It's soooooo unfair (sniffle)

[scracha]

...Oh god noooo!!

Please don't!!, you have no idea how hard it was for our design teams to set up the secure channels and network security & routes etc for these bloody things!

Eh? This is 2012. Should have taken about 5 minutes?? Oh wait....taxpayers money must be spent reinventing the wheel.

[Edbear]

Then I'll stick with my type of insurance, don't cost me much.

No worries and had five windscreens for 0$$$

Five windsreens..? What do you do with them?

[baffa]

Regarding third party, that little feature that some of you noticed giving $4000 cover to your vehicle, is only if the person who causes the damage gives you their details and accepts liability. And if they hit and run, you get nadda.

If you have an old bomb, third party is fine, but for anything of value, full cover is best.

[steve_t]

Five windsreens..? What do you do with them?

Must be a tailgater

[MSTRS:Me]

Regarding third party, that little feature that some of you noticed giving $4000 cover to your vehicle, is only if the person who causes the damage gives you their details and accepts liability. And if they hit and run, you get nadda.

If you have an old bomb, third party is fine, but for anything of value, full cover is best.

Note this. It makes a huge difference to whether you get anything. If they refuse to admit liability, it is extremely difficult. Your insurer will not pursue the matter, it is up to you. You cannot prosecute them in traffic court and if they didn't get a ticket from the cops for causing the crash, or successfully defend it, you get nothing.

[steve_t]

A number of my friends have been in car accidents and while at the scene, the other person has admitted fault, when the paperwork has come back from the insurance companies, they claim to have not admitted fault.

[Edbear]

A number of my friends have been in car accidents and while at the scene, the other person has admitted fault, when the paperwork has come back from the insurance companies, they claim to have not admitted fault.

Par for the course I'm afraid. The Insurance companies always tell their clients to never admit fault in any accident.

[StoneY]

So you saw me then did you

Nope..was me he saw bro.

[davereid]

Regarding third party, that little feature that some of you noticed giving $4000 cover to your vehicle, is only if the person who causes the damage gives you their details and accepts liability. And if they hit and run, you get nadda.

If you have an old bomb, third party is fine, but for anything of value, full cover is best.

The comparison I was drawing was between COMPULSORY third party insurance and our voluntary third party insurance.

I was NOT comparing full insurance, which is your best option.

I made the following points, and I can see I will have to make them again.

(1) The rate of uninsured drivers in New Zealand is about the same as in countries where it is compulsory.

(2) NZ third party cover is very very cheap compared with other countries, but it not likely to stay that way if it were compulsory.

(3) NZ third party cover gives you first party cover.
Yes there are some limitations.
But the compulsory third party system is unlikely to offer you anything except third party.
So by default you will need full insurance to get to the same place on that older vehicle.

(4) Under ANY system if the guy who hits you is uninsured, drunk or unlicenced or does a hit and run, you will be relying on your insurance, not his.

So, if your needs are modest, shop around, buy the best VOLUNTARY third party insurance you can get and the cover may meet your needs. If it does not, buy full insurance.

But if CTP comes in, even if your needs are modest, to be sure you can fix your vehicle when someone else crashes into it, you will need full cover.

[rastuscat]

Par for the course I'm afraid. The Insurance companies always tell their clients to never admit fault in any accident.

Yes, and KB members always deny fault, even if it's obviously theirs.

[Edbear]

Yes, and KB members always deny fault, even if it's obviously theirs.

That's not my fault of course...

[trustme]

Yes, and KB members always deny fault, even if it's obviously theirs.

That's what lawyers teach us, say SF all , deny deny.
As an aside , I once said a bit too much to an authority & definitely regretted it.;

[scumdog]

Five windsreens..? What do you do with them?

Just our good South Island roads...

Actually trucks going the other way on gravel roads accounted for most of them.

And I'm talkin' about a 40 year duration..

[GrayWolf]

The comparison I was drawing was between COMPULSORY third party insurance and our voluntary third party insurance.



(3) NZ third party cover gives you first party cover.
Yes there are some limitations.
But the compulsory third party system is unlikely to offer you anything except third party.
So by default you will need full insurance to get to the same place on that older vehicle.

no it doesnt.. You constantly 'misquote' this.... as the opening page on your insurance companies website states, 3rd party ONLY covers damage YOU do to another's vehicle or property...
the $4000 dollar 1st party cover they provide is their own ADDITION to the cover

[Ollie.T]

Well, I blew it.

Wrote out a ticket to a motorcylclist for Drove With Wrong Class of Licence 'cos he only had a car licence. $400 ta!

He was on a 450 traillie riding around town.

No:
Rego
WOF
Indicators
Number plate


He was cool, had a puurty mouth, no attitude, didn;t try to run/hide..

So I gave it to him.

Why? Cos I wanted to, it's the way I roll.

just jokes...