Change to Vehicle WOF's

Forums › Off topic › Change to Vehicle WOF's

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

895 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 689413 21-Sep-2012 13:44

Its hard to say with 6monthly or yearly as I know people that won't look at their tiers/brakes/headlights etc until the next warrant is due even if the said items need replacing.
It could mean more accidents due to these things unless they put the pass score of things like these to a different percentage as they know that the parts will wear out well before the next inspection.

Or maybe they need different levels of warrant 6monthly and yearly with the yearly one needing things to be up to a higher standard to pass.

I agree that 3rd party insurance should be compulsorily, help get some of the Car enthusiast's (boy/girl racers off the streets).
Supporting or not supporting this to me comes down to if you want to have to front things like the excesses if someones runs into your car, one of my insurance company's things that I must supply the person's insurer if I want to avoid paying the excesses initially myself.
I don't know if uninsured is a response they will accept I will have to ask them.

You can also look at it from the uninsured persons point of view, would you want to pay the full costs to fix someones Jag or BMW you ran into.

Dion

mattwnz

15232 posts

Uber Geek

# 689417 21-Sep-2012 13:49

lxsw20: ^ I get what you're saying, but I don't want to be paying in the thousands for insurance. The offset of having to pay your own excess still would work out cheaper than compulsory insurance.

I think it should stay the status quo, the NZ car fleet is pretty old compared to lots of other places. That was a major thing I noticed in the UK, hardly saw any 80's or 90's cars.

Having insurance also protects the younger driver. Otherwise they are likely to get sued by the insurer, or other driverr anyway for the repair, so it is not as though the uninsured driver is saving money anyway. It is likely to end up costing them much much more if they have a crash. I think third party should be part of the licensing fee, as it is part of the cost of owning a car.
I had heard though that insurance companies though don't want compulsory 3rd party insurance, and it makes you wonder why, if it means more money coming into them.

jbard

1371 posts

Uber Geek

# 689420 21-Sep-2012 13:52

mattwnz:
lxsw20: ^ I get what you're saying, but I don't want to be paying in the thousands for insurance. The offset of having to pay your own excess still would work out cheaper than compulsory insurance.

I think it should stay the status quo, the NZ car fleet is pretty old compared to lots of other places. That was a major thing I noticed in the UK, hardly saw any 80's or 90's cars.

Having insurance also protects the younger driver. Otherwise they are likely to get sued by the insurer, or other driverr anyway for the repair, so it is not as though the uninsured driver is saving money anyway. It is likely to end up costing them much much more if they have a crash. I think third party should be part of the licensing fee, as it is part of the cost of owning a car.
I had heard though that insurance companies though don't want compulsory 3rd party insurance, and it makes you wonder why, if it means more money coming into them.

Because clearly their are some drivers you would never want to insure but with compulsory 3rd party they aren't allowed to refuse drivers based on previous record.

mattwnz

15232 posts

Uber Geek

# 689421 21-Sep-2012 13:53

mckenndk: Its hard to say with 6monthly or yearly as I know people that won't look at their?tiers/brakes/headlights etc until the next?warrant?is due even if the said items need replacing.
It could mean more?accidents?due to these things unless they put the pass score of things like these to a different percentage as they know that the parts will wear out well before the next inspection.

Or maybe they need different levels of?warrant?6monthly and yearly with the yearly one needing things to be up to a higher standard to pass.

I agree that 3rd party insurance should be?compulsorily, help get some of the Car enthusiast's (boy/girl racers off the streets).
Supporting or not supporting this to me comes down to if you want to have to front things like the excesses if someones runs into your car, one of my insurance company's things that I must supply the person's insurer if I want to avoid paying the excesses?initially?myself.
I don't know if uninsured is a?response?they will accept I will have to ask them.

You can also look at it from the uninsured persons point of view, would you want to pay the full costs to fix someones Jag or BMW you ran into.

Dion?

What I can see is going to happen is that police are going to perform inspections for some of these things at stop points. And it will mean fines.. So perhaps this is a way of increasing revenue...that is the cynic in me thinking. They probably already do do some of the checks, but I have never had them check my tyres.

