"My Family"

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2957]

If the driver didn't have insurance then he/she is f**ked! And good too, maybe they will learn.

Not sure this happens though does it? They go to court, plead poverty, wife & kids to support, etc. no real assets - Judge says: "ok pay it off at a dollar a week for the next 1.2million weeks"

If people can't afford insurance, then how can they afford to pay off the cost of the damage?? Very hard to get costs back from people that have no money.

NOTE: not saying that this is the case here, but I have come across this several times.

[Apex 693]

If the van not insured, be a nice debt for the rest of their lives, will never be repaid in full.

Funny, happened to me a few months back, I was making a delivery and giving my Targa Megane RS a run when a women pulled out of a driveway without looking right, she collected me and sent me backwards into on coming traffic.

She wrote off three cars off including mine without going faster than 15kph and cost herself well over $60,000 as she did not have insurance that would have probably cost her $200 a year. I didn't get a an apology or are you O.K, she was more concerned about the cops turning up and how much it would likely effect her benefit.

Compulsory insurance is a good idea, even if the government pays for it for the poor, will save them money in the long run.

[deeveus 81]

Compulsory insurance is a good idea, even if the government pays for it for the poor, will save them money in the long run.

Agreed, like Australia which has 3rd party built into your registration.

[yng_750 247]

seems those photos have made it to wreckedexotics.com

[Apex 693]

I'm sorry but its a 996 and its yellow. Is anyone actually sad?

[westy 614]

I dunno, the government compelling you to do something rather than just being responsible for your own actions seems a bit PC to me.

It's up to the individual to make sure they're protected, not the nanny state.

I agree with this 100%.

And I don't know why people continuously demand compulsory cover. If you have something worth insuring, a comprehensive policy covers it. Where's the problem?

[Nobimmer 694]

Compulsory insurance is a good idea, even if the government pays for it for the poor, will save them money in the long run.

Yo Dawg, I heard you like money, so heres some money to pay for some money which you will probably owe some day.

F that.

[Dyl 4]

How did I mnage to escape every photo... nice work Josh!

[hybrid 1043]

How did I mnage to escape every photo... nice work Josh!

All credit to Sam

[Guest Ari Gold]

You were more concerned with buying M3 bits

[my_e36 43]

I agree with this 100%.

And I don't know why people continuously demand compulsory cover. If you have something worth insuring, a comprehensive policy covers it. Where's the problem?

It's not the people that insure their stuff, it's to do with the people that don't own up when incident happens. For some insurer, it's up to the policy holder to prove the other party is at fault and get them to admit it. Maybe we are hoping compulsory cover will change this.

[jeffbebe 1559]

I dunno, the government compelling you to do something rather than just being responsible for your own actions seems a bit PC to me.

It's up to the individual to make sure they're protected, not the nanny state.

Compulsory 3rd party is about protecting other people not you. NZ has ridiculously high mortality rate on the roads per capita for under 25s. Compulsory 3rd party insurance and raising the driving age would help prevent this. Means fewer crazy children driving way-too-fast cars. When I was a kid growing up in the UK the only cars I could afford to insure were under 1.2L with a top speed of around 95kms. I still had an almost fatal crash at 17. Count myself very lucky I wasn't in some Japanese 2L turbo, as I probably wouldn't be here now.

In other news, at least there is one less ugly lemon yellow Porsche on our roads.

[Apex 693]

Exactly. If they have insurance your company contacts their company problem sorted, you don't have to pay out your excess to cover costs of fixing your own car.

If a privet party has no insurance and does not admit liability you have to pay your excess to have your car repaired because they drove into you, it just gets messy on all accounts. Its a case of being a responsible human and not taking a typical low life Kiwi attitude.

The filthy whore that hit me went AWOL for 6 weeks and my claim took about the same amount of time to get sorted. Fancy six weeks without car?

Compulsory insurance would also worm out people who should not be driving, no licence, no insurance, no registration. No low life on the road ready to drive into us and take the stand point that its not my fault.

