[Moorf]

(Thanks to CJ22 for prompting me to post this, it's been a hot topic in this household for a while!)

In NZ it's not compulsory to insure yourself on the roads. In light of the hoon culture and 15 year olds driving supercharged wrecks, should car insurance be made mandatory in NZ?

[ellenmelon]

it baffles me why it isnt to be honest. i am BROKE as broke (student) but i cough up the cash because i need my car to get to uni and work.

[CJ22]

Reckon this one's a no-brainer.

[Jo Jo]

I don't know. But I do think indicating should be compulsory! (Why, why, oh WHY don't more people use their indicators? They're so helpful!)

[Moorf]

Reckon this one's a no-brainer.

You'd think, eh? And from fellow immigrants I mostly hear "make it mandatory" but from Kiwi friends and acquaintances I find more are of the opinion that a) kids can't afford it and they NEED their cars (umm, they can afford the car and all the replacement tyres they need from leaving half of the rubber on the roads) and b) the choice there, take it or leave it.

[Moorf]

But I do think indicating should be compulsory! (Why, why, oh WHY don't more people use their indicators? They're so helpful!)

Oh come on, didn't you take the Kiwi driving test.... manoeuvre, signal and, if you've got one, mirror.

[ellenmelon]

You'd think, eh? And from fellow immigrants I mostly hear "make it mandatory" but from Kiwi friends and acquaintances I find more are of the opinion that a) kids can't afford it and they NEED their cars (umm, they can afford the car and all the replacement tyres they need from leaving half of the rubber on the roads) and b) the choice there, take it or leave it.

not skiting or anything, but i do at least 2 12-13 hour days a week..i go to uni at 9am each morning then when i finish uni at 5pm i go to work until 9.30/10pm. considering they're so precious about their cars you would think the boy racers would have insurance?

(thats a convoluted way of saying...i agree with you lol)

[Leccy-Lee]

I don't know. But I do think indicating should be compulsory! (Why, why, oh WHY don't more people use their indicators? They're so helpful!)

Actually when i took the Advance Driving Test (with ex police instructor) in the UK, they teach you to ONLY use indicators when ABSOLUTELY necessary as i quote Mr Instructor "Indicators cause more accidents than they save, as people get confused by them or when there not cancelled in time, people make mistakes" Hence as its the way i was taught, i dont often use indicators in many situations, but that said there's many times it is clearly needed.

Back to original topic, 100% agree insurance is a no-brainier

[CJ22]

UK insurance companies do gouge the young with massive premiums. It wouldn't bother me if NZ insurers worked out a way to average-out the price for everybody, so young people could afford the premiums. I'd rather pay a little more and know that everybody who might drive into me has insurance, than to have the least experienced and (as a huge generalisation) the most reckless drivers hooning around with no cover.

It is odd though that there doesn't seem to be much appetite for it here. Perhaps it's because they all benefitted from it in the past?

[PeteS]

Actually when i took the Advance Driving Test (with ex police instructor) in the UK, they teach you to ONLY use indicators when ABSOLUTELY necessary as i quote Mr Instructor "Indicators cause more accidents than they save, as people get confused by them or when there not cancelled in time, people make mistakes" Hence as its the way i was taught, i dont often use indicators in many situations, but that said there's many times it is clearly needed.

Back to original topic, 100% agree insurance is a no-brainier

Agreed 100%.

When I took the Advanced bike test in the UK, we would be penalised if we signalled without anyone to signal too as it showed that we were unaware of what was or wasn't around us.

Quite a lot of NZ'ers agree with compulsory insurance as well. And it would limit the size and type of cars that bad drivers and young people can drive, and modifications that can be done to cars.

But all this is preaching to the converted. We need to force the hands of the politicians.

[Flutterby]

From what i've read 3rd party insurance is covered by your tax? Please correct me if i'm wrong.

[Gar1]

From what i've read 3rd party insurance is covered by your tax? Please correct me if i'm wrong.

ACC covers the medial costs if you are involved in an accident. ACC is funded by various methods, one of the main ones is from a portion of your car rego cost

When I first arrived my car was hit in a mall car park. The driver left no note etc. Now I know this would happen a lot even with insurance, but no insurance is a positive discouragement, as the driver would have to pay the bill himself.

