Do we have an excess of road policing in New Zealand?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Do we have an excess of road policing in New Zealand?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 15

199 posts

Master Geek

#1399675 4-Oct-2015 13:41

freitasm: So you think it's fair for a third party to have to pay an excess and lose insurance discount because of your disregard for the social contract?

The insured party doesn't pay an excess in a crash with a UTP unless they're at fault or their insurer determines they share some fault and they accept that determination.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1399677 4-Oct-2015 13:47

MikeB4: Anyone driving without insurance is a bad driver and a bad citizen. Full insurance should be compulsory and penalties for driving without it should include confiscation of the vehicle.

Let's hear an argument that supports that position with reasoning, rather than just an assertion based on nothing but an ideological belief and dogma.

In a crash with a UTP, who is undeniably completely at fault (just to make it easy), how are YOU as a comprehensive policy holder affected in a way that you wouldn't also be affected if that UTP was instead a comprehensive policy holder?

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1399763 4-Oct-2015 18:08

TonyR1973:
MikeB4: Anyone driving without insurance is a bad driver and a bad citizen. Full insurance should be compulsory and penalties for driving without it should include confiscation of the vehicle.

Let's hear an argument that supports that position with reasoning, rather than just an assertion based on nothing but an ideological belief and dogma.

In a crash with a UTP, who is undeniably completely at fault (just to make it easy), how are YOU as a comprehensive policy holder affected in a way that you wouldn't also be affected if that UTP was instead a comprehensive policy holder?

because you as the insured party is still liable for the excess until the insurance company can catch up with the UTP and confirm they accept responsibility for the accident. Then the insurance company chases the UTP for the money.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1399768 4-Oct-2015 18:17

TonyR1973:

If they also chose to not have insurance, which is the only time where that scenario may happen, they would be assuming the risk I might not be able to immediately pay in full, just as I have. Otherwise, it wouldn't affect them as their insurer would be the ones being paid in instalment which doesn't affect them in the slightest.

Ah, so basically your view point is that everyone should have insurance except you. Sounds a lot like how you think all New Zealanders think they are good drivers until they have an accident.

Very selfish of you.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1399770 4-Oct-2015 18:28

Kyanar:
TonyR1973:

If they also chose to not have insurance, which is the only time where that scenario may happen, they would be assuming the risk I might not be able to immediately pay in full, just as I have. Otherwise, it wouldn't affect them as their insurer would be the ones being paid in instalment which doesn't affect them in the slightest.

Ah, so basically your view point is that everyone should have insurance except you.

Very selfish of you.

So you can't offer a scenario where that might be the case?

No, that's nothing like my viewpoint, and I have no idea where you got that from because I've never said anything remotely like it.

But two can play your game.

Ah so you think that you should skirt around your personal responsibility for damage done by your own negligence by engaging the services of trained litigators to try and wear down those who you've caused to suffer a loss into accepting compensation of a lower value than they might be entitled to in the case just for the sake of expediency.

Very selfish of you.

Kyanar: Sounds a lot like how you think all New Zealanders think they are good drivers until they have an accident.

Nothing like that. You've failed to allow for context.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1399772 4-Oct-2015 18:34

Jase2985: because you as the insured party is still liable for the excess until the insurance company can catch up with the UTP and confirm they accept responsibility for the accident. Then the insurance company chases the UTP for the money.

No. Comprehensive policies do not rely on the acceptance of responsibility by a UTP - they rely only on your insurer's view as to responsibility and confirmation that the other party was involved in the event, which they can deny whether insured or not.

jarledb

Webhead
3253 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1399774 4-Oct-2015 18:42

Don't you think that an uninsured drive that would have to pay everything directly out of their own pocket is more likely to want to skirt their responsibility and bend the truth when they are involved in an accident?

The fact that one allows uninsured drivers in NZ is exactly why I have made sure to have dashcams installed in my car, because there is no doubt in my mind that that is exactly what someone irresponsible enough to drive around without any kind of insurance would be wiling to do.

