Compulsory third-party insurance? (yes/no)

[Ocean1]

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.

They may be ineligble for driving but that doesn't mean they wont drive

as with any other rule, if it's not enforced it won't work.

10stuff...

[Ocean1]

Here's my prediction.

Those not wanting insurance don't give a toss, don't get it and drive uninsured. If getting a WoF means you need to be insured (per the UK system, as I understand it) then theuy drive without a WoF too (*gasp* - law breakers!)

Actually, used to be that you didn't get to buy the car without insurance, may still be the case. Certainly still the case that any car found on the road without uninsured is impounded until it is, a second offense see's it crushed.

Like I keep saying, don't make fookin' laws you arn't prepared to enforce, it's a waste of everyone's time and effort. And by enforce I mean instituting penalties which prevent almost all offending.

[Max Preload]

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.

The boi racer needs insurance to get the finance, and Lance Loser isn't going to be particularly bothered by simply breaking another rule, is he? After all he already has no WoF (or at least doesn't maintain his vehicle to WoF standard). Or do you think he's going to say to himself: "Oh no! I can't get insurance. Whatever will I do? I guess I'll just have to stop driving that car on the road..."

[Hitcher]

I'm not worried about compulsory third-party insurance for the likes of Lance Loser. As you have noted, he's currently in breach of several other laws that should keep him and his off the road.

[Max Preload]

My point was that neither of the scenarios you've chosen are a good reason to introduce compulsory 3rd party insurance because they would either already be insured, or wouldn't care if they weren't.

I see no reason for making it compulsory - in fact, I'm dead set against that ever happening. Anyone who is so worried about their own vehicle being damaged by someone else, already has or should have comprehensive cover. Sure, they'll pretend that they're worried about the person who crashes into the new Mercedes, but we all know that's just a smokescreen for their own fears of someone crashig into them because despite their advocating of insurnace, they themselves have only 3rd party - they should put their money where their mouth's are.

Personally, I prefer to take the calculated risk myself and it should be my choice to do so.

[Toaster]

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.

Get over yourself boy. This is a forum. People have opinions. You'd think you'd be used to that seeing you live in here.

[Rogue]

Great idea should of been done years ago

Just make the penalty realy tough if they do not have third party insurance
lock em up for six months or more plus loss of licence for two years
This would help in getting the heaps and trash of our roads

[Sanx]

Just make the penalty realy tough if they do not have third party insurance
lock em up for six months or more plus loss of licence for two years
This would help in getting the heaps and trash of our roads

Speaking as someone who has always comprehensively insured all his vehicles, and as someone who's been hit by an uninsured driver, I am dead set against compulsory insurance.

As many people have pointed out, in countries where the insurance is compulsory, the prices are much higher. When I moved to NZ, the first car I bought would have cost eleven times as much to insure in the UK as it did here. To those people who have stated the market will determine prices; that's a fundamentally-flawed statement.

The economic theory of supply and demand works on there being a willing buyer and a willing seller. If insurance becomes compulsory, the buyer isn't willing, he's being coerced. The buyer can no longer choose not be insured - the choice is between having insurance, driving illegally, or not driving at all. No business in their right mind would willingly pass over this opportunity to jack up prices.

[Hitcher]

The economic theory of supply and demand works on there being a willing buyer and a willing seller. If insurance becomes compulsory, the buyer isn't willing, he's being coerced. The buyer can no longer choose not be insured - the choice is between having insurance, driving illegally, or not driving at all. No business in their right mind would willingly pass over this opportunity to jack up prices.

Laws exist (or should exist) for the benefit of citizens. The question is, should the law allow (as it currently does) some citizens be able to opt out of their obligations to take responsibility for their actions? Call me old-fashioned, but I say no, they shouldn't be able to. Why should I have to take the full consequences of Danny Dickhead inflicting damage, death or injury on me and mine and Danny gets off scot-free because he chose not to insure himself?

There is a cost involved in being an owner or user of a motor vehicle. People like Mr Dickhead and his ilk are irresponsible freeloaders. Presumably their cost-reducing entrepreneurship should be enhanced allowing them to be able to legally steal motor vehicles, thus eliminating cost of having to buy them?