[James 1077]

Car insurance is compulsory in New Zealand though not to the same extent that it is compulsory in, for example, the UK.

The only difference is that the minimum level of cover here is third party personal and not straight third party and that you pay for it when licence your vehicle (ACC makes up the bulk of the licence cost).

This is a good system in my opinion as it helps to stop uninsured drivers from driving (although obviously not everyone keeps their vehicle licenced).

Should this be extended to a full third party insurance covering damage to cars too? Probably. But all compulsory insurance does is greatly increase costs for everyone as insurance companies no longer have to compete with people deciding whether to buy insurance or not.

Perhaps instead there should be limits on the types of cars people can drive when they first get their licence (ie limit of 1.6 litres / 90 BHP).

[dharder]

a) kids can't afford it and they NEED their cars (umm, they can afford the car and all the replacement tyres they need from leaving half of the rubber on the roads) and b) the choice there, take it or leave it.

I don't even think they need it, at least not in a 'city'. They somehow got to 15 without having a car, they'll get to 18 or however long it takes them to save up for it.

The other thing is the driving test, which I remember paying over a thousand (equivalent in dollars) for, and that is almost 20 years ago.

The main reason I would make driving less easily accessible is not that I would want to stop people altogether(although that would be a good side effect), but maybe, if people had to put in a lot of money and effort to be allowed to drive, they'd be more worried about losing the right to drive when they do something wrong?

The attitude towards driving and the risk of accidents or harm that you could potentially cause with a car is very, very cavalier here, and I'm convinced that is partly because you will not be held responsible for it.

Daniela

[buzztalks]

I don't know. But I do think indicating should be compulsory! (Why, why, oh WHY don't more people use their indicators? They're so helpful!)

Was driving down Oriental Parade the other day. Woman in front indicated left, then moved across two lanes to turn right into the Chaffers Dock car park???

[Gar1]

Car insurance is compulsory in New Zealand though not to the same extent that it is compulsory in, for example, the UK.

The only difference is that the minimum level of cover here is third party personal and not straight third party and that you pay for it when licence your vehicle (ACC makes up the bulk of the licence cost).


Well it’s more that Personal Injury cover is compulsory.

There is also an ACC levy added to petrol. Diesel vehicles have a higher rego cost as they don’t have this fuel tax.



This is a good system in my opinion as it helps to stop uninsured drivers from driving (although obviously not everyone keeps their vehicle licenced).


Not that good when someone crashes into your car and you have a higher premium for the next few years because your insurance company paid for the replacement car or repairs. Never mind that they kill someone leaving a family in hardship, no insurance company to claim from



Should this be extended to a full third party insurance covering damage to cars too? Probably. But all compulsory insurance does is greatly increase costs for everyone as insurance companies no longer have to compete with people deciding whether to buy insurance or not.

Are you suggesting that there be an additional cost added to the rego so that everyone has a minimum of 3rd party cover, similar to the UK? If so then I agree that this would be a good idea.



Perhaps instead there should be limits on the types of cars people can drive when they first get their licence (ie limit of 1.6 litres / 90 BHP).

I agree. Would also make parents consider there car choices as they would have children driving them also.

[Gar1]

Was driving down Oriental Parade the other day. Woman in front indicated left, then moved across two lanes to turn right into the Chaffers Dock car park???

Quite clearly your fault. You made the mistake of assuming that the woman was not an idiot. :D

[Flutterby]

Quite clearly your fault. You made the mistake of assuming that the woman was not an idiot. :D

:laugh

[dharder]

I don't know. But I do think indicating should be compulsory! (Why, why, oh WHY don't more people use their indicators? They're so helpful!)

It's a sign of weakness to use them, did they not tell you? Same as turning on your headlights when it gets dark.

I cycle 22kms day through Auckland, and there is never a day where I could not have had a serious accident because of a careless, thoughtless driver. And please, no one do the 'but some bikes cross the lights when they are red' thing. If bikes cause an accident, they'll mainly hurt themselves.