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1399776 4-Oct-2015 18:43

TonyR1973:

So you can't offer a scenario where that might be the case?

No, that's nothing like my viewpoint, and I have no idea where you got that from because I've never said anything remotely like it.

No, that's exactly what you said. You said that in the event of an accident that you can't afford to pay for in full, tough bikkies for them if they have no insurance . That's selfish and irresponsible.

TonyR1973:

But two can play your game.

Ah so you think that you should skirt around your personal responsibility for damage done by your own negligence by engaging the services of trained litigators to try and wear down those who you've caused to suffer a loss into accepting compensation of a lower value than they might be entitled to in the case just for the sake of expediency.

Very selfish of you.

I don't even need to address that, because it's complete bull**** clearly fuelled by your dislike of insurance companies and not by any factual basis.

TonyR1973:

Nothing like that. You've failed to allow for context.

There is no context. If you hit a Maserati you clearly won't be able to pay for the repairs in full. But your opinion is that if the other person doesn't have insurance, then sucks to be them because you can't afford it and you shouldn't have to have insurance. Again, selfish and irresponsible.

Get a pushbike, because with your attitude you shouldn't have a car.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1399785 4-Oct-2015 19:04

jarledb: Don't you think that an uninsured drive that would have to pay everything directly out of their own pocket is more likely to want to skirt their responsibility and bend the truth when they are involved in an accident?

Actually, that's the exact experience I had with a comprehensively insured driver that was completely at fault and did some albeit minor damage to my vehicle. So let's not pretend it's mostly the domain of the uninsured.

jarledb: The fact that one allows uninsured drivers in NZ is exactly why I have made sure to have dashcams installed in my car, because there is no doubt in my mind that that is exactly what someone irresponsible enough to drive around without any kind of insurance would be wiling to do.

Imagine that, "allowing" people to not kowtow to insurance companies if they so choose. What next? Freedom of speech? It's the thin end of the wedge, I tells ya!

Just where do you get off attempting to label people who don't shirk their personal responsibilities by hiding behind big corporations primarily to minimise their exposure to their own negligent actions "irresponsible", anyway?

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1399786 4-Oct-2015 19:12

Kyanar:
TonyR1973:

So you can't offer a scenario where that might be the case?

No, that's nothing like my viewpoint, and I have no idea where you got that from because I've never said anything remotely like it.

No, that's exactly what you said. You said that in the event of an accident that you can't afford to pay for in full, tough bikkies for them if they have no insurance . That's selfish and irresponsible.

If they're make the conscious choice to not insure themselves they must accept that others may do the same thing. Otherwise they're hypocrites.

Kyanar:
TonyR1973:

But two can play your game.

Ah so you think that you should skirt around your personal responsibility for damage done by your own negligence by engaging the services of trained litigators to try and wear down those who you've caused to suffer a loss into accepting compensation of a lower value than they might be entitled to in the case just for the sake of expediency.

Very selfish of you.

I don't even need to address that, because it's complete bull**** clearly fuelled by your dislike of insurance companies and not by any factual basis.

No, you won't because you can't - it's total fact.

Kyanar:
TonyR1973:

Nothing like that. You've failed to allow for context.

There is no context. If you hit a Maserati you clearly won't be able to pay for the repairs in full. But your opinion is that if the other person doesn't have insurance, then sucks to be them because you can't afford it and you shouldn't have to have insurance. Again, selfish and irresponsible.

There's every context. NZers are mostly lousy, oblivious, disengaged drivers. And now you're just ranting about something that has nothing to do with the discussion.

If you wish to drive a Maserati without insurance that's your choice, is it not? So why would you be concerned with other people who also chose to drive without insurance if you weren't a hypocrite? Wouldn't expecting them to have insurance to protect your vehicle not be truly selfish?

jarledb

Webhead
3253 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1399793 4-Oct-2015 19:46

TonyR1973:
Just where do you get off attempting to label people who don't shirk their personal responsibilities by hiding behind big corporations primarily to minimise their exposure to their own negligent actions "irresponsible", anyway?