I am a "at risk driver" and my 3rd party is still only $200 a year on my sub $5k daily driver, there is no excuse for not having it.

[westy 614]

Well, if you guys want to pay double for your insurance premiums rather than the odd excess, then go for your life.

Personally, I'm tired of being expected to take responsibility for other peoples short-comings. Since when was it the Govt job to run our lives? FFS.

[Apex 693]

By them not having insurance and you having full comprehensive you are taking responsibility for other peoples short comings.

Compulsory and regulated insurance would lead to a massive influx of people buying insurance and would bring prices down and lower premiums? Maybe not, I know its no cheaper in Australia or Europe.

Picture say you finish your project after pouring thousands of hours and dollars into it only to have it written off by your insurance company because the party that hit you was uninsured meaning your company cannot recover costs from them so will offer you a low ball amount minus your premium costs and minus your excess and leave you with f**k all and an unregistered car than you can no longer use or compete with? Maybe you would think differently then? Possibly not.

[jeffbebe 1559]

By them not having insurance and you having full comprehensive you are taking responsibility for other peoples short comings.

Compulsory and regulated insurance would lead to a massive influx of people buying insurance and would bring prices down and lower premiums? Maybe not, I know its no cheaper in Australia or Europe.

Picture say you finish your project after pouring thousands of hours and dollars into it only to have it written off by your insurance company because the party that hit you was uninsured meaning your company cannot recover costs from them so will offer you a low ball amount minus your premium costs and minus your excess and leave you with f**k all and an unregistered car than you can no longer use or compete with? Maybe you would think differently then? Possibly not.

+1 Agreed!

Yeah... I don't really get the issue. Do those of you that think compulsory third party (not comp cover, just third party) insurance is somehow threatening our civil liberties also object to compulsory vehicle safety testing? We all have to register and warrant our vehicles so there is a record of them and that they are roadworthy. Or do you view compulsory vehicle testing to help prevent injury and death on our roads, as taking away our civil rights too?

Third party insurance protects the people you crash into, not you. If you don't care if your vehicle gets wrecked and you get no compensation that's your business but if you wreck mine as well and have no insurance and no money to pay then we've got problems. IMO you should not be on the road if you don't have cover to pay for damage to other people's property that you might cause.

I'm not suggesting you're a risk, simply that accidents do happen.

[hybrid 1043]

End of the day, other people are insured and if your not .. you have to pay. lesson gets learnt the hard way.

Its when people who cause accidents ask for the person who is insured not to contact the police or insurance company because theyre not insured... errr people can get **** with that s**t.

[westy 614]

Some of you seem to have a misunderstanding of what CTP is in Aus. It is a liability insurance. NOT a property insurance.

Visit My Website

CTP insurance indemnifies vehicle owners and drivers who are legally liable for personal injury to any other party in the event of a motor vehicle accident. Your CTP insurance will cover you for personal injury caused by, through or in connection with directly driving the insured vehicle in incidents to which the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 applies. It will cover you for claims made against you by other road users such as drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and pillion passengers.

We have ACC for this, payed through Relicencing and fuel excise tax.

[NZ BMW 368]

+1 Agreed!

Yeah... I don't really get the issue. Do those of you that think compulsory third party (not comp cover, just third party) insurance is somehow threatening our civil liberties also object to compulsory vehicle safety testing? We all have to register and warrant our vehicles so there is a record of them and that they are roadworthy. Or do you view compulsory vehicle testing to help prevent injury and death on our roads, as taking away our civil rights too?

Third party insurance protects the people you crash into, not you. If you don't care if your vehicle gets wrecked and you get no compensation that's your business but if you wreck mine as well and have no insurance and no money to pay then we've got problems. IMO you should not be on the road if you don't have cover to pay for damage to other people's property that you might cause.

I'm not suggesting you're a risk, simply that accidents do happen.

