Compulsory third-party insurance? (yes/no)

[Dodger]

So, simple.
Do you feel this is a good idea or not?

[Usarka]

Might be seen as a good idea for older folk who dont want to be hit by an uninsured driver.

not so good for newbies though.

For a laugh I just got an online UK quote for an 18yr old to insure a £1000 1.3l VW Polo third party - £3,434.00 per annum.

[Drew]

Un decided. I have only ever been hit by another vehical once, she failed to give way at a stop sign. I got charged somehow, and paid for her car to be fixed. With justice like that, fuck 'em, I'll pay five bucks a week.

Having said that, I have hit another vehical that was doing nothing wrong, and had to pay that off, which is far from fair for them.

This all happened when I was fairly green, now it would just be another expense I feel I shouldn't have in my pursuit of riding pleasure.

Hmmm, I wonder if I could claim on my public liability insurance if I said I was on company business?

[Jiminy]

It's about time!


not so good for newbies though.

Depends how you see it, though. Yes, your first car will be more expensive to run, but if you smash it into another car, the insurance will come very handy to help your cash flow for the years to come. At least, it's a predictable cost.

[The Pastor]

insurance prises would tripple.

[Mr Triple]

Great idea should of been done years ago:rockon:

[The Pastor]

the only thing that would happen is it would be a nother thing to get a ticket for. the drivers it aims at targetting would still not have insurance, so while making it more expensive FOR EVERYONE, it will achieve very little.

[quickbuck]

Yep, I hit the "Bad Idea" button!

Reason: If it compulsory, then the insurance companies will hike the price.

Same reason 20 year old 250's retail fir the same price they did 15 years ago.

What would be better is to educate the people that it is the best idea.

Another thing is that just because something is compulsory, and legislated, there will always be a percentage of people who just don't care and flout the law.
Just my 10c worth.

[YellowDog]

insurance prises would tripple.
I think you are wrong about prices going up.

There are many NZ Insurance providers 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. The prices should fall considerably.

It's called open market competition!

[Usarka]

Insurance companies currently view young drivers who purchase insurance as typically a lower risk profile than the "average" young rider/driver.

making it compulsory will raise the risk profile for new rider/drivers because all the previously uninsured high risk people will be fed into the mix, therefore making it more expensive.

at least until you build up a personal insurnace history that provides better individual risk assesment for the insurers. In the meantime they have to assume new drivers are high risk and charge accordingly.

[McJim]

Twice I've been a victim of an uninsured driver. Twice I got some money back but was left out of pocket.

I'm looking foward to it but suspect the Insurance companies will increase everyone's premiums.

[Marknz]

good idea... it should be part of the rego payment.

[The Pastor]

I think you are wrong about prices going up.

There are many NZ Insurance providers 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. The prices should fall considerably.

It's called open market competition!

How is compulsory insurance open market?

[YellowDog]

How is compulsory insurance open market?
Huh - The insurance market certainly isn't state owned.

Compulsary insurance = a larger and new potential maket for all players in that industry.

Insurance companies wanting a larger share of this easy cake will need to be as attractive as possible to punters = Lower prices.

Plus if everyone is insured, the significant overhead of chasing penniless vehicle owners for recompense will be reduced and many issues with law breaking uninsured accident causers will be addressed by the Police/courts.

Unless you don't already have insurance, it's a win win situation.

[riffer]

I think it's a good idea.

Like all things insurance-wise, the amount of money you pay will depend on your risk profile.

An 18 year old driving a 1300cc car will pay nowhere near as much as one driving an Evo 5.

And that's how it should be. And bring in compulsory confiscation of all cars driven uninsured as well.

If you can't afford the insurance you can't afford the vehicle. End of story.

[MaxB]

I have lived and worked in 3 countries that have compulsory insurance. 1 was levied through rego fees the other 2 left to the (closed) market.

FWIW a couple of observations:

- What works in Europe or the US does not mean it will work here especially considering our rural background. It is easy to get away with pricing young people off the roads if you have cities with first world public transport.

- Insurance is much, much cheaper here. That must change with all risk type now having to be included and the monopolistic behaviour of insurers.

- If you think that being compulsory will somehow make insurers behave you are dreaming. In my first hand experience of making a claim in which I was 100% blame free (the other driver was prosecuted by police) the car insurers were caught inspecting the wreck of my bike at the dealers without permission. They were looking for anything to get away with not paying out. They even tried to say that my non-EU headlight bulb contributed to the accident. I was mown down while stationary.

When that didn't work they tried delaying tactics in court until eventually after 19 months I got my pay out. My insurers would not pay me until they were sure they would get theirs.

Like so many of this governments well meaning ideas I think this will end as a giant cock up. YMMV

[PrincessBandit]

now it would just be another expense I feel I shouldn't have in my pursuit of riding pleasure.



I think it's a good idea.
If you can't afford the insurance you can't afford the vehicle. End of story.

Unfortunately not all fun is free. Oh that it were!!
I'm with riffer on this one - kinda like someone once said to me "if you can't afford protective gear you shouldn't be riding a bike". Should all be part of the expected expense.

[Mikkel]

Where is the "It's a disgrace this is not already implemented" option?

It's a very good idea indeed. Currently there are a lot of roadusers who decides not to get insurance because they either think they could never be at fault and/or the value of their "vehicle" does not warrant any safety-net. Then there are some who exercise flawed reasoning such as "if I hit someone they are likely to be insured so why should I bother...".

Alas, even if someone up high sees the light and tries to get the ball rolling I'm thinking that the red tape would delay the process at least half a decade.

[MaxB]

Just got an email from a mate in the UK for a quote for an 05 Blade. Approx. $500 for a years cover.

Great.

Until you see the conditions. Third Party Only, lives in the country (Dorset), 10000 mileage limit, garaged, alarmed, 10 years no claims, 10 years no tickets and unmodified (not even a GPS).

If he lived near a town the quote would triple. Any smashes or tickets and the premium skyrockets.

Welcome to Harry's brave new world.

[awayatc]

Yep, I hit the "Bad Idea" button!

Reason: If it compulsory, then the insurance companies will hike the price.

Same reason 20 year old 250's retail fir the same price they did 15 years ago.

What would be better is to educate the people that it is the best idea.

Another thing is that just because something is compulsory, and legislated, there will always be a percentage of people who just don't care and flout the law.
Just my 10c worth.

