Insurance

[Owl]

Ummm, yeah - that is a real life situation and legally the accident is considered to be a no fault one. The guy who had the heart attack is not held to blame and his insurance company did NOT pay out the other party because legally they didn't have to. When an accident occurs and no one is deemed to have 'fucked up' then each driver just claims on their own insurance - no insurance = paying for the repairs/replacement yourself.

You could fight the insurance company in court but YOU would ultimately lose as their insured heart attack victim is a victim and will not be legally 'at fault' for the accident. You would also be out of pocket for the legal costs for trying to fight it in court.

I heard about that scenario years ago. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Heart attack victim was in charge of the vehicle when it crashed! Fair enough not facing charges, but he's still liable.

What if said heart attack victim hadn't taken his medication? Perhaps he'd mistakenly taken the wrong medication. Would that make a difference?
Next guy has a stroke, so it's not his fault?
This one got cramp in his leg and couldn't take his foot off the accelerator, so not his fault.

Where do you draw the line?

[jono035]

Insurance companies insure you for mistakes you make or mistakes others make when they can't find out who it was.

If you cause 100k of damage to someone elses car and you don't have insurance, you can bet your boots they'll be coming after you...

Thats the situation that I'm trying to avoid.

[MarkH]

I heard about that scenario years ago. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Heart attack victim was in charge of the vehicle when it crashed! Fair enough not facing charges, but he's still liable.

What if said heart attack victim hadn't taken his medication? Perhaps he'd mistakenly taken the wrong medication. Would that make a difference?
Next guy has a stroke, so it's not his fault?
This one got cramp in his leg and couldn't take his foot off the accelerator, so not his fault.

Where do you draw the line?

I would imagine having a stroke to be similar legally to having a heart attack. I am not too sure why you have trouble understanding that an unforseen medical event leading to a crash could be seen in the eyes of the law as a no-fault accident. I have also heard of diesel on the road causing someone to crash into someone else and the accident being declared a 'no fault' accident - each driver claiming on their own insurance.

If someone fails to give way or takes a corner too fast and has an accident which damages another vehicle then that's where their 3rd party insurance cover pays for the repair/replacement of the other vehicle. But it is definitely possible for an accident to happen where the other person wrecks your vehicle, but is not legally liable - that's where you make a claim on your own insurance.

BTW:
The heart attack victim died, that story was on Fair Go, the Fair Go team didn't even argue the legalities - they just tried to guilt the big insurance corporation into paying out the poor 'little guy' that was out of pocket. The insurance company refused to budge because they had a fiscal responsibility to their shareholders and were obliged to not go handing out money when they had no legal requirement to do so. It turned out that their was nothing that the hard done by car owner or Fair Go could do. It doesn't matter if you 'buy it' or not - it happened and the results were televised for all to see.

[HungusMaximist]

If you have no insurane and you're a student and then get into an nasty accident, thank the NZ government that you're able to pay it off $5 bucks a week for the rest of your lfie.

[Cheshire Cat]

Why are we so tolerant of uninsured riders, and why hasn't this come up yet?!

In short, 3rd party as a minimum should be encouraged.

EDIT: this was for the rides working group, but a kind mod disagreed with me, infracted me thrice, and PD with all my threads. Wouldn't dare post this otherwise for the borderline trolling it would be, but it's here now. have fun.

Are you going to pay for my insurance darling?

[jono035]

I think one of the points that a lot of the pro-insurance people (myself included) have been trying to make is that 3rd party should be considered compulsory and thought of as another running cost for the vehicle.

When I decided to get a bike to go to uni and back I went through and factored all those costs in. Rego/warrant, insurance, consumables (likely distance travelled, cost of oil change, chain, sprockets, tires, all pretty pie-in-the-sky numbers though). As mentioned before, if you can't afford all of these things, then you need to change your plans. Don't buy a bike thats expensive as balls to run and then whinge about it, figure out what you can afford and plan accordingly. If that sounds too 'pussy' or 'egghead' for you then don't whinge when you don't have enough money to do the other things you want to do. Simple as that. Insurance should be factored in from the start.

The problem is people will look at insurance and say nah, I won't crash. Until you crash, of course insurance has no value, but if you do (and statistically speaking, you will eventually...) then it far outweighs the costs..

Again, I'm not advocating that people should feel free to crash into whatever they want and take no responsibility... I don't believe that I would ride any differently with or without insurance basically because I'm more concerned about injuring myself. Avoiding damaging someone elses car or my bike is just a bonus...

[jono035]

If you have no insurane and you're a student and then get into an nasty accident, thank the NZ government that you're able to pay it off $5 bucks a week for the rest of your lfie.

Not sure what you're referring to here but it sounds interesting, any further info?

[Indiana_Jones]

I think one of the points that a lot of the pro-insurance people (myself included) have been trying to make is that 3rd party should be considered compulsory and thought of as another running cost for the vehicle.

