Drivers face compulsory third-party insurance

[Ixion]

Actually, the assertion that "newer cars are safer" is often made. I am not convinced it's true. I'd definately rather be in my old Pajero, or your F100 , well belted up (that bit is important) in a crash than in a modern flea car.

Everytime you see a news report of a crash involving two such disparate vehicles, it almost always has "occupants of fleamobile dead or critical, occupants of old battlewagon suffered minor injuries".There's a LOT to be said for solid steel.

[Mikkel]

You really think they will be charging people $100?
I'll tell you something for nothing - if I had an 18yo client after insurance driving anything more than a 3 cylinder Daihatsu you'd be looking at much much more. Why? Because the third party (Section 2) bit of insurance is the part that covers the damage you cause another person, and although we do not cover the 18yo's Evo IV or whatever he may have, we cover the damage he will cause some poor old lady at the traffic lights when he looses control trying to race some other space invader.

Sorry guys, insurance bills may go up because of this (mine included).

Well, there's the word from the stable.

Well, again you are reading into it exactly what you want. Please notice the MAY in that sentence. jetboy seems to be in the know - and he's not throwing around doomsday scenarios and absolutes. FFS!

WHO cares about the safety or lack of with older cars? the insurance companies?
"I don't think so Tim" - I suspect they don't give a fat rats arse about vehicle safety.

Nope, they might not care about safety - but they certainly care about risk management based on accident statistics. The term safety generally implies accident statistics - big difference there.

Actually, the assertion that "newer cars are safer" is often made. I am not convinced it's true. I'd definately rather be in my old Pajero, or your F100 , well belted up (that bit is important) in a crash than in a modern flea car.

Everytime you see a news report of a crash involving two such disparate vehicles, it almost always has "occupants of fleamobile dead or critical, occupants of old battlewagon suffered minor injuries".There's a LOT to be said for solid steel.

I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from. At the core of your arguments is nothing but an extremely selfish disregard for other people, their safety, their property, etc. Why should you indeed give a rat's arse about anyone but you, yourself and yours? What should it matter that your way of life might inconvenience, cull or deny other people living their life?
Is it really that simple that you do not think about anyone but yourself? Because in that case I begin to see the logic behind your arguments against 3rd party insurance - and I see that logic for the subversive lie it is.

If that indeed is the case, then you, and people like you, are the only reason why 3rd party insurance NEEDS to be made compulsory.

[jetboy]

Just for the record - insurers aren't as over-the-moon about all this either. At present they are well within their rights to refuse cover on someone for whatever reason. But with the compulsory T.P. insurance coming in it means they HAVE to insure people they otherwise would not, which in turn drives up premiums to cater for these people. (e.g. 35yo driving a Ford Falcon with 10 x DIC convictions and a string of car conversions behind him. No - the Ford isn't the reason why they would normaly decline cover...although I can see why!!!).

Bear in mind that although T.P. insurance is only (roughly) $100 - $200 for the average person....if that person writes off somebody elses $250k Merc the insurer has only recieved $100 odd and has to pay $250,000. I would suggest (personally) they would rate a premium based on the likelihood of this happening.

I doubt we need to worry now, it'll take Unkie Helen 5 lightyears to get her act together and get it all through Parliament anyways.

[Jantar]

This is another good reason to tie insurance to the person rather than the vehicle.

[Ixion]

Well, again you are reading into it exactly what you want. Please notice the MAY in that sentence. jetboy seems to be in the know - and he's not throwing around doomsday scenarios and absolutes. FFS!



Nope, they might not care about safety - but they certainly care about risk management based on accident statistics. The term safety generally implies accident statistics - big difference there.



I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from. At the core of your arguments is nothing but an extremely selfish disregard for other people, their safety, their property, etc. Why should you indeed give a rat's arse about anyone but you, yourself and yours? What should it matter that your way of life might inconvenience, cull or deny other people living their life?
Is it really that simple that you do not think about anyone but yourself? Because in that case I begin to see the logic behind your arguments against 3rd party insurance - and I see that logic for the subversive lie it is.

If that indeed is the case, then you, and people like you, are the only reason why 3rd party insurance NEEDS to be made compulsory.