But the car driver's 'ooopsy daisy' is potentially my death... (not to sound overly dramatic here or anything)

Daniela

[Moorf]

I certainly wouldn't ride a bike round the main roads of Chch, seen too many near misses, and little regard for bike lanes.

[buzztalks]

anyone had any near death experiences attempting to use a 'zebra' crossing?

Today attempted to cross Oriental Parade using crossing by Fisherman's Table. Stood patiently waiting whilst three (3) cars sped on through. Not good.

[Moorf]

Zebra crossings were even hairier when they were allowed to continue driving across the crossing on the side you weren't walking on, legally. Since changed...

[Potato]

If car insurance were compulsory, everyone would have to have it. Demand would increase massively and insurance companies would be able to increase their prices an awful lot.
Right now there is obviously competition, but if it were made compulsory there would be a certain amount of price fixing that would occur, and you'd never be able to get insurance for anything like the prices that we pay now.

[dharder]

If car insurance were compulsory, everyone would have to have it. Demand would increase massively and insurance companies would be able to increase their prices an awful lot. .

Obviously.

But what if it makes the roads safer? Wouldn't that make it worth it? I'm not saying that car insurance alone would do that, but it could very well part of trying to tackle the road safety issues here.

Daniela

[Potato]

Obviously.

But what if it makes the roads safer? Wouldn't that make it worth it? I'm not saying that car insurance alone would do that, but it could very well part of trying to tackle the road safety issues here.

Daniela

I think those who cause most trouble on the roads wouldn't buy car insurance even if it were made compulsory.

[richard]

..

And please, no one do the 'but some bikes cross the lights when they are red' thing. If bikes cause an accident, they'll mainly hurt themselves.

...

Unless of course in swerving to avoid the idiot cyclist the car ploughs in to a bus queue full of innocent bystanders :no

[NikT]

You only have to walk down the street and see how many parked cars have no rego or wof.:no

Do you really think they'll pay for insurance too?

If they get stopped, it's just another fine to add to the others.:roll

Nick.:cheers

[shakyle2906]

anyone had any near death experiences attempting to use a 'zebra' crossing?

Today attempted to cross Oriental Parade using crossing by Fisherman's Table. Stood patiently waiting whilst three (3) cars sped on through. Not good.



I dont think half of the people know to stop at a crossing - i am nervous crossing them, have nearly been mown down many a time!

Definety think insurance should be mandatory - there are so many idiots on the road - most dont seem to have indicators either!

Sharon
x

[andy141]

From what I have read on the subject the car insurance situation in New Zealand has it's merits i.e. ensuring ALL drivers have basic 3rd party insurance.

However, in my eyes there IS a major flaw which I can demonstrate through a hypothetical example. Imagine you have been involved in an horrendous accident where your wife, who was seated in the front passenger's seat, has been killed and your legs have had to be amputated because some reckless hoon has tee-boned you at a crossroads. Now, you will say, 'ACC will take care of you for the rest of your life' --- which they probably will to a certain extent. BUT you will not be compensated for the loss of your wife, nor will you be compensated for the loss of your quality of life as a result of the loss of your legs. On top of all this you are prevented, under NZ law, to sue for compensation --- an anathema IMHO. From what I see ACC will only see to your physical/medical needs, and from cases I have read on the web you have to fight for that care which could take an inordinate amount of time.

So, the ACC component of insurance is laudible but needs to be backed up by personal liability insurance in order that COMPENSATION can be paid to innocent parties. The more reckless/accident prone you are the more you pay in premiums. If you want to keep the premiums down it's entirely UP TO YOU.

[mylesdw]

If you make insurance compulsory all our premiums will rise to cover the cost of the higher risk drivers. With high insurance costs there will be a significant chance that the hoon that hits you will be uninsured anyway so the extra money you paid will not have bought much extra security. The existing system works well because it is YOUR choice what you insure and what you don't. If something is valuable to you, your car, your legs etc then YOU can insure it and have the absolute certainty of being covered. It is as someone mentioned earlier, a 'no-brainer'.

In short, if you are going to pay more for your insurance, at least make sure the extra is insuring YOU rather than someone else.

[gil]

I dont think half of the people know to stop at a crossing - i am nervous crossing them, have nearly been mown down many a time!

