New Technology Set to End Free Vehicle Glass Cover for Kiwis

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › New Technology Set to End Free Vehicle Glass Cover for Kiwis

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

2122 posts

Uber Geek

#2041310 20-Jun-2018 19:38

It's an interesting change. I've had seven windscreens in the past five years (lots of driving). I can't stand any kind of blemish on a windscreen either. Maybe it's come from years of wearing glasses and contact lenses!

In fact the current windscreen I got a big chip three days after the new screen went in. I was so annoyed.

Lias

5590 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2041358 20-Jun-2018 21:09

One of my mates has a fancy new ford with a windscreen heads up display and just had to get it replaced.. Smith and Smith took one look at it and said "sorry mate, can't help" and he had to take it back to the dealership.. I'd imagine it's people like him that have driven this policy.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

TLD

902 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2041434 20-Jun-2018 22:51

MikeAqua:

If this happens I will buy a policy extension on the Mazda (sensors etc), but not the Pajero (no sensors).

In the 13 years I've owned my Pajero, I have only had one new screen after a WOF failure. It was total luxury having that beautiful clear glass in front of me. The very next day a truck threw up a stone and chipped the new screen — I felt sick! Years later I have three significant chips in total, but none bad enough to fail the WOF, so no new screen for me. :-(

Trevor Dennis
Rapaura (near Blenheim)

mattwnz

20173 posts

Uber Geek

#2041438 20-Jun-2018 23:23

Lias:

One of my mates has a fancy new ford with a windscreen heads up display and just had to get it replaced.. Smith and Smith took one look at it and said "sorry mate, can't help" and he had to take it back to the dealership.. I'd imagine it's people like him that have driven this policy.

It's the manufacturer though that makes these cars, so not the consumers fault, as we don't know when buying a car if it is going to be expensive to replace teh windscreen. Perhaps the consumer magazine needs to look into this sort of thing. Insurance companies should be complaining to the manufacturers. Or maybe they should have exceptions for certain vehicles that decide to install all this tech onto the glass. Especially as it is a part that is likely to need replacing at some time in the vehicle life. A 15k windscreen in many cases could write off an older vehicle.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2041451 21-Jun-2018 06:58

Meh. "Free" windscreen cover is included in insurance premiums. If it's listed as a separate item or not, the total premium will still be the same.

This sounds more like a marketing tool than anything else... "Our premium* is less than their premium."

* Windscreen, towing, panelbeating, painting cover extra.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2041567 21-Jun-2018 10:34

frankv:
Meh. "Free" windscreen cover is included in insurance premiums.

This is so not my experience when ringing around for insurance for a newly purchased car last December - IIRC, for each company I got a quote from I could elect to either include or exclude windscreen cover, and this always had an impact on premiums - I think this was typically $40-50 pa.

I also don’t recall it ever being described as “free” cover; essentially, I accept that I’m buying out the excess for windscreen glass, much like I have done previously for windows under house insurance (not an option with my current provider) or spectacles (no point these days thanks to Clearly etc!).

Anyway, back to the original issue - I do understand the issue, but agree the hammer to crack a nut approach is unnecessary. I’d be ok about paying an appropriate additional premium to have cover for my windscreen, if the option was completely losing the ability to buy out the excess.

I remember reading about this issue soon after I bought my current car, and contacted my insurance company to ensure I was covered given the number of sensors embedded in the windscreen. I understand one of the issues with this can also be poor reinstallation of sensors, which can kinda stuff up some critical pieces of technology!

Shoes2468

785 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2041569 21-Jun-2018 10:39

jonathan18:
frankv:

Meh. "Free" windscreen cover is included in insurance premiums.

This is so not my experience when ringing around for insurance for a newly purchased car last December - IIRC, for each company I got a quote from I could elect to either include or exclude windscreen cover, and this always had an impact on premiums - I think this was typically $40-50 pa.

I also don’t recall it ever being described as “free” cover; essentially, I accept that I’m buying out the excess for windscreen glass, much like I have done previously for windows under house insurance (not an option with my current provider) or spectacles (no point these days thanks to Clearly etc!).

Anyway, back to the original issue - I do understand the issue, but agree the hammer to crack a nut approach is unnecessary. I’d be ok about paying an appropriate additional premium to have cover for my windscreen, if the option was completely losing the ability to buy out the excess.

I remember reading about this issue soon after I bought my current car, and contacted my insurance company to ensure I was covered given the number of sensors embedded in the windscreen. I understand one of the issues with this can also be poor reinstallation of sensors, which can kinda stuff up some critical pieces of technology!

