As I said: Fair warning

[James Deuce]

Sounds harsh - but if you can't find anyone who will sell you insurance at any price - then that's the market saying your too dangerous to be on the road.

And yeah, I do expect some recidivist offenders, especially recidivist drunk drivers, wont be able to get insurance.

And I know what your going to say. They'll drive anyway. As I've said before, keep confiscating the cars they are in.
They'll loose their car, their mates car, and anyone else's car who is foolish enough to let an uninsured driver use.
Soon they'll have no mates, and no further access to vehicles.

Hard lesson, but better than them killing people.

You're not getting it. It's not a harsh lesson at all. Recidivist drunk drivers can't get insurance now. It doesn't stop them. The car confiscation thing doesn't stop them either. It just disadvantages people who often have no idea that "X" even has their car because they lent it to someone completely different.

The UK has had compulsory Insurance for decades and it doesn't stop people driving without it even though they crush uninsured, untaxed cars there. They just go and buy another bomb and drive that until it gets crushed, and so on, and so on. In the meantime the overburded court system gets backed up with yet another petty "invented" crime whihc helps prevents a wider system from working at all.

Not having Insurance because the market says you can't have it, won't stop people driving or riding without it. You don't even need a licence to buy a vehicle in NZ.

The only people who are ever governed by a law are those who are burdened with a sense of civic duty, or those with something to lose if they don't comply with a particular aspect of a law. It's why the middle class is so enormous. We keep paying tax.

[p.dath]

Meanwhile, back at ACC..The number of ACC staff on salaries of more than $100,000 has increased by 67 to a total of 259.

Those earning more than $300,000 has doubled to 10.

And the chief executive has had a big pay rise, now taking home up to $560,000.

Is there a break down of what those people do?

I think ACC has done a stellar job of investing the money it has. And the only way to attract top fund managers is by paying them well. So I don't mind so much paying those people well. The more money they make ACC the less we pay.
Put it another way - lets say we spend $3 million on their wages, and they generate $100m of income. Great investment in staff.

If you consider ACC NZ's largest company - go compare the wages of the ACC CEO to that of the Telecom CEO ...

[Sketchy_Racer]

If ACC stopped paying out to all the fuck wits that see how long they can blatantly bludge the system, then it wouldn't lose so much.

My mind boggles as costs sky rockets, and pay levels certainly do not follow that trend, how the fuck are people expected to pay for everything? It's going to get to a point were the bills of living overcome the achievable amount of income and we will go from being very close to being a third world country, to the bottom of the pit.

ACC is a great idea, but the way they manage it is complete and utter crap.

I've been on it twice through injury now, and even being completely fit to work, the amount of effort I had to go through the first time to have them let me back at work was a nightmare! So much so I didn't bother the next time until they told me to go back to work. Unfortunately it is that attitude that is costing ACC so much, but they bring it on themselves.

ACC doesn't need more money to operate, it just needs to spend less!

[Rayray401]

If ACC stopped paying out to all the fuck wits that see how long they can blatantly bludge the system, then it wouldn't lose so much.

My mind boggles as costs sky rockets, and pay levels certainly do not follow that trend, how the fuck are people expected to pay for everything? It's going to get to a point were the bills of living overcome the achievable amount of income and we will go from being very close to being a third world country, to the bottom of the pit.

ACC is a great idea, but the way they manage it is complete and utter crap.

I've been on it twice through injury now, and even being completely fit to work, the amount of effort I had to go through the first time to have them let me back at work was a nightmare! So much so I didn't bother the next time until they told me to go back to work. Unfortunately it is that attitude that is costing ACC so much, but they bring it on themselves.

ACC doesn't need more money to operate, it just needs to spend less!

Well, NZ does have a fail management in money. The government's budget deficit is actually at the level of a third world country.

[p.dath]

You're not getting it. It's not a harsh lesson at all. Recidivist drunk drivers can't get insurance now. It doesn't stop them. The car confiscation thing doesn't stop them either. It just disadvantages people who often have no idea that "X" even has their car because they lent it to someone completely different.
...

Perhaps I am just naive. There are only so many people a recidivist driver knows who has a car. Once they have no more access to cars (through confiscation), I don't see how they can continue to drive.
And if you know you could loose a car through confiscation, you'd be dam careful who you lend it to.

Time for me to read some UK stats and see what has happened their.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

If ACC stopped paying out to all the fuck wits that see how long they can blatantly bludge the system, then it wouldn't lose so much.

...

ACC doesn't need more money to operate, it just needs to spend less!

Which is why I hate the no fault system...

[p.dath]

I've done some reading of the situation in the UK. It is believed 1 in 20 road users have no insurance.

The MPA (metropolitan police authority) published this report:
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/x-f/2008/080417/08/

They did a test of the policy, and confiscated uninsured vehicles in an area called Heston. Over 12 months 3,000 vehicles were removed from the road. Over that same period, crime fell by 30%.
The report goes on to mention numerous other benefits.

Now I know some of you aren't keen on Government statistics, because you have the view the statistics are created to support the Government's view.


But if you make it a legal requirement that you have to have insurance to use a vehicle on the road, and those high risk road users can't get insurance, and you take the vehicles off those high risk users who decide to use the road anyway, then I can't see how they can continue to remain on the road. And by their very defintion, high risk, it seems very reasonable that the roads will be safer without them.

[Swoop]

Once they have no more access to cars (through confiscation), I don't see how they can continue to drive.

They go to a car yard and buy another. Or,

They buy one second hand on tardme. Or,

They buy one privately. Or,

They steal one.

They don't care. Getting a car to drive is simple. They also do not care about any licence or fines.

They just DON'T care.

[p.dath]

They go to a car yard and buy another. Or,

They buy one second hand on tardme. Or,

They buy one privately. Or,

They steal one.

They don't care. Getting a car to drive is simple. They also do not care about any licence or fines.

They just DON'T care.

Unless they have an endless supply of cash, they can't just keep buying vehicles.

Stealing a car only works the first 30 or 40 times in NZ. Then they'll probably give you some time inside for 3 months.

[vifferman]

Then they'll probably give you some time inside for 3 months.

Send you to the University of Crime, for training in better car conversion techniques, at a cost of $80k/annum to you, me, him and her?

[jono035]

Send you to the University of Crime, for training in better car conversion techniques, at a cost of $80k/annum to you, me, him and her?

Ssshhhh, making people criminals and then locking them up is always the answer to everything.

[vifferman]

Ssshhhh, making people criminals and then locking them up is always the answer to everything.

Not.

Refer to Dr Deuce's signature for the answer to everything.

[jono035]

Not.

Refer to Dr Deuce's signature for the answer to everything.

A motorcycle in an explosion? I can see it being an answer to many things at least...

[vifferman]

A motorcycle in an explosion? I can see it being an answer to many things at least...

True, true... but you've missed the point!
The Dr Deuce Ultimate Solution is "Burn them!"

[jono035]

True, true... but you've missed the point!
The Dr Deuce Ultimate Solution is "Burn them!"

Ahhh, I'm with ya now. Agreed.