Definety think insurance should be mandatory - there are so many idiots on the road - most dont seem to have indicators either!

Sharon
x

Our experience with zebra crossings is quite different: we are constantly amazed at the way people stop well away from the crossing to allow time for pedestrians to get across :yes

[buzztalks]

is there an indirect link between the lack of compulsory car insurance and the amount of unroadworthy vehicles knocking about, which, due to their condition, then add to the likelihood of further accidents ie no working lights or indicators??

[CityBlue]

If you make insurance compulsory all our premiums will rise to cover the cost of the higher risk drivers. With high insurance costs there will be a significant chance that the hoon that hits you will be uninsured anyway so the extra money you paid will not have bought much extra security. The existing system works well because it is YOUR choice what you insure and what you don't. If something is valuable to you, your car, your legs etc then YOU can insure it and have the absolute certainty of being covered. It is as someone mentioned earlier, a 'no-brainer'.

In short, if you are going to pay more for your insurance, at least make sure the extra is insuring YOU rather than someone else.

A very good point well made. I hadnt thought of it like that.

No critiscism of the post but it still doesnt answer the question of how to inprove road safety in NZ.

I dont have the answer either

[mylesdw]

The main road safety concern seems to be that of young drivers in powerful cars. This could easily be addressed by a two tier driver licencing scheme. All cars would be classified 'normal' or 'performance'. Normal cars would be (say) anything under 1600cc naturally aspirated. When you pass your test you get a grouping on your licence that allows normal cars ONLY. If you want to drive a performance car you have to be over 30 and apply for the extra grouping on your licence. You COULD have some sort of advanced driver test for this. Being stopped driving a performance car on a normal licence would result in immediate confisgation of the vehicle. Losing a performance licence would be permanent; it would be replaced with a normal licence.

This is not a difficult scheme to implement; it has been true of motorcycles for years now.

[Gar1]

If you make insurance compulsory all our premiums will rise to cover the cost of the higher risk drivers.

The cost of the higher risk drivers in the UK met by the higher risk driver themselves. In the UK you pay a higher premium to cover accidents with uninsured drivers, not accidents with high risk drivers with insurance.

[mylesdw]

I don't believe that. Because insurance is compulsory, the companies are under pressure to provide cover at an affordable price. I don't have insider information but I would be very surprised if some 'cost averaging' does not occur to make cover within the means of young drivers.

[Gar1]

I don't believe that. Because insurance is compulsory, the companies are under pressure to provide cover at an affordable price. I don't have insider information but I would be very surprised if some 'cost averaging' does not occur to make cover within the means of young drivers.

For the record, I have worked for insurance underwriters, which had motor insurance policies, but don't really have any more insider info that anyone else. So these are only my opinions.

Surely because it’s compulsory, only plays into the hands of the insurance companies more that if it was a take it or leave it option. So I don’t think this is the reason for them trying to provide cover at an affordable cost, don’t think that would impress their share holders. The only thing keeping cost down is competition from other companies.

[Gar1]

The main road safety concern seems to be that of young drivers in powerful cars. This could easily be addressed by a two tier driver licencing scheme. All cars would be classified 'normal' or 'performance'. Normal cars would be (say) anything under 1600cc naturally aspirated. When you pass your test you get a grouping on your licence that allows normal cars ONLY. If you want to drive a performance car you have to be over 30 and apply for the extra grouping on your licence. You COULD have some sort of advanced driver test for this. Being stopped driving a performance car on a normal licence would result in immediate confisgation of the vehicle. Losing a performance licence would be permanent; it would be replaced with a normal licence.

This is not a difficult scheme to implement; it has been true of motorcycles for years now.

Yes that sound fair. I have never liked that fact that a 16/17 year old could go down to the car yards, and drive away in a subarru imprezza for a $1 down and no insurance. Crazy.

There also needs to be a a hrsher lesson for people who do things such as drink drive, as currently 6 months ban/fine and thats it. In the UK the insurance compainies would be charging a a high premium for a lot of years after words.

[James 1077]

Yes that sound fair. I have never liked that fact that a 16/17 year old could go down to the car yards, and drive away in a subarru imprezza for a $1 down and no insurance. Crazy.

