Car insurance compulsory?

[imdying]

I think your idea would work as a replacement for rego charges as then everyone would pay as they use, but would probably cost more than a couple of cents per litre if used to cover 3rd party insurance.

Good idea though. You'd get my vote.

Combine that with a single rego per driver, and you've got my vote.

But how would you weight it for 'higher risk' vehicles?

[avgas]

OH I NO I NO.
We could have a set of governing rules that said if you do something, you pay the consequences, crash with no insurance - your kidneys are sold to recover costs etc
Then we could have people go out and enforce these rules, placing a juristiction over said areas where a body exists to checks for innocence.
We could call them laws, the enforcers could be called police, and the body could be called the courts.

[dmouse]

in the uk when you rego your car you have to have wof certificate and insurance at least third party no insurance no rego and if you get caught driving with no rego and insurance you have three choices 1/ the car is towed to a compound at your cost until the right paperwork is shown to the police, 2/ the car can be towed to a private registerd garage/workshop that is approved at your expense. 3/ the car is crushed and recycled if none of the above can be done and if the right documents are not shown in 28 days the car is crushed.

now bring that in with third party insurance and imagine some of these blings cars going through the crusher i think that they should be forced to press the button as well, also you can not buy a car in the uk without insurance whether you take it out through the dealer or allready have insurance its and offence and the dealer gets done and can lose his licence.

i pay full comp on my bike and van why should i pay for some snotty nosed kid to take me out in his bling machine and not have to foot the bill for the damage, last time i got took out the geek went through red lights hit me in the back at 60k and got away with diversion and with the agro from inusrance my bike was off the road for allmost 7 monthes.

[Ocean1]

They enforce laws??!!

How novel, wonder if it'd work here...

[dmouse]

it would not be that hard to impliment and also do away with the stupid green and pink stickers take a lot of junk off of the roads and all modifications would have to be listed on your insurance or the policy would be voided and the insurance would pay out for damage done by the offender and raclaim the costs back through the courts if needed to.

[Ocean1]

Yeah, I know dude. It's just that we wouldn't be even talking about it if the existing rules were effectively enforced, there wouldn't be a problem.

[mbazza]

You are covered on the assumption that you're not the main driver... that's why your premium is low, and your excess is different for you. That's what being a named driver is all about... you're only driving it occasionally, so the premium is calculated based on the main driver (your mum, that's why it's her policy), and a nominal fee is added for each named driver. If you're found to be the main driver, and thus the policy should be for you, and thus charged accordingly, in the event of a claim, they'll simply cancel your insurance.

The esteemed smiley face company tried to back out when out 17yr old son dinged our car and he was an occassional driver. We won! Cheers.

[MaxB]

In the UK I paid the equivalent of $1050 third party, fire & theft. Clean licence, 5 years no claims, qualified instructor, bike was garaged etc. etc. but I was under 25 and on my OE.

BTW this was for a (pos) Honda 400 in 1985. Welcome to the brave new world.

Hope I'm wrong but if this insurance lark comes in young riders are going to get hammered.

I cannot believe that if you hand an industry a monopoly you wont get higher prices. Remember Telecom in the bad old days?

[dmouse]

but and here is the big BUTT acc is paying out millions of our $ to all these bling drivers that have no regard for other road users either through the damage that they do to others or themselves now if they were made exempt from acc payouts for injuries sustained to themselves or being carried in an uninsured vehicle then that would be fair on the people that pay acc riduculas levies and it should also not pay anyone who is in custody or jail or commiting a crime now matter,

[MaxB]

It would be interesting to know the actual $ amount of destruction that bling drivers cause. A lot of posts on this thread seem to be about the fear or hatred these kids seem to stir up not what actual damage they do.

A death of a young driver is actually quite cheap in insurance terms (God forbid the rest of us think like that). Someone confined to wheelchair needs care for life. For the ACC this is the worse case scenario. What would be done with the boyracers who end up in a wheelchair? Leave 'em to die? Put 'em out of their misery? We are talking about someones kid here. Plus we still end up paying indirectly via taxes for the benefit or the health service.

I do agree with one thing raised on this thread, if you commit a criminal act you do not get ACC. This could include dangerous driving. Theres no way a crim should be compensated for getting injured 'at work'.

[Ocean1]

It would be interesting to know the actual $ amount of destruction that bling drivers cause. A lot of posts on this thread seem to be about the fear or hatred these kids seem to stir up not what actual damage they do.

