Third party insurance soon to be compulsory

[clint640]

Pretty pointless really, It'll go on our already inflated rego, the irresponsible drivers out there with no wof, reg or insurance will still have no wof, reg or insurance.

& if this comes in I would put money on the fact that my combined insurance/rego bill will rise because of it.

They could just make it easier to actually get 3rd party, like Motu I've tried to get 3rd party on a couple of junkers I've owned & it's near impossible, or they'll give you 10% of the cover for 75% of the price of a full policy.

Cheers
Clint

[judecatmad]

Third party insurance IS still part of your registration fee . It's called ACC!

And the thing that noone seems to able to understand (incomprehensibly, because it is incredibly simple) is that the reason that other countries make third party insurance compulsary is so that if soone is injured in a motor accident there is (in theory) provison for them to be compensate dfor their injuroies. The reason NZ doesnt NOT have such a requirement is because it is already covered by ACC.

Bloody whinging Poms again, who are incapable of accepting that anything should be different to what it is "back home".

If the Poms had any sense they would scrap it (together with their asinine motorway overtaking rules) and copy NZ.

ACC only covers for PERSONAL injury - not damage to other vehicles. So if you happen to be the sensible joe who does have insurance and some tw@t who isn't insured decides to plough into you, sure you can get fixed under ACC but what about your vehicle (be it bike, car, horse float.....)? YOU end up being the sucker who is penalised by having your no claims stripped from you AND having to pay an excess.

Damn right 3rd party insurance should be compulsory.

(I speak from personal experience of having had a recent accident - in the car, not on the bike thank god - and being $300 down as a result and higher premiums to look forward to next year. And we have a disputes tribunal process to go through to get an award in our favour )

And I AM a POM, however, I don't want everything to be the same over here as back home cos I love it here and I'm sad to see a lot of problems similar to back home cropping up (I do whinge a lot tho - it's in the genes!).

I do like the 'undertaking' rules better than having to always move right to go past some nanna in the middle lane.....but that stupid left turn rule still gets me!

Phew....glad I got that off my chest!

[scracha]

be high compared to other drivers but you are comparing a few hundred for said slack jawed etc with maybe $60 for other
drivers. That's not much when you look at what they spend on bling. And

Bwhahahaha. A few hundred. They wanted over $700 bucks to insure my bike (compared to 145 UK pounds, even without ACC). As an immigrant, with 14 years claim free riding I'm obviously a bigger risk than the boy racers. Bizzarrely they let me drive an SUV in this country for peanuts (1 yeras NCB, accident 2 years ago).

most boi racers aren't bad insurance risks (mainly, admittedly, cos they spend most of their time posing, which doesn't pose much risk to other road users).Most of them can drive not too bad, too.

Above comments are just ridiculous. Just look at stats on boy racer crashes and theft.

And I suspect that any insurer that tried to deliberately exclude any specific class of driver without sound acturial data to back it up would be in front of a civil rights lawsuit right smartish.

Erm..aren't ACC doing that with their rather large component of the motorcycle registration fee?

Face facts folks. This idea just does not fly. The only reason it "works" in the UK is cos the UK is barbaric and behind the times and doesn't have anything comparable to ACC.

Yeah, when someone crashed into me I was able to claim for ALL my loss of earnings Being paid 80% or whatever $hit the ACC comes up with seems barbaric to me. UK also has an uninsured loss recovery scheme that all insurance companies pay a %age towards in the event that some uninsured @#$cktard crashes into you.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle I feel. ACC is good but unfortunately many people abuse it. Peeps with bad driving history should pay more than the rest of us.

[jetboy]

Insurance companies have to pull their head in on 3rd party restrictions too.All my vehicles I buy at zero value because they are normally non runners when I pick them up.They normaly have a minimum value...and how do I value my $500 Pajero? My latest drama with them is 3rd party fire and theft...I want to take my personal vehicles out of the company insurance cover and do them as personal vehicles.For 3rd party fire and theft they want them fully garaged...you can park them on the street with full cover.I don't have to ask why they make it so hard to have minimum cover - it's always money with these guys.

It is not a set requirement for third party fire and theft vehicles to be in a secure garage....who told you this?

[judecatmad]

It is not a set requirement for third party fire and theft vehicles to be in a secure garage....who told you this?

Quite a number of bike policies DO have this requirement, definitely (even some fully comp policies). I didn't believe it myself until we moved our bike policies over to another insurer and I saw the clause for myself. Needless to say, we went right back to our old insurer!! It's a stupid requirement and makes a bike policy totally worthless.

[Max Preload]

im sure that third party is part of your rego in australia.....so why isnt it like that here?

It's not. What is referred to as '3rd party' in reference to registration costs in Australia is nothing more than the equivalent of our ACC levy - it's 3rd person injury not vehicle damage.

[slimjim]

I WANT TO TELL THE GOVERMENT TO "FUCK OFF" and LEAVE US ALONE

[topher]

I WANT TO TELL THE GOVERMENT TO "FUCK OFF" and LEAVE US ALONE

I'm in. Where does the queue start?

