Compulsory third-party insurance? (yes/no)

**Toaster** · 13th April 2008, 21:16

Originally Posted by Ixion

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.

You don't have to be rich to buy a new bike... you just borrow the cash either via finance or against the house via the mortgage - as many do.

It's called living beyond your means. Wealth isn't in the eye of the beholder, merely the illusion of weath in many cases. You can have many assets but be in debt beyond your eyeballs. That is certainly not RICH as you put it.

**Ixion** · 13th April 2008, 21:18

Originally Posted by Robbo

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.

Whoah up. the only way that you can be run into by an uninsured and have to carry the expense yourself (even assuming that you were at no fault) is if *you* have no insurance. So what you are actually saying is that everyone ELSE should have to have insurance , but not you ?

That's an argument worthy of the insurance companies themselves.

**Ocean1** · 13th April 2008, 21:21

Originally Posted by Ixion

Whoah up. the only way that you can be run into by an uninsured and have to carry the expense yourself (even assuming that you were at no fault) is if *you* have no insurance. So what you are actually saying is that everyone ELSE should have to have insurance , but not you ?

That's an argument worthy of the insurance companies themselves.

Are you seriously suggesting that the insurance companies cover the costs of an unrecoverable claim out of thin air? Premiums are higher than they should be BECAUSE of the uninsured.

**Ixion** · 13th April 2008, 21:22

Originally Posted by Toaster

You don't have to be rich to buy a new bike... you just borrow the cash either via finance or against the house via the mortgage - as many do.

It's called living beyond your means. Wealth isn't in the eye of the beholder, merely the illusion of weath in many cases. You can have many assets but be in debt beyond your eyeballs. That is certainly not RICH as you put it.

Rigghhht. So, this legislation is designed for either rich people, or wannabees who are prepared to hock themselves in debt to the eyeballs .

But if you live within your means and don't buy what you can't afford, you get crapped on.

Like I said, a capitalist govenment passing legislation for their rich mates (especially the financiers - BTW anyone lost money in one of the finance companies that's gone belly up. Lots more coming) at the expense of the poor and honest workers,

BTW if this WERE a socialist government there wouldn't be any insurance companies to push such laws, because they woulod all have long since been nationalised.

**Ixion** · 13th April 2008, 21:24

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Are you seriously suggesting that the insurance companies cover the costs of an unrecoverable claim out of thin air? Premiums are higher than they should be BECAUSE of the uninsured.

Are you seriously suggesting that every person who refuses to hock their soul to an insurance company will refuse to pay up when they are genuinely at fault?

**sparky10** · 13th April 2008, 21:25

Originally Posted by riffer

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.

Could not of said it better myself, there will always be some who wont grow up ( i. e. boy racers) but most will have to learn to respect road rules etc. or or be left to walk,bus etc. a licience is a privilage not a right.

**Toaster** · 13th April 2008, 21:29

Originally Posted by Ixion

Rigghhht. So, this legislation is designed for either rich people, or wannabees who are prepared to hock themselves in debt to the eyeballs .

But if you live within your means and don't buy what you can't afford, you get crapped on.

Like I said, a capitalist govenment passing legislation for their rich mates (especially the financiers - BTW anyone lost money in one of the finance companies that's gone belly up. Lots more coming) at the expense of the poor and honest workers,

BTW if this WERE a socialist government there wouldn't be any insurance companies to push such laws, because they woulod all have long since been nationalised.

Keep going on your little anti wealthy anti government rant fella.

The proposed law is there to assist those ALREADY paying insurance who are having to pay for twats who ride or drive without at least 3rd party insurance. It hurts those of us that end up paying for the uninsured twice - firstly through our insurance premiums covering the cost of both them and us AND secondly when we have to cover costs because the dickhead that caused the crash DIDN'T have insurance to cover our insurance excess.

And no courts do not normally award reparation for such cases.

**Ixion** · 13th April 2008, 21:31

Originally Posted by sparky10

Could not of said it better myself, there will always be some who wont grow up ( i. e. boy racers) but most will have to learn to respect road rules etc. or or be left to walk,bus etc. a licience is a privilage not a right.

By what perverted and inane pseudo-thought process do you come up with that?

Compulsary insurance has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with whether people obey the road rules or not. It is SOLELY, repeat SOLELY about whether you are rich enough to afford a nice new car or bike. The people who will be driven off the road are for the most part going to be the very people who religiously obey road rules. OK, they may be infuriating in their obedience, especially in keeping way under the speed limit, but they don't usually break the rules.

This is NOT aimed at boi-racers, and will have little or no effect on them . it is aimed fair and square at the old and the poor.

**Ixion** · 13th April 2008, 21:34

Originally Posted by Toaster

Keep going on your little anti wealthy anti government rant fella.

The proposed law is there to assist those ALREADY paying insurance who are having to pay for twats who ride or drive without at least 3rd party insurance. It hurts those of us that end up paying for the uninsured twice - firstly through our insurance premiums covering the cost of both them and us AND secondly when we have to cover costs because the dickhead that caused the crash DIDN'T have insurance to cover our insurance excess.

And no courts do not normally award reparation for such cases.

Well mate, this dickhead has *NEVER* caused a crash (or ahd one, in 50 odd years . cna you sya the same ?) , and if he ever DID would be quite willing to pay up .

I don't think I'm the only one here to be anti the labout government, not noticed you objecting to others that slag them off 9of course , they're ccoming form the opposite direction)

Quite happy to meet you privately to 'discuss' your opinions of my dickheadedness. Just PM the time and place.

**Oakie** · 13th April 2008, 21:37

Originally Posted by Ixion

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. )

Don't know. How old or rare are your bikes?

**Ixion** · 13th April 2008, 21:39

Originally Posted by Oakie

Don't know. How old or rare are your bikes?

74/75 Suzukis. Not that rare. Why should it matter for third party. I wouldn't be asking them to fix them

**pete376403** · 13th April 2008, 21:48

Originally Posted by Ixion

. it is aimed fair and square at the old and the poor.

Traditional labour voters. Considering how far down in the polls labour is, why would they be trying to piss off some of their core supporters?

**YellowDog** · 13th April 2008, 21:49

I can't agree with some of the nonsense on this thread. Why don't you guys go out and get quotes for third party cover and the see how expensive or cheap it actually is. Much cheaper than a rego I suspect?

If you have no insurance and you have a prang, it will cost you heaps and potentially for many years. If you hit someone or they hit you, would anyone prefer yourself or the other party to be insured or uninsured?

Chancing it is not the answer. Like your registration; insurance should be a mandatory cost of owning any vehicle for use on the public roads. If you can't afford it, save up. If you can't save up, start peddling.

You need to be protected and others need to be protected from you.

**YellowDog** · 13th April 2008, 21:50

Originally Posted by pete376403

Traditional labour voters. Considering how far down in the polls labour is, why would they be trying to piss off some of their core supporters?

because it is basic common sense, regardless of political persuasion.

**Ixion** · 13th April 2008, 21:50

Originally Posted by YellowDog

I can't agree with some of the nonsense on this thread. Why don't you guys go out and get quotes for third party cover and the see how expensive or cheap it actually is. Much cheaper than a rego I suspect?

...

Done it. Only quote available is $1000++. Cheaper than a rego . Hardly. And for what . ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Nothing at all.