There also needs to be a a hrsher lesson for people who do things such as drink drive, as currently 6 months ban/fine and thats it. In the UK the insurance compainies would be charging a a high premium for a lot of years after words.

Totally agree.

IMHO limiting car choice would do far more for road safety than compulsory insurance. And, as mentioned above, if it were allied to an advanced test to be able to drive a performance car then this would be even better.

And then you could also have your performance car licence disqualified forever should you commit any dangerous driving offences as well.


There also needs to be a a harsher lesson for people who do things such as drink drive, as currently 6 months ban/fine and thats it. In the UK the insurance companies would be charging a a high premium for a lot of years afterwards.

Perhaps a ten-fold increase in ACC premium on your car licence fee decreasing over 5 years back to normal? That way you pay more ACC as you are a higher risk.

I may even suggest that to my MP when they start talking about fully funding ACC again!

[chocolate cake]

From what I have read on the subject the car insurance situation in New Zealand has it's merits i.e. ensuring ALL drivers have basic 3rd party insurance.

However, in my eyes there IS a major flaw which I can demonstrate through a hypothetical example. Imagine you have been involved in an horrendous accident where your wife, who was seated in the front passenger's seat, has been killed and your legs have had to be amputated because some reckless hoon has tee-boned you at a crossroads. Now, you will say, 'ACC will take care of you for the rest of your life' --- which they probably will to a certain extent. BUT you will not be compensated for the loss of your wife, nor will you be compensated for the loss of your quality of life as a result of the loss of your legs. On top of all this you are prevented, under NZ law, to sue for compensation --- an anathema IMHO. From what I see ACC will only see to your physical/medical needs, and from cases I have read on the web you have to fight for that care which could take an inordinate amount of time.

So, the ACC component of insurance is laudible but needs to be backed up by personal liability insurance in order that COMPENSATION can be paid to innocent parties. The more reckless/accident prone you are the more you pay in premiums. If you want to keep the premiums down it's entirely UP TO YOU.

spot on

[andy141]

The main road safety concern seems to be that of young drivers in powerful cars. This could easily be addressed by a two tier driver licencing scheme. All cars would be classified 'normal' or 'performance'. Normal cars would be (say) anything under 1600cc naturally aspirated. When you pass your test you get a grouping on your licence that allows normal cars ONLY. If you want to drive a performance car you have to be over 30 and apply for the extra grouping on your licence. You COULD have some sort of advanced driver test for this. Being stopped driving a performance car on a normal licence would result in immediate confisgation of the vehicle. Losing a performance licence would be permanent; it would be replaced with a normal licence.

This is not a difficult scheme to implement; it has been true of motorcycles for years now.

Good idea but how do you prevent circumvention of the system? It's common practice for learner motorcyclists here in the UK to remove the power restriction devices on their machines which means they can hare around at 50 to 60 mph instead of being restricted to the legal 30mph.

Now, if a 'hoon' buys a 'normal' car, what is to prevent him/her from modifying that car to increase its power and performance. That would be very difficult to police.

A practical solution would be to restrict a learner driver's speed to, say, 30mph outside of town and 20mph in urban areas.

[JandM]

A practical solution would be to restrict a learner driver's speed to, say, 30mph outside of town and 20mph in urban areas. Sorry, but I don't think this is practical for any areas other than the remote countryside that might only have one car every mile. Imagine the frustration built up in normal road-users trying to work round a law-abiding learner pootling along at 20 or 30, in, say, the morning traffic trying to get to work. People would be pressured into trying to get past him where they never normally would risk it, leading to accidents all along his route, even if HE stayed safe himself.

[Flutterby]

i think restricting speeds is dangerous.

i also think that many of the situations described have and do happen in the UK where insurance is mandatory so really don't see how making the insurance mandatory improves road safety (i mean it might save you taking somebody to court to get your compensation, but i really don't think its going to prevent an accident)

[PeteS]

i also think that many of the situations described have and do happen in the UK where insurance is mandatory so really don't see how making the insurance mandatory improves road safety (i mean it might save you taking somebody to court to get your compensation, but i really don't think its going to prevent an accident)

So, how does madatory insurance improve road safety? Several ways....

