Compulsory third-party insurance? (yes/no)

[Ixion]

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?

Hardly. How far behind the times are you? The old and poor havent been a core Labour demographic for years. Not since Jim Anderton threw his toys out of the cot, for exactly that reason. NZ First, National, Maoris maybe. Not labour, Unless you lump beneficeries in as 'poor'. I don't. Labour , for many years, has been the party of the rich, and the shirker, not the worker.

[YellowDog]

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

Well that sounds really steep for thiird party. You need to shop around and hopefully the insurance companys will start to get more competitive.

The insurance companies not providing value is a different issue completely.

[YellowDog]

Here's the KB Wiki insurance link:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/index.php/Insurance

[Ixion]

Well that sounds really steep for thiird party. You need to shop around and hopefully the insurance companys will start to get more competitive.

The insurance companies not providing value is a different issue completely.

No it's not a different issue entirely. It IS the issue. If insurance companies provided value, everybody would have insurance already. They don't and once it is compulsary , they'll have even less incentive to. So , what you are saying, is that the insurance companies rip everyone off that deals with them , and you want the government to make it compulsary for EVERYONE to be ripped off.

And that's $1000 PER VEHICLE by the way. Owb several 9as many bikers do , how many don't own at least a cage as well) and thats x times $1000. Even though you can only ride/drive one at a time (and thus, only cause one accident at a time)


And why should they get more competative? They haven't so far. What magic wand is going to be waved that will turn them from an oligopoly into a competative market?

[Ocean1]

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?

How many do?

[YellowDog]

I accept the point you make however still maintain that compulsary insurance for all public road users is the right thing to do.

I don't think that all insurance is a rip off. The $1000 for thrid party insurance you mention is not reasonable. If you have 9 bikes and only ride one at a time, then you can have a policy to allow for this. I was quoted $1800 for fully comp with Tower and was then quoted $790 from http://www.ebikeinsurance.co.nz/ . For third party, you should be able to get it a lot cheaper.

[Ixion]

How many do?

I don't know. Do you? But a wholesale allegation that NONE do without evidence to substantiate it, is not the same thing as a question as to percentages.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that a signifcant proportion of the uninsured are not in a position to refute your allegation, because they are people who do not make a practice of crashing into other road users, and have never done so. Which is why they do not have insurance.

[Ixion]

I accept the point you make however still maintain that compulsary insurance for all public road users is the right thing to do.

I don't think that all insurance is a rip off. The $1000 for thrid party insurance you mention is not reasonable. If you have 9 bikes and only ride one at a time, then you can have a policy to allow for this. I was quoted $1800 for fully comp with Tower and was then quoted $790 from http://www.ebikeinsurance.co.nz/ . For third party, you should be able to get it a lot cheaper.

My $1000 quote was from ebikeinsurance. No insurer, to my knowledge ( I am open to correction) will offer a policy insuring the RIDER (ie, insure you, on any bike/car) .

I do think that insurance is a rip off.

[Oakie]

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

Just thought that they may not have had them on 'The List' that they check when asked to quote. Then they might have apply the rule that says if it's not on 'The List' then we quote $1000 regardless.

[Motu]

We've already been through this crap with the last National Government when they dumped workplace ACC and made employers source their own workplace insurance.Did the Insurance Companies offer a better deal? No way in hell man,they reamed us to max oversize and honed further with coarse paper.I was happy to go back to ACC.

Like the deregulation of the oil industry,they will be handing the insurance industry a whole chook house of golden eggs.

[Ixion]

Just thought that they may not have had them on 'The List' that they check when asked to quote. Then they might have apply the rule that says if it's not on 'The List' then we quote $1000 regardless.

The $1000 wasn't from Swann. they wouldn;t quote at all.

[Ocean1]

I don't know. Do you? But a wholesale allegation that NONE do without evidence to substantiate it, is not the same thing as a question as to percentages.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that a signifcant proportion of the uninsured are not in a position to refute your allegation, because they are people who do not make a practice of crashing into other road users, and have never done so. Which is why they do not have insurance.

I made no such allegation dude, it was a simple question.

In general I find legislation removing valid choices distasteful. In this case the choice being removed is that of covering your own costs should you be at fault in an incident and impose some cost to another.