[sefer]

^^ Exactly how is anyone getting out of their obligation? If you choose to b fully insured (which if your that concerned regarding being hit by others you will be) then your insurance will pay out for you. In a no fault situation you should be paying no excess nor losing you claims-free (providing you ID the other driver). The other driver (if not insured) not only ends up wearing their own costs, but also ends up paying your costs through your insurance billing them.

Did you think your insurance is doing you a favor by paying out? I expect they love non-insured drivers, not only are they taking your money for premiums, but they're actually recovering everything they payed out from the other driver!

[Mr Merde]

Ok I can understand the idea.

I have been hit by uninsured persons and been out of pocket.

I object to the compulsory part.

Having lived in the UK where it is compulsory and seen how the insurance companies manipulate the system, I would hate to have it introduced here.

To give you an example. A workmate of mine over there, saved all his pennies for years and then went out and bought the car of his dreams.

I dont remeber the make or model

He then went to insure the car which cost him the total of 15,000 pounds

because he was under 25 he was quoted 20,000 pounds per year to insure it.

Look how the rip[ off insurance copmpanies rate vehicles in the uk

They have a grading system and they move vehicles around in this as they feel like. Because it is compulsory people have to sit stioll for it.

My wife and I had a Porche 924 and we had to pay 1000 pounds a year for third party insurance and that was with my missus having no claims bonuses etc.

In my humble opinion, Insurance companies are up there with Lawyers and estate agents.

[sweetp]

Does anyone know why the AA is so against this? I would have thought it would have been right up their alley - they sell insurance and their customers tend to be mature, responsible people. I can hardly see their advocacy skills being appreciated by the boy racers...

[Hitcher]

^^ Exactly how is anyone getting out of their obligation? If you choose to b fully insured (which if your that concerned regarding being hit by others you will be) then your insurance will pay out for you. In a no fault situation you should be paying no excess nor losing you claims-free (providing you ID the other driver). The other driver (if not insured) not only ends up wearing their own costs, but also ends up paying your costs through your insurance billing them.

Did you think your insurance is doing you a favor by paying out? I expect they love non-insured drivers, not only are they taking your money for premiums, but they're actually recovering everything they payed out from the other driver!

Good heavens. Do you think that insurance companies are some benevolent charity with a money tree of some sort? And what exactly and how are they extracting money in recompense from the uninsured? Mr Dickhead and others of his ilk are contributing to the insured paying higher-than-necessary premiums. Fuck them!

[wendigo]

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.

I come from Ireland where it is compulsory to have insurance. When I got my first bike, a Honda 125, at age 23, I was paying 610 pounds fully comp. It would have been 450 TPO. That equates to approximately a $1000. That was also 13 years ago. I'm sure insurance has gone up leaps and bounds since then, so this is not scare mongering (The next year, I had a 20% no claims bonus, but surprise, surprise, my premiums had gone up: I was still paying 600. In effect, they'd actually banged the cost of my insurance up by 20%).

I'm firmly with those who understand that the cost of insurance will skyrocket if made compulsory. Reading through this thread, with all the discussion surrounding the cost of insurance etc, nobody has pointed a very simple fact.

The purpose of insurance companies is not to provide insurance, it is to make profit.

Like any business really.

Another reason I find this prospective legislation very unsavoury, and in my opinion far more dangerous, is because it is a law of unintended consequence.

Part motivation for this legislation is in essence to remove boy racers from the roads. I think this is a very bad move. Boy racers building and modifying cars is an essentially constructive pursuit. If one stifles these people from using their creativity in this manner, there is a high probability they will use it in a rather more destructive, antisocial manner. They will get their kicks one way or another.

[sefer]

Good heavens. Do you think that insurance companies are some benevolent charity with a money tree of some sort? And what exactly and how are they extracting money in recompense from the uninsured? Mr Dickhead and others of his ilk are contributing to the insured paying higher-than-necessary premiums. Fuck them!

They're very good at getting their cash back. They will use every recourse available to them short of guys with baseball bats showing up on your door (and I'm sure they do that if they thought for a second they'd get away with it). I imagine the only way anyone would get out of paying up is to either leave the country for good(then only maybe), or declear bankrupt (again only maybe).