Car insurance compulsory?

[Bass]

... ok - picture me this.

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

Who's insurance pays?

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

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



MDU
PS - sorry Xile LOL...

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...7&postcount=35


Yoo hoo !!! Up here!

[imdying]

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

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

Don't spoil her fantasy scummy... after all, the insurance company loves them and all their business, they're not going to look for obvious things to deny a claim on

[arsnik]

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

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

[LilSel]

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

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

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

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

[Ocean1]

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

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

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

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

[imdying]

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

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

[Ewan Oozarmy]

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

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

[LilSel]

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

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

[imdying]

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

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

[arsnik]

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

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

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

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

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

[Bass]

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

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

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

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

You must spread some bling around etc
Cogently and succinctly put

[Ocean1]

You must spread some bling around etc
Cogently and succinctly put

Was actually rethinking this bit:

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

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

[PirateJafa]

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

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

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

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

[imdying]

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

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

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

[Ocean1]

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

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