| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 79519 | 2007-05-22 12:52:00 | compulsory 3rd party insurance | motorbyclist (188) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 552119 | 2007-05-22 12:52:00 | now i've been saying we should have this for years now, but, i don't see how it in ANY way will hinder "boy racers" . it's just one more thing that the police have to chase up on . ie . those that won't comply are the ones who don't have a wof, rego nor licence anyway and besides, i know many boy racers with insurance . it's the ones with ****ty cars that have more money invested in mags than the car itself that are the real problems; they don't really care . it just seems to me that the govt . is either using recent events to push this through, or pretending it'll prevent another episode of a huge party spreading onto a road and some idiot with revenge in mind driving into all of them (how they can reasonably blame "boy racerism" for this is beyond me) . Now, to be fair there was the teen pedestrian killed when a mate hit him at 160kph in an illegal race - but again i don't see how insurance prevents this, if the local "boyz" had half a brain the manslaughter charges laid against both drivers probably sent a message how some of these politicians even passed preschool is beyond me - oh wait, NCEA:lol: discuss |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 552120 | 2007-05-22 16:26:00 | they'd have to make sure the PERSON was insured otherwise they'll just drive cars that are registered to someone else........the only way to stop these idiots is to raise the driving age to 18-20 with the exception of a 'work' liscense......of course no govt is gonna do that.......govt's are NOT noted for doin things/making laws just cause they make sense they only do it for political gain/reasons......... | drcspy (146) | ||
| 552121 | 2007-05-22 19:23:00 | Forget compulsory insurance ... Second boy-racing related offence (loss of traction in a public place, racing, ...) crush the car Simple |
Myth (110) | ||
| 552122 | 2007-05-22 19:48:00 | Heh . . . funny that youse guys are just getting to the concept of 3rd party insurance . Buying insurance in SoCal is very frustrating . On the first hand, the DMV (Department Of Motor Vehicles) says that they will not register a vehicle if it's not insured . They even go so far to say that if your insurance is voided for any reason, then so is your registration resulting in fines, seizure of vehicle and loss of driving privileges (loss of license forever) if you are caught . On the other hand, insurance remember being mandatory, we are also required to carry "Uninsured Motorists' Insurance" in case we are involved in an accident with someone who is NOT insured . Then the insurance companies also suggest "UI+" riders . This is an "under insured" protection policy in case the other person doesn't carry enough protection . . . . . . . . . . . . Humph! Is there any justice? |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 552123 | 2007-05-22 20:44:00 | Forget compulsory insurance ... Second boy-racing related offence (loss of traction in a public place, racing, ...) crush the car Simple Sorted. |
winmacguy (3367) | ||
| 552124 | 2007-05-22 20:48:00 | Cars are disposable, the biggest liability in most countries is the cost of personal injury which is covered in NZ by the ACC levy on vehicle licencing. There are plenty of laws here if they were enforced, but there are still unlicenced drivers and cars on the roads. I like the idea of Myth's suggestion especially if it was filmed for TV :) |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 552125 | 2007-05-22 21:20:00 | I'm all for crushing the cars it's time we stopped pansying around with impounding cars. However, I would also like to see the 3rd party insurance, not as a deterent to boy racers but to protect the innocent person when their car is hit by one of these idiots. Link the insurance to the wof and rego i.e. no rego without a current wof and insurance paid up to at least the expiry of the rego. then if caught with no rego, wof or insurance it's crushing time! | Sam's Dad (11848) | ||
| 552126 | 2007-05-22 21:39:00 | The trouble with compulsory third-party insurance is that the premiums will shoot up, penalising the ones who aren't boy racers or don't cause any trouble . And, like motorbyclist says, a lot of the ones with the expensive, fancy wheels do have full insurance costing well over $1,000, possibly twice that, so it's not going to have any effect on them . It is always a handful of prats who spoil things for everyone else . :mad: Forget compulsory insurance . . . Second boy-racing related offence (loss of traction in a public place, racing, . . . ) crush the car Simple That would deter them only if the cars were worth anything . Many of them are not so they'll just go out and get another one . For quite a few of them their fines are worth more than their cars . :( |
FoxyMX (5) | ||
| 552127 | 2007-05-22 21:43:00 | The Insurance Council aren't in favour as the costs involved will mean that "the innocent person" will be paying more for insurance anyway and the idiots probably still won't be insured. | PaulD (232) | ||
| 552128 | 2007-05-22 21:55:00 | Being in the Industry, Compulsory Third Party Insurance only covers damage that the offending does to other property ie hitting another vehicle, a pole or fence etc. It does not cover any personal injury damage, that's ACC's worry and therefore very real concern for us innocent citizens and the problems associated with ACC claims. I find it unreal that the present Government are trying to go down this track -absolute idiots! I think the only way that might control this is to restrict licences, as is done with motor cycle licences, to cc ratings over a probationary period of time. |
Bryan (147) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||