Unfortunately I have to agree....I have lived with compulsary insurance overseas, where it was at least 10x more expensive....My vehicles are at least 3rd party insured for a song, but my bike isn't....
I weigh up the cost and the risk, and make decisions accordingly.....
Trust my ability to do so way better then Nana's....:banana:

[Hitcher]

New Zealand amazes me at times. Draft legislation to ban the use of radar detectors, yet resile from compulsory third-party insurance. Anything that stops boi racers buying WRX STIs on a-dollar-down finance, and Lance Loser from Wainui cruising around in an unwarranted HQ Holden with no brakes and four bald tyres has to be a good idea.

[ynot slow]

Is good if it can work.
So if you can produce evidence of full or your own third party policies then you are not charged fine.

[HornetBoy]

Yep, I hit the "Bad Idea" button!

Reason: If it compulsory, then the insurance companies will hike the price.

Same reason 20 year old 250's retail fir the same price they did 15 years ago.

What would be better is to educate the people that it is the best idea.

Another thing is that just because something is compulsory, and legislated, there will always be a percentage of people who just don't care and flout the law.
Just my 10c worth.

I hit the bad idea thinking pretty much the same thing.Good idea for L plate boy racers in their 500hp skylines and wrx's but otherwise...

[Coyote]

My regoless, warrantless and insuranceless black ZX10R with cops lights is becoming less of a dream and more of a plan...

[Jantar]

.... Third Party Only,....

But let's compare like for like. In most countries, including the UK and USA, third party also covers personal injury, and that is what pushes the price so high. Here we have ACC for personal injury, and our 3rd party insurance is only for 3rd party property damage.

[TLDV8]

good idea... it should be part of the rego payment.

I am all for third party insurance but hope it would never be like here.
Rego (including third party) for the DR650 and camper van came to around AU$1176 per year. ($650 and $526) :eek5:
I had AMI third party on the TL and car back home (NZ) and it was fairly cheap.

(Off topic a bit but when you change the ownership you are charged a percentage of the vehicle value i am told. (2 %)
NZ seems to be following some of the Australian standards,there is talk of front number plates here for 2009.Radar detectors are illegal here as far as i know)

[Coyote]

I think you are wrong about prices going up.

There are many NZ Insurance providers 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. The prices should fall considerably.

It's called open market competition!
They could fall during the short term, but premiums will go up eventually. Just not so much that we realise what they're doing and we get rid of the compulsory law.

[Ixion]

Huh - The insurance market certainly isn't state owned.

Compulsary insurance = a larger and new potential maket for all players in that industry.

Insurance companies wanting a larger share of this easy cake will need to be as attractive as possible to punters = Lower prices.

.

Yeah. Just like petrol companies. Competition certainly keeps down the price of petrol doesn't it. With all the petrol companies competing to offer th elowest price.

What planet are you on at present ?

[Ixion]

New Zealand amazes me at times. Draft legislation to ban the use of radar detectors, yet resile from compulsory third-party insurance. Anything that stops boi racers buying WRX STIs on a-dollar-down finance, and Lance Loser from Wainui cruising around in an unwarranted HQ Holden with no brakes and four bald tyres has to be a good idea.

That is all well and good for you. You are rich.

But it will not be the boi racer in the WRX who will be hit by such a law. He will just soak up the $5000 , if he can afford a blinge dout WRX another $5K is neither here nor there. And if Lance Loser doesn't bother with a WoF (or, by inference , rego) , why on earth do you suppose he will be so punctilious about organising compulsary insurance

No, the people who will be hit by this will be old people and poor people.

People like Mrs Ixion. Her little 1986 Sunny is worth only maybe $1000 now (even though she's had it from new and it's done less than 50000km). She is the most careful defensive drive *ever*, and drives less than 1000km a year. But having to pay out another $1000++ a year, for nothing, may be the cost that makes it impractical for her to keep it.

Or, the people with several vehicles. Like me. Can only drive one at a time, but EACH vehicle will cost the $1000++ . Can't justify that. And if something has to go, I'm afraid it will have to be the bikes.

I can see this law putting a LOT of bikes off the road. Somebody who buys a little scooter to nip down to the shops, doe sso because it is cheap. It's not cheap anymore when there's $1000++ going out every year.

This is classic class legislation, enacted by the rich, for the benefit of the rich , at the expense of the poor.

[Oakie]

This is classic class legislation, enacted by the rich, for the benefit of the rich , at the expense of the poor.

But from a Socialist government. Funny thing huh?

Umm, you need to stop scaring people with that $1000 for third party cover figure you spout off too. In the other thread on this subject 4 of us so far have got quotes from Swann insurance. All of them were $130 for the year for third party.

[Ixion]

But from a Socialist government. Funny thing huh?

Umm, you need to stop scaring people with that $1000 for third party cover figure you spout off too. In the other thread on this subject 4 of us so far have got quotes from Swann insurance. All of them were $130 for the year for third party.


This is most certainly NOT a socialist government

And the figures you quote may well be true for you rich folk that can afford new bikes. They were all for new or late model machines. the sort you rich people can afford. I can't refute them from Swann , because they refuse to even QUOTE on my bikes . They say "Due to the age of your motorcycle we are unable to provide you with an Online Quote".

As I said. A capitalist government looking after the rich at the expense of the poor.

The only online quote I've been able to get for my bike is $1000. Third party fire and theft (third party only was more expensive) .And that's before the compulsary bit drives up prices. So , it may be cheap for you rich folk , I expect it would the government looks after its own. Won't be cheap for the poor.

[Jiminy]

the only thing that would happen is it would be a nother thing to get a ticket for. the drivers it aims at targetting would still not have insurance, so while making it more expensive FOR EVERYONE, it will achieve very little.

I can't quite follow the logic here. You will only get a ticket if you don't have any insurance, in which case you are one of the drivers targetted by the law. Sounds all right to me.

If you have an insurance, you don't get a ticket, but if you don't have an insurance and get caught, then you should get a ticket worth more than the insurance premiums you've skipped.

[Jantar]

...And the figures you quote may well be true for you rich folk that can afford new bikes. They were all for new or late model machines. the sort you rich people can afford. I can't refute them from Swann , because they refuse to even QUOTE on my bikes . They say "Due to the age of your motorcycle we are unable to provide you with an Online Quote". ....


AMI only charge me $760 per year for comprehensive on my 33 year old RE5.

[Jiminy]

Or, the people with several vehicles. Like me. Can only drive one at a time, but EACH vehicle will cost the $1000++ . Can't justify that.

In CH, you can have a single insurance covering several vehicles. The only catch is that you are not allowed two vehicles on the road at the same time. Sounds right to me.

