On or around Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:47:00 +1300, Brian <
[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:
>Steve wrote:
>> Brian wrote:
>>
>>> All insurance is a con......
>>>
>>> I don't have any vehicle insuance for my motorcycles, cars or 4X4's. I
>>> put aside a monthly sum that is about a third of the insurance
>>> premiums, for 'just in case'.
>>
>>
>> Doesn't cover you from being sued though.
>>
>> Steve
>
>
>When it comes to injury, you can't sue down here. We are all covered by
>the govt. ACC (Accident Compensation Commission) scheme. We all pay into
>this through our wages and vehicle registration. It's a 'no-fault' scheme.
this is a much more sensible system than we have here... compulsory "third
party only" insurance for any vehicle in use or kept on the road, which is
bought on the open market so they can, within reason, charge what they want.
e.g.: some months ago a bloke driving a minibus was sufficiently careless
or stupid as to be involved in an accident which ended with it upside down,
on its roof, and a child dead, ISTR. As a result, all of us who run
minibuses on school contracts find it more difficult to get insurance and
more expensive. Yet, it transpires, the bloke wasn't correctly licensed nor
insured for the use to which the vehicle was put. So the insurers have paid
out sod-all, or if they have, will be trying to get it back. But that don't
stop us all having to pay extra.
Under your scheme ("your" meaning "NZs"), if you're sufficiently careless as
to run into someone else's car and wreck it under conditions which make it
clear that it was all or mostly your fault, who pays for the bloke's car?
Does the scheme cover that as well, or is it down to you?
Personally, I'd like to see some of the money we get ripped off in taxation
for the privilege of running vehicles in this country diverted into a basic,
no-frills third party insurance scheme, with realistic payouts (and no
spurious claims for whiplash or bruising or other ****) for personal injury
and covering the cost of claims to repair cars or other property where or to
the extent that it's deemed to be the first party's fault. Anyone wanting
theft, fire or comprehensive cover could then go and buy it in the open
market as they do now.
I'd even support a modest increase in the road fund licence to make it
include such a scheme.
The insurance costs would need looking at - if you remove third party claims
from the equation, the risk the insco is taking is smaller and as such the
cover shoudl cost less. If this didn't happen, I'd favour the government
leaning on the inscos or threatening to.
Silly thing is, they have something a bit like this only much more limited
in place anyway - There's something called the Motorists' uninsured loss
scheme or somesuch, which is supposed to pay out for third party injuries
caused by uninsured drivers. Dunno if it does.
--
Austin Shackles.
www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)
