Friday, January 08, 2010

To insure or not to insure?

The hoary New Year paper fillers are out in force of late. Last week it was academics spouting hot air on this and lot of discredited that telling us what is supposedly good for us and not good for us.

Today's topic is another contentious issue, compulsory motor vehicle insurance.

The question is: Should we be forced to carry mandatory MV 3rd party insurance? For example, as is so in the UK?

I personally remain unconvinced any insurance is required to drive a motor vehicle. Saying that I have one vehicle insured, purely because of its replacement value, the other an uninsured road legal hack, of little value and used locally. Having insurance in one vehicle doesn't make me suddenly change my driving habits as I swap to the other.

Today's filler suggests 93% already have MV insurance. I suspect that is because a lot of vehicles will be on drip-feed/leases and such inusrance will be mandatory. Others suggest the government should take note of public opinion making it compulsory for the 7% that cannot or like myself choose not to insure, after assessing the risk. My driving record suggests that risk is very low after 40 years plus. I daresay the government will not act upon public opinion after the anti-smacking farce where 88% said no, but they did nothing.

I personally feel the subject is the insurance companies touting for more business. What of the driver who ploughs pissed into your pride and joy? Will your mandatory 3rd party cover you then? I daresay not. How about those that cannot get insurance or those of the 7% without licences?

New Zealand is very different to other countries as the personal injury component of 3rd party insurance is removed via a hideously expensive separately ACC tax rorted from drivers when renewing their MV registration. Also we have a stringent bi-annual vehicle inspection requirement unlike other countries. The suggested 3rd party MV insurance will only be to cover vehicle repair costs.

Countries that have compulsory MV insurance do not have any marked drop in the number of accidents or crashes. So why is the New Zealand government so intent on flogging this more? Following the money trail, I'd say to line the pockets of their insurance mates.

The question remains: To insure or not to insure? I say absolutely, NO.


pdm said...

Having worked in the industry for over 20 years I am pro compulsory 3rd party insce - with a company of the owners choice. No 3rd party no rego or wof.

For now just be careful you don't hit INV2's Mercedes as he flashes through Dannevirke - his insce company will sue you for sure.

PM of NZ said...

Pdm, exactly what I suspected - the money trail is the driver.

As for Merc drivers...

pdm said...

Hmmm pm - I wonder if he does have a merc - will he tell us. As I recall he likes saloon cars racing so probably a Commodore or a Falcon do you think.

Wait wait - Holden as I recall.

KG said...

"As for Merc drivers..."


PM of NZ said...

kg, Ok, so you obviously drive a Merc and I am going to get a serve.

Pretentious prick is the first thing I think when I see wanna-be yuppie swanning around in a flash Euro-trash vehicle. They deserve an uninsured hack parked in their boot.

So sue me. Bring it on.

KG said...

Firstly, I drive a Merc (bought used, less than 70k on the clock, one owner) because it's reliable, cheap and simple to fix (parts around half the price of Honda bits)and there's bugger-all depreciation.
Factor in depreciation, cost of parts and insurance to that Japanese "economy car" and suddenly it's not so bloody economical, is it?
For 5.5k I bought a 70k (new) car which is comfortable, quiet and grunty enough to tow a heavy trailer.
Seems logical enough to me.

KG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KG said...

And if some idiot writes it off, I can go out and buy another and still be ahead of the game..;-)
At least I stand a better chance of being around, too, if it's a collision between a rice-rocket and a ton and a half of Stuttgart steel.