[Motu]

COMPULSORY - that's I need to know.

[The Pastor]

In CH, you can have a single insurance covering several vehicles. The only catch is that you are not allowed two vehicles on the road at the same time. Sounds right to me.
CH?


10 chars

[Oakie]

Insurance prices should reduce if the Insurance industry acts honourably because.....

>FACT. The number of accidents and their cost will not change because of the legislation. (The legislation will have minimal on driving habits...)
>If we accept the above, and there's no reason not to, then we accept that the total cost to the insurance industry will not increase if this legislation is passed.
>Assuming then that their costs remain the same but that compulsary third party will increase their revenues then they will have more money to pay claims with so in theory they could reduce premiums and still retain the same bottom line. Would they do this? I guess some might but I won't be holding my breath.

Interesting further thought. Would a previously uninsured person drive with more reckless abandon because they know any damage they cause is covered ... or would they drive a bit safer because they know their premiums will go up if they have an accident?

[The Pastor]

I can't quite follow the logic here. You will only get a ticket if you don't have any insurance, in which case you are one of the drivers targetted by the law. Sounds all right to me.

If you have an insurance, you don't get a ticket, but if you don't have an insurance and get caught, then you should get a ticket worth more than the insurance premiums you've skipped.

so you forget to pay it one month. bam a 1k fine?

how would the cop figure out how much insurance you've skipped in order to fine you?

[Rockbuddy]

good idea although i have four vehicles that would need insuring so someway of insuring the driver not the vehicle would be the go in my books

[Ocean1]

New Zealand amazes me at times. Draft legislation to ban the use of radar detectors, yet resile from compulsory third-party insurance. Anything that stops boi racers buying WRX STIs on a-dollar-down finance, and Lance Loser from Wainui cruising around in an unwarranted HQ Holden with no brakes and four bald tyres has to be a good idea.

Good point in the first instance, compulsary third party would dampen the third rate finance gravy train casualties.

As for Lance? If he'll break the existing rules he'll break the new ones. Enforce 'em.


But let's compare like for like. In most countries, including the UK and USA, third party also covers personal injury, and that is what pushes the price so high. Here we have ACC for personal injury, and our 3rd party insurance is only for 3rd party property damage.

Yeah, the property component of UK third party ain't a whole lot, and NZ's "no fault" legislation will minimise costs further.

Personally I'd rather dump ACC as well, and cover my own arse how I see fit. ACC hasn't done me any favours and I object to both the "one-size-fits-all" costs associated with it and the increasingly bizzare policies it spawns.

[Ixion]

Insurance prices should reduce if the Insurance industry acts honourably because.....



:killingme:killingme:killingme:rofl: :rofl": :rofl:

Insurance companies. Honourable.

Planet earth calling Oakie, come home Oakie, you've been out there too long.

Hey, did you hear that Helen Clark is going to be next months Playboy centrefold ?

[Robbo]

I think it's a good idea.

Like all things insurance-wise, the amount of money you pay will depend on your risk profile.

An 18 year old driving a 1300cc car will pay nowhere near as much as one driving an Evo 5.

And that's how it should be. And bring in compulsory confiscation of all cars driven uninsured as well.

If you can't afford the insurance you can't afford the vehicle. End of story.

That sums it up perfectly and gets my vote on all points. As for the assumptions on the possible costs of all this it will depend on the risk factor of the indivual driver but i don't believe that it will be too expensive overall compared with being run into by an un-insured and having to carry the expense of it yourself.

[Oakie]

This is most certainly NOT a socialist government

And the figures you quote may well be true for you rich folk that can afford new bikes. They were all for new or late model machines. the sort you rich people can afford. I can't refute them from Swann , because they refuse to even QUOTE on my bikes . They say "Due to the age of your motorcycle we are unable to provide you with an Online Quote".

As I said. A capitalist government looking after the rich at the expense of the poor.

The only online quote I've been able to get for my bike is $1000. Third party fire and theft (third party only was more expensive) .And that's before the compulsary bit drives up prices. So , it may be cheap for you rich folk , I expect it would the government looks after its own. Won't be cheap for the poor.

Rich? Me? I've been called Rich a few times but only because my name is Richard. The Swann quotes I got for our bikes are certainly not for new or late models. My bike's a 1993 and Mrs Oakie's is a 1990. I don't see that it makes any difference anyway because with third party your being insured based on the other person's property, not your own. This being the case a guy with a 1972 CB125 and a 2007 GSXR1000 should pay the same third party for both of them I think. (Could be wrong because I guess the latter could do more damage to a car).

[Oakie]

:killingme:killingme:killingme:rofl: :rofl": :rofl:

Insurance companies. Honourable.

Planet earth calling Oakie, come home Oakie, you've been out there too long.

Hey, did you hear that Helen Clark is going to be next months Playboy centrefold ?

Yeah well I did say "if" and I did say I wouldn't be holding my breath.

[Ixion]

Rich? Me? I've been called Rich a few times but only because my name is Richard. The Swann quotes I got for our bikes are certainly not for new or late models. My bike's a 1993 and Mrs Oakie's is a 1990. I don't see that it makes any difference anyway because with third party your being insured based on the other person's property, not your own. This being the case a guy with a 1972 CB125 and a 2007 GSXR1000 should pay the same third party for both of them I think. (Could be wrong because I guess the latter could do more damage to a car).


So, why will Swann not even quote on third party only for my bike ? (Your logic is impeccable, but insurance companies don't work on logic. Or honour. )

[Toaster]

This is most certainly NOT a socialist government

And the figures you quote may well be true for you rich folk that can afford new bikes. They were all for new or late model machines. the sort you rich people can afford. I can't refute them from Swann , because they refuse to even QUOTE on my bikes . They say "Due to the age of your motorcycle we are unable to provide you with an Online Quote".

As I said. A capitalist government looking after the rich at the expense of the poor.

The only online quote I've been able to get for my bike is $1000. Third party fire and theft (third party only was more expensive) .And that's before the compulsary bit drives up prices. So , it may be cheap for you rich folk , I expect it would the government looks after its own. Won't be cheap for the poor.

You don't have to be rich to buy a new bike... you just borrow the cash either via finance or against the house via the mortgage - as many do.

It's called living beyond your means. Wealth isn't in the eye of the beholder, merely the illusion of weath in many cases. You can have many assets but be in debt beyond your eyeballs. That is certainly not RICH as you put it.

