Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
1144 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1400013 5-Oct-2015 09:57
Send private message

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..

199 posts

Master Geek


  # 1404726 13-Oct-2015 01:54
Send private message

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.

 
 
 
 


199 posts

Master Geek


  # 1404727 13-Oct-2015 02:07
Send private message

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.

8773 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1404744 13-Oct-2015 07:45
Send private message

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 ....?

1144 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1404796 13-Oct-2015 09:13
Send private message

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 ...


Hmm, what to write...
1020 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 1404806 13-Oct-2015 09:24
Send private message

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


199 posts

Master Geek


  # 1404818 13-Oct-2015 09:55
Send private message

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.

 
 
 
 


199 posts

Master Geek


  # 1404827 13-Oct-2015 10:07
Send private message

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.

14037 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 1404833 13-Oct-2015 10:26
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.  




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

 

 


199 posts

Master Geek


  # 1404844 13-Oct-2015 10:40
Send private message

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.

199 posts

Master Geek


  # 1404858 13-Oct-2015 11:01
Send private message

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.

14037 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 1404878 13-Oct-2015 11:18
Send private message

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




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

 

 


75 posts

Master Geek


  # 1404887 13-Oct-2015 11:24
Send private message

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.

13093 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 1404949 13-Oct-2015 12:06
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.





1256 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1405017 13-Oct-2015 13:48
Send private message

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 | 13 | 14 | 15
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Intel expands 10th Gen Intel Core Mobile processor family
Posted 23-Aug-2019 10:22


Digital innovation drives new investment provider
Posted 23-Aug-2019 08:29


Catalyst Cloud becomes a Kubernetes Certified Service Provider (KCSP)
Posted 23-Aug-2019 08:21


New AI legaltech product launched in New Zealand
Posted 21-Aug-2019 17:01


Yubico launches first Lightning-compatible security key, the YubiKey 5Ci
Posted 21-Aug-2019 16:46


Disney+ streaming service confirmed launch in New Zealand
Posted 20-Aug-2019 09:29


Industry plan could create a billion dollar interactive games sector
Posted 19-Aug-2019 20:41


Personal cyber insurance a New Zealand first
Posted 19-Aug-2019 20:26


University of Waikato launches space for esports
Posted 19-Aug-2019 20:20


D-Link ANZ expands mydlink ecosystem with new mydlink Mini Wi-Fi Smart Plug
Posted 19-Aug-2019 20:14


Kiwi workers still falling victim to old cyber tricks
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:47


Lightning Lab GovTech launches 2019 programme
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:41


Epson launches portable laser projector
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:27


Huawei launches new distributed HarmonyOS
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:20


Lenovo introduces single-socket servers for edge and data-intensive workloads
Posted 9-Aug-2019 21:26



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.