Car insurance compulsory?

[90s]

Fairest way would be in a petrol/diesel tax. Just add a couple of cents per litre and have it go towards a compulsory third party insurance fund. Drive a big vehicle...pay more insurance. Drive more miles, pay more insurance. Drive like a @#4cktard, probably pay more insurance. Take bike out on a wee blat a couple of times a week, pay next to eff all.

Gawd..if only you Kiwi's would let me run this country properly.

This get my vote for worst idea so far.

The whole point of insurance the problem with ACC is about risk.
As a 17-yr old car driver and a 15-yr-old (legal) motorbike rider I was a much higher risk than a mid-30s driver. My insurance premiums recognise this.

I agree that 4x4s should pay more for the damage they cause to roads.
I'm not so sure that they are dangerous (ie. risky) the more they travel. It seems that they are used on short-haul school runs at great risk of minor accidents.

As far as insurance goes I have been on the roads now since 1988 and in that time never had an accident that was my liability. I DO want my insurance premiums to reflect this.
I DO NOT want some uninsured fool to use my insurance to pay for his mistakes. I do not want to pay the same fuel-based charge as idiots having their arses covered by my fuel tax.

The boy racer thing is a distraction to the main benefits of compulary insurance.

[sAsLEX]

I agree that 4x4s should pay more for the damage they cause to roads.

.

Want to back this up with some evidence?

My 4x4 weighs maybe a ton and has a 1.3 litre engine. How is this bad for the road or the environment?

[90s]

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?

Not sure you understand what a monopoly is. It is a measure of concentration within a product-market area (although there are other definitions of industry of course).
The crucial question is: how many FIRMS are in the industry.
A monopoly is one firm - ie. Telecom in the bad-old days.
But there are loads of insurance firms. Current policy is about making it easier for firms - firms from around the world - to enter markets where profits are high in order to stimulate competition.


As for your other point, let young riders get hammered. I was when I was young and it was a fair reflection. In fact one of the highest risk groups on bikes at the moment is me - mid-30s male. I will pay the true cost of my insurance happily. The difference between me and a young rider is I have proved with no-claims bonuses that I am personally a lower risk than some other riders. So I should get hammered less even though I am in a higher-risk group. But young riders have no proof of their risk profile so let them take the responsibility themselves. Where's the problem?

[sAsLEX]

The crucial question is: how many FIRMS are in the industry.
A monopoly is one firm - ie. Telecom in the bad-old days.

One could argue that that is not the case, that it is not the total number of companies but the effective number of companies in the market.

Ie the big 4 petrol retailers in NZ show monapalistic tendencies at times.

[90s]

Want to back this up with some evidence?

My 4x4 weighs maybe a ton and has a 1.3 litre engine. How is this bad for the road or the environment?

4x4 here refers to Range-rover type vehicles (landcruisers, ponsonby tractors) not having four wheel drive as in an Audi Quottro or Scooby (impreza turbo, WRX etc).

What the hell are you driving with 1.3L and 4x4? Is it a Rav?

There is ample evidence around for the damage caused by the class of vehicles I am referring to. Avgas may have the formula somewhere to hand, but damage to roads is a function of axle-weight and tyre size. It is not a linear relationationship so your car 4 times heavier than a mini causes more - much more - damage.
Not only this but once the top seal is breached the 4x4s tear the hell out of the road.
Even a Rav will cause a little more damage than a saloon - although probably not much more.

In NZ gravel rds that were easily negotiable by saloons are now almost impassable because fo the furrows and ripping caused by 4x4s. Ironically, this is seem as the needs for MORE 4x4s by the people that drive them.

The green thing is obvious of course. Your heavier high-cd 4x4s use more gas per mile. Deisels are also damaging because in this country they are not warranted on emissions, and dieseles are far more environmentally damaging unless well tuned.

[90s]

One could argue that that is not the case, that it is not the total number of companies but the effective number of companies in the market.

Ie the big 4 petrol retailers in NZ show monapalistic tendencies at times.

Well yes. A 4-firm concentration ratio of 100% is extremely high. Highly concentrated oligopolies are the main focus of the commerce commission. They rule out for example the mergers of AirNZ and Qantas, the attempt to buy the Warehouse by the other supermarkets etc because this leads to higher concentration.

Petrol companies are on the boudnary of collusive behaviour monitered by the commerce commission. This is the problem with 4 companies. The barriers to entry for oil companies etc are very very high. Woldwide concentration is a problem. (The form of collussion most likely in this case is price-leadership, whihc is on the very boundaries of legal behaviour).

Insurance on the other hand has far fewer of the barriers to entry, is far more competitive world-wide, and has many more players in the market than the oil firms. The commerce commission is there to ensure they are competing and not ripping us off.
I imagine some may well present a cynical reaction about the power of competition authorities to enforce this. Well the combined fines being paid in the last month by BA and microsoft are in excess of 5 billion - yes that's billion - kiwi dollars.

[sAsLEX]

4x4 here refers to Range-rover type vehicles (landcruisers, ponsonby tractors) not having four wheel drive as in an Audi Quottro or Scooby (impreza turbo, WRX etc).

What the hell are you driving with 1.3L and 4x4? Is it a Rav?

I get that, mine is a truck looking thing, and why do you need more power and weight?

[90s]

why do you need more power?

Erm ... error!error! brain does not compute question ... brain does not compute question ...

[MaxB]

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.

I know this. I did not make my point so well. What I have concerns about is that this compulsory property insurance for motorists is the first step in passing over all vehicle related liability (including personal injury) to private insurers. Its a really good way of passing over motoring accicdent costs from ACC to insurance companies. How could this greedy governmant resist?

Does anyone expect the govt. to reduce overall ACC premiums if motoring accident and injury claims are handled privately?

As for the data held by insurance companies, I don't believe they have enough detail for bikes. Statistical research costs $. Their prices are often what the market will stand, if you start to remove competition or introduce compulsion then they will increase prices if they can.

[imdying]

As for the data held by insurance companies, I don't believe they have enough detail for bikes. Statistical research costs $. Their prices are often what the market will stand, if you start to remove competition or introduce compulsion then they will increase prices if they can.

No way. That'd never happen. The multinational corporations only have the best interests of New Zealanders at heart, and they'd never screw us if they were able to hold us over a barrel! I can't believe that you'd suggest that the same fate to befall other countries with C3PI would happen here!

[scracha]

This get my vote for worst idea so far.

The whole point of insurance the problem with ACC is about risk.
As a 17-yr old car driver and a 15-yr-old (legal) motorbike rider I was a much higher risk than a mid-30s driver. My insurance premiums recognise this.

I've been hit by an uninsured driver and also haven't caused any accidents. My point is that NZ doesn't like to send peeps to gaol and therefore any compulsory insurance will just be laughed at by the unwof'd and unrego'd arseholes. At least an insurance "fuel tax" would have the ba$tards paying something?