[lukelin250]

someone give me a microphone

[mattp]

Why should someone be able to drive/ride on the road without insurrance to cover me if they crash into me and it is their fault? For those that do not have an interest in this I would ask what you would do if you did not have full comp and someone crashed into you? Tell them to "fucking give me the money", blah, bullshit, blah!!!

If you think that this will not be coming into law soon then I'm sorry but you lack the knowledge of how much power large insurance companies have

[Balding Eagle]

I am in favour of compulsory Third Party Insurance. Right now I am having a hassle because of an accident I was involved in last year. Stupid woman hit my car from behind. Her first statement on getting out of her car was "I am not insured." Not "Are you hurt", "I am sorry", "Is there anything I can do" or anything concerned like that. She was taken to court and found guilty of dangerous driving causing an accident, fined $600 and ordered to pay medical costs to me and another driver she hit. I have not seen a cent and am not holding my breath. My insurance company is about to take her to the Small Claims Court to pay for the damage to my car. If there was compulsory Third Party Insurance I would not be in this situation.

The last thing you want is a system run by the government because it will be inefficient. The cost of premiums will be kept down if you have competition between the various insurance companies.

The big problem with this country is that there is a pervasive attitude that individuals do not have to be responsible for their actions. Don't worry about what you do; you won't be held accountable. Look around you in every day life. People get away with walking away from personal responsibility. If I drive my vehicle in such a way that it causes damage to someone elses property, I expect to be held accountable and I expect my fellow citizens to operate to the same standard. Regretably that doesn't happen. For that reason compulsory Third Party Insurance works from me.

[JT.]

I doubt it will happen here, though if it did I would hope the glubermunt would regulate it. At least they don't have their hands in the pie so it would be a damn sight better than the joke of electricity industry regulation.

Above comments are just ridiculous. Just look at stats on boy racer crashes and theft.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/818227 - Aug '06

"Statistics-wise we know that ~2.5% of all crashes nationwide are attributed to boy racer activity or people involved in illegal street racing," says Pullen.

They should all be shot, along with all asians, women, old timers and bus drivers.

[Wolf]

I'm fine with compulsory property-damage insurance for vehicles provided the rider/driver is insured (part of driver licensing) not the vehicle (part of vehicle licensing) - so we don't have to wind up paying for the convenience of having more than one vehicle each - and that we get to choose our insurers ourselves from proper insurance companies (healthy competition) rather than it being a govt-run revenue-gathering policy/law-dictating den of thieves like the ACC.

Regrettably, as this is our thieving government we're talking about, it'll be given over to ACC or some newly-formed pack of govt scumbags who will ensure you have separate insurance for every vehicle in your fleet, charge whatever exhorbitant premiums and excesses they like because you've got no choice but to pay them and will then start saying "too many accidents are caused by people picking their noses at traffic lights", demand a law is passed and insist that the cops supply officers with cameras for randomly chosen intersections to catch offenders in the act, so between them and the cops devoted to waving lasers and cameras to catch speeders there won't be any officers left to fight the rising tide of burglaries and violent offences.

Sensible:
You are insured to drive a vehicle up to a certain value, of a certain type and pay based on your age and driving experience/how many prangs you've had lately for a certain premium, chosen from the available insurers. If you own other vehicles of a lesser value, they are automatically covered when you're driving. If you go out and buy a Dodge Viper or a Porsche 911, your premiums go up (unless you already own one) to accomodate the more expensive sportier vehicle. If your car is a 1970 Morris Minor in a sad state of repair, you are not insured to drive your brother's Porsche.

This means that "high risk" drivers will not be able to afford insurance for "high risk" vehicles, so junior on a Learner licence cannot drive mummy's MR-2 or cuzzie's RX-8 as they have not paid for sufficient insurance.

Government:
You pay our designated insurance company whatever they ask for every vehicle you own right down to your bicycle and if you loan your young friend your Ferrari it is insured but you have to add them to your policy and pay the additional costs for having a high risk person drive your car.

Then, if you have an accident, our insurance company will pay out 80% of the damage costs and you foot the bill for the rest...

Then we'll send private investigators around to your place to see if we can find something to justify weasling out of our obligation to pay and the serious crash unit will be sent out to all crashes, no matter how minor, even if there are no serious injuries or fatalities, because if we have to part with any of the money we've screwed out of you then it is fucking "serious" to us.

As to people driving without insurance, get tough, give the police some real powers - instant impoundment, and sale or destruction of, vehicle; loss of licence; prison terms on a "3-strikes, you're out" basis etc if caught driving without insurance and instant prison term and consecutive loss of licence period for causing an accident when not insured, etc. Drive home the message that it costs more not to be insured. Will need to be backed up with similar measures for driving whilst disqualified. While they're at it, bring in mandatory prison terms for repeat DIC rather than leaving it to the "discretion" of judges (who're renowned for letting recidivist drink drivers out to kill people) So a lot of mouth-breathers are going to lose vehicles and licences and spend time in prison

Politically I'm pretty libertarian in outlook and I'm opposed to most of the nanny-state, senseless and needless rules we have but I'm not an anarchist and I know we need to have some firm, useful rules. I think there are a few areas where our laws could be comfortably made a bit more draconian than they currently are. Never mind bringing in new laws governing smacking, do something about the existing laws that fail to stop people driving unsafe vehicles around the roads.