1 By forcing high risk groups of car users to buy a vehicle that they can afford to insure.

2 By the insurers refusing to cover "modified" cars unless the premium is loaded. And to not pay out if they find that a vehicle has been modified, they were not told, and a claim is made.

3 By making people responsible for thier actions.

So, if you are a teenager, with a large, modified car, you'll need deep pockets to pay for the insurance. If you have a record of claims, you'll also need deep pockets. So a teenager in a big car who keeps bumping into things is likely to be priced off the road. A link is created between cause and effect.

[Flutterby]

or they will just drive around illegally, with no insurance. cos if they really have that little regard for driving safely and sensibly, then they probably don't care about breaking a law or two either!

[NikT]

or they will just drive around illegally, with no insurance. cos if they really have that little regard for driving safely and sensibly, then they probably don't care about breaking a law or two either!

A lot drive around with no rego or WOF, so won't bother about insurance.

Nick.:cheers

[mylesdw]

Good idea but how do you prevent circumvention of the system? It's common practice for learner motorcyclists here in the UK to remove the power restriction devices on their machines which means they can hare around at 50 to 60 mph instead of being restricted to the legal 30mph.

Now, if a 'hoon' buys a 'normal' car, what is to prevent him/her from modifying that car to increase its power and performance. That would be very difficult to police.


It is pretty difficult and very expensive to get a lot more power from a modern naturally aspirated engine. You would be lucky to gain 10-20% with quite a lot of work because modern engines are highly efficient and near to their maximum output anyway. Policing of obvious modifications would be in the WOF test (which it is already). Supercharged/turbocharged engines are a different matter because simply changing the engine management chip can give huge power increases.

[Gar1]

It is pretty difficult and very expensive to get a lot more power from a modern naturally aspirated engine. You would be lucky to gain 10-20% with quite a lot of work because modern engines are highly efficient and near to their maximum output anyway. Policing of obvious modifications would be in the WOF test (which it is already). Supercharged/turbocharged engines are a different matter because simply changing the engine management chip can give huge power increases.

It's not too hard to change the engine and gear train. In the UK a recon enginee is not really that expensive, no idea about NZ.

[Gar1]

A practical solution would be to restrict a learner driver's speed to, say, 30mph outside of town and 20mph in urban areas.

Don't think that would please too many of the people who were driving behind them.

[Gar1]

A lot drive around with no rego or WOF, so won't bother about insurance.

Nick.:cheers

I read a report about unisured drivers in the UK a few years ago. The report basically stated that the people who don't get insurance, are on the whole more likely to drive an unsafe, untaxed car.
They were also the most likely to drive whilst intoxicated, and be the cause of fatal accidents. I am sure we did not need a report for that info.

IMHO the report makes it clear that the cost of insurance does not make a large number of people drive unisured, these people would do it any way. If they wont buy new tires, and maintain the car, they wont pay for anything.

[mylesdw]

It's not too hard to change the engine and gear train. In the UK a recon enginee is not really that expensive, no idea about NZ.

Agreed, it is very easy but the amount that you could do without it being very obvious to any WOF examiner is limited. Sure a few people might swap a 1600 engine for an identical looking 2000 version but the gains are not really worth worrying about. If they swap in a 6 or 8 cylinder engine or anything with a supercharger it is very easily detected at WOF time.

[Gar1]

Agreed, it is very easy but the amount that you could do without it being very obvious to any WOF examiner is limited. Sure a few people might swap a 1600 engine for an identical looking 2000 version but the gains are not really worth worrying about. If they swap in a 6 or 8 cylinder engine or anything with a supercharger it is very easily detected at WOF time.

Sorry the comment was only in response to the part of your comment about naturally aspirated engine modifications and performanc gains.

I do like that idea of a 2-tier licence system however IMHO the only real way to inforce it is on the roads, by the police. The WOF idea has some pit falls IMHO.

1. What if a young driver uses their parents car.

2. What if an older person takes the car for a WOF.

3. You would have to make it illegal for a young person to own a car that they are not allowed to drive.

4. the same people that would happly break such a law refuse to WOF it.

