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 | 12 | ... | 15

1402 posts

Uber Geek

#1400013 5-Oct-2015 09:57

I should apologise that my notion about 3-rd party Insurance in someone else's topic about road policing in NZ caused few arguments between boys.

May I suggest another twist to return that discussion back to rails with more geeky flavour? e.g.:

Let's suggest there is enough Police on our roads when accident happens, but what do you think about yours and New Zealand Road Police technical means to establish who was at fault during road accident? I mean - dash cam may not capture everything.

i.e. They do not use (I think) SRS data extraction alongside other evidence to analyse what has happened.

I've done comprehensive research on SRS data extraction and corresponding legislation overseas as well as technical (hardware/software) training and certification aspects involved.
Although SRS data can't serve as the only source of truth - it could sometimes resolve the issue "beyond reasonable doubt".

In brief - there are few metrics among many which are mandatory and acceptable by the courts overseas. Those are recorded in SRS computer few seconds before and after the impact, when SRS (airbags) has been deployed.

I did not find anything in our NZ local legislation about using that data, hence no point for investing quite substantial amount in equipment, license, training and certification for now to do that as an independent contractor here, but possibility of getting all of that equipment / certification is not an issue for me. ROI is currently questionable.

Your thoughts about SRS Data and any other Geeky stuff as a proof of evidence who was at fault (beyond reasonable doubt)?
Perhaps that could be separate thread if there is any interest at all..

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1404726 13-Oct-2015 01:54

Jase2985:
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.

I suggest you should read your policy closely and hold your insurer to it in future. I went into bat for a mate who had an identified UTP hit his vehicle and they wanted him to pay an excess too. He's a bit weak so he did even when I'd pointed out he'd done all that was required for it to be waived according to his policy (you can lead a horse to water, as the saying goes).

Here's the relevant sections from Tower, AA, State and Youi policy documents (not in that order).

Jase2985: 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.

I can appreciate that is appealing for those that wish to not have to deal with it themselves.

Jase2985: 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.

Absolutely. If you're on the breadline and drive daily in peak hour traffic it is probably a good idea. I'm simple vehemently opposed to compulsion.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1404727 13-Oct-2015 02:07

jarledb:
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.

Incredibly rich? I don't think so, considering the average age and value of the NZ vehicle fleet.

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1404744 13-Oct-2015 07:45

TonyR1973:
I suggest you should read your policy closely and hold your insurer to it in future. I went into bat for a mate who had an identified UTP hit his vehicle and they wanted him to pay an excess too. He's a bit weak so he did even when I'd pointed out he'd done all that was required for it to be waived according to his policy (you can lead a horse to water, as the saying goes).

Here's the relevant sections from Tower, AA, State and Youi policy documents (not in that order).

it may vert well say that in the policy, but in my actual experience, they only wave your excess once the other party admits fault. most clear cut cases are sorted out in the first claim phone call as they call the other party to establish fault .If its one of those situations that they dispute whats happened then you are still liable for the excess up until the point where the insurance companies sort it out.

you generally pay the excess to the repairer when you pick the car up, so by the time you make the claim, have the car viewed by the panel beater, then the assessor, then have it fixed, the insurance company has more than likely sorted things already. so you don't have to pay a thing.

how many claims have you had to make? are you basing your comments on recent experience or ....?

RUKI

1402 posts

Uber Geek

#1404796 13-Oct-2015 09:13

TonyR1973:
jarledb:
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.

Incredibly rich? I don't think so, considering the average age and value of the NZ vehicle fleet.

Think about this practical example:
I drive daily my small little old Toyota which may be of not a big value as you rightfully pointed out about NZ vehicle Fleet, but I consider it is mandatory to have 3-rd party insurance.
It is the area where I drive it = the centre of car dealership in Greenlane where I daily see people with lack of driving skills (my two-way dash cam sees and records that now and then) getting on the Gr South Rd for the test drive of Jaguars, Volvos, Suzuki, etc. The price of those cars starts from $20K and goes up to over $150K.

The least thing one would like to be involved in - is arguing who was at fault, making a snob to admit they were and/or paying for someone elses wrong doing.
Different story if you live in the woods, the rare car you see around is farmer's 20 year old rusty car leftovers and the only thing you could possibly bump in is possum ...

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1424 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1404806 13-Oct-2015 09:24

Back in the late 80's I had a colleague who was driving his car (yes semi legally) on an airport apron. He managed to hit the landing gear of quite a large aircraft.... he sure as hell was pleased he had 3rd party insurance.

Matthew

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1404818 13-Oct-2015 09:55

Jase2985:
TonyR1973:
I suggest you should read your policy closely and hold your insurer to it in future. I went into bat for a mate who had an identified UTP hit his vehicle and they wanted him to pay an excess too. He's a bit weak so he did even when I'd pointed out he'd done all that was required for it to be waived according to his policy (you can lead a horse to water, as the saying goes).

