Joyce makes bad decision on 3rd party motor insurance
June 7, 2009
The SST had an article and editorial on Steven Joyce’s decision to put on hold the introduction of compulsory 3rd party motor insurance. Unfortunately they do not appear to be on line.
Quite frankly this decision is inexplicable to Adam.
There seems little reason not to move ahead with legislation to make this happen.
This is a retrograde step by Joyce in Adam’s opinion.
The article can be found at 3rdpartyins and the editorial at SSTeditorial7june
We have had consultation, what we need is some action.
Allowing people to drive cars without 3rd party insurance is just plain stupid.
Advertisement
9 Comments
Comments are closed.
I drive carefully and alertly. I do not drive through red lights. Why the hell should I have to
have 3rd party insurance just so you can feel more secure. My car is always warranted and registered. If you want complete cover negotiate with your insurer and pay for your peace of mind out of your own pocket.
Green Jon: Why the hell should I have to have 3rd party insurance just so you can feel more secure.
Why the hell should I pay more for my insurance just so you can take risks? (see – it works both ways)
If we were having his conversation about health insurance, you would be insisting that the government pays for a basic insurance (essentially making it compulsory through tax). Why would basic insurance on cars be any different?
getting the third party motor insurance is a bit trick work to carry on since you are not getting a penny to repair your own damages in event on claim. So understanding that fact will be a good solution to avoid the difficutlties as mentioned accordingly,
Adam,
Disagree on 3PI. I choose what property I insure.
It’s all about risk. If you deem you need to be insured because my uninsured car might hit yours, by all means purchase some cover for that risk. I do not see why my wallet should be plundered to spread the load on your risk.
What next? Compulsory house insurances to keep insurance companies in business?
MD,
How does 3PI assist mtce of my vehicle? It still gets maintained regularly and passes a bi-annual WOF even though the dunger is uninsured.
In one sense I might agree with you, but not as regards cars. At the present time if I am dinged by somebody who is uninsured and either cannot or will not pay up the cost falls on me and my insurer. That is wrong.
BTW as I understand the Fire Service is funded by those who pay insurance do you think we should revert to the old days where only those whose property had company fire badges on their walls received the service of the fire brigade. because there is a good commercial rationale for so doing. Alternatively the Fire Service should be funded out of taxation and not from my insurance premiums.
Adam,
Likely to get dinged by uninsured? That’s why you pay might a premium for that specific risk. Your insurer is betting with his exorbitant premiums that you won’t risk your vehicle in harms way. You do get hit? Insurer pays up, takes the loss and that is the end of the saga.
As for the Fire Service it should be fully funded and staffed with full time non-volunteer personnel from taxes. Same for the likes of ambulances and lifeguards. The total cost of these services is minimal in a $60bn economy, all in the community benefit. These organisations should not have to go cap in hand looking for donations and volunteers to survive.
My point is that if you can’t afford 3rd Party insurance, you are unlikely to be able to afford maintenance. The point doesn’t work the other way round, PM. Many people maintain their cars but don’t insure. This is because the third party now bears the risk.
Consider the following:
I am driving along, minding my own business when a fool drives straight through an intersection and totals both cars. Said fool not only has no insurance, he is unemployed and has no assets except the now-mangled car, which was worth about $300. He tells me his brakes failed.
I am now without a car while I wait for my insurance claim. It is extremely inconvenient for me. I finally get paid out for my vehicle but find that I am now $1000 short because of my excess, I am forced to either add money or buy a lesser vehicle. In addition, my insurance premium now rises because I lose my no-claims bonus, despite this accident not being my fault.
In the meantime the insurance debt is written off because it is too much trouble to collect and I never see my $1000 excess again.
Now, PM. Please explain to me why I should bear this substantial loss (probably $3-4000 by the time I account for extra premiums and time lost by myself), simply because the aforementioned fool can’t be bothered to insure himself?
If I sound testy, it is because a similar event has happened to me…
Maybe your insurance cover should not only include the vehicle payout but also an extra amount for your lost time potential. Again, I say, your risk, not mine. I take the chance that the insurance co will not chase me.
Agree completely, Adam. The only reason I have heard touted for not having compulsory third party insurance is that it might render a vehicle unaffordable for a student or low-income earner.
My reply to that is usually tough bananas. If they can’t afford cheap third party insurance , then they can’t afford to maintain their vehicles properly.