Batman

Mad Scientist
21109 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 689424 21-Sep-2012 14:00

How about extending yearly wofs to vehicles up to ten years old

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

mckenndk

895 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 689431 21-Sep-2012 14:02

What I can see is going to happen is that police are going to perform inspections for some of these things at stop points. And it will mean fines.. So perhaps this is a way of increasing revenue...that is the cynic in me thinking. They probably already do do some of the checks, but I have never had them check my tyres.

Tires are already part of their checks I though, don't know how they will be able to check brakes etc, they currently don't have the numbers to be policing it at the moment if you see the amount of cars that are around with only one headlight.

Dion

mattwnz

15232 posts

Uber Geek

# 689437 21-Sep-2012 14:08

jbard: Because?clearly their are some drivers you would never want to insure but with?compulsory?3rd party they aren't allowed to refuse drivers based on previous record.

Legislation could change that. But that is what insurance is, it evens everything out, so you have some drivers who will never have accidents, while you have others who have a lot. SO the total incoming money from premium should more than cover that being paid out in repairs.
But a levy on the licensing , possibly run by ACCs (who are a government run insurer), so private companies aren't directly involved could be an idea. It is the same thing with playing physical or risky extreme sports, you wouldn't probably get private insurance or it would be very high for playing those.
Otherwise ban the bad drivers from the road altogether, unless they have had some decent training. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and peoples lives shouldn't be at risk due to high risk bad drivers being on the roads.

mattwnz

15232 posts

Uber Geek

# 689439 21-Sep-2012 14:12

mckenndk:

What I can see is going to happen is that police are going to perform inspections for some of these things at stop points. And it will mean fines.. So perhaps this is a way of increasing revenue...that is the cynic in me thinking. They probably already do do some of the checks, but I have never had them check my tyres.

Tires are already part of their checks I though, don't know how they will be able to check brakes etc, they currently don't have the numbers to be policing it at the moment if you see the amount of cars that are around with only one headlight.

Dion

Yeap I know, perhaps they only focus on certain things. I expect that will get worse with less WOF's. But I think the fine for not having all your lights may not be that high, compared to say an unsecured load? But the number of vehicles even now that have some sort of problem, broken lights being a common one, is very high.

jbard

1371 posts

Uber Geek

# 689449 21-Sep-2012 14:16

mattwnz:
jbard: Because?clearly their are some drivers you would never want to insure but with?compulsory?3rd party they aren't allowed to refuse drivers based on previous record.

Legislation could change that. But that is what insurance is, it evens everything out, so you have some drivers who will never have accidents, while you have others who have a lot. SO the total incoming money from premium should more than cover that being paid out in repairs.
But a levy on the licensing , possibly run by ACCs (who are a government run insurer), so private companies aren't directly involved could be an idea. It is the same thing with playing physical or risky extreme sports, you wouldn't probably get private insurance or it would be very high for playing those.
Otherwise ban the bad drivers from the road altogether, unless they have had some decent training. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and peoples lives shouldn't be at risk due to high risk bad drivers being on the roads.

I'm not sure how legislation could change it? Either insurance is compulsory or it isn't?

Although you say it should even out it doesn't work like that in practice. If you change someone $10,000 per/year in insurance on a 1995 toyota because they had a few crashes you will get some series bad press. Also their are often caps on the amount insurance companies can charge to protect against monopolies/profiteering (which you would need in NZ as their are so few insurance companies). So the problem you have now is the insurance company is forced to insure customers that are costing it a lot of money. So they simply increase everyone's premiums to pay for these few.

Also the whole ban the drivers is a moot point as the law already covers this. Their are plenty of places you can have an accident without breaking the law, and even if you do it doesn't necessarily mean you should be banned.

lxsw20

2319 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 689458 21-Sep-2012 14:30

Just did a quick quote to see what my car would cost to insure in the UK. Me as a 25 year old male with clean record, car 2009 Mazda 3 MPS. Full comp I would be looking at 1239 pounds a year, that's four times what I pay at the moment yay compulsory insurance.

mattwnz

15232 posts

Uber Geek

# 689459 21-Sep-2012 14:31

jbard: Although you say it should even out it doesn't work like that in practice. If you change someone $10,000 per/year in insurance on a 1995 toyota because they had a few crashes you will get some series bad press. Also their are often caps on the amount insurance companies can charge to protect against monopolies/profiteering (which you would need in NZ as their are so few insurance companies). So the problem you have now is the insurance company is forced to?insure?customers that are costing it a lot of money. So they simply increase?everyone's?premiums to pay for these few.