[Ixion]

That sums it up perfectly and gets my vote on all points. As for the assumptions on the possible costs of all this it will depend on the risk factor of the indivual driver but i don't believe that it will be too expensive overall compared with being run into by an un-insured and having to carry the expense of it yourself.

Whoah up. the only way that you can be run into by an uninsured and have to carry the expense yourself (even assuming that you were at no fault) is if *you* have no insurance. So what you are actually saying is that everyone ELSE should have to have insurance , but not you ?

That's an argument worthy of the insurance companies themselves.

[Ocean1]

Whoah up. the only way that you can be run into by an uninsured and have to carry the expense yourself (even assuming that you were at no fault) is if *you* have no insurance. So what you are actually saying is that everyone ELSE should have to have insurance , but not you ?

That's an argument worthy of the insurance companies themselves.

Are you seriously suggesting that the insurance companies cover the costs of an unrecoverable claim out of thin air? Premiums are higher than they should be BECAUSE of the uninsured.

[Ixion]

You don't have to be rich to buy a new bike... you just borrow the cash either via finance or against the house via the mortgage - as many do.

It's called living beyond your means. Wealth isn't in the eye of the beholder, merely the illusion of weath in many cases. You can have many assets but be in debt beyond your eyeballs. That is certainly not RICH as you put it.

Rigghhht. So, this legislation is designed for either rich people, or wannabees who are prepared to hock themselves in debt to the eyeballs .

But if you live within your means and don't buy what you can't afford, you get crapped on.

Like I said, a capitalist govenment passing legislation for their rich mates (especially the financiers - BTW anyone lost money in one of the finance companies that's gone belly up. Lots more coming) at the expense of the poor and honest workers,

BTW if this WERE a socialist government there wouldn't be any insurance companies to push such laws, because they woulod all have long since been nationalised.

[Ixion]

Are you seriously suggesting that the insurance companies cover the costs of an unrecoverable claim out of thin air? Premiums are higher than they should be BECAUSE of the uninsured.

Are you seriously suggesting that every person who refuses to hock their soul to an insurance company will refuse to pay up when they are genuinely at fault?

[sparky10]

I think it's a good idea.

Like all things insurance-wise, the amount of money you pay will depend on your risk profile.

An 18 year old driving a 1300cc car will pay nowhere near as much as one driving an Evo 5.

And that's how it should be. And bring in compulsory confiscation of all cars driven uninsured as well.

If you can't afford the insurance you can't afford the vehicle. End of story.

Could not of said it better myself, there will always be some who wont grow up ( i. e. boy racers) but most will have to learn to respect road rules etc. or or be left to walk,bus etc. a licience is a privilage not a right.

[Toaster]

Rigghhht. So, this legislation is designed for either rich people, or wannabees who are prepared to hock themselves in debt to the eyeballs .

But if you live within your means and don't buy what you can't afford, you get crapped on.

Like I said, a capitalist govenment passing legislation for their rich mates (especially the financiers - BTW anyone lost money in one of the finance companies that's gone belly up. Lots more coming) at the expense of the poor and honest workers,

BTW if this WERE a socialist government there wouldn't be any insurance companies to push such laws, because they woulod all have long since been nationalised.

Keep going on your little anti wealthy anti government rant fella.

The proposed law is there to assist those ALREADY paying insurance who are having to pay for twats who ride or drive without at least 3rd party insurance. It hurts those of us that end up paying for the uninsured twice - firstly through our insurance premiums covering the cost of both them and us AND secondly when we have to cover costs because the dickhead that caused the crash DIDN'T have insurance to cover our insurance excess.

And no courts do not normally award reparation for such cases.

[Ixion]

Could not of said it better myself, there will always be some who wont grow up ( i. e. boy racers) but most will have to learn to respect road rules etc. or or be left to walk,bus etc. a licience is a privilage not a right.

By what perverted and inane pseudo-thought process do you come up with that?

Compulsary insurance has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with whether people obey the road rules or not. It is SOLELY, repeat SOLELY about whether you are rich enough to afford a nice new car or bike. The people who will be driven off the road are for the most part going to be the very people who religiously obey road rules. OK, they may be infuriating in their obedience, especially in keeping way under the speed limit, but they don't usually break the rules.

This is NOT aimed at boi-racers, and will have little or no effect on them . it is aimed fair and square at the old and the poor.

[Ixion]

Keep going on your little anti wealthy anti government rant fella.

The proposed law is there to assist those ALREADY paying insurance who are having to pay for twats who ride or drive without at least 3rd party insurance. It hurts those of us that end up paying for the uninsured twice - firstly through our insurance premiums covering the cost of both them and us AND secondly when we have to cover costs because the dickhead that caused the crash DIDN'T have insurance to cover our insurance excess.

And no courts do not normally award reparation for such cases.

Well mate, this dickhead has *NEVER* caused a crash (or ahd one, in 50 odd years . cna you sya the same ?) , and if he ever DID would be quite willing to pay up .

I don't think I'm the only one here to be anti the labout government, not noticed you objecting to others that slag them off 9of course , they're ccoming form the opposite direction)

Quite happy to meet you privately to 'discuss' your opinions of my dickheadedness. Just PM the time and place.

[Oakie]

So, why will Swann not even quote on third party only for my bike ? (Your logic is impeccable, but insurance companies don't work on logic. Or honour. )

Don't know. How old or rare are your bikes?

[Ixion]

Don't know. How old or rare are your bikes?

74/75 Suzukis. Not that rare. Why should it matter for third party. I wouldn't be asking them to fix them

[pete376403]

. it is aimed fair and square at the old and the poor.
Traditional labour voters. Considering how far down in the polls labour is, why would they be trying to piss off some of their core supporters?

[YellowDog]

I can't agree with some of the nonsense on this thread. Why don't you guys go out and get quotes for third party cover and the see how expensive or cheap it actually is. Much cheaper than a rego I suspect?

If you have no insurance and you have a prang, it will cost you heaps and potentially for many years. If you hit someone or they hit you, would anyone prefer yourself or the other party to be insured or uninsured?

Chancing it is not the answer. Like your registration; insurance should be a mandatory cost of owning any vehicle for use on the public roads. If you can't afford it, save up. If you can't save up, start peddling.

You need to be protected and others need to be protected from you.

[YellowDog]

Traditional labour voters. Considering how far down in the polls labour is, why would they be trying to piss off some of their core supporters?
because it is basic common sense, regardless of political persuasion.

