Tony look unless you are able to walk on waterit is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to say you will never be involved in an accident. Unfortunately especially as a biker. Sometimes no matter how careful you are,how observant or how great a driver /rider you are the numbers line up and you have an at fault accident.THAT is what third party insurance is for. If you happen to slam into a 60k vehicle on your bikeyou will likely be in hospital and have a 60k bill to look forward to
way back in 1928, right through until ACC crawled up from the pond scum
ya gotta wonder who the poli's think they are fooling with their new improved never tried before bulls.t, bit like kiwibank, the very first wholly NZ owned bank, oops so was postbank before they sold it to ANZ, so was BNZ before they sold that to o'seas investors - Faye and Richwhite ring any bells, but no! when anderton came up with the plan it was new, exciting, never tried before, and going to succeed cos the govt couldn't get their mitts on it, oops key has slated it for disposal to overseas investors this year or next
skin1235,
Jan 31, 12:54am
insurance companies don't like 3rd party, they have to pay out, currently there a large percentage of accidents that have no element of insurance payout involved, neither party insured, you bring in 3rd party and the insurance companies have to actually stand and be counted, and do some work, naturally they will charge more for it thus diminishing their market share and even more are driven away from insurance companies because they see them as gouging vultures already
owene,
Jan 31, 1:12am
Whew, you sound unhappy. You call <$100 expensive for the cover it provides!
owene,
Jan 31, 1:12am
+20
skin1235,
Jan 31, 1:20am
!, think perhaps you completely missed the point there owene, I made no comment re favour or other nor cost of this 'new, never tried before, revolutionary new scheme'
its been around the block a couple of times already, the insurance co's all claim it too hard or too difficult to administer, - but then out of deference to their customers later offer it at quite high cost cos it is difficult you know - and then the govt get another wack at it, then it gets sold off or traded off against a new schemeoh the new ACC perhaps, the personal liabilties scheme that covers you for all the things ACC don't cover you for, couples with a personal income cover as ACC don't do squat there either - the scheme where nobody loses and everybody pays - and pays,and pays, and still get less than what they get now
owene,
Jan 31, 1:27am
The point is that premuims are based upon claims + a % for profits. The payout on 3P claims in NZ will be small compared with most countries and the premiums will therefore reflect that fact. See #67. But the personal cost to a wronged party where the perpetrator of that wrong is not insured is often huge. That's why I argue that it should be compulsory as it is in every other commonwealth country and USA.
skin1235,
Jan 31, 1:31am
and my point is that this is not new, itis not untried in NZ, in fact it used to be the norm in NZ, course it also included personal damages too, this 'new scheme' excludes personal damages cos ACC are supposed to pick up the tab for that further my point is that the system is still on the computers, all it takes is re-activating and $199 or whatever the eventual bribe for the insurance co's is will be added to your 'rego' annually
should you baulk at that cost it will be explained to you that it is now required that everyone have 3rd party insurance and thats what it costs
pauldw,
Jan 31, 2:01am
I don't recall it covering anything other than personal damage. I remember paying separately direct to an insurance companyfor 3rd party property cover.
owene,
Jan 31, 2:22am
Yep that's right skin12345, the insurance included in the licensing way back only included personal injury, medical costs etc and not property (other car etc). In those days we optionally took 3P with an insurer. But when ACC came in and assumed the liability for personal injury, it was taken out of the licensing and added as an ACC component. As an aside, the ACC component that we pay now roughly reflects the actual cost of medical/rehab after a crash and is run as a separate account within ACC.
But that's not what the OP was about. It was about making 3P PROPERTY cover compulsory so that when anyone crashed into an innocent party's car or fence or whatever, that 3P would cover the cost.
tonyrockyhorror,
Jan 31, 2:44am
That's what the insurance companies want you to believe in. Yet after all the premiums they take less the claims they pay they still make money.
I'm simply saying 'no thanks'. My risk profile is lower than the threshold I view third party insurance as worthwhile.
tonyrockyhorror,
Jan 31, 2:44am
That's what the insurance companies want you to believe in. Yet after all the premiums they take less the claims they pay they still make money.
