Someone Drove Into My Car

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Someone Drove Into My Car - No Insurance!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Sideface

9355 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1486593 6-Feb-2016 17:54

Geektastic: <snip> Additionally, I would support young drivers being required to have fully comp insurance with medical cover and the ACC should be obligated to sue them for any medical costs they force the public purse to bear as a result of their driving until they have had a full licence for 5 years. <snip>

Wonderful in theory

Unfortunately strict regulations don't always solve problems.

During World War One, in the early days of military aviation, one earth-bound "Colonel Blimp" (who had never even sat in an aircraft and preferred horses) famously issued an edict that pilots were not allowed to crash their 'planes, and would be severely punished for doing so.

He seems to have overlooked the fact that most pilots died when they crashed - aircraft at the time were unreliable wooden death-traps. The odds were much better if you fell off your horse.

Sideface

Ratez

72 posts

Master Geek

#1486595 6-Feb-2016 17:56

Panelbeater quoted 1500 to 2000 to replace my bumper and bumper bar. And this is at low speed.

Wonder how the guy can pay it off when he can't afford insurance. Funny when they asked me about damage on the other person's car because it was totally beat up everywhere already before my accident.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1486615 6-Feb-2016 18:39

While you can argue all you want about 3rd party insurance (and I think this should be mandatory at a bare minimum as well) the insurance industry as a whole is not based on that model.

If you're going to enforce 3rd party insurance are you going to enforce insurance on property as well? The NZFS for example are funded through an insurance levy, so those who don't have insurance don't actually contribute to the NZFS yet a fire engine will still come and put the fire out if your house catches fire.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1486641 6-Feb-2016 20:05

Problem is that compulsory insurance will only affect those who follow the current rules. Those who drive round in no wof, no rego, cars who don't have a valid drivers licence. Are not going to care about insurance, they are already breaking at least 3 rules. They wont care about another one. Then there are those people who do things like swap the loud exhaust, lowering springs, and remove the 5% tints so they can get a WOF. Then put those things back on their car the minute they get a WOF. If Insurance was compulsory, they would just lie to the insurance company to get the cheapest policy possible. Just so they can then get their WOF, Rego ect. When they crash into you their insurance would never pay out. And it won't stop people simply driving away from an accident without giving their details or giving false details. And if they drive an old car that is in really rough condition, it would be almost impossible to prove from the state of the car. If they actually did crash into you or not.

And I don't want to pay extra taxes due to more people being on the dole. Due to them being unable to get to work due to not being able to get insurance. Im talking about those who due to having criminal convictions or being busted trying to commit insurance fraud, cannot get any form of insurance cover. (Yes stupid them for their silly actions). Either the govt would pass a law saying that insurance companies must offer cover to these people. (expensive premiums for everyone else) Or everyone would have to pay more taxes. Paying a little more for insurance is money well spent, to have these people working. Instead of keeping them on the dole. (and probably committing more crime as a result)

And any savings to insurance companies would be eaten up by the need to run another central database that the police can access. And then linking that database to all of the different databases that each insurance company uses. So the Police can tell in real time what cars / drivers have valid insurance or not.

And using compulsory insurance as a means of restricting what cars young people can own would be far better done by simply making a law to that effect. Partly as insurance companies often cant accurately calculate risk for different models Example: Nissan Pulsar, 1.5L Non turbo engine, Automatic gearbox with 4WD. Charged a much higher insurance premium due to insurance company putting it in the same category as the turbo version. Despite that car being slower than the non 4WD version. And there are some older European cars here that were only sold in low numbers. Some are surprisingly fast, Yet the insurance companies probably don't have much data on them. So some people would be able to get cheap insurance despite having a fast car.

deadlyllama

1262 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1486954 7-Feb-2016 13:42

Aredwood:

Problem is that compulsory insurance will only affect those who follow the current rules. Those who drive round in no wof, no rego, cars who don't have a valid drivers licence. Are not going to care about insurance, they are already breaking at least 3 rules. They wont care about another one. Then there are those people who do things like swap the loud exhaust, lowering springs, and remove the 5% tints so they can get a WOF. Then put those things back on their car the minute they get a WOF. If Insurance was compulsory, they would just lie to the insurance company to get the cheapest policy possible. Just so they can then get their WOF, Rego ect. When they crash into you their insurance would never pay out. And it won't stop people simply driving away from an accident without giving their details or giving false details. And if they drive an old car that is in really rough condition, it would be almost impossible to prove from the state of the car. If they actually did crash into you or not.

