Given that it's cheap in NZ as it doesn't need to include the personal injuries components (ACC covers that), why shouldn't it be compulsory!
I guess the views of readers on here will be colored by whether or not they've ever been hit by an uninsured driver or not.
There is a view that each of us should insure ourselves against being hit by the uninsured but that's basically accepting that we should take the risk for other drivers.
Also, what about the damage to public roadways and private properies - do you think that this alone is reason to make 3P compulsory here!As far as I can see, NZ is the only country in the commonwealth that doesn't have compulsory 3P - in UK they seize your car if you get stopped without it!
bellky,
Jan 30, 8:49pm
not me, and no, and no
vtecintegra,
Jan 30, 8:50pm
I don't think it'll make any difference
Having a drivers license and a warranted (and warrantable) and registered vehicle is compulsory too but there are thousands of people lacking one or all of those on the road.
owene,
Jan 30, 8:51pm
It'd be interesting if each poster here were to first state whether or not they personally have 3P insurance and whether or not they've ever been damaged by an uninsured one.
vtecintegra,
Jan 30, 8:57pm
Full insurance.
I've been hit once by and insured driver (their fault) and made a couple of claims for damage done to my car while its parked (who knows if the other parties had insurance, they didn't stick around to pay up)
liggy2,
Jan 30, 8:58pm
Of course it should and should be enfoced so when you get rego you dont get one without it.
intrade,
Jan 30, 8:59pm
i seen a program on tv about the pommes they got no insurance and get there cars impounded. in germany switzerlandyou dont even get numberplates without insurance first. thats the only way how to make sure everyone with a numberplate has insurance. also while we would have this system they could change to that you can fit your numberplate to 2 cars , but i guess everyone would then try to drive 2 cars with 1 plate each= not legal you could only drive 1 car and insurance is on both cars but only slight bit higher as only 1 car is in use at anyone time.
modie61,
Jan 30, 9:02pm
Fully insured here and never been hit by an uninsured.
taintedkitten,
Jan 30, 9:04pm
You say that 3rd party is cheap, but imagine if it was compulsory, then prices would no doubt sky rocket as they can get away with it. I remember my mate from overseas complaining about the price of insurance where it's compulsory there.
vtecintegra,
Jan 30, 9:05pm
I can walk down my street (suburban Wellington) and count at least 5 cars with lapsed registrations. These are probably the exact same people who are currently uninsured
intrade,
Jan 30, 9:06pm
Here is what i think will happen if we get compulsury third party insurance. We already have the worlds Highest prices for food. and then car ownership with insurance We will be also the worlds most Expensive country to own and use acar just like what is going on with food here. This country cant make sensable price rises its always non and then 20 times more at once. My australian mate said we had way to cheap car licensing back when it was round 200$ for diesel and now its almost 700$ from one secound to the next they increasedlike this.
net_oz,
Jan 30, 9:39pm
What a load of crap.
elect70,
Jan 30, 10:13pm
Im all for it after a solo mum (with kid in the car ) with no insurance t boned my van running a red light . Insurer said waste of time trying to get any $as she was on the DPB & car had no WOF .So i claim on my insurance & pay for a rental for 3 weeks , slag .
poppajn,
Jan 30, 10:38pm
Yes, make it part of the rego cost.
r15,
Jan 30, 10:41pm
if it were compulsary the prices would skyrocket.nz market is too small and we always end up shafted.
though i still hate uninsured drivers
owene,
Jan 30, 11:10pm
Yes but remember that 3P in every other country includes cover for personal injury which makes up 95% of the total 3P claims. In NZ the ACC cover takes care of that so NZ 3P doesn't pay out for personal injury.
shelleigh,
Jan 30, 11:21pm
That would really p me off! People who choose to be uninsured should have to pay the full cost. I hope she was able to be charged for running a red light, especially when she had a child in the car!
richardmayes,
Jan 30, 11:27pm
Yes 3rd party should be compulsory unless you can show you have comprehensive cover.
Those who are saying it would be is "too expensive" might like to think about how expensive it's going to be if you are uninsured and you have an at-fault crash with someone else's vehicle - especially as that vehicle may be much more expensive than your own!
Banks require you to have insurance on your home before they will let you take out a mortgage against it. This requirement hasn't yet caused the sky to fall in.
fordcrzy,
Jan 31, 12:14am
the problem is that the "new" group of people who would be entering the system are the ones that are the most risky.you know the type.bad drivers with no money and a string of drink driving convictions. beneficiary mums still driving on a learners after 10 years etc etc.
so of course CTP insurance will baloon the total insurance pool.
owene,
Jan 31, 12:24am
Agree. But the type of person that drives without 3P is also the type that will have nothing to pay for the damage to your vehicle.
owene,
Jan 31, 12:26am
I assume that you're saying the total numbers of insured would increase! Would that be problem and if so, why!
saffa2,
Jan 31, 12:26am
Not true, some just don't like the insurance game,I have three uninsured vehicles and the ability to pay IF I cause an accident.
owene,
Jan 31, 12:28am
True. But it seems bizzare that people driving round in $5,000 vehicles are arguing that for the cost of a tank of fuel, they can't afford 3P (not fully comp) insurance!
fordcrzy,
Jan 31, 12:29am
no i meant that because the extra number of people (who are generally a bad risk) would increase the insurance money REQUIRED to run the system and thus would increase the cost more than simply adding more "normal" insured drivers would. if that makes sense
fordcrzy,
Jan 31, 12:29am
no i meant that because the extra number of people (who are generally a bad risk) would increase the insurance money REQUIRED to run the system and thus would increase the cost more than simply adding more "normal" insured drivers would. if that makes sense
eg adding 10% normal drivers needs 10% extra funding. but adding 10% CTP muppets would probably need 25% extra cash for all thier claims/risk
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.