5. Would you give a mechanic at a garage the legal right to impound cars?

[mylesdw]

I do like that idea of a 2-tier licence system however IMHO the only real way to inforce it is on the roads, by the police. The WOF idea has some pit falls IMHO.

Ultimately it does have to be enforced by the Police but the law needs to help them do their job. If a driver has a 'normal' licence and they are stopped driving a 'performance' car it is a simple case and the car is impounded. A driver's licence clearly shows normal or performance and so does the details of each vehicle.



1. What if a young driver uses their parents car.

The car is impounded. The onus is then on the car owner to make sure that any driver they lend it to is licenced.



2. What if an older person takes the car for a WOF.


It doesn't matter who takes it for a WOF. If the car is stated as 'normal' on the LTSA computer it must fall within those rules.




3. You would have to make it illegal for a young person to own a car that they are not allowed to drive.


Yes, that would be easy to do, you have to show your licence when you register a vehicle in your name.



4. the same people that would happly break such a law refuse to WOF it.


Always going to be a problem but a simple number check will reveal that a car is not WOFed and then rules applied for driving a car with no WOF and possibly driving a car for which you are not licenced (impounded).



5. Would you give a mechanic at a garage the legal right to impound cars?
No, he would simply refuse to issue the WOF and refer the car to an LTSA testing station.

[Gar1]

Ultimately it does have to be enforced by the Police but the law needs to help them do their job. If a driver has a 'normal' licence and they are stopped driving a 'performance' car it is a simple case and the car is impounded. A driver's licence clearly shows normal or performance and so does the details of each vehicle.
Fair enough


The car is impounded. The onus is then on the car owner to make sure that any driver they lend it to is licenced.

This was just a comment to say that you cannot rely on the WOF test centre alone. However in the UK if you are caught driving a car without insurance, it is your responsibility as the driver not the owner of the car. I was thinking that it should be a similar concept, but no reason that it has to be.



It doesn't matter who takes it for a WOF. If the car is stated as 'normal' on the LTSA computer it must fall within those rules.

This was not about illegal modifications, but about who was the owner of the car. i.e. the WOF centre would need to know the licence details of the cars driver and / or owner




Yes, that would be easy to do, you have to show your licence when you register a vehicle in your name.

So now you can no longer own a car without a driving licence. An old lady cannot buy a car that she has others take her to the shops, bingo etc.

I bought a car when I first arrived in NZ. My UK licence lapsed and I did not renew it for quite sometime, as I had no need to drive. The car sat in my garage. Under a system where I need a licence would I be breaking the law.



Always going to be a problem but a simple number check will reveal that a car is not WOFed and then rules applied for driving a car with no WOF and possibly driving a car for which you are not licenced (impounded).

Agreed but simply stating that this is a limitation to the WOF idea. IMHO the WOF should rmain as is just a test to see if the car is road worthy and nothing more.

[Gar1]

This was not about illegal modifications, but about who was the owner of the car. i.e. the WOF centre would need to know the licence details of the cars driver and / or owner
[QUOTE]

This should reall have said

[QUOTE=mylesdw;264231]
It doesn't matter who takes it for a WOF. If the car is stated as 'normal' on the LTSA computer it must fall within those rules.

This was not about illegal modifications, ‘normal’ or ‘performance’ vehicle types, but about who was the owner of the car. I.e. the WOF centre would need to know the licence details of the cars driver and / or owner and if they were legally entitled to drive such a car.

[mylesdw]

However in the UK if you are caught driving a car without insurance, it is your responsibility as the driver not the owner of the car. I was thinking that it should be a similar concept, but no reason that it has to be.



It might be quite effective to place the responsibility on the owner. After all, they have more to lose (the car) and a means of controlling it (the keys!)




This was not about illegal modifications, but about who was the owner of the car. i.e. the WOF centre would need to know the licence details of the cars driver and / or owner



The WOF centre would not need to know about the owner, they just warrant the car based on one of two sets of rules, depending upon the vehicle type (normal or performance).




So now you can no longer own a car without a driving licence. An old lady cannot buy a car that she has others take her to the shops, bingo etc.

