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
483 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 286

Trusted

  Reply # 1485749 5-Feb-2016 10:52
One person supports this post
Send private message

jonathan18:

 

I don't think that's what they meant - I'm assuming they mean if someone has a full insurance policy on their own car, whether the person who caused the accident has third party insurance or not they'll still be covered for damage to their own car through their own policy. But fair enough point as it could be misinterpreted...

 

 

Except in the UK full insurance is not compulsory, the minimum is third party.

 

And you would want to claim on other person so you don't lose your no claims bonus.

 

 


423 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 391


  Reply # 1485772 5-Feb-2016 11:16
2 people support this post
Send private message

roobarb:

 

jonathan18:

 

I don't think that's what they meant - I'm assuming they mean if someone has a full insurance policy on their own car, whether the person who caused the accident has third party insurance or not they'll still be covered for damage to their own car through their own policy. But fair enough point as it could be misinterpreted...

 

 

Except in the UK full insurance is not compulsory, the minimum is third party.

 

And you would want to claim on other person so you don't lose your no claims bonus.

 

 

 

 

Jonathan18 is correct, I was talking about having a "full cover" insurance policy for your own vehicle.

 

At that point, it doesn't matter what the other party has - you deal exclusively with your insurer and are in no way effected by the "status" of the other party if you can identify them.  (Ie. Whether they are insured, whether they have the financial ability to pay reparations, whatever...)  And even if they're never caught/identified, you're still covered!  ...but you incur the cost of excess as agreed in the policy you chose.

 

If they can be identified (and you're not at fault) you don't pay any excess and don't lose your no claims bonus.  This doesn't change if they have 3rd party insurance, or not.  If they have money or not.  If their car was roadworthy or whether is was a stolen pile of junk crashed by a disqualified driver.

 

Why on earth anyone would want to move to a scheme where you're reliant on "everyone else" being insured in case they crash into you is beyond my comprehension.

 

 

 

EDIT: typo


 
 
 
 


483 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 286

Trusted

  Reply # 1485825 5-Feb-2016 11:55
One person supports this post
Send private message

6FIEND: Why on earth anyone would want to move to a scheme where you're reliant on "everyone else" being insured in case they crash into you is beyond my comprehension.

 

It works in the UK because everybody is insured, and it is the high risk drivers who pay the high premiums.


912 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 222

Subscriber

  Reply # 1485882 5-Feb-2016 13:03
2 people support this post
Send private message

roobarb:

 

It works in the UK because everybody is insured, and it is the high risk drivers who pay the high premiums.

 

 

The NZTA did a study on it a few years ago and found that UK still has around 6% of drivers uninsured, NZ is 7.6% (with a 1.5% maximum margin of error).

 

http://www.transport.govt.nz/land/Vehicleinsurance

 

In my opinion everyone should be insured but it seems that even when it's compulsory people still (stupidly) risk not having insurance.


2082 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 621

Subscriber

  Reply # 1485892 5-Feb-2016 13:37
One person supports this post
Send private message

roobarb:

 

6FIEND: Why on earth anyone would want to move to a scheme where you're reliant on "everyone else" being insured in case they crash into you is beyond my comprehension.

 

It works in the UK because everybody is insured, and it is the high risk drivers who pay the high premiums.

 

 

 

 

My 30 year old cousin pays £ 600pa for insurance on a 1L 2012 Ford Fiesta. Not exactly high risk stuff. I was paying about half that for my 2009 Mazda 3 MPS Turbo in NZ @ age 26. 


10294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3175

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1485935 5-Feb-2016 14:18
Send private message

6FIEND:

 

roobarb:

 

jonathan18:

 

I don't think that's what they meant - I'm assuming they mean if someone has a full insurance policy on their own car, whether the person who caused the accident has third party insurance or not they'll still be covered for damage to their own car through their own policy. But fair enough point as it could be misinterpreted...

 

 

Except in the UK full insurance is not compulsory, the minimum is third party.

 

And you would want to claim on other person so you don't lose your no claims bonus.

 

 

 

 

Jonathan18 is correct, I was talking about having a "full cover" insurance policy for your own vehicle.

 

At that point, it doesn't matter what the other party has - you deal exclusively with your insurer and are in no way effected by the "status" of the other party if you can identify them.  (Ie. Whether they are insured, whether they have the financial ability to pay reparations, whatever...)  And even if they're never caught/identified, you're still covered!  ...but you incur the cost of excess as agreed in the policy you chose.

 

If they can be identified (and you're not at fault) you don't pay any excess and don't lose your no claims bonus.  This doesn't change if they have 3rd party insurance, or not.  If they have money or not.  If their car was roadworthy or whether is was a stolen pile of junk crashed by a disqualified driver.

 

Why on earth anyone would want to move to a scheme where you're reliant on "everyone else" being insured in case they crash into you is beyond my comprehension.

 

 

 

EDIT: typo

 

 

 

 

1) If you claim on your insurance and the insurer cannot recover that cost, your NCB will fall, making your policy more expensive next renewal

 

2) If they have to pay out, your premiums will be affected next renewal because they will likely regard you as an increased risk

 

3) If they can be identified and they have no insurance and no assets, your insurer may still penalise you because they were unable to recover their costs from another party unless (taken from the current AA policy which won't be massively different in most)

 

"Reimbursing your excess"
"We will reimburse the excess for an event if all of the following criteria are met:"
"• you give us the correct name and contact details of the other driver"
"• you give us the correct registration number of the other vehicle"
"• the person responsible confirms their involvement in the event"
"• we agree the driver of your vehicle was not at fault."