Here's the relevant sections from Tower, AA, State and Youi policy documents (not in that order).

it may vert well say that in the policy, but in my actual experience, they only wave your excess once the other party admits fault. most clear cut cases are sorted out in the first claim phone call as they call the other party to establish fault .If its one of those situations that they dispute whats happened then you are still liable for the excess up until the point where the insurance companies sort it out.

In my sole personal case of an insurance claim on a policy I held, which was not a motor vehicle one, I found my insurer, Tower, wished to vary the policy document conditions, to their advantage naturally, but I held steadfast and ended up threatening a complaint to the ombudsman before they relented and paid what they should have 11 months earlier. If you're confronted with that situation where they want you to pay an excess despite you having met the terms of the policy document whereby they agreed to waive it, I suggest you do the same. I've assisted a number of people over the last decade to do exactly this.

Let's not forget insurers aren't Gods with the right to make binding decisions on you - they have no more rights than you or I. If you feel you must have insurance, then study the policy document carefully and apply it so situations. The policy extract above that says they may "choose to waive the excess" or something to that effect, is from Youi. I wouldn't accept that wishy-washy wording. I'm not interested in relying on whims in any written contract!

Jase2985: you generally pay the excess to the repairer when you pick the car up, so by the time you make the claim, have the car viewed by the panel beater, then the assessor, then have it fixed, the insurance company has more than likely sorted things already. so you don't have to pay a thing.

That's fine, if that's how it actually works out. But having met the conditions of the policy there should be no need to do so if asked to.

Jase2985: how many claims have you had to make? are you basing your comments on recent experience or ....?

As above, which would likely amount to involvement in more than the average person and two as recent as this year.

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.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1404827 13-Oct-2015 10:07

RUKI:
TonyR1973:
jarledb:
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.

Incredibly rich? I don't think so, considering the average age and value of the NZ vehicle fleet.

Think about this practical example:
I drive daily my small little old Toyota which may be of not a big value as you rightfully pointed out about NZ vehicle Fleet, but I consider it is mandatory to have 3-rd party insurance.
It is the area where I drive it = the centre of car dealership in Greenlane where I daily see people with lack of driving skills (my two-way dash cam sees and records that now and then) getting on the Gr South Rd for the test drive of Jaguars, Volvos, Suzuki, etc. The price of those cars starts from $20K and goes up to over $150K.

The least thing one would like to be involved in - is arguing who was at fault, making a snob to admit they were and/or paying for someone elses wrong doing.
Different story if you live in the woods, the rare car you see around is farmer's 20 year old rusty car leftovers and the only thing you could possibly bump in is possum ...

Again, that's entirely down to you if you feel it's worthwhile based on all the factors. I too live in Auckland and drive a lot in the central suburbs but to me it still simply isn't worthwhile. I'm sure people worry themselves far too much over events unlikely to ever occur based on the "It could happen" philosophy.

You're obviously as an individual entirely free to spend your money however you see fit - it's really none of my business. I'm simply stating my position. But what is my business is anyone who suggests that I should have to pay for something I don't feel I actually need for any number of reasons just because that's their ideology.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1404833 13-Oct-2015 10:26

I believe insurance should be mandatory in order to drive, that does not imply compulsion as driving cars is not compulsory. I also believe it should be mandatory that any work done on vehicles concerning safety and structural integrity etc should be carried out only by appropriately certified personnel and the
work certified and those certifications carried with the vehicle at all times.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1404844 13-Oct-2015 10:40

mdooher: Back in the late 80's I had a colleague who was driving his car (yes semi legally) on an airport apron. He managed to hit the landing gear of quite a large aircraft.... he sure as hell was pleased he had 3rd party insurance.

It bothers me that people so completely unaware of their surroundings are legally allowed to drive, but I compensate for that to the best of my ability although if I felt I couldn't do so adequately, I'd get some insurance myself.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#1404858 13-Oct-2015 11:01

MikeB4: I believe insurance should be mandatory in order to drive, that does not imply compulsion as driving cars is not compulsory.

The question is how would it affect you if it was compulsory to have motor vehicle insurance as opposed to the current situation? Aside, of course, from the obvious premium fleecing you'd be getting.

Compulsion to do something is still compulsion regardless of whether the underlying reason for that compulsion is optional. It's not compulsory to have an income, but if you choose to it's compulsory to account for it and to pay tax according to the rules.

MikeB4: I also believe it should be mandatory that any work done on vehicles concerning safety and structural integrity etc should be carried out only by appropriately certified personnel and the work certified and those certifications carried with the vehicle at all times.

That's nice. Having experts deciding what's good and what's not certainly helped prevent the leaky homes which had occurred many times previously when amateurs were allowed to build their own homes. Oh, wait...

I equate positions such as yours with turkeys voting for an early Thanksgiving.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1404878 13-Oct-2015 11:18

TonyR1973:
MikeB4: I believe insurance should be mandatory in order to drive, that does not imply compulsion as driving cars is not compulsory.