[Ixion]

I can't agree with some of the nonsense on this thread. Why don't you guys go out and get quotes for third party cover and the see how expensive or cheap it actually is. Much cheaper than a rego I suspect?

...

Done it. Only quote available is $1000++. Cheaper than a rego . Hardly. And for what . ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Nothing at all.

[Ixion]

Traditional labour voters. Considering how far down in the polls labour is, why would they be trying to piss off some of their core supporters?

Hardly. How far behind the times are you? The old and poor havent been a core Labour demographic for years. Not since Jim Anderton threw his toys out of the cot, for exactly that reason. NZ First, National, Maoris maybe. Not labour, Unless you lump beneficeries in as 'poor'. I don't. Labour , for many years, has been the party of the rich, and the shirker, not the worker.

[YellowDog]

Done it. Only quote available is $1000++. Cheaper than a rego . Hardly. And for what . ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Nothing at all.
Well that sounds really steep for thiird party. You need to shop around and hopefully the insurance companys will start to get more competitive.

The insurance companies not providing value is a different issue completely.

[YellowDog]

Here's the KB Wiki insurance link:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/index.php/Insurance

[Ixion]

Well that sounds really steep for thiird party. You need to shop around and hopefully the insurance companys will start to get more competitive.

The insurance companies not providing value is a different issue completely.


No it's not a different issue entirely. It IS the issue. If insurance companies provided value, everybody would have insurance already. They don't and once it is compulsary , they'll have even less incentive to. So , what you are saying, is that the insurance companies rip everyone off that deals with them , and you want the government to make it compulsary for EVERYONE to be ripped off.

And that's $1000 PER VEHICLE by the way. Owb several 9as many bikers do , how many don't own at least a cage as well) and thats x times $1000. Even though you can only ride/drive one at a time (and thus, only cause one accident at a time)


And why should they get more competative? They haven't so far. What magic wand is going to be waved that will turn them from an oligopoly into a competative market?

[Ocean1]

Are you seriously suggesting that every person who refuses to hock their soul to an insurance company will refuse to pay up when they are genuinely at fault?

How many do?

[YellowDog]

I accept the point you make however still maintain that compulsary insurance for all public road users is the right thing to do.

I don't think that all insurance is a rip off. The $1000 for thrid party insurance you mention is not reasonable. If you have 9 bikes and only ride one at a time, then you can have a policy to allow for this. I was quoted $1800 for fully comp with Tower and was then quoted $790 from http://www.ebikeinsurance.co.nz/ . For third party, you should be able to get it a lot cheaper.

[Ixion]

How many do?

I don't know. Do you? But a wholesale allegation that NONE do without evidence to substantiate it, is not the same thing as a question as to percentages.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that a signifcant proportion of the uninsured are not in a position to refute your allegation, because they are people who do not make a practice of crashing into other road users, and have never done so. Which is why they do not have insurance.

[Ixion]

I accept the point you make however still maintain that compulsary insurance for all public road users is the right thing to do.

I don't think that all insurance is a rip off. The $1000 for thrid party insurance you mention is not reasonable. If you have 9 bikes and only ride one at a time, then you can have a policy to allow for this. I was quoted $1800 for fully comp with Tower and was then quoted $790 from http://www.ebikeinsurance.co.nz/ . For third party, you should be able to get it a lot cheaper.

My $1000 quote was from ebikeinsurance. No insurer, to my knowledge ( I am open to correction) will offer a policy insuring the RIDER (ie, insure you, on any bike/car) .

I do think that insurance is a rip off.

[Oakie]

74/75 Suzukis. Not that rare. Why should it matter for third party. I wouldn't be asking them to fix them

Just thought that they may not have had them on 'The List' that they check when asked to quote. Then they might have apply the rule that says if it's not on 'The List' then we quote $1000 regardless.

[Motu]

We've already been through this crap with the last National Government when they dumped workplace ACC and made employers source their own workplace insurance.Did the Insurance Companies offer a better deal? No way in hell man,they reamed us to max oversize and honed further with coarse paper.I was happy to go back to ACC.

Like the deregulation of the oil industry,they will be handing the insurance industry a whole chook house of golden eggs.

[Ixion]

Just thought that they may not have had them on 'The List' that they check when asked to quote. Then they might have apply the rule that says if it's not on 'The List' then we quote $1000 regardless.

The $1000 wasn't from Swann. they wouldn;t quote at all.

[Ocean1]

I don't know. Do you? But a wholesale allegation that NONE do without evidence to substantiate it, is not the same thing as a question as to percentages.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that a signifcant proportion of the uninsured are not in a position to refute your allegation, because they are people who do not make a practice of crashing into other road users, and have never done so. Which is why they do not have insurance.

I made no such allegation dude, it was a simple question.

In general I find legislation removing valid choices distasteful. In this case the choice being removed is that of covering your own costs should you be at fault in an incident and impose some cost to another.

I’ve been on both sides of such incidents, I fucked up once, many years ago and went to considerable pain to personally reimburse the other party. I’ve also several times suffered damage caused by someone else’s fuckup and on two occasions my insurers were unable to recover costs. That cost is tacked directly on to everyone’s premiums.

If everyone behaved with honour in such cases there’s be no need for legislation making third party insurance compulsory. In fact, while I’m currently fully covered for all the vehicles I drive that hasn’t always been the case. It may not always be the case in the future, (legislation notwithstanding), It’s actually less expensive to cover yourself if you can, assuming you cause less than average carnage.

Either way, if you aren’t prepared to pay the price directly associated with your driving/riding behaviour then why should anyone else?

[Ixion]

I made no such allegation dude, it was a simple question.

Either way, if you aren’t prepared to pay the price directly associated with your driving/riding behaviour then why should anyone else?

Like the question "Are you still beating your wife?" That's simple too.Are you?

Bit you''re concluding argument is fatally flawed. I am indeed prepared to pay that price.

But , if as you allege, others are not, compulsary insurance will not make them any more likely to do so,

Consider. Compulsary insurance. whoopey doo. And you just got taken out by a cage. His fault entirely. But, that's OK, he's insured . Or, is it OK ? No WoF (lots about) , no rego( lots about) , reckon insurance will cough up . Stolen vehicle , does the owners insurance cover that? Or he's drunk, disqualified, driving outside conditions of licence, driving a car with a non OEM stereo that he hasn't advised the insuranc company about, any of the 10000+ excuses that the insurance company will (and DO) use to weasel out of liability. So, he's got insurance. But the insurance company have evaded liability. So, where does that leave you? Lots better off than now ?

