OK what about these scenarios. Who is liable. leading or following?
1. Someone cuts in front of you then brakes suddenly. 2. The person you hit is themselves reversing out of a driveway or carpark 3. The person stops suddenly on the harbour bridge to take some photos :)
socram,
Feb 5, 6:05pm
1) You may well be in the clear theoretically - but proving it may be a problem! The onus is on you to back off promptly if some clown cuts in. 2) Again, theoretically, you are in the clear, but once again, you have to look ahead and identify potential hazards BEFORE they become a problem. 3) As above, but you are still at fault because you didn't leave them enough space to stop.
You always have to expect the unexpected. and assume everyone else on the road is a totally unpredictable blind idiot.
Apart from forces of nature creating a landslide or a tree crashing down, just about all accidents can be attributed to human error of one sort or another, except possibly metal fatigue or a component failure of some sort.
tibby1947,
Feb 5, 6:20pm
No insurance in UK = jail time. Far more serious than no wof or rego, however 1,000's still ignore it but once caught spend time behind bars. Also I agree with compulsory insurance as the cost would prevent young ones buying old BMW's or other dilapidated speed machines.
trumptrader,
Feb 5, 6:27pm
I cant understand why it isn't compulsory ? shouldn't the government be protecting the people. Just seen some young girl's car get smashed into on police 10 7, no doubt she will never receive any money from the idiot who rammed her car onto the side walk.
motorboy2011,
Feb 5, 7:01pm
my mate had his gfs ex following him so he slammed on the brakes, her ex hit him. End result, my mate got done for careless use, the ex got done for failing to keep sake distance or some similar charge
gammelvind,
Feb 5, 7:05pm
I for one am quite happy that it isn't compulsory, if it were the price would increase horribly because we have to have it the insurance companies would and will take that as an opportunity to wrought us. I have full insurance and am fully prepared to loose my excess if necessary. The government does cover our health and accidents via ACC our property is our own concern. If I hit an uninsured driver, I am covered, my insurance pays their repairs, if they hit me I am covered (maybe loose excess) and my insurance company takes them to the cleaners. A NO vote here for compulsory insurance.
skygone1,
Feb 5, 8:01pm
and if an uninsured car hits you then you pay the excess to have your car repaired
dbolton,
Feb 5, 9:00pm
If the insurance company identifies the driver and they make reparation for the accident damage then. as in my case the insurance company reimburses the excess. AMI did this for me.
aredwood,
Feb 5, 9:02pm
So if a law gets passed requiring compulsory 3rd party car insurance. What happens to those who can never get insurance due to things like criminal convictions or busted making false insurance claims? Either the govt passes a law saying the insurance companies must still offer them cover. meaning they have to increase premiums to cover the extra claims. Or there will be alot more people on the dole. Who can and want to work. But cant because the only way they can get to work is by driving. And then there are those who don't care about the current laws. They aren't going to care about any new laws either.
So we would end up with higher premiums. Winz giving grants to people just to pay for insurance. The insurance will be like a tax increase to people on low incomes. So some will decide that they will be better off on the dole instead of working. It will end up as another case of privatising the profits. And socialising the losses.
Another NO vote for compulsory 3rd party insurance.
saltoftheearth,
Feb 5, 9:34pm
Thanks everyone for the replies. The damage to the late model Hyundai was fairly minimal and since my daughter is about to go for her restricted and begin schooling at CPIT the person in the other vehicle was happy to put me down as the driver and I'd take the wrap. I posted this question because in my 45yrs of driving I have never had an accident or made an insurance claim. I'm a truck driver and motorcyclist and have been for many trouble free years and though my slate may no longer be clean this I will do for my daughter as it was an accident. The person pulled out from the giveaway my daughter then looked right to see the way is clear as she drove off the person in front braked thinking a vehicle was approaching and my daughter unintentionally gave them a sharpe nudge. All the same she doesn't get off lightly as she will be paying for the repairs and maybe she will now be a bit more focused when driving. Thanks again y'all
sw20,
Feb 5, 9:36pm
Have fun if your insurance company ever finds out you made a fraudulent claim.
Won't be so nice if the house insurance gets cancelled and the bank calls in the loan on the uninsured house.
nightboss,
Feb 5, 9:36pm
There is no such offence.
bumfacingdown,
Feb 6, 5:59am
It goes from bad to worse
lookoutas,
Feb 6, 6:17am
There are some things you shouldn't put in writing.
reb53,
Feb 6, 6:28am
"Saltoftheearth". I would delete that last post before the wrong person sees it and follows up on it. If it's any consolation your daughters accident sounds exactly like my first ever little fender bender.
berg,
Feb 6, 6:34am
Goes from "will daughter have to pay" to "I've just admitted insurance fraud"! No wonder this country is screwed Edited to add, and, you have failed to teach your daughter that actions have consequences. She's a big girl, let her accept the consequences of her own actions rather than covering up for her.
skyblue17,
Feb 6, 6:54am
No wonder she didn't have insurance. Intelligence is hereditary.
berg,
Feb 6, 7:08am
Hopefully she wasn't breaching her learner license conditions as well!
lusty9,
Feb 6, 7:12am
yes OP your girl would have to pay the full repairs of the damage. And since your admitting to fraud, you are stupid and a bad role model. Both you and the other driver. I wonder why our premiums keep going up and up.
gsimpson,
Feb 6, 7:17am
A crash in Queenstown where a bus ran up the rear of a rental car that braked very hard and stopped for a duck walking across the road. The police fined the car driver.
socram,
Feb 6, 7:55am
A very good post and some pertinent points. If they brought in a compulsory rule overnight, your post is spot on inasmuch as many people wouldn't be able to afford insurance. So look a few years ahead. If it was phased in over a period of say 5 years, then youngsters at 16 with no history, civil or criminal start with no baggage and third party only on a modest car would be affordable. People have to learn that criminal offending has long term consequences so there is very little sympathy on that score.
Tough for the first year or two until they have built up a clean driving history I admit, but that has always applied in the UK. What it does do is force them into cheaper unmodified cars until such time as they have matured a wee bit and can afford something bigger/faster. To those who say that we'd be putting our kids into less safe small cars, I'd rather the young hoon element who cause the problems, were in the smaller slower cars thanks!
As an old fart, I know I shouldn't hark back to a distant age, but car ownership was just not possible for many until they hit an adult wage at 21. Bradfords scrapping of youth rates has exacerbated the problem of people believing they have a divine right to own and run car at 16 - without insurance.
Tough. Pushbike, or public transport (we had no family car) to age 16 when you could get a motorbike were the only options, 17 for a car licence then and now. Sadly, NZ seems to have priced out bike ownership for everyone, which is a crying shame, as it is on two wheels when you really learn to look ahead and learn to read the road conditions. Better a 15/16 year old on a bike than a fast car to get to work.
gazzat22,
Feb 6, 8:01am
If the damage was minimal why dont you just pay for the damage instead of making yourself and your daughter criminals!
kindajojo,
Jul 5, 3:58am
If she was in a learners licence . then the supervising driver is the one responsible. as she legally cannot drive on a learners licence by herself. to allow that would be stooooppppidddd. but please don't say she was driving on a learners licence with no full licensed driver in the car.
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.