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

3325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1006

ID Verified

Trusted

2degrees

Subscriber

#2042719 23-Jun-2018 02:12

Could also be due to glass repair companies taking the piss and wanting to replace whole windscreens every time someone has a small chip. I had them take a look at a chip which had been repaired by a previous owner, and they were very keen to replace the whole screen for free - but I chose not to as it was well below my eye-line, and I figured I'd increase the risk of just creating leaks or not getting a exact like-for-like replacement.

6 years later and I still have the repaired chip... Has been months since I even last thought about it.

Totally agree with an earlier post which spoke to only targeting those with particular cars. Both my cars have rain sensors and it's not exactly like the cost to repair my screen is going up to the point I should have to pay more for the same or less cover.

Benoire

2880 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 689

#2042751 23-Jun-2018 09:46

A change in policy across all the providers would clearly affect my cars; both my BMW 550i and Audi S4 have extensive sensors on the windows, espeically the 550i... that has about 7! I had AA replace the windscreen for free using the policy but it was via BMW and was an official BMW windscreen... Reckon it would have cost over $1000 easily given the issues of replacing the sensors which BMW insist on!

I'd happily pay an additinoal premium on top of free standard glass cover to deal with the fancy windscreens...

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2042766 23-Jun-2018 11:25

CitizenErased:

Why don't they just continue to offer zero excess windscreen cover but put a price cap on it, e.g. $300 or whatever?

Excellent idea! So many features in cars have increased cost of manufacture & insurance yet provided few benefits for the car owner. One extreme example would be headlights. For years many cars such as Valiants, Falcons, and Holdens used 7 inch headlights. If you replaced one with a standard sealed beam type it cost about $7.00. If you wanted something a bit better you could buy a 7 inch headlight with replaceable halogen bulbs - and these were pretty good.

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 945

Lifetime subscriber

#2042781 23-Jun-2018 12:02

Has everybody missed this in release,

While we haven't seen this change implemented across all insurers yet, we believe it is inevitable that a maximum limit will be placed on the amount of windscreen cover unless consumer response to the potential change sees them look for alternative solutions.

Key part, Maximum limit will be placed on the amount of windscreen cover

Doesn’t seem like anything is changing for wind screens without the technology to me.

dacraka

771 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 165

ID Verified

Trusted

#2042794 23-Jun-2018 12:22

With AA I've always had to pay for extra glass cover! I should have been getting this for free??

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#2042823 23-Jun-2018 13:43

dacraka:

With AA I've always had to pay for extra glass cover! I should have been getting this for free??

Joking or serious question?!

Read through the thread - a number of posts, including mine, make it clear nothing is 'free'! Even if it's 'a standard' inclusion in some insurance options (eg, marketed as 'comprehensive' or whatever) you're paying an additional amount for it. As I mentioned earlier, every company I called for a quote provided a price with and without the cover. So, nah, you're not missing out on anything - it's just critical that when getting quotes you compare like with like (as much as is possible...).

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

mattwnz

20523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#2042845 23-Jun-2018 14:34

rugrat: Has everybody missed this in release,

While we haven't seen this change implemented across all insurers yet, we believe it is inevitable that a maximum limit will be placed on the amount of windscreen cover unless consumer response to the potential change sees them look for alternative solutions.

Key part, Maximum limit will be placed on the amount of windscreen cover

Doesn’t seem like anything is changing for wind screens without the technology to me.

From what I heard on RNZ, there is currently one insurer that has brought this in, and it sounds like it is occurring for all windscreens. They specifically mentioned that people with cheaper windscreens are bearing the cost for people with more expesnive ones, and some were 15k to replace. So it sounds like windscreen damage is treated in the same way as damage to any other part of the vehicle from what they were saying, even though a windscreen is very likely to be damaged during a cars life. The other stuff is purely speculation, as no one knows what other companies will do, if anything. But as their doesn't appear to be all that much competition in the market, they will be seeing what consumer reaction will be.

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2043026 24-Jun-2018 00:44

sdav:
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!

What's unusual about expecting the authority responsible for roads to shoulder responsibility for the consequences of their choices?

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2043027 24-Jun-2018 00:46

Given that the "free" cover is actually priced into the annual premium, why not simply raise the premium for affected cars?

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2043029 24-Jun-2018 00:49

Benoire:
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.

Every instance of windscreen stone damage I've experienced has been trucks going the other way flicking up stones. The stones remain for months: the lower speed limits do not.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2043059 24-Jun-2018 09:25

amiga500:

CitizenErased:

Why don't they just continue to offer zero excess windscreen cover but put a price cap on it, e.g. $300 or whatever?

Excellent idea! So many features in cars have increased cost of manufacture & insurance yet provided few benefits for the car owner. One extreme example would be headlights. For years many cars such as Valiants, Falcons, and Holdens used 7 inch headlights. If you replaced one with a standard sealed beam type it cost about $7.00. If you wanted something a bit better you could buy a 7 inch headlight with replaceable halogen bulbs - and these were pretty good.

IIRC the headlight clusters for late model Range Rovers cost about $3,500 each.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2043168 24-Jun-2018 16:35

Fred99:
amiga500:

CitizenErased:

Why don't they just continue to offer zero excess windscreen cover but put a price cap on it, e.g. $300 or whatever?

Excellent idea! So many features in cars have increased cost of manufacture & insurance yet provided few benefits for the car owner. One extreme example would be headlights. For years many cars such as Valiants, Falcons, and Holdens used 7 inch headlights. If you replaced one with a standard sealed beam type it cost about $7.00. If you wanted something a bit better you could buy a 7 inch headlight with replaceable halogen bulbs - and these were pretty good.

IIRC the headlight clusters for late model Range Rovers cost about $3,500 each.

I replaced one in a Toyota Alphard and it was about $3,750 plus GST and fitting...

mattwnz

20523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#2043279 24-Jun-2018 19:55

Geektastic: Given that the "free" cover is actually priced into the annual premium, why not simply raise the premium for affected cars?

good point. But I am guessing there is a good reason for this.

RUKI

1405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422

#2043724 25-Jun-2018 18:36

Some drivers seems to have no respect to others when driving way to fast on the fresh "tar & chip" (aka "metal") roads. 30kmh speed limit is there for a reason.

Toyota / Lexus Hybrid and EV Battery Expert Battery Test & Repair

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#2043968 26-Jun-2018 10:24

I pay AA $50 / year for glass cover.

But a lot of broken glass is avoidable:

1. Cover truck wheels - my two broken windscreens in the past 12 months were both due to large trucks going too fast through road works and firing chip at my windscreen off the top of their tyres.

2. Enforce lower speeds through road works.

3. Clean up the chips left all over the roads. They do damage. Yet other have to pay the cost of the damage.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4