No Insurance

[NinjaBoy]

I can still sue you, it's just that I won't get anything, right?

NO ... Klingon is correct. The ACC legislation specifically takes away your ability in NZ law to sue anyone for Compensatory damages. Pretty Unique in the world.

[Oscar]

We're one of a few countries that don't have a mandatory requirement for some kind of insurance. Not a good thing either.

Not a good thing?
Perhaps.
But if you think your Bike & Car Insurance premiums are expensive now, iif we had compulsory third party the premiums would be waaaay more...

[Oscar]

NO ... Klingon is correct. The ACC legislation specifically takes away your ability in NZ law to sue anyone for Compensatory damages. Pretty Unique in the world.

There have been several cases where employers were sued in excess of their ACC coverage. The Police Photographer who was adversely affected by photographing crime scenes was one.

[imdying]

Not a good thing?
Perhaps.
But if you think your Bike & Car Insurance premiums are expensive now, iif we had compulsory third party the premiums would be waaaay more...

Yeah, I've yet to see an example of a society similar to ours where that doesn't happen

[Insanity_rules]

Not a good thing?
Perhaps.
But if you think your Bike & Car Insurance premiums are expensive now, iif we had compulsory third party the premiums would be waaaay more...

I appreciate your point of view, but it wouldn't necessarily be so if the regulation included some sort of control regarding price. Any legislation should take into account that it would be for the benefit of road users/ road toll etc not the insurance companies although there would be an initial benefit to them, not to mention extra jobs.

It would be easier to keep repeat drunk and dangerous drivers off the road if they couldn't get insurance.

I realise my point of view may be a little eutopian before you all pan me into the ground but if it was carefully thought out it could well be for the benefit of all road users, especially us. All my vehicles are insured, why should I be penalised in my premium by the risk of being hit by an uninsured driver!

[Oscar]

I appreciate your point of view, but it wouldn't necessarily be so if the regulation included some sort of control regarding price. Any legislation should take into account that it would be for the benefit of road users/ road toll etc not the insurance companies although there would be an initial benefit to them, not to mention extra jobs.

It would be easier to keep repeat drunk and dangerous drivers off the road if they couldn't get insurance.

I realise my point of view may be a little eutopian before you all pan me into the ground but if it was carefully thought out it could well be for the benefit of all road users, especially us. All my vehicles are insured, why should I be penalised in my premium by the risk of being hit by an uninsured driver!

You can't really legislate premium rates.
Bearing in mind that private Motor Vehicle business is regarded by most insurers as "accommodation" business (i.e. they do it to get your house & contents), your scenario would require a state owned insurer.

Notwithstanding that, who is gonna enforce it? Half the scumbags out there currently uninsured are almost certainly are also not warranted and have no rego. If no ones stopping them now, why they gonna stop with no insurance?

[NinjaBoy]

There have been several cases where employers were sued in excess of their ACC coverage. The Police Photographer who was adversely affected by photographing crime scenes was one.

Yep... there is case law which says it doesn't restrict someone from suing for exemplary damages. But it does restrict the right for compensatory damagaes.