I'm simply saying 'no thanks'. I view my risk profile as lower than the threshold where third party insurance becomes worthwhile.
owene,
Jan 31, 2:51am
But you are using your own judgement to assure the rest of us that you will never cause us to be out of pocket as a result of your behaviour! That's the problem with these issues and an area where legislation is able to represent the other 95% of us by making it compulsory.
Why should I share YOUR risk!
tonyrockyhorror,
Jan 31, 2:57am
You don't share my risk.
If you're so worried about uninsured drivers, get comprehensive cover. Surely anyone meeting your definition of 'responsible' would have that anyway. Then if a UTP is at fault you have nothing to worry about.
Pretty simple, eh!
tonyrockyhorror,
Jan 31, 2:58am
Have you worked out what CTP is yet! You'll probably struggle with UTP.
gunhand,
Jan 31, 3:14am
It always amusses me that some seem to think its fine to have no insurance. Reasons being, im unlikley to crash so therefore dont need it. Crashes dont happen to me or I havent had a crash in 36.5 years of super driving. It must be great to have that much money you can replace your car in the event (although not for those blessed by the gods of no crashing) you did crash or got crashed into, not that that will ever happen to said people either. Also by that logic they use they probably dont have house and or contents insurance because of there it just wont happen to me, attitude. I wonder howthe people in CHCH felt after there house was trashed and they reaslised (knew) they were not insured. But wait the good ol government will bail us out a. It was there fault anyway. Again it must be great to have 400k to replace your house if it say. burnt down. Same with cars, its not just accidents that damage them. Ive had two write off claims and both I was nowhere near the vehicle at the time. One stolen, and one smashed up the rear by, GUESS. yes an uninsured driver. Lucky Im insured as I would have had to by a new car. But I paid a few hundred excess and got another. But if you drive a heap I guess it dosent matter or you just dont give a rats arse as getting blood out of stones in NZ is nigh on impossable.
skin1235,
Jan 31, 3:17am
so the issue is the wording of the well used, not new, not flash and 2011 but actually the system that worked for a damm long time until they retired it so they could make more money from a new flash scheme, which is now old hat so they want to rebirth the old scheme on top of the current scheme so they can make even more money it matters jot if it was for personal damage alone or property damage alone or combined back then, they can rehash the words so it is now for property damage only with a couple of search and replace functions - and your rego goes up again, didn't they just finish upping it to cover the ACC shortfall a couple of months back yes in NZ - the welfare state, it should be compulsory, as is ACC would it be enough, would it be functional, would it cover any or all the bases does ACC, will compulsory 3rd party probably not, like ACC, but some protection is afforded, to argue about cost effective or not is not the point or the issue, some cover needs to be in place, voluntarily is not suffice, the innocent need that (partial ) protection forget the new, never been tried claptrap, reinstate the old with some new clauses and gtfoi or GTFOI
gsimpson,
Jan 31, 3:19am
It is more likely to reduce premiums as the load is spread among more people. The majority of drivers do insure their cars and would pay more if the insurers colluded with each other which of course is illegal. It is called competition and of course it pays to shop around. The insurance companies are international and base their premiums on risk. Type of car, risk of theft, where they are located.
taipan4,
Jan 31, 3:24am
doh. ctp compulsory third party, UTP uninsured third party. Tony Rock Horror you & your ilk scare me you are so friggin perfect you think you will never have an accident, hope I never come across you in my LAV .thats a light Armoured Vehicle by the way carries armour piercing shells and 8 wheel drive a real serious piece of kit LOL
tonyrockyhorror,
Jan 31, 3:24am
Seems you think only your experiences are valid. Hypocrite.
tonyrockyhorror,
Jan 31, 3:25am
Really. So where did I say that! Point it out for me.
tonyrockyhorror,
Jan 31, 3:29am
Hope you're insured. Surely a responsible LAV owner would be. "If you don't have insurance you shouldn't be on the road" is your mantra, isn't it!
So I have even less to fear from you. If I was at fault and smacked into you the damage to your LAV would be negligible. But if you crashed into me and it was your fault, your insurance would cover me.
So that all works out. So what's the problem as you see it!
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.