Also the whole ban the drivers is a moot point as the law already covers this. Their are plenty of places you can have an accident without breaking the law, and even if you do it doesn't?necessarily?mean you should be banned.

I don't think they will get bad press, because the already occurs with things like health insurance. Some people, especially older ones, have to pay many times more because they are higher risk. I think people appreciate that if you have made lots of claims and are higher risk, that you should pay higher rates.
There is competition in insurance with multiple companies(at least mutliple brands), so I don't think any could be accused as being monopolies. But if it is seen as a problem, they could do what they have done with house insurance and have something like EQC which is like the government underwriting the insurance, which is needed as there are places in NZ that are higher risk than others for earthquakes. I don't think at the moment that people pay extra in premiums if they live in a high risk EQ zone, over a low risk zone. But they probably should, and EQC probably balances this out. Some places possibily wouldn't be insurable without EQC underwriting it, and paying out on the first 100k.

mattwnz

15232 posts

Uber Geek

# 689470 21-Sep-2012 14:34

lxsw20: Just did a quick quote to see what my car would cost to insure in the UK. Me as a 25 year old male with clean record, car 2009 Mazda 3 MPS. Full comp I would be looking at 1239 pounds a year, that's four times what I pay at the moment yay compulsory insurance.

It's always been high over there. But their incomes are also higher, as is their fuel. The difference though is that they have a good public transport system. We don't which means that cars are more essential, as you really need a car in NZ to get around unless you are living in the central city.

jbard

1371 posts

Uber Geek

# 689474 21-Sep-2012 14:39

mattwnz:
jbard: Although you say it should even out it doesn't work like that in practice. If you change someone $10,000 per/year in insurance on a 1995 toyota because they had a few crashes you will get some series bad press. Also their are often caps on the amount insurance companies can charge to protect against monopolies/profiteering (which you would need in NZ as their are so few insurance companies). So the problem you have now is the insurance company is forced to?insure?customers that are costing it a lot of money. So they simply increase?everyone's?premiums to pay for these few.

Also the whole ban the drivers is a moot point as the law already covers this. Their are plenty of places you can have an accident without breaking the law, and even if you do it doesn't?necessarily?mean you should be banned.

I don't think they will get bad press, because the already occurs with things like health insurance. Some people, especially older ones, have to pay many times more because they are higher risk. I think people appreciate that if you have made lots of claims and are higher risk, that you should pay higher rates.
There is competition in insurance with multiple companies(at least mutliple brands), so I don't think any could be accused as being monopolies. But if it is seen as a problem, they could do what they have done with house insurance and have something like EQC which is like the government underwriting the insurance, which is needed as there are places in NZ that are higher risk than others for earthquakes. I don't think at the moment that people pay extra in premiums if they live in a high risk EQ zone, over a low risk zone. But they probably should, and EQC probably balances this out. Some places possibily wouldn't be insurable without EQC underwriting it, and paying out on the first 100k.

Yes their are many brands for insurance but these all come back to only a few main companies in NZ.

Now I am not sure on this but my understanding is the government underwrites some insurance because in the case of an earthquake/natural disaster most insurance companies would simply go bankrupt with such large payouts all at once?

This is not going to be the case with car insurance so I see no reason why they would underwrite it?

gzt

10956 posts

Uber Geek

# 689541 21-Sep-2012 16:49

gzt: I really dislike the idea of compulsory insurance. I am fairly sure it will put up prices and costs for everyone without much overall benefit to anyone at all.

mattwnz: If you get hit by an uninsured vehicle, I am sure you will feel differently as it can sometimes leave you out of pocket for at least the excess.

This is the reason I have insurance. Stuff happens and that is what insurance is for.

mattwnz: If the cost does go up, then it is just sharing the cost of that across all drivers, and reflects the true cost of having younger inexperienced drivers on our road, that can cause more accidents.

I can see what you are getting at - but if people want to drive without insurance that is their own risk. Doing so does not impose greater costs on insurance providers.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 689557 21-Sep-2012 17:48

In South Aussie we dont have WoFs... but if you get caught driving a vehicle thats unroadworthy, you're up a creek with no paddle...
Rego includes third party and costs $827 per year for my BMW...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7