Absolutely agree. New laws only affect people who follow them. If you're not driving to the conditions with a roadworthy vehicle you're already breaking the law, it's just a law that is impossible to police without hiring the entire population as traffic cops.

And using compulsory insurance as a means of restricting what cars young people can own would be far better done by simply making a law to that effect. Partly as insurance companies often cant accurately calculate risk for different models Example: Nissan Pulsar, 1.5L Non turbo engine, Automatic gearbox with 4WD. Charged a much higher insurance premium due to insurance company putting it in the same category as the turbo version. Despite that car being slower than the non 4WD version. And there are some older European cars here that were only sold in low numbers. Some are surprisingly fast, Yet the insurance companies probably don't have much data on them. So some people would be able to get cheap insurance despite having a fast car.

We manage to do that with mopeds vs motorbikes ... sounds like a pretty good idea! In fact, why not extend it to everyone -- no driving a high powered vehicle without a new class of license with a much more arduous test!

Once the cries of "Nanny state! nanny state!" die down you'll see how difficult this would be in the current political climate.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1487785 8-Feb-2016 22:18

Here is an interesting article for anyone who thinks that accidents in which they are not at fault have no effect on their insurance costs.

This happened in the UK but dollars to doughnuts insurers here won't behave much differently - or if they do now, they will eventually cease when they realise there is extra money to be had.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1487822 9-Feb-2016 07:20

I have a feeling not everything that apply in the UK is mirrored here. Even our big sister Australia do a lot of things differently.

Anyway, i was paying $60 for third party for aaaaaages. And $300 for full insurance.

Until the big quake ... Suddenly it went up 300%. Been at that since. Made lots of fault and no fault claims too.

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1487936 9-Feb-2016 10:52

joker97: I have a feeling not everything that apply in the UK is mirrored here. Even our big sister Australia do a lot of things differently.

Anyway, i was paying $60 for third party for aaaaaages. And $300 for full insurance.

Until the big quake ... Suddenly it went up 300%. Been at that since. Made lots of fault and no fault claims too.

Many insurance companies have global ownership. Also their reinsurers are almost always based in London (due to the world's largest insurance market being there). As I said, if they do not do it now, they eventually will because they will realise that they are missing out on an opportunity to charge more.

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1489920 10-Feb-2016 19:38

I was on the other end of these stories a few years ago - I rear-ended another car. I was on my restricted and had a passenger, so in breach of my licence conditions and therefore my insurer didn't want to pay out (had third party). I gave all my details to the other driver - name, phone number, address - and spoke to his insurer once or twice on the phone, and then nothing. They haven't followed up, chased me for money, sent the debt collectors after me etc. I've since moved but still have the same phone number.

I'm not really sure what happened in the end. The other driver obviously contacted his insurance company, but I figured he must have just worn the excess himself.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1489935 10-Feb-2016 20:01

This is something you definitely don't want to post on the internet!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1489946 10-Feb-2016 20:44

joker97: I have a feeling not everything that apply in the UK is mirrored here. Even our big sister Australia do a lot of things differently.

Anyway, i was paying $60 for third party for aaaaaages. And $300 for full insurance.

Until the big quake ... Suddenly it went up 300%. Been at that since. Made lots of fault and no fault claims too.

Our home insurance took a big hike after the quake.

Car insurance - not so much - perhaps went up 15%. IIRC I pay $280 for the old dunger pulsar for full cover, with $100 excess and glass, but nominated main driver is 22YO son with much higher $1,000 excess. He's never made a claim. About $120 for third party fire and theft for my old truck. SWMBO's car about $250, 22YO not allowed to drive it.

We haven't made an "at fault" claim since the 1980s. Have made plenty of other claims though where the other driver was at fault - and in every single case I recall - they had no insurance.

Last one was an idiot in a commodore, probably about a 2000 model. Ran up the bum of my old Safari. Bonnet was bent like a banana, radiator mashed on the engine, transmission fluid draining on the road, bumper hanging off, front light clusters smashed, both front guards crumpled. First words to me - with teary voice - were "but I don't have any insurance..." The Safari needed one of the rear bumper sides removed, and the bracket holding it straightened. His car was a write-off.

If he'd run up the backside of a Porsche 911, he'd have been in very deep crap indeed.

Ratez

72 posts

Master Geek

#1489979 10-Feb-2016 21:22

Just had my insurance claim approved. Now I have to wait for a time slot with a panelbeater. I learned if I am claiming insurance anyway I might as well go for the best and got the dealership to recommend me. Phoned two different branches and both referred me to the same panelbeater so I settled with them.

4 weeks for a courtesy car... thankfully I don't need it.