I actually do - I also think the level of ACC levy in the registration fee is outrageous for a system which should be covered by private insurance. I also think having to have a WOF is a bit of a joke, there are plenty of states in the US which don't have that requirement. I would prefer that you had to operate a vehicle that was in a "fit state" or something similar and let the police issue fines and fix orders for any issues they find in inspections.

I guess it's just a matter of where the line ends but for me compulsory insurance is the same as saying we're going to nationalise all the fast food outlets and only allow people a certain allocated amount of bad for you food because we know that would cut the incidence of heart disease and diabetes, which would be good for our society. I don't think there is anyone who would say that if we as a nation improved our diet we wold be healthier.

We could also implement compulsory exercise sessions for the entire population each morning in public spaces.

Or we could limit the speed of cars electronically because no one needs a car that goes more than 100km/h.

I obviously draw the line further back on where personal responsibility begins and I know those are kind of extreme examples, but I value the ability to make right or wrong choices and the responsibility to live by them.

[jeffbebe 1559]

I obviously draw the line further back on where personal responsibility begins and I know those are kind of extreme examples, but I value the ability to make right or wrong choices and the responsibility to live by them.

So do I but less so when a wrong choice impacts on someone else.

Also, I reckon I'd prefer our police force were spending their time catching criminals rather than checking the roadworthiness of cars because we let people decide for themselves whether it's safe to put on the road.

Completely agree that the cost of these things should be reasonable and commensurate with earnings, etc.

[westy 614]

By them not having insurance and you having full comprehensive you are taking responsibility for other peoples short comings.

Compulsory and regulated insurance would lead to a massive influx of people buying insurance and would bring prices down and lower premiums? Maybe not, I know its no cheaper in Australia or Europe.

Picture say you finish your project after pouring thousands of hours and dollars into it only to have it written off by your insurance company because the party that hit you was uninsured meaning your company cannot recover costs from them so will offer you a low ball amount minus your premium costs and minus your excess and leave you with f**k all and an unregistered car than you can no longer use or compete with? Maybe you would think differently then? Possibly not.

How?

Compulsory insurance means that all those people whom the insurance co didn't want to cover are now covered. Calculate the new premiums on that basis.

I'll most likely hold third party, fire and theft on it. It's a calculated risk and I'll self insure it given the likely premium. PS, it's not that valuable money wise.

[westy 614]

And on WOFs. When Datsum 120y can get a WOF, but a brand new car with a small chip in the windscreen cant, then yes, they are a joke.

Closer to home, Queensland doesn't have a compulsory safety check on their cars unless said car is changing hands. Place doesn't seem to be falling to bits.

[Apex 693]

All valid points and a good discussion, I guess I am just a bit sour over what has happened to me recently and I am in agreeance with the nanny state comments. Would just like to see people become accountable for their actions.

Closer to home, Queensland doesn't have a compulsory safety check on their cars unless said car is changing hands. Place doesn't seem to be falling to bits.

There are some f**kin dodgy cars in Queensland though, have hired a couple that would not pass a WOF in NZ in a million years!

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2957]

Compulsory insurance would also worm out people who should not be driving, no licence, no insurance, no registration. No low life on the road ready to drive into us and take the stand point that its not my fault.

Unfortunately it doesn't, it has exactly the opposite effect, people who previously could just about scrape up the money for WoF and Rego now can't afford the insurance as well, and don't bother with any of the three (this has been found in insurance / rego / MoT blitzes in the UK).

If they get caught, it's just another fine (that won't get paid) to go on top of the fine for no WoF / Rego / Driver's License / driving while disqualified, that they will get for the third time anyway. No detterent there I'm afraid.

[bellicose 9]

Unfortunately it doesn't, it has exactly the opposite effect, people who previously could just about scrape up the money for WoF and Rego now can't afford the insurance as well, and don't bother with any of the three (this has been found in insurance / rego / MoT blitzes in the UK).

If they get caught, it's just another fine (that won't get paid) to go on top of the fine for no WoF / Rego / Driver's License / driving while disqualified, that they will get for the third time anyway. No detterent there I'm afraid.

Exactly.