I bought a car when I first arrived in NZ. My UK licence lapsed and I did not renew it for quite sometime, as I had no need to drive. The car sat in my garage. Under a system where I need a licence would I be breaking the law.



That's a good point. I guess you could say that you need a performance licence to register a performance car. Not too many old ladies would be registering a fast car and have no licence.



Agreed but simply stating that this is a limitation to the WOF idea. IMHO the WOF should rmain as is just a test to see if the car is road worthy and nothing more.

This checking ALREADY occurs. If you take an obviously modified vehicle along they (probably) won't warrant it. All significant mods have to be certified by an engineer before the car can be warranted.

[Gar1]

Really sorry but I appear to have gone off on some strange tangent all on my own. I got it into my head that you were suggesting that the enforcement of a 2-tier licence system would be enforced partially by the WOF centre checking car types against licence details. i.e. they would refuse to wof a performance car if the owner did not have a performance licence. You appear to have made no such statement, so forget that last 5 or 6 posts.

[beano_bill]

Hi All,

I agree that there should be complusory element of insurance - I'd go as far as compulsory public liability insurance as I seem to remember they had / have in Germany - but I noticed that no one mentioned that implementing this could reduce or even eliminate the ACC levy on vehicle re-licencing and fuel.

Both measures will help with the affordability of the insurance.

Is it just me that thinks that if a injury is caused by a vehicular accident that the insurance should pay out for the medical costs? This could also lead to a revision of the Act that [currently] restricts your ability to sue the offender in the courts.

Obviously you will get those scallywags that will never get insurance in the same way that you get whenever something in compulsory; and I don't have the answer. Nor do I believe that compulsory insurance is the silver bullet to raise the standard of driving here, but it is surely part of it?

Beano

[Super_BQ]

I'd like to bring an interesting result from where I grew up in BC, Canada where auto insurance is compulsory.

ICBC (Insurance Corp. of British Columbia) is a gov't controlled state owned corporation. Like the private insurers you see in NZ, ICBC too also has it's fair share of inequitably compensating drivers. One look in the BC Yellowpages and you'll see all the law firms adverts that aim to sue ICBC. Why? Well unlike many in NZ that are not aware of, having a gov't owned corporations makes a lots of $$$$$. In fact ICBC was like #2 most profitable corporation for many years. While their accounts grew bigger and bigger, people who suffered from accidents still were not fully compensated. Thus the market for so many lawyers. Though from what i've seen in recent years, the payouts by ICBC have become more equitable (a lot higher due to precedent cases) However, this alone has not stopped posting record profits. So in return, I recall 1 year ICBC had issued cheques to every person in BC that insured their car to show that a portion of the profit does indeed belong to those that have paid into insurance. I think the amount wasn't considerable but enough to pay say 1/2 year of the insurance cost.

In terms of young drivers and high powered cars driving wrecklessly endangering others. I recall my young teenage years where my friends had owned brand new Ford Mustangs with 5.0L V8s and Camaros. I'd say they were equally or more powerful than today's Japanese gassed up cars. However, the intent of owning such sports cars was different than NZ's hoons or boy racers. The problem is high powered cars are too cheap in NZ. While growing up in Canada, if you were 17 and owned a brand new sports car (which you would work dearly for full time in addition to school), the last thing on your mind would be to risk racing it up and down the street just to impress others. Not to mention for over half the year we drive on snow and icy road conditions so our driving habits are totally different than to NZ road conditions. It's not until the summer holidays where people would bring out their expensive sports car. Then shortly by the time you think you could be heavy footed on the gas pedal, snow would arrive - so the driving habits have to change to the road conditions.

This is not to say that boy racer activity doesn't happen in Canada. I'm just saying that for the level of population and due to our weather climates, it just doesn't breed as many such 'boy racers' that we see too often in NZ. There's a saying that if you've got a remarkably high powered sports car, there's no need to even show it on the streets how fast it can go. No need to even race at the stop lights because those in their small japanese cars already know they've been beat.

If the boy racers in NZ is really looking for an adrenalin feel. Perhaps they should look at riding high powered motobikes. 600 - 1000cc rockets that the Japanese makes. No car can keep up with the acceleration and no car casualty can end up being flatten on a brick wall as one off the motorbike.

BQ