And, for third party only you have to PROVE he's at fault. Got $20000 for a lawyer, up front? Cos if you haven't forget it . Unless you already have insurance of course, in which case you are no better (or worse) off than you are at present.

[Ocean1]

And, for third party only you have to PROVE he's at fault. Got $20000 for a lawyer, up front? Cos if you haven't forget it . Unless you already have insurance of course, in which case you are no better (or worse) off than you are at present.

I do not. That's the only reason I use an insurance company rather than take the punt myself. My insurance company talks to his, a settlement based on our respective claims is negotiated, payment is approved, (or not) and our respective insurance profiles are adjusted accordingly.

If the party considered at fault accrues too much bad karma their premiums increase. If they continue to fuck up they eventually become uninsurable, and therefore, (and this is the good bit) ineligible to drive.

My one reservation is that, if existing laws were better enforced a lot of the reason for compulsory insurance wouldn't exist. I don't have a problem placing the cost of one's behaviour at one's doorstep, but as with any other rule, if it's not enforced it won't work.

[Ixion]

I do not. That's the only reason I use an insurance company rather than take the punt myself. My insurance company talks to his, a settlement based on our respective claims is negotiated, payment is approved, (or not) and our respective insurance profiles are adjusted accordingly.

If the party considered at fault accrues too much bad karma their premiums increase. If they continue to fuck up they eventually become uninsurable, and therefore, (and this is the good bit) ineligible to drive.

My one reservation is that, if existing laws were better enforced a lot of the reason for compulsory insurance wouldn't exist. I don't have a problem placing the cost of one's behaviour at one's doorstep, but as with any other rule, if it's not enforced it won't work.

No. They don't. Insurance companies use a thing called "knock for knock". what that means is that if you report that you've been in a crash, they don't care or consider if you were at fault, or the other party, If both are insured, your insurance covers your repairs, his insurance covers his. They don't even try to decide who is at fault. You lose your no claims bonus and your premium goes up, because you made a claim. So does his (if he makes a claim) .

That is why insurance companies hate the uninsured party. Because knock for knock won't work and they have have to prove that their client was not to blame.

And, why the compulsary insurance idea is very bad for motorcycles,

In any car versus motorcycle, the motorcycle will invariably come off worst. The car, is likely not damaged at all.

So , the biker puts in an insurance claim "It was the drivers fault". Insurance company "So it was, but you are both insured, so knock for knock. We are not interested in who was at fault. You have claimed, so bang goes your no claim bonus and up goes your premium". The car driver, who has suffered no damage, notifies his insurance comapny. They say " Oh, OK, we don't have to pay anything, knock for knock, all good , carry on"

[Timber020]

I have lived in a few compulsory insurance nations, and it just costs EVERYONE more, alot more, if it less than triples I will be suprised. The irresponsible ones are going to be even worse, insurance companies will increase there take 10 fold.

We have a pop of only 4 million, theres going to be no competition, Just like it costs a fortune here for cell phone use.

We are screwed.

[Kickaha]

I can't agree with some of the nonsense on this thread. Why don't you guys go out and get quotes for third party cover and the see how expensive or cheap it actually is. Much cheaper than a rego I suspect?.

Yes it is cheap at the moment but do you really think that will stay the same when it is made compulsory?



If the party considered at fault accrues too much bad karma their premiums increase. If they continue to fuck up they eventually become uninsurable, and therefore, (and this is the good bit) ineligible to drive.

They may be ineligble for driving but that doesn't mean they wont drive

[TimeOut]

[QUOTE=Ixion;1518980]No. They don't. Insurance companies use a thing called "knock for knock". what that means is that if you report that you've been in a crash, they don't care or consider if you were at fault, or the other party, If both are insured, your insurance covers your repairs, his insurance covers his. They don't even try to decide who is at fault. You lose your no claims bonus and your premium goes up, because you made a claim. So does his (if he makes a claim) .


Not with my insurance, if I'm not at fault I don't lose no claim bonus premium doesn't go up.

How will you feel when an uninsured hits you and either refuses to pay up or drip feeds at $5/week

[nick69]

Might be seen as a good idea for older folk who dont want to be hit by an uninsured driver.

not so good for newbies though.

For a laugh I just got an online UK quote for an 18yr old to insure a £1000 1.3l VW Polo third party - £3,434.00 per annum.

Yeah but in the UK they dont have 15 year olds driving high performance cars. Been there and had to pay high prices but also acts as a deterrent to drive safer or risk not getting insurance next time, bloody great idea, i just dont understand why it has taken so long to get this through law.

[YellowDog]

Well maybe I've called this one the wrong way regarding insurance prices. I hope I haven't.

Logic and market forces says the prices should go down however if this is a 'screw you' market, then it may be a problem. With ACC being in place, the actual cover provided and risk to the insurers is small compared with other countries.

In the case of Motorcyclists, the number one problem is damage to the riders, which is covered by ACC.

Damaging our own bikes is a risk that many accept and this would not change with compusory third party insurance, so I can see why being forced to have insurance would be a pisser and of minimal benefit to some.

How about:

Insurance for cars = Compulsory
Insurance for Motobikes = Optional

Anyone interested in starting a lobby group?

[Hitcher]

Given the concerns some have about affordability versus compliance, one wonders whether North Korea or the former USSR had compulsory third-party insurance?

[Dodger]

How about:

Insurance for cars = Compulsory
Insurance for Motobikes = Optional



Come on, all or none, lets not start excluding people depending on what they drive/ride. Next they will be limiting the power of bikes for learners :rolleyes:

Should we add:

Insurance for Trucks = Optional (not as many crash compared to cars, lets ignore the cost of when they do)
Insurance for mopeds = Compulsory ($1000 moped hits a $50,000 car)

[ManDownUnder]

Here's my prediction.

Those not wanting insurance don't give a toss, don't get it and drive uninsured. If getting a WoF means you need to be insured (per the UK system, as I understand it) then theuy drive without a WoF too (*gasp* - law breakers!)

They drive and hit someone

They get charged with a number of offences including no insurance which carries a fine

The fine of $100 comes out of their coffers ahead of any reparations awarded to the poor sod they hit... so instead of struggling to pay for the damage done, they're now $100 poorer before they start paying for the damage done.

The bad guy goes broke (or hides their money) per usual

The victim is $100 worse off.

Yeah - sounds like a GREAT idea to me... NOT

[The Pastor]

This thread is full of idiots.

looks like i'll fit in.

it aint going to "solve" shit.