Doubt that there's a living soul that could say I've ever "culled" or "denied" them life (or injury). In a motor vehicle or otherwise.

But if I am going to be in a car crash, and one vehicle's an F100 and one is a flea car, I know which one I want to be in. Don't like that, go take it up with the regulatory authorities that push for ever flimsier vehicles. I'm quite happy if everyone is in Pajeros. If you want to be in a fleamobile because you think its safer, thats fine. I don't share your optimism and I refuse to allow you to force me into danger. So I explicitly reject your implicit argument that you (or Frau Helen) should have the right to force me into danger.

Just as when riding my bike I refuse to allow you, or any other road user , to put me into danger. Because unlike you I don't accept crashing as a routine of life.

[Mikkel]

Just as when riding my bike I refuse to allow you, or any other road user , to put me into danger. Because unlike you I don't accept crashing as a routine of life.

Refuse all you want - the day the bus rolls over you, you might be surprised at how little say you have in it.

I don't accept crashing as a routine of life - what on earth gave you that idea. But it would be ignorant not to realise that it is a possibility that can never ever be completely disregarded.

Oh, no doubt about you being better off in your pajero hitting something smaller - that wasn't what I was getting at.
Only that if you were in a pajero and hit another pajero you'd be far worse off than hitting another fleamobile (a derogatory term that I use with proper sarcasm in your direction here) while in your own fleamobile. Besides, you might find that you have a higher risk of being involved in a collision in a pajero than in your fleamobile due to poorer handling...
But, as you were!

[Ixion]

Besides, you might find that you have a higher risk of being involved in a collision in a pajero than in your fleamobile due to poorer handling...
But, as you were!

I have a unique and surprsingly successful way of dealing with that problem (works well in other areas, too). It's called "slowing down". Never going to be popular, most people prefer just to crash.

[YellowDog]

"I refuse to allow you to force me into danger"

May be the Compulsory Insurance Policy documents will carry a health warning or a disclaimer about being forced out of a Pajero.

Personally, I think the tank like 4 x 4s tip over far too easily (making them less safe). Great off road, but not so good for the school run.

[Sollyboy]

I'd love to know the reason behind that.

Because it will force the price of all insurance up , even good non boyracer type

[Owl]

Because it will force the price of all insurance up , even good non boyracer type

Bollocks! Third party for sure, but why will that affect my house or travel insurance?

[Ixion]

He means force up the price of TP insurance for all people even non boiracers

[Mikkel]

I have a unique and surprsingly successful way of dealing with that problem (works well in other areas, too). It's called "slowing down". Never going to be popular, most people prefer just to crash.

No, the only way you are "unique and surprisingly successful" is the way in which you derail this debate over and over again. And whether it'll be popular or not I don't care - because you would certainly prefer to crash it!

[Trouser]

There is a little bit of smoke and mirrors around this by the looks of it.

Labour doesn't want to and probably can't legislate what type of car you can drive so they are going to leave it up to the insurance companies to price people out of their cars.

Classic double feint. It's for the good of the people. You are a monster if you don't have insurance. You can still drive any vehicle you like. Freedommmm. yada yada yada. However you MUST have insurance young man.

They are shutting the gate way after the horse bolted. The CHEAP high performance japanese cars must be giving the safety police a huge head ache.

[Sollyboy]

Bollocks! Third party for sure, but why will that affect my house or travel insurance?

Im talking about car insurance , even third party is expensive in country where compulsary,Im suprised it would need an explanation

[sefer]

What I fail to see is exactly how this is going to prevent any "boy racer" problems?

Let's face it, most of those cars on the road are owned by the finance companies, and as such are already fully insured (as per the requirement when financed). Those that aren't insured are the shitty self modified (mostly) heaps that probably would even pass a good WOF inspection, and even if they were compulsory insured and the owners of these cars pay-up for it do you really think the insurance companies are going to pay out on your car/bike /whatever without going over that car and faulting it on anything and everything possible? And when they do find that self modified suspension, or even that indicator bulb that blew that morning, do you really think they are going not invalidate their insurance?