A death of a young driver is actually quite cheap in insurance terms (God forbid the rest of us think like that). Someone confined to wheelchair needs care for life. For the ACC this is the worse case scenario. What would be done with the boyracers who end up in a wheelchair? Leave 'em to die? Put 'em out of their misery? We are talking about someones kid here. Plus we still end up paying indirectly via taxes for the benefit or the health service.

I do agree with one thing raised on this thread, if you commit a criminal act you do not get ACC. This could include dangerous driving. Theres no way a crim should be compensated for getting injured 'at work'.

Dude the insurance they're talking about compulserising is 3rd party property, not personal. ACC would continue to cover medical costs, (and compensaion) as it currently does.

If you want to know what the value of the destruction any particular demographic causes in a given year ask for a quote from an insurance company. Their prices are directly driven by that data and they know the average costs to the dollar.

[90s]

Don't know if it's still true, but several years ago I talked to a head honcho for one of the big insurance Co's, he said insurance Co's simply break even on car insurance. It was more of a courtesy service, they want to keep the house/contents/commercial insurance so they cover your car too. If you read the article you’ll see that the insurance council has been against compulsory third party insurance for years, probably because there’s simply no profit in it. Those companies that offer significantly cheaper premiums can do so simply because they pay out less often.

The fact is those who are uninsured are currently getting something for nothing, everyone else’s premiums are higher because they need to cover the eventuality of a prang caused by an uninsured driver. So the argument about added cost is largely bullshit, the costs would simply be re-assigned to where they belong. As for insurance companies raping the poor motorist? well there’s plenty of them, they have to be competitive to stay in business.

Compulsory insurance is common overseas, in the UK you need a quote from an insurance company before you even get to own the vehicle. That does have the effect of keeping dangerous driver/vehicle/behaviour combinations down. Insurance companies live and die by statistics, they can tell you precisely what the risks are of any particular combination of car/bike to personal demographic are, and the correct cost of covering that risk. I remember the difference in price for me owning a Mini and an Opal Manta in the UK was more than the difference in the price of the cars. I have no doubt that extra cost was a genuine reflection of the extra risks involved.

Ocean is totally right. Imdying and the other examples of high UK premiums for first small cars do cover the high cost of insurance in context. The mkt is competitive. I too paid more - much more - for my first insurance on my 1970 mini in the late '80s than I then did with 5 yrs no-claims I was paying paying 1/3 of the cost to insure the mini to insure my 306 Pug in London (not a cheap place to insure cars). Why should not young drivers' premiums reflect their risk? When I was young in the UK it was a pain, but it stopped me getting a GTi. And the risk was real - I was about the ONLY one of my peer group not to have had an accident or written of at least one car within 2 yrs of getting wheels. Why should I pay high ACC etc the rest of my life to cover these fools?
The reason UK prices seem a rip-off in comparison with NZ is down to many factors; crucially the ACC. Take in all these costs and I think the prices begin to look more in line.

I can make a good case for it either way, but if the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that each of us pays for what we get then one thing must change. We’ve got to start enforcing the fekin’ law. I’m not holding my breath, I don’t see repeat transgressors of existing law receiving the penalties that might control their behaviour. Fer fuck’s sake if they have outstanding fines or if they’re disqualified take the fekin’ cars and squash the fekin things. Oh, and then go after the finance companies that set it up in the first place.

If uninsured drivers have their vehicles removed from them and can't get them back until the fines are paid how can this not be an effective way to remove the uninsured from the streets?
The argument - present in the NZ Herald articles and others - that people will carry on driving uninsured anyway is ludicrous within the context of some 'teeth' to go with any policy change.
If nothing is done to enforce compliance then insurance costs will rise; but if there is enforcement then this could be a revenue stream for the police that actually is linked to reducing road problems, and lowers the road toll - unlike obviously their current ridiculous focus on speed.

[sAsLEX]

The argument - present in the NZ Herald articles and others - that people will carry on driving uninsured anyway is ludicrous within the context of some 'teeth' to go with any policy change.

The Boy Racer Act has some very sharp teeth as you put it. If they were used you would see the problem reducing.

CHCH seem to have an alright stab at it every now and again with big busts.......

[arsnik]

Fuck that! Boy (and girl) racers are a bunch of scum sucking arseholes: they clutter up my town with their noisy obnoxious POS rice racer crap boxes,

Look, you choose to live in south auckland, you deal with the consequences/

[sAsLEX]

If you want to know what the value of the destruction any particular demographic causes in a given year ask for a quote from an insurance company. Their prices are directly driven by that data and they know the average costs to the dollar.

Me thinks they do not delve much deeper than rough age and sex demographics.

WRT am I right?