Pretty much that, considered a cost of running the vehicle.

-Indy

[cowboyz]

at least get 3rd party so you don't end up being one of those wankers who writes someone elses car off while driving/riding with no insurance then sticks their fingers in their ears and goes 'lalala it wasn't my fault because I am a driving god lalala' at the top of their lungs.

Again, I'm not advocating that people should feel free to crash into whatever they want and take no responsibility... I don't believe that I would ride any differently with or without insurance basically because I'm more concerned about injuring myself. Avoiding damaging someone elses car or my bike is just a bonus...

The really interesting thing about your argument is that on one side you are saying that it is irresponsible to not have insurance and on the other side you are saying that you need insurance so you dont have to take responsibility for your own actions. Because escentially, that is what insurance is. Paying someone else to take responsibility for the financial aspects of your mistakes. My argument is sound. putt around the points all you like but at the end of the day the main reasons are all the same.
I would have less problems with insurance companies if they were honest and upfront.

Heres a bone. I do have comprehensive insurance. And that is why I know how devious the insurance companies are. The real shocker is that people allow insurance companies to get away with it.

I have a policy on my ZX9r ROAD bike that says I will pay the first $500 towards the cost of an accident that happens on any public road.
Another part of that policy states that I will pay $500 towards the cost of an accident that happens OFF-ROAD. Now when trackday season comes around and I take my bike to the track I have to get approval to go and my excess jumps to $2000. No mention of this in the contract that I signed. They just make it up. I tried to argue that the racetrack was not a road therefore covered under the offroad section of my policy. They wouldnt buy that.
So what they are saying is that if I decide to take my ZX9r road bike to the woodville motoX and crash it I pay $500. however, at manfield on a sealed circuit my excess is $2000. How does this even make sense.

oh, and another bone.. and I am really surprised noone has come up with this yet. You ask why I have comprehensive insurance on my bike. The answer is it is a desirable bike and the likelyhood of it getting stolen is realitively high considering I dont have a lockable garage and live on a main road and the way they work out the premiums actually mean it is cheaper to insure full cover than 3rd party.

[Max Preload]

I can't be arsed reading the whole thread because it'll be the same old shit usually regurgitated by insurance junkies, but I'll address these posts since they're the common key arguments for compulsory motorvehicle insurance. To state my position, I don't insure because I'll be damned if I'm going to subsidise fuckers who are always falling of their bikes and crashing into shit. Fuck that.

People fear uninsured riders, because if they get hit by them, there is no one to cover the repair bill.. except for their own insurance company, and that will cost them their excess.

No loss of no-claims if the crash is not your fault and other vehicle is identified.

In short, 3rd party as a minimum should be encouraged.

Why? If you're fully insured because you think you need to be you have nothing to lose. Other people's business is really none of yours.

I have full cover, so i'm (hopefully) ok, but I know of riders who have had the responsibility/common sense to have 3rd party, but then get shafted when hit by an uninsured rider/driver

If they don't want to be out of pocket they should get comprehensive cover. Simple, eh?

yeah i think this is true, if your going to go ahead and buy a vehical you need to be resbonsible for your actions even thou you may think you might never crash. if you cant afford 3rd party, how are you going to pay for damage if you do crash

So you can only be responsible if you're paying through the nose for premiums to be insured... another Tui? Once again, it's not about affording it - it's about cost/benefit. In my case there's far too little benefit.

I don't want to write off a brand new mercedes, from whatever cause, and have to sell my house, and pay off a fucked car i'll never get anything out of for the rest of my life.......nor have to pay to replace a stolen bike...

Yeah, the road is literally covered in new Mercedes, Lamboghinis & Ferraris. It sure is a high chance of hitting one when they're everywhere!

[jono035]

The really interesting thing about your argument is that on one side you are saying that it is irresponsible to not have insurance and on the other side you are saying that you need insurance so you dont have to take responsibility for your own actions. Because escentially, that is what insurance is. Paying someone else to take responsibility for the financial aspects of your mistakes. My argument is sound. putt around the points all you like but at the end of the day the main reasons are all the same.

Again, I'm not advocating that people should feel free to crash into whatever they want and take no responsibility... I don't believe that I would ride any differently with or without insurance basically because I'm more concerned about injuring myself. Avoiding damaging someone elses car or my bike is just a bonus...

It really sounds like you are just venting over being told you have more excess under racetrack conditions rather than off-road conditions. I would call and ask your insurance company to confirm that the $500 excess for off-roading applies while you are racing MotoX. If it does, then that is a pretty big surprise unless some of the other criteria for cover change between off-road and on-road.

[cowboyz]

i am not advocating racing motoX. pretty sure when it comes time to update the bike I might take it on an offroad journey and let the insurance pay for my upgrade. Heaps easier than dealing with tardme retards.