The question is how would it affect you if it was compulsory to have motor vehicle insurance as opposed to the current situation? Aside, of course, from the obvious premium fleecing you'd be getting.

Compulsion to do something is still compulsion regardless of whether the underlying reason for that compulsion is optional. It's not compulsory to have an income, but if you choose to it's compulsory to account for it and to pay tax according to the rules.

MikeB4: I also believe it should be mandatory that any work done on vehicles concerning safety and structural integrity etc should be carried out only by appropriately certified personnel and the work certified and those certifications carried with the vehicle at all times.

That's nice. Having experts deciding what's good and what's not certainly helped prevent the leaky homes which had occurred many times previously when amateurs were allowed to build their own homes. Oh, wait...

I equate positions such as yours with turkeys voting for an early Thanksgiving.

So we need certified plumbers to do certain work ...... not a lot of plumbing related deaths in NZ
We need certified electricians to do certain electrical work.... what is the death rate in NZ from electrical work.?

Yet we allow any back yard self claimed expert to tamper with the brakes etc on cars and they do have a high death rate in NZ

garyasta

75 posts

Master Geek

#1404887 13-Oct-2015 11:24

My apologies to all previous posters for not reading all the emails on this topic, as there are many varied responses. I would like to make a personal observation.

I've been in the States a few times, as well as UK, Aussie, Japan and Indonesia (these two don't really count, as the people numbers make cars less of a problem), Rarotonga, Tonga, Vanuatu, Mexico.... I think that's about it, and my feelings are that we are the worst drivers in the world (at least the bits I've seen).

I don't think that the numbers of cruisers per head of population has that great an influence on the attitude of drivers on the road. I think that what happens when you are caught breaking the "understood" rules, influences how we drive.

Without going into the rules and processing of each and all countries, i would venture to say that the proverbial "wet bus ticket" attitude by police and courts with regard to misdemeanors of a certain standard (and upwards) in New Zealand leads to a "what the hell" attitude.

If each and every drinking, or drugged, driver spent a few nights in the cells even before sentencing, we might see a change in attitude. Speeding over a certain limit should also have similar penalties.

Many is the time I read of drinking drivers having received a number of convictions without spending any time in the lockup. They are potential murderers of our friends and families and continue to drive on the expectation that they won't get caught or have to pay with their freedom.

I would vote for a more rigid form of sentencing.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1404949 13-Oct-2015 12:06

garyasta: My apologies to all previous posters for not reading all the emails on this topic, as there are many varied responses. I would like to make a personal observation.

I've been in the States a few times, as well as UK, Aussie, Japan and Indonesia (these two don't really count, as the people numbers make cars less of a problem), Rarotonga, Tonga, Vanuatu, Mexico.... I think that's about it, and my feelings are that we are the worst drivers in the world (at least the bits I've seen).

I don't think that the numbers of cruisers per head of population has that great an influence on the attitude of drivers on the road. I think that what happens when you are caught breaking the "understood" rules, influences how we drive.

Without going into the rules and processing of each and all countries, i would venture to say that the proverbial "wet bus ticket" attitude by police and courts with regard to misdemeanors of a certain standard (and upwards) in New Zealand leads to a "what the hell" attitude.

If each and every drinking, or drugged, driver spent a few nights in the cells even before sentencing, we might see a change in attitude. Speeding over a certain limit should also have similar penalties.

Many is the time I read of drinking drivers having received a number of convictions without spending any time in the lockup. They are potential murderers of our friends and families and continue to drive on the expectation that they won't get caught or have to pay with their freedom.

I would vote for a more rigid form of sentencing.

I entirely agree.

From reading the papers and watching programmes such as Police 10-7 etc it becomes apparent that sentencing for motoring offences here is extremely light, even when compared to somewhere like Australia, much less Europe.

Fines should begin at $500 minimum. The fine for running a red light is less than we spend in the supermarket every week. Given that the idea is to cause financial and moral pain, thus reminding you not to do it again (whatever it was) then $500 seems like the absolute lowest.

Repeat offenders should see their cars impounded and sold off, their licences cancelled and have to begin the entire licensing process again as if they were 16.

As for insurance, it is mad to not even require third party. If some bogan on minimum wage smashes into your new Audi or BMW, it will be about 50 years before they can reimburse the repair bill unless they have third party insurance. Why should your insurer have to cover their risk at your cost?

We should also require HGV's to have tachometers in the cab to monitor driver rest, vehicle speeds and so on.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1405017 13-Oct-2015 13:48

Geektastic: Repeat offenders should see their cars impounded and sold off, their licences cancelled and have to begin the entire licensing process again as if they were 16.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, and I'd love to see repeat offenders permanently lose their vehicles. Unfortunately cancelling their driver licence doesn't work as you can often read of people caught (say) driving drunk while their licence is already suspended for repeatedly driving drunk. Other than jail, how do you keep them off the road?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 15