I’ve been on both sides of such incidents, I fucked up once, many years ago and went to considerable pain to personally reimburse the other party. I’ve also several times suffered damage caused by someone else’s fuckup and on two occasions my insurers were unable to recover costs. That cost is tacked directly on to everyone’s premiums.

If everyone behaved with honour in such cases there’s be no need for legislation making third party insurance compulsory. In fact, while I’m currently fully covered for all the vehicles I drive that hasn’t always been the case. It may not always be the case in the future, (legislation notwithstanding), It’s actually less expensive to cover yourself if you can, assuming you cause less than average carnage.

Either way, if you aren’t prepared to pay the price directly associated with your driving/riding behaviour then why should anyone else?

[Ixion]

I made no such allegation dude, it was a simple question.

Either way, if you aren’t prepared to pay the price directly associated with your driving/riding behaviour then why should anyone else?

Like the question "Are you still beating your wife?" That's simple too.Are you?

Bit you''re concluding argument is fatally flawed. I am indeed prepared to pay that price.

But , if as you allege, others are not, compulsary insurance will not make them any more likely to do so,

Consider. Compulsary insurance. whoopey doo. And you just got taken out by a cage. His fault entirely. But, that's OK, he's insured . Or, is it OK ? No WoF (lots about) , no rego( lots about) , reckon insurance will cough up . Stolen vehicle , does the owners insurance cover that? Or he's drunk, disqualified, driving outside conditions of licence, driving a car with a non OEM stereo that he hasn't advised the insuranc company about, any of the 10000+ excuses that the insurance company will (and DO) use to weasel out of liability. So, he's got insurance. But the insurance company have evaded liability. So, where does that leave you? Lots better off than now ?

And, for third party only you have to PROVE he's at fault. Got $20000 for a lawyer, up front? Cos if you haven't forget it . Unless you already have insurance of course, in which case you are no better (or worse) off than you are at present.

[Ocean1]

And, for third party only you have to PROVE he's at fault. Got $20000 for a lawyer, up front? Cos if you haven't forget it . Unless you already have insurance of course, in which case you are no better (or worse) off than you are at present.

I do not. That's the only reason I use an insurance company rather than take the punt myself. My insurance company talks to his, a settlement based on our respective claims is negotiated, payment is approved, (or not) and our respective insurance profiles are adjusted accordingly.

If the party considered at fault accrues too much bad karma their premiums increase. If they continue to fuck up they eventually become uninsurable, and therefore, (and this is the good bit) ineligible to drive.

My one reservation is that, if existing laws were better enforced a lot of the reason for compulsory insurance wouldn't exist. I don't have a problem placing the cost of one's behaviour at one's doorstep, but as with any other rule, if it's not enforced it won't work.

[Ixion]

I do not. That's the only reason I use an insurance company rather than take the punt myself. My insurance company talks to his, a settlement based on our respective claims is negotiated, payment is approved, (or not) and our respective insurance profiles are adjusted accordingly.

If the party considered at fault accrues too much bad karma their premiums increase. If they continue to fuck up they eventually become uninsurable, and therefore, (and this is the good bit) ineligible to drive.

My one reservation is that, if existing laws were better enforced a lot of the reason for compulsory insurance wouldn't exist. I don't have a problem placing the cost of one's behaviour at one's doorstep, but as with any other rule, if it's not enforced it won't work.

No. They don't. Insurance companies use a thing called "knock for knock". what that means is that if you report that you've been in a crash, they don't care or consider if you were at fault, or the other party, If both are insured, your insurance covers your repairs, his insurance covers his. They don't even try to decide who is at fault. You lose your no claims bonus and your premium goes up, because you made a claim. So does his (if he makes a claim) .

That is why insurance companies hate the uninsured party. Because knock for knock won't work and they have have to prove that their client was not to blame.

And, why the compulsary insurance idea is very bad for motorcycles,

In any car versus motorcycle, the motorcycle will invariably come off worst. The car, is likely not damaged at all.

So , the biker puts in an insurance claim "It was the drivers fault". Insurance company "So it was, but you are both insured, so knock for knock. We are not interested in who was at fault. You have claimed, so bang goes your no claim bonus and up goes your premium". The car driver, who has suffered no damage, notifies his insurance comapny. They say " Oh, OK, we don't have to pay anything, knock for knock, all good , carry on"