[Robbo]

Whoah up. the only way that you can be run into by an uninsured and have to carry the expense yourself (even assuming that you were at no fault) is if *you* have no insurance. So what you are actually saying is that everyone ELSE should have to have insurance , but not you ?

That's an argument worthy of the insurance companies themselves.

No, that's not what i am saying at all. I have always had insurance for any vehicle or bike that i have operated on the road as i consider it to be my responsability to do so and it should also apply to all road users. Just having your own insurance does'nt cover all the inconvenience of an incident or accident. Being without your vehicle while it is being repaired, having to fork out for a rental vehicle if required and losing your no claims bonus and having your premiums increased because the un-insured party that caused the accident now decides to change his story of the events and you end up carrying the consequences yourself.
If you have ever experienced this situation yourself then you will understand where i am coming from in supporting compulsory insurance with third party being the minimum level.
Who supplies this insurance is another matter and i would prefer that Govt did not do it but left us to make our own choices on who we choose.

[MaxB]

I have lived in a few compulsory insurance nations, and it just costs EVERYONE more, alot more, if it less than triples I will be suprised. The irresponsible ones are going to be even worse, insurance companies will increase there take 10 fold.

We have a pop of only 4 million, theres going to be no competition, Just like it costs a fortune here for cell phone use.

We are screwed.

You have it spot on.

[Ixion]

Not with my insurance, if I'm not at fault I don't lose no claim bonus premium doesn't go up.

How will you feel when an uninsured hits you and either refuses to pay up or drip feeds at $5/week

Some insurers don't deduct a NCB after a claim. AA will give you a permanent no claims bonus. It comes to the same thing, they just load the price up up front. They still do knock for knock.

As to an uninsured hitting me, if anyone hits me, property damage is going to be WAY down my list of worries. I ride on the principle that if I crash, I'll die. So I make it my job to make sure that no-one DOES hit me.

If you manage to hit me, more fool me for letting you have the chance.

One invidious aspect of compulsary insurance is that it reinforces the mindset (so widely prevalent and defended on KB) that crashing is a normal thing, that it happens, there is nothing you can do about it, it's someone else's fault. As exemplified by your question. And if everyone has insurqance, why, there's nothing to be bothered about at all inc rashing, is there. The magic gear will make it certain that you won't be injured at all. And the insurance will fix everything up.

I do not accept that mindset and I make it my job to ensure that I don't crash (or let anyone else hit me). So far it's worked for over 40 years.

[dummer]

unless there's a set fee to follow or the government govern the insurance fee... it will be a bad bad idea....look at the insurance cost in UK or any other country where 3rd party is compulsory

[jetboy]

insurance prises would tripple.
...means I can get a decent bike 3 times as fast then eh? :cool:

[Edbear]

Here's my prediction.

Those not wanting insurance don't give a toss, don't get it and drive uninsured. If getting a WoF means you need to be insured (per the UK system, as I understand it) then theuy drive without a WoF too (*gasp* - law breakers!)

They drive and hit someone..

This is really the crux of the problem. Day after day, you hear on the news that the driver involved in an accident, esp. causing injury or death, was unlicenced, disqualified or driving outside their licence conditions - in a car that is stolen, illegal, unreg/WOF - driving drunk/drugged - excessive speed - in other words, breaking about every law in the book!

Those who need it most, are those who couldn't care less about the law and will not obey the law. They certainly won't cough up for insurance!

[Ocean1]

If the party considered at fault accrues too much bad karma their premiums increase. If they continue to fuck up they eventually become uninsurable, and therefore, (and this is the good bit) ineligible to drive.


They may be ineligble for driving but that doesn't mean they wont drive


as with any other rule, if it's not enforced it won't work.

10stuff...

[Ocean1]

Here's my prediction.

Those not wanting insurance don't give a toss, don't get it and drive uninsured. If getting a WoF means you need to be insured (per the UK system, as I understand it) then theuy drive without a WoF too (*gasp* - law breakers!)

Actually, used to be that you didn't get to buy the car without insurance, may still be the case. Certainly still the case that any car found on the road without uninsured is impounded until it is, a second offense see's it crushed.

Like I keep saying, don't make fookin' laws you arn't prepared to enforce, it's a waste of everyone's time and effort. And by enforce I mean instituting penalties which prevent almost all offending.

[Max Preload]

New Zealand amazes me at times. Draft legislation to ban the use of radar detectors, yet resile from compulsory third-party insurance. Anything that stops boi racers buying WRX STIs on a-dollar-down finance, and Lance Loser from Wainui cruising around in an unwarranted HQ Holden with no brakes and four bald tyres has to be a good idea.

The boi racer needs insurance to get the finance, and Lance Loser isn't going to be particularly bothered by simply breaking another rule, is he? After all he already has no WoF (or at least doesn't maintain his vehicle to WoF standard). Or do you think he's going to say to himself: "Oh no! I can't get insurance. Whatever will I do? I guess I'll just have to stop driving that car on the road..."

[Hitcher]

I'm not worried about compulsory third-party insurance for the likes of Lance Loser. As you have noted, he's currently in breach of several other laws that should keep him and his off the road.

[Max Preload]

My point was that neither of the scenarios you've chosen are a good reason to introduce compulsory 3rd party insurance because they would either already be insured, or wouldn't care if they weren't.

I see no reason for making it compulsory - in fact, I'm dead set against that ever happening. Anyone who is so worried about their own vehicle being damaged by someone else, already has or should have comprehensive cover. Sure, they'll pretend that they're worried about the person who crashes into the new Mercedes, but we all know that's just a smokescreen for their own fears of someone crashig into them because despite their advocating of insurnace, they themselves have only 3rd party - they should put their money where their mouth's are.

Personally, I prefer to take the calculated risk myself and it should be my choice to do so.

[Toaster]

Well mate, this dickhead has *NEVER* caused a crash (or ahd one, in 50 odd years . cna you sya the same ?) , and if he ever DID would be quite willing to pay up .

I don't think I'm the only one here to be anti the labout government, not noticed you objecting to others that slag them off 9of course , they're ccoming form the opposite direction)

Quite happy to meet you privately to 'discuss' your opinions of my dickheadedness. Just PM the time and place.

Get over yourself boy. This is a forum. People have opinions. You'd think you'd be used to that seeing you live in here.