[motorbyclist]

for those who follow the "i wont ever damage another's property and be at fault therefore i don't need insurance" line of reasoning - what if some other fuckwit causes the accident but for whatever reason you're found to be at fault? I know a few guys who've had it happen.

I know one unlucky bastard who had the driver call a cop who then never filed the report or gave him the details of the other driver.

My mate just had his car written off avoiding another car pulling out from a side road, but was apparently better off to have ploughed into the driver's door, as the unharmed other driver seemed to think my mate just swerved into a ditch on a dead straight road for no reason.

Another "favourtite" is how my old FXR got written off - brother was riding it with 3rd only, unlicenced unsupervised 15yo girl did a U turn and wrote off the bike, right outside her house. Parents threaten to "smash" us, so call cops. Parents give false details to cop standing in their living room, cop hands out large fines for the girl who was still in shock and admitted what had happened. Cop then hands out more fines for the false details. All up the other family was required to pay thousands of dollars in fines to the courts, yet my family, after three successful visits to small claims, never got a cent and eventually sold the wreck for $700. some justice system eh?

ever since we've been fully insured - but in an ideal world we'd all either be perfect drivers or all have the common decency to admit we're human and all have 3rd (then suck it up if we damage our own vehicle but at least we didn't just leave a 16 year old seriously out of pocket)

(yes i do realise even if the girl was insured, she'd not be covered)

If you have no insurane and you're a student and then get into an nasty accident, thank the NZ government that you're able to pay it off $5 bucks a week for the rest of your lfie.

first i heard of that

You ask why I have comprehensive insurance on my bike. The answer is it is a desirable bike and the likelyhood of it getting stolen is realitively high considering I dont have a lockable garage and live on a main road and the way they work out the premiums actually mean it is cheaper to insure full cover than 3rd party.

you might want to check your policy in that regard - many insurers wont cover theft unless it is (said to be) primarily stored in a locked garage.

[cowboyz]

for those who follow the "i wont ever damage another's property and be at fault therefore i don't need insurance" line of reasoning - what if some other fuckwit causes the accident but for whatever reason you're found to be at fault? I know a few guys who've had it happen.

I know one unlucky bastard who had the driver call a cop who then never filed the report or gave him the details of the other driver.

My mate just had his car written off avoiding another car pulling out from a side road, but was apparently better off to have ploughed into the driver's door, as the unharmed other driver seemed to think my mate just swerved into a ditch on a dead straight road for no reason.

Another "favourtite" is how my old FXR got written off - brother was riding it with 3rd only, unlicenced unsupervised 15yo girl did a U turn and wrote off the bike, right outside her house. Parents threaten to "smash" us, so call cops. Parents give false details to cop standing in their living room, cop hands out large fines for the girl who was still in shock and admitted what had happened. Cop then hands out more fines for the false details. All up the other family was required to pay thousands of dollars in fines to the courts, yet my family, after three successful visits to small claims, never got a cent and eventually sold the wreck for $700. some justice system eh?

ever since we've been fully insured - but in an ideal world we'd all either be perfect drivers or all have the common decency to admit we're human and all have 3rd (then suck it up if we damage our own vehicle but at least we didn't just leave a 16 year old seriously out of pocket)

(yes i do realise even if the girl was insured, she'd not be covered)



first i heard of that



you might want to check your policy in that regard - many insurers wont cover theft unless it is (said to be) primarily stored in a locked garage.

firstly, yes.. my bike is insured for theft and it is in the contract that it is not stored in a garage. I went through a shit load of companys before I found one that would insure me without a garage so you are right there in a sense. There are alot that simply wont.


The point you are missing is there only seems to be 2 sides of the argument and your missing the third.

You seem to think its either..

I am insured so I have no problem getting someone else to pay for my mistakes

or..

I am not insured and so I will never have an accident.

The bit you are missing is the I am not insured and am willing to pay for my own mistakes. Just because someone chooses not to be insured doesnt mean they are going to not own up to their mistakes.

[jono035]

firstly, yes.. my bike is insured for theft and it is in the contract that it is not stored in a garage. I went through a shit load of companys before I found one that would insure me without a garage so you are right there in a sense. There are alot that simply wont.


The point you are missing is there only seems to be 2 sides of the argument and your missing the third.

You seem to think its either..

I am insured so I have no problem getting someone else to pay for my mistakes

or..

I am not insured and so I will never have an accident.

The bit you are missing is the I am not insured and am willing to pay for my own mistakes. Just because someone chooses not to be insured doesnt mean they are going to not own up to their mistakes.

No, we just believe that your distinction is bogus due to the fact that you have no control over what you have an accident with, therefore no control over what the ultimate cost is likely to be.

You can guess, you can average, but you can't be sure.