Car insurance compulsory?

[arsnik]

As far as \"boy racers\" go, I believe that the ability to get finance here is too easy. In NZ, with the flood of cheap \"Jap turbos\" and easy finance, any young kid can go get himself a fast car and that\'s not good.

GREAT thinking. SO fast cars are only for rich kids. I SEE THE LOGIC. NOT!

[arsnik]

It\\\'s all going to get very messy and complicated... what of those with a few old bikes that might get ridden once or twice a year? Do they all have to be 3rd part insured as well? If not, just how complicated is this system going to be? Complicated enough to charge plenty for it?

If there registered they have to be insured. Pretty simple. If on exemption they won\\\'t. prices will SKY ROCKET.

Interestingly this will not only affect joe blogs but big businesses like mine where the fleet is over 80 cars, we dont bother insuring through an agent as prices would be phenomenal, and do it ourselves, as it works out cheaper. The NZ police and all Governement Health Boards and anyone else with a fleet will no doubt have more expenses to pay.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE. TO INSURE??? HELENGRAD FOR ANOTHER TERM!

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Surely your insurance covers it? And the excess you can get through small claims.



I you are hit by an uninsured driver in the UK there is a magic fund that covers your losses....... paid for by those with insurance..... not quite sure how it works though.

Yeah, but why should I have to f*ck around with small claims. Yes, my insurance would cover it but then I get a premium hike next renewal.

Agreed, in the UK if I get hit by an uninsured driver I have to cover but there aren't amny uninsured drivers as the penalties are pretty severe.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

GREAT thinking. SO fast cars are only for rich kids. I SEE THE LOGIC. NOT!

Not the point I was making.

[Bass]

Compulsory 3rd party insurance is a must, I believe. Your annual premium would depend on the power/value of vehicle, no claims bonus (which is earned), and your driving history (demerit points, bans, etc, raise premium). This would encourage people to keep their premiums lower. No insurance - no drive.

Following on from this, the offence of driving without insurance would have to carry stiff penalties, a ban perhaps is in other countries.

Currently, if I get hit up the arse by someone without insurance I have to cover the damage. How can that be fair?

As far as "boy racers" go, I believe that the ability to get finance here is too easy. In NZ, with the flood of cheap "Jap turbos" and easy finance, any young kid can go get himself a fast car and that's not good.

I'm with this guy.
It's always been a sore point with me that while I get screwed over and maintain full cover on all my vehicles, so that if I do ever fuk up and stove in someone's pride and joy, they are covered. Better, they are covered regardless of my circumstances.
However, if some dick with no regard for anyone else and so no insurance, creams me, because they have no money, they pretty much walk away free.
I in the meantime, lose my no claim bonus with no recourse.
At least with this system, the law can slam them (criminal matter) where I can't (civil matter).
Whether it actually happens..... well that's another topic altogether, but at least the possibility would be open.

[sAsLEX]

Yeah, but why should I have to f*ck around with small claims. Yes, my insurance would cover it but then I get a premium hike next renewal.

Agreed, in the UK if I get hit by an uninsured driver I have to cover but there aren't amny uninsured drivers as the penalties are pretty severe.

ummm yeah there are. If I had a mirror I would be looking at one lol

And why would the fund exist if it wasn't used?



I don't see why we need more legislation to fix a problem that stems from crap parenting. We have the all powerful boy racer act, which can fuck them over more than compulsory insurance ever will, how about that get on to enforcing that in the manner it was envisaged?? What too hard, not enough police? They keep promising us more front line cops....... elections aren't that far off are they?

[ManDownUnder]

Thus removing the option of being self insured... WTF? ACC is bad enough, now insurance is becoming a tax too (oh that's right - it's a levy - I remember... )

More cops = less boi racers. Fix the problem at source.

[Devil]

Fuck this idea in the arse with a red hot poker.

I had to pay through the godamn nose for insurance on my cars when I was between the age of 19-25 because of the brainless dropkicks out there. $2k per year to have a non-turbo 300zx fully insured with a clean driving record. My crimes? Being male and under 25. Then onto a Mitsi VR4.
Just because I like my toys to be zippy doesn't mean I drive like a fuckwit.

[imdying]

We have individual licenses. Why not individual insurance?

Yep, another point for another thread though... many bikes, one rego sticker... I can only ride one at once.

Following on from this, the offence of driving without insurance would have to carry stiff penalties, a ban perhaps is in other countries.

Right.... cause a ban stops them driving... don't you read the papers?

I you are hit by an uninsured driver in the UK there is a magic fund that covers your losses....... paid for by those with insurance..... not quite sure how it works though.