[Rogue]

Great idea should of been done years ago:rockon:

Just make the penalty realy tough if they do not have third party insurance
lock em up for six months or more plus loss of licence for two years
This would help in getting the heaps and trash of our roads :Punk:

:apint:

[Sanx]

Just make the penalty realy tough if they do not have third party insurance
lock em up for six months or more plus loss of licence for two years
This would help in getting the heaps and trash of our roads :Punk:

:apint:

Speaking as someone who has always comprehensively insured all his vehicles, and as someone who's been hit by an uninsured driver, I am dead set against compulsory insurance.

As many people have pointed out, in countries where the insurance is compulsory, the prices are much higher. When I moved to NZ, the first car I bought would have cost eleven times as much to insure in the UK as it did here. To those people who have stated the market will determine prices; that's a fundamentally-flawed statement.

The economic theory of supply and demand works on there being a willing buyer and a willing seller. If insurance becomes compulsory, the buyer isn't willing, he's being coerced. The buyer can no longer choose not be insured - the choice is between having insurance, driving illegally, or not driving at all. No business in their right mind would willingly pass over this opportunity to jack up prices.

[Hitcher]

The economic theory of supply and demand works on there being a willing buyer and a willing seller. If insurance becomes compulsory, the buyer isn't willing, he's being coerced. The buyer can no longer choose not be insured - the choice is between having insurance, driving illegally, or not driving at all. No business in their right mind would willingly pass over this opportunity to jack up prices.

Laws exist (or should exist) for the benefit of citizens. The question is, should the law allow (as it currently does) some citizens be able to opt out of their obligations to take responsibility for their actions? Call me old-fashioned, but I say no, they shouldn't be able to. Why should I have to take the full consequences of Danny Dickhead inflicting damage, death or injury on me and mine and Danny gets off scot-free because he chose not to insure himself?

There is a cost involved in being an owner or user of a motor vehicle. People like Mr Dickhead and his ilk are irresponsible freeloaders. Presumably their cost-reducing entrepreneurship should be enhanced allowing them to be able to legally steal motor vehicles, thus eliminating cost of having to buy them?

[sefer]

^^ Exactly how is anyone getting out of their obligation? If you choose to b fully insured (which if your that concerned regarding being hit by others you will be) then your insurance will pay out for you. In a no fault situation you should be paying no excess nor losing you claims-free (providing you ID the other driver). The other driver (if not insured) not only ends up wearing their own costs, but also ends up paying your costs through your insurance billing them.

Did you think your insurance is doing you a favor by paying out? I expect they love non-insured drivers, not only are they taking your money for premiums, but they're actually recovering everything they payed out from the other driver!

[Mr Merde]

Ok I can understand the idea.

I have been hit by uninsured persons and been out of pocket.

I object to the compulsory part.

Having lived in the UK where it is compulsory and seen how the insurance companies manipulate the system, I would hate to have it introduced here.

To give you an example. A workmate of mine over there, saved all his pennies for years and then went out and bought the car of his dreams.

I dont remeber the make or model

He then went to insure the car which cost him the total of 15,000 pounds

because he was under 25 he was quoted 20,000 pounds per year to insure it.

Look how the rip[ off insurance copmpanies rate vehicles in the uk

They have a grading system and they move vehicles around in this as they feel like. Because it is compulsory people have to sit stioll for it.

My wife and I had a Porche 924 and we had to pay 1000 pounds a year for third party insurance and that was with my missus having no claims bonuses etc.

In my humble opinion, Insurance companies are up there with Lawyers and estate agents.

[sweetp]

Does anyone know why the AA is so against this? I would have thought it would have been right up their alley - they sell insurance and their customers tend to be mature, responsible people. I can hardly see their advocacy skills being appreciated by the boy racers...

[Hitcher]

^^ Exactly how is anyone getting out of their obligation? If you choose to b fully insured (which if your that concerned regarding being hit by others you will be) then your insurance will pay out for you. In a no fault situation you should be paying no excess nor losing you claims-free (providing you ID the other driver). The other driver (if not insured) not only ends up wearing their own costs, but also ends up paying your costs through your insurance billing them.

Did you think your insurance is doing you a favor by paying out? I expect they love non-insured drivers, not only are they taking your money for premiums, but they're actually recovering everything they payed out from the other driver!

Good heavens. Do you think that insurance companies are some benevolent charity with a money tree of some sort? And what exactly and how are they extracting money in recompense from the uninsured? Mr Dickhead and others of his ilk are contributing to the insured paying higher-than-necessary premiums. Fuck them!

[wendigo]

But from a Socialist government. Funny thing huh?

Umm, you need to stop scaring people with that $1000 for third party cover figure you spout off too. In the other thread on this subject 4 of us so far have got quotes from Swann insurance. All of them were $130 for the year for third party.

I come from Ireland where it is compulsory to have insurance. When I got my first bike, a Honda 125, at age 23, I was paying 610 pounds fully comp. It would have been 450 TPO. That equates to approximately a $1000. That was also 13 years ago. I'm sure insurance has gone up leaps and bounds since then, so this is not scare mongering (The next year, I had a 20% no claims bonus, but surprise, surprise, my premiums had gone up: I was still paying 600. In effect, they'd actually banged the cost of my insurance up by 20%).

I'm firmly with those who understand that the cost of insurance will skyrocket if made compulsory. Reading through this thread, with all the discussion surrounding the cost of insurance etc, nobody has pointed a very simple fact.

The purpose of insurance companies is not to provide insurance, it is to make profit.

Like any business really.

Another reason I find this prospective legislation very unsavoury, and in my opinion far more dangerous, is because it is a law of unintended consequence.

Part motivation for this legislation is in essence to remove boy racers from the roads. I think this is a very bad move. Boy racers building and modifying cars is an essentially constructive pursuit. If one stifles these people from using their creativity in this manner, there is a high probability they will use it in a rather more destructive, antisocial manner. They will get their kicks one way or another.

[sefer]

Good heavens. Do you think that insurance companies are some benevolent charity with a money tree of some sort? And what exactly and how are they extracting money in recompense from the uninsured? Mr Dickhead and others of his ilk are contributing to the insured paying higher-than-necessary premiums. Fuck them!

They're very good at getting their cash back. They will use every recourse available to them short of guys with baseball bats showing up on your door (and I'm sure they do that if they thought for a second they'd get away with it). I imagine the only way anyone would get out of paying up is to either leave the country for good(then only maybe), or declear bankrupt (again only maybe).

[YellowDog]

The motor insurance industry is highly competetive. They all want your business. Loyalty doesn't pay and, as has already been stated, they take you for granted and rip you off. If you take your renewal document to another firm as proof of no claims, you can save a lot of money.