866 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 264


  Reply # 1485951 5-Feb-2016 14:35
2 people support this post
Send private message

My brother landed in the Netherlands and tried to buy a motorbike there. Compulsory insurance was a bureaucratic nightmare. You are not allowed to own a vehicle that is not insured, so you absolutely have to have the insurance sorted *before* the ownership is transferred. No "Oh, I'll do it tomorrow..."

 

Probably fine if you buy the car from a dealer, but a right royal PITA for a private sale.

 

3rd party is cheap here, and it has to be because it has the $0 competition of "she'll be right."  Even the ultra-cheap 3rd party I had with my first car came with $3,000 of cover for *me* being hit by a driver with no insurance.

 

The only people who benefit from compulsory insurance are the insurance companies.  If you've got insurance, chasing up the other party is the insurance company's problem.

 

My previous car was written off after a hit-and-run.  No idea who the other party was.  Tower didn't bat an eyelid, they still paid out (but I had to pay an excess and lost my no claims bonus).  I switched to the AA who don't charge the excess/etc if the damage was done by a 3rd party, and offered me a lower premium to boot.




48 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 8


  Reply # 1486118 5-Feb-2016 17:46
3 people support this post
Send private message

The argument for compulsory third party is why do people that buy insurance have to be penalised by those that don't. If someone cannot afford third party then it means they cannot afford to pay someone for their damage anyway. My NCB will be affected plus I may have to pay excess because of someone who doesn't care who he hits.

I don't see the justification behind non compulsory third party.

10294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3175

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1486295 5-Feb-2016 22:19
Send private message

Ratez: The argument for compulsory third party is why do people that buy insurance have to be penalised by those that don't. If someone cannot afford third party then it means they cannot afford to pay someone for their damage anyway. My NCB will be affected plus I may have to pay excess because of someone who doesn't care who he hits.

I don't see the justification behind non compulsory third party.

 

 

 

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.

 

Only that kind of radical change is likely to have any effect on the dire road stats we have, by ensuring that young drivers learn good habits like not having accidents early on in their driving career. It won't do anything for the muppets of a certain age who still think rules do not apply to them - like the guy driving through Martinborough in his Hilux yesterday with no seatbelt, on the phone and two unrestrained dogs in the back....






1527 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 234

Subscriber

  Reply # 1486313 5-Feb-2016 22:48
One person supports this post
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

Ratez: The argument for compulsory third party is why do people that buy insurance have to be penalised by those that don't. If someone cannot afford third party then it means they cannot afford to pay someone for their damage anyway. My NCB will be affected plus I may have to pay excess because of someone who doesn't care who he hits.

I don't see the justification behind non compulsory third party.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Wow....

 

 

 


7216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287

Subscriber

  Reply # 1486315 5-Feb-2016 22:56
Send private message

so holding a liscence for 5 years automatically makes someone a good driver?

 

most of the poor drivers you see are not yound drivers who have just got their licences, most of the ones involved in police chases that end in deaths dont even have licences.

 

i dotn see how what you have proposed will change anything except make it harder for some people to own any form of car, especially those in lower decile areas


10294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3175

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1486560 6-Feb-2016 17:20
Send private message

Jase2985:

 

so holding a liscence for 5 years automatically makes someone a good driver?

 

most of the poor drivers you see are not yound drivers who have just got their licences, most of the ones involved in police chases that end in deaths dont even have licences.

 

i dotn see how what you have proposed will change anything except make it harder for some people to own any form of car, especially those in lower decile areas

 

 

 

 

Nope. The licence would need to be clean for 5 years.






10294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3175

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1486561 6-Feb-2016 17:22
One person supports this post
Send private message

itxtme:

 

Geektastic:

 

Ratez: The argument for compulsory third party is why do people that buy insurance have to be penalised by those that don't. If someone cannot afford third party then it means they cannot afford to pay someone for their damage anyway. My NCB will be affected plus I may have to pay excess because of someone who doesn't care who he hits.

I don't see the justification behind non compulsory third party.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Wow....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely serious. I do not see why the taxpayer should pay for these fools to race around like brain dead imbeciles on public roads. If they want that privilege I see no reason why they should not prove they earned it.






7216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287

Subscriber

  Reply # 1486563 6-Feb-2016 17:22
Send private message

and again thats still doesnt make you a good driver

 

there are heaps of terrible drivers out there that wouldnt have been ticketed for their offences, because the police just dont have the time or resources for that.


Mad Scientist
17736 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2175

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1486581 6-Feb-2016 17:41
Send private message

Or If your father knows Trevor Mallard, you can be caught doing 210+, lie to police and still have a squeaky clean record.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

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 »

Amazon Echo devices coming to New Zealand early February 2018
Posted 18-Jan-2018 10:53


$3.74 million for new electric vehicles in New Zealand
Posted 17-Jan-2018 11:27


Nova 2i: Value, not excitement from Huawei
Posted 17-Jan-2018 09:02


Less news in Facebook News Feed revamp
Posted 15-Jan-2018 13:15


Australian Government contract awarded to Datacom Connect
Posted 11-Jan-2018 08:37


Why New Zealand needs a chief technology officer
Posted 6-Jan-2018 13:59


Amazon release Silk Browser and Firefox for Fire TV
Posted 21-Dec-2017 13:42


New Chief Technology Officer role created
Posted 19-Dec-2017 22:18


All I want for Christmas is a new EV
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:54


How clever is this: AI will create 2.3 million jobs by 2020
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:52


NOW to deploy SD-WAN to regional councils
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:46


Mobile market competition issues ComCom should watch
Posted 18-Dec-2017 10:52


New Zealand government to create digital advisory group
Posted 16-Dec-2017 08:47


Australia datum changes means whole country moving 1.8 metres north-east
Posted 16-Dec-2017 08:39


UAV Traffic Management Trial launching today in New Zealand
Posted 12-Dec-2017 16:06



Geekzone Live »

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



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.