Oh, but why have a magic fund... everyone has insurance! Yeah.... right

GREAT thinking. SO fast cars are only for rich kids. I SEE THE LOGIC. NOT!

That's what they're talking about... You can be responsible as you like, but if you're poor, you're screwed.

Agreed, in the UK if I get hit by an uninsured driver I have to cover but there aren't amny uninsured drivers as the penalties are pretty severe.

What uninsured drivers??? It's compulsory!!! You're not, shock horror, telling us that the system can't and won't work.

Not the point I was making.

But valid enough anyway.

However, if some dick with no regard for anyone else and so no insurance, creams me, because they have no money, they pretty much walk away free.
I in the meantime, lose my no claim bonus with no recourse.

If you're dumb enough to sign a policy that waves your NCB in the event of a no fault accident, then that's you're problem...

[Bass]

Fuck this idea in the arse with a red hot poker.

I had to pay through the godamn nose for insurance on my cars when I was between the age of 19-25 because of the brainless dropkicks out there. $2k per year to have a non-turbo 300zx fully insured with a clean driving record. My crimes? Being male and under 25. Then onto a Mitsi VR4.
Just because I like my toys to be zippy doesn't mean I drive like a fuckwit.

Stop and think!!
If everyone had third party insurance, the only reason you would have comprehensive accident cover is if you want to cover your own fuk-ups.
If you were confident that you wouldn't make any, then you would only need third party,fire and theft.
It could actually be cheaper all round, depending on how much self control you actually have

[scumdog]

My car is registered in my mums name because of this...
I have never had an accident in my 8years on the roads... but because I drive a 2L turbo subaru & im under 25 I fall into the 'risk/racer/whatever' category....

The first year of having this particular car I had it in my name & insurance in my name, it was $2500/year to be covered... & excess was even more!!

Now that it is in mums name with myself on the insurance policy as named driver etc... It only costs me $49/month (was $55 last year but no claims=lowered premiums) now.

Its crazy... because I have a clean record (& licence) etc... but that doesnt seem to matter whatsoever... im still gonna go race n crash n write my car off into a porsche or something right?!

EDIT: my excess is still around 2-3k or something but thats due to mags & modifications etc, so they added on a grand to excess when I phoned them to say I'd put the mags etc on it. wouldnt want to not tell them about mods n have something happen n not be covered for those bits.

Beware.

Should you need to claim insurance and the insurance company finds out you were NOT the prinipal driver there's a good chance they will turn down your claim.
Insurance companies have used this 'out', believe me, I've seen it so I'd make it 100% clear with them that they WILL pay out in the event you are the driver at the time of the damage occuring.

After all, reading between the lines it seems the reduction in premium is because it's your mum who is the main person being covered - you're just an 'add-on'.

[sAsLEX]

Yep, another point for another thread though... many bikes, one rego sticker... I can only ride one at once.

But we are talking about insurance here. You can get insurance that will cover you for other vehicles here(UK), I am pretty sure, I know it states in my car insurance I am not insured to drive others cars.

You see it is physically impossible for you to ride two bikes at the same time legally, but your four bikes could be ridden by you mrs and kids for example, so the one rego sticker would be open to abuse.......

[LilSel]

Beware.

Should you need to claim insurance and the insurance company finds out you were NOT the prinipal driver there's a good chance they will turn down your claim.
Insurance companies have used this 'out', believe me, I've seen it so I'd make it 100% clear with them that they WILL pay out in the event you are the driver at the time of the damage occuring.

After all, reading between the lines it seems the reduction in premium is because it's your mum who is the main person being covered - you're just an 'add-on'.

I am covered... I have full access to call up and discuss the account etc as well... I am DEF named as the driver of the vehicle on the policy etc and so on... & we have made sure thru our business solicitor/lawyer person guy that its all safe n legal n im covered etc...

Just means that parking infringments & speed camera tickets come in the mail with mums name ... (only happened a few times... but its still rather amusing when it does...)

[Bass]

If you're dumb enough to sign a policy that waves your NCB in the event of a no fault accident, then that's you're problem...

You are assuming that fault can always be determined. It's not always clear cut and the Insurance companies often figure out a compromise between themselves.
Honesty is often the first fatality in motorvehicle accidents

[Devil]

Stop and think!!
If everyone had third party insurance, the only reason you would have comprehensive accident cover is if you want to cover your own fuk-ups.
If you were confident that you wouldn't make any, then you would only need third party,fire and theft.
It could actually be cheaper all round, depending on how much self control you actually have

Example 1) Tyre blows, you leave the road, car is written off.

Example 2) Traffic accident, fault can't be proven (for whatever reason), car damaged/written off.

Full cover is quite relevant unless you drive around in a shitter.