Compulsory third-party insurance? (yes/no)

[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.....

: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]

: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. )