Car insurance for overseas visitor

[318Touring 40]

We've family coming over in a few days from overseas for a quick visit. Naturally we'd want them to lend them the Compact to get around while they're here (2 weeks). However my insurance company, State, refused to cover overseas visitor.

Anyone has similar situation? Any resolution? Can I get separate insurance cover from another company?

Edited December 14, 2008 by 318Touring

[RvT 9]

I stand corrected if i am wrong, but I thought insurance companies insure the car, not the driver. Unless you have a bad record or a younger driver, I was sure this is the situation. The only condition is that the driver of the car has to have a current driving licence (maybe NZ?).

If you can only insure yourselves, what happens when you selling the car, someone crashes the car during a test drive, you have no insurance suddenly?

I am with AMI so State may have different rules?

[*Glenn* 854]

I get insurance when I go to Aussie or the States with the rental companies using my NZ licence. Why should it be any different. Check with your insurance company again. See if you can add them as named drivers...giving their ages and overseas licence numbers.

However they might be reluctant if they come from a country that drives on the opposite side of the road

Edited December 14, 2008 by *Glenn*

[318Touring 40]

That's the whole point that unless the driver has the correct license type State won't want to know (NZ license).

Obviously an overseas visitor will only have International Driving Permit from the country of origin, which State won't recognise.

Edited December 14, 2008 by 318Touring

[*Glenn* 854]

If they wont do it...organise a cheap rental for them

[westy 614]

Did you talk to the manager or the call centre git?

And how much insurance do you have with them?

[318Touring 40]

Thanks all.

I'll have a more 'earnest' discussion with State with emphasis on the amount of business I have with them.

There is virtually no difference between driving here and where my visitor's from. Except for our give-way to the right rule.

[Fen 0]

I still have no NZ license (driving on my UK one as long as I can; it has already saved me 35 demerits) and nobody has complained when I have insured my cars - same for my wife. I'm not with State though.

Got to love that give way to the right rule. As with a number of things here I suspect nobody really understands it. There was a whole page in the local rag when we lived in the Hutt devoted to explaining it with diagrams, 2 of which contradicted each other. I just assume it's never my right of way

[westy 614]

I just assume it's never my right of way

The only way to drive in NZ.

[318Touring 40]

Gosh, never really trust advice from call centre staff!

Went to State's office in Willis St, and they said it's OK as long as the driver is over 25 with a suitable IDP type.

I'll need to thoroughly brief our visitor with driving through a roundabout especially when there are cars waiting at all sides, and nobody dares to make the first move.

[martyyn 2]

I think I was on my UK license for about 18 months when we first got back. Ive had friends over from the UK and never had any trouble putting them on my insurance. I was with State at the time too.

I still dont understand the benefit of the 'give way to the right turning traffic' rule. There are too many places in Wellington where it just blocks the entire road and I doubt it would cause too much trouble if they just dropped it altogether.

[Fen 0]

There IS no benefit to it, that's why.

I don't know if it's correct, but my wife showed me something in one of the papers recently which claimed that everybody bar the government (so that's AA, Police etc.) want to change it and that it was based on something they used to do to speed the flow of trams in Melbourne or somewhere in Aussie and that the scheme they copied was revoked years ago as it didn't work.

It might be of some benefit if everyone used it, but when I'm turning right I always have to wonder if someone turning left is going to honour the rule or not, which means we usually both pretty much stop then I go as technically I'm allowed to go first. The other good alternative is when they left turner stops and starts gesticualting a me to go whan I can't as someone is going straight on from behind them, and when if I understand correctly it's actually their right of way.

Add in the number of toursists driving who ALL come from countries without the rule (as nowhere else uses it) so possibly don't even know it exists and it's a recipe for disaster.

Regardless of the intent it simply cannot work as it's a rule with far too many exceptions and conditions that modify it. Road rules need to be simple, otherwise they are dangerous. If it isn't a good rule then it's a bad rule.

Sorry to rant - I love it here and there isn't much I don't like, but that stupid, assinine, ludicrous rule is right at the top of the list.

[darkwolf 0]

stupid, assinine, ludicrous rule

QFT

I was reading somewhere (long time ago) that we are the only left hand side of the road driving country in the world to (still?) use this rule. Hell we kicked out School C because we it wasn't broken. This one is broken and we won't fix it.

[westy 614]

You've all seen how badly the morons out there dealt with the change in indication at roundabouts.

Just imagine what changing the right hand rule would do!

[my_e36 43]

I'll need to thoroughly brief our visitor with driving through a roundabout especially when there are cars waiting at all sides, and nobody dares to make the first move.

My AA instructor told me when this happens, signal the next driver (1 exit clockwise from you) to move. When he/she does, then you can safely proceed as the last driver (1 exit anti-clockwise) would have to giveway to that person.

[my_e36 43]

You've all seen how badly the morons out there dealt with the change in indication at roundabouts.

Just imagine what changing the right hand rule would do!

yeh, and people signal right to go straight, and turn right from middle/left lane on roundabouts. WTF?