all motor vehicles on the public highway will need to be insured to a minimum of third party.
it you live out in the sticks, it will cost bugger all. if you live in a city, it will cost a lot more.
the sooner this becomes law the better.
[/b]
“PHEW.....JUST MADE IT............................. UP"
Uh uh . And does it occur to no-one that boi-racer is quite capable of figuring that out.
And if he must have compulsary insurance, well, he will give the company such details as ensure he gets a good deal.
Yep, I live in the country. Yep, mature driver. Yep, never had a ticket. Modifed. Oh no, definately not.
Sure, if he does have a crash, his insurance will doubtless be void . But so what. That just leaves him where he is now, except for having to pay an extra tax (just goes to Helen's corporate mates instead of Mr Cullen).
So are the insurance companies going to send an engineer round to check every car they insure before accepting the proposal?
Originally Posted by skidmark
Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
The vehicle insurance system works very well all over the world. They use databases and you cannot lie about your history. Yes you can rip them off one or two times by playing games, but shuch people will pay the price in the end.
If some idiot whats to blight their name and reputation, then they will end up exactly where they deserve to be.
Compulsory insurance should have been introduced to NZ many years ago to keep it in line with the rest of the developed world.
“PHEW.....JUST MADE IT............................. UP"
For me, it's fairly simple. Everyone should have TPI.
If someone drinks and drive and smashes my car, his insurance pays me and then sue him to get the money back because he is at fault. Yes, the insurance will probably raise the premium a bit to cover their losses when they can't recover the money, but so be it. Whereas today, without TPI, I'm left without car and no money while I need to sue the faulty driver. Chances are, with risk profiling, the premium increase will mostly be targeted at risky drivers, which I sure won't complain about.
If insurance companies propose abnormally high premiums or use any pretext to refuse to pay, then there will be room for a new and very successful insurance company in the market. Word of mouth travel fast, especially in a community like ours.
Ah, but will they? My bet is no because the drier would be driving illegally, and of course the insurance company is going to say that this directly caused the accident (in this case probably justifiably so) and as per the terms of the insurance they then won't pay out. Your insurance will pay out on your car, and you'll probably even get out of losing your no claims and excess (though I've heard of people still paying their excess on no fault). Sure they'll get their money back via collections or the courts, their good at that.
In that case it's probably justified action by the company, but going back to what I said regarding regarding modified cars (bearing in mind insurance companies consider some pretty standard changes as "modified"), cars that don't meet warrant standards at the time of accident (whether they have the sticker or not, and it could be a light bulb), people driving outside the conditions, and a bunch of other reasons that insurance companies try to use to get out of paying up on claims. If they do use these things to not pay up they don't pay up at all, not their car, not yours. End result for you...exactly the same as if they had no insurance to begin with.
You will be poorer with third party insurance, but you won't have any better cover.
The idiot who is currently un-insured will be forced to insure.
But, as he will be breaching the conditions of his licence, over the learner drug or alcohol level, or a couple of days short of rego or WOF, his claim will be declined anyway.
Compulsary TPI will push all premiums up, create another level of compliance, and save F. All.
In fact, no doubt we will be levied to cover the cost of insured-but-declined accidents as well.
David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.
I for one have all my unregistered bikes on hold,(Classics)insured for third party fire and theft,i also have my 78 RX7 the same,all with A.A insurance.no hassles.and to the person that stated that third party insurance had never been charged when registering your vehicle one word "WRONG."![]()
Bah mine was better.
a £2000 50cc scooter, 17 years old on a provisional, living just outside north london:
I paid, for TPFT:
£685
The only reason I dont have insurance here, is that a) shit is far far less likely to get stolen. b) accidents involving another vehicle are 99% time not the bikers fault, and c) if im riding on my own, and I screw up, I pay the price - makes you ride slower when you know its gonna cost a shite load for screwing up a corner...
NZ has NEVER had any compulsary property third party insrurance.
You are thinking of the old third party INJURY insurance. You had to select form a list of insurers when you relicensed the vehicle. It was a fixed extra price. It covered personal injury only. It was made extinct when ACC came in, because noone could then sue for personal injury. It never covered property damage.
I did it (the select and relicence thing) for many years. Always picked NIMU from memory. Dunno what happened to NIMU.
Originally Posted by skidmark
Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
I started riding back before then and my first bike insurance ever was with state on my RG150 - $16 for the year......in 1998
Since then they have added a 'minimum charge' fee of $60....its not the policy....but literally a minimum charge fee.
But be warned its not too pretty as excess is usually $1000+ even if the bike is worth less than $1000 and you crash into a $20 sign. Friend got caught that way and insurance paid nothing.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks