party insurance had never been charged when registering your vehicle one word "WRONG.":done:

NZ has NEVER had any compulsary property third party insrurance.

You are thinking of the old third party INJURY insurance. You had to select form a list of insurers when you relicensed the vehicle. It was a fixed extra price. It covered personal injury only. It was made extinct when ACC came in, because noone could then sue for personal injury. It never covered property damage.

I did it (the select and relicence thing) for many years. Always picked NIMU from memory. Dunno what happened to NIMU.

[avgas]

I priced up insurance for my Harley back in 1999 and State came back with $1271=comprehensive and $8=third party. I thought she was having me on but it was legit. Her comment was "cheap eh" and it was. Third Party for a bike is not bad at all!
I started riding back before then and my first bike insurance ever was with state on my RG150 - $16 for the year......in 1998
Since then they have added a 'minimum charge' fee of $60....its not the policy....but literally a minimum charge fee.
But be warned its not too pretty as excess is usually $1000+ even if the bike is worth less than $1000 and you crash into a $20 sign. Friend got caught that way and insurance paid nothing.