I totally agree, I have never seen the glass insurance portion as free. In my experience it's always been an additional extra that cost more. Sometimes they have a standard cover which does not include it and a premium cover which includes it and other extras.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

mattwnz

20173 posts

Uber Geek

#2041690 21-Jun-2018 13:54

I think the subject heading for this topic needs correcting and clarifying, as the actual cover/premium isn't free, it is the claim that is currently free, and that was my whole initial point when I initially posted about this. So many people are missing the whole point of this change. So you pay for the windscreen coverage in your premium as either an addon, or it is included with regular coverage, at the moment. But making a claim for a windscreen repair/replacement is free.

This change according to the RNZ story I heard has two major ramifications which are gamechangers, especially if other insurance companies follow suit. Firstly you will have to pay an excess to get it replaced, which could be a large amount depending on your agreement. So it ceases being free when you make a claim. Secondly it sounds like it will also affect your no claims bonus. I don't know if this also means that making a claim will also mean that future premiums could also rise?

I think what I take out of this is that a windscreen won'tbe treated anyu differently to any otherpart of the car being damaged. Even though a windscreen is far more liekly to get damaged from normal everyday driving. I think manufacturers need to take some of the blame for this change, by making such a vulnerable part of the car so expensive to replace due to sensors they are putting into the glass.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2041736 21-Jun-2018 14:46

I don’t think I’m missing the point, but I think many have adopted the terminology the media is using in describing the windscreen as “free”, which is misleading. I’d be interested in seeing if many if any insurance companies talk of providing “free” windscreens, as opposed to terminology such as an excess buy-out.

Eg, here’s a desceiption of my current policy:

Optional benefits with Comprehensive

Windscreen and window glass excess buyout
Your windscreen and window glass claims will be excess free and you'll keep your no claims bonus

https://www.tower.co.nz/car-insurance/comprehensive

I’d be far happier if they increased the additional premium loading for those with expensive windscreens as opposed to stinging policy holders for an excess, which could well come with ramifications for no claims bonus, as you mention...

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2041872 21-Jun-2018 18:25

mattwnz:

Geektastic: The cost isn't relevant to the point. It's not the car driver's choice what the roads are made of. Thus it seems rather unfair that the driver bears the burden of a choice made by the government.

Councils too, as local councils I believe are responsible for the upkeep of local roads, and it seems many local roads are chip.

Agreed.

They seem to get off scot-free in terms of liability, for some reason.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#2041883 21-Jun-2018 18:48

Geektastic:

mattwnz:

Geektastic: The cost isn't relevant to the point. It's not the car driver's choice what the roads are made of. Thus it seems rather unfair that the driver bears the burden of a choice made by the government.

Councils too, as local councils I believe are responsible for the upkeep of local roads, and it seems many local roads are chip.

Agreed.

They seem to get off scot-free in terms of liability, for some reason.

Again, only the higher volume roads (in auckland this is greater than 10K per day) are resurfaced or rehabilitated in asphalt, the rest are chipseal due to cost. As far as I am aware, when a road is done in chipseal a temporary speed limit is in place (i.e. 30kph) for a reasonable duration which if all cars drive at that, then there is no damage from flying chips. If someone else drives through the speed zone at a higher speed and causes chips to fly then your claim should be against the driver that caused the chips to fly up as they where breaching the speed zone. This is well tested in courts as Auckland Transport recieves a large amount of claims from drivers on this very matter and I'm not aware of many sucessul payouts.

If all roads where in asphalt (my preference to be fair) then the rates would increase substantially to pay for this; chipseal generally only lasts a 1/3rd less than an AC14 surface but as said earlier is 4x cheaper.

NZTA are in an even worse position than AT, they have about 11000km of road network (AT has 7600km) of which many routes run through areas with limited population to support the road and with the expanded RONS program (even if curtailed by the current Government) has caused them to change their operation practices for maintenance as they're running out of cash; the waterview tunnel for example has an annual opex cost of ~$20m which caused them to redo a lot of their contracts and reduce funding for local roads etc.

Roads basically have a stonkingly huge subsidy from the rate payers that far exceeds the fuel tax generated by its use and unfortunately NZ has a lot of roads for a very small population.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2041890 21-Jun-2018 19:09

Benoire:

Geektastic:

mattwnz:

Geektastic: The cost isn't relevant to the point. It's not the car driver's choice what the roads are made of. Thus it seems rather unfair that the driver bears the burden of a choice made by the government.

