Drivers face compulsory third-party insurance

[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

[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

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.