Drivers face compulsory third-party insurance

[jetboy]

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

Now, what shall I spend the money on first?

[Ixion]

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

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

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

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

[Mikkel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[madbikeboy]

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

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

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

Rant over.

[skidMark]

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

Now, what shall I spend the money on first?

Buy me a bike, and insurance.

[Ixion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mikkel]

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

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

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

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

[YellowDog]

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

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

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

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

[Ixion]

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

You did

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ixion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mikkel]

You did

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

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

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

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

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

[jetboy]

....

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

....

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

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

[Ixion]

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

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

Well, there's the word from the stable.

[YellowDog]

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



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

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

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

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

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

I certainly know which planet I am on. If anyone thinks it is reasonable to allow uninsured vehicles on the road, then I ask them to consider if they are indeed on the right planet.

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

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

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

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

[scumdog]

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

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