Councils too, as local councils I believe are responsible for the upkeep of local roads, and it seems many local roads are chip.

Agreed.

They seem to get off scot-free in terms of liability, for some reason.

Again, only the higher volume roads (in auckland this is greater than 10K per day) are resurfaced or rehabilitated in asphalt, the rest are chipseal due to cost. As far as I am aware, when a road is done in chipseal a temporary speed limit is in place (i.e. 30kph) for a reasonable duration which if all cars drive at that, then there is no damage from flying chips. If someone else drives through the speed zone at a higher speed and causes chips to fly then your claim should be against the driver that caused the chips to fly up as they where breaching the speed zone. This is well tested in courts as Auckland Transport recieves a large amount of claims from drivers on this very matter and I'm not aware of many sucessul payouts.

If all roads where in asphalt (my preference to be fair) then the rates would increase substantially to pay for this; chipseal generally only lasts a 1/3rd less than an AC14 surface but as said earlier is 4x cheaper.

NZTA are in an even worse position than AT, they have about 11000km of road network (AT has 7600km) of which many routes run through areas with limited population to support the road and with the expanded RONS program (even if curtailed by the current Government) has caused them to change their operation practices for maintenance as they're running out of cash; the waterview tunnel for example has an annual opex cost of ~$20m which caused them to redo a lot of their contracts and reduce funding for local roads etc.

Roads basically have a stonkingly huge subsidy from the rate payers that far exceeds the fuel tax generated by its use and unfortunately NZ has a lot of roads for a very small population.

However for the calculation to be correct, all the damage to paint, glass, wheels and tyres caused by the cheap approach ought to be added to the cost of the road.

At the moment, the government and councils are being subsidised because costs caused directly by their choices are being paid by motorists and insurers...

At the very least, they should have to pay out for all the damage attributable to their work - and that may make asphalt look a good deal less expensive.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#2041982 21-Jun-2018 20:36

Geektastic:

However for the calculation to be correct, all the damage to paint, glass, wheels and tyres caused by the cheap approach ought to be added to the cost of the road.

At the moment, the government and councils are being subsidised because costs caused directly by their choices are being paid by motorists and insurers...

At the very least, they should have to pay out for all the damage attributable to their work - and that may make asphalt look a good deal less expensive.

I'm going to reply to this assuming there is a temporary speed limit in place, say 30km/h. At that speed on a local urban road, if all traffic do this speed at not more then there is very little chance of chips actually causing damage as the energies involved at low. At higher speeds, yes there is a chance esepcially following another car... If drivers followed the road user rules and road code as they are expected to then there generally won't be any damage. The economics are quite clear though when it comes to the cost of infrastructure... I rehabilitated 2kms of road in central london in 2009 for a grand sum of ~$600K, I did 300m of the same quality structural AC in Auckland and it cost me $1m. Its just too expensive due to our supply and demand curve, and even if we did specify all AC then we'd quickly outstrip all supply in a matter of months leaving us doing chipseal.

BTW I do work for AT as the design system owner (i.e. guides, standards, rules, specifications etc.) for the transport network. I do not run the maintenance contracts but I am presently involved their design performance.

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2042021 21-Jun-2018 21:34

Geektastic:

However for the calculation to be correct, all the damage to paint, glass, wheels and tyres caused by the cheap approach ought to be added to the cost of the road.

At the moment, the government and councils are being subsidised because costs caused directly by their choices are being paid by motorists and insurers...

At the very least, they should have to pay out for all the damage attributable to their work - and that may make asphalt look a good deal less expensive.

Having perused Geekzone for some time I must admit, I find your reasoning on issues quite unusual at times!

KiwiSurfer

1464 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2042718 23-Jun-2018 00:56

I recently had AMI pay out a windscreen repair on my car because I had thankfully chosen the add-on. And was easily done at Smith&Smith with them doing the claim to AMI on my behalf. Not a replacement but I assume had a replacement been needed it'd have been sorted out the same way. Quite a nice benefit so I would be quite disappointed if it went away—particularly if it was only to avoid paying claims on expensive types of windscreens when my car has one I assume is cheapish to repair.

Perhaps the insurance companies should raise awareness about the specific types of cars that have windscreens that are expensive to repair. If I knew which sort of cars to avoid I would use that info next time I buy a car. And also varying the amount of the add-on so it is linked to the cost of a typical windscreen repair—basically increasing the price just for customers with expensive windscreens.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4