The thing is, you have to be incredibly rich to be able to not skirt your responsibility if you are actually going to be able to pay up for any damage you make when driving around uninsured.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1399794 4-Oct-2015 19:47

I have edited one post above and warned a user.

1eStar

1604 posts

Uber Geek

#1399803 4-Oct-2015 20:16

I know people who have chosen to self-insure, some in business settings. It makes sense when you start adding up premiums and realise that you are paying a company only to carry risk and make a healthy profit doing so. But it also requires you to take responsibility for your actions. i.e. stuff up = pay up.
Compulsory insurance would only serve to put premiums up.

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1399837 4-Oct-2015 20:48

TonyR1973:
Jase2985: because you as the insured party is still liable for the excess until the insurance company can catch up with the UTP and confirm they accept responsibility for the accident. Then the insurance company chases the UTP for the money.

No. Comprehensive policies do not rely on the acceptance of responsibility by a UTP - they rely only on your insurer's view as to responsibility and confirmation that the other party was involved in the event, which they can deny whether insured or not.

sorry but in my experience, which in the last 2 years has been 3 claims due to other peoples in not at fault accidents, we are still liable for the excess until the other party accepts responsibility for the accident. fortunate for us a simple call to the other party was able to clear this up and our excess was waived. If it went into a situation where they said it wasnt their fault we would still have to pay the excess to get the car fixed, and if down the track the UTP was found to be at fault then we would get the excess refunded.

This can and does result in a heap of wasted time, extra stress, and potentially extra cost in proving fault in an accident. if people had insurance its a lot simpler for the people involved as the insurance companies generally sort it out.

you sound like you are responsible and if you were to have an accident you would be able to deal with it with out to many issues. but others this is not the case, and if they have an accident would struggle to deal with it let alone pay for repairing the other car involved.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1399905 4-Oct-2015 22:49

TonyR1973:
If they're make the conscious choice to not insure themselves they must accept that others may do the same thing. Otherwise they're hypocrites.

I look forward to hearing your view when your car is written off by an uninsured beneficiary driving a $1k bomb. I'm almost certain there will be complaints from you about terrible NZ drivers and no-one taking responsibility, despite the fact that you yourself do not.

TonyR1973:
No, you won't because you can't - it's total fact.

Yes I know it's total fact that you're making it up. There's no point trying to change your mind, in some folks that's like trying to change lead into gold.

TonyR1973:
There's every context. NZers are mostly lousy, oblivious, disengaged drivers. And now you're just ranting about something that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Actually, it's everything to do with the discussion. And it's you that decided to go off on a rant about your dislike of insurance companies in a thread about road policing, clearly inviting a discussion of the topic.

Also, your continuing to go on about context makes no sense. This is a binary topic, context doesn't enter into it.

TonyR1973:
If you wish to drive a Maserati without insurance that's your choice, is it not? So why would you be concerned with other people who also chose to drive without insurance if you weren't a hypocrite? Wouldn't expecting them to have insurance to protect your vehicle not be truly selfish?

No, it would not be truly selfish, it would be a reasonable expectation of a fellow road user. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege that comes with a set of responsibilities. And one of these should be a requirement to demonstrate that either you hold insurance, or can pay in full the replacement cost of the most expensive vehicle on the roads on demand in the event you cause an accident. And even then, what if you damage multiple vehicles in an accident? Because no-one should find themselves without their vehicle or the means to replace it simply because you don't like insurance companies and made a lapse in judgement causing an accident.

The expectation that everyone should have insurance so you don't have to, or accept you paying in $20 a week instalments until the Rapture is simply selfish whether you think you're the most perfect driver that could never ever cause an accident or not.

Someone else commented above that compulsory insurance would result in higher premiums. Now that is a valid concern, and well worth a discussion.

The topic of mandatory insurance has come up before, and I will admit I was once on your side of the argument. However after driving for a while and twice(!) having to call on the insurance company due to not-at-fault accidents (with repair costs already more than my lifetime of premiums to the insurance company might I add) I cannot and will not endorse your position.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 15