We buy Any Car .... DOT CON....

[Mandrake]

Yep!

http://www.nzs.com/new-zealand-articles ... rance.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nope.

The compulsory "insurance" component of the vehicle registration is the ACC (accident compensation corporation) levy. This is a government body that administers compensation payouts for accidents of all sorts including work related injuries, and it is NOT car insurance. Employers also pay an ACC levy for employees for work related injury etc...

As it says in the article it doesn't cover any vehicle or property damage, not even 3rd party, so its not car insurance. I should know, I was born there and spent most of my driving life there... Something like 40% of the drivers on the road in NZ are uninsured. I'm not saying that's a good thing, its just how it is. Because insurance companies don't have a captive market they can't fleece consumers quite as much. If their prices are too high a significant chunk of people will just go without and take the risk.

[addo]

I think non-mandatory insurance is a good thing, too. We enjoy the impost of similar personal injury insurance appended to yearly licensing fees - the premium varies by age, accident history, penaties accrued, vehicle type and location. The lowest it gets is about £300, the highest about double. Commercial vehicles are in the stratosphere, so most are dubiously registered as private usage.

On top of that third party property insurance is usually bugger-all less than comprehensive if you shop around; for obscure reasons to me the premiums also drop slightly if you have breakdown cover!

[qprdude]

Fair comment Mandrake, but the biggest claims on car insurance these days is for injuries rather than the car repairs, and it seems that the NZ system is designed to cover that. So it could be classed as some kind of injury insurance to third parties, but you repair your car at your own cost. My mate in Waiheke Island has a 407 Pug, a Big Jap bike and a Caddy CTS, none of them insured. Wonder how much that would cost in the UK.

[Gibbo2286]

Fair comment Mandrake, but the biggest claims on car insurance these days is for injuries rather than the car repairs, and it seems that the NZ system is designed to cover that. So it could be classed as some kind of injury insurance to third parties, but you repair your car at your own cost. My mate in Waiheke Island has a 407 Pug, a Big Jap bike and a Caddy CTS, none of them insured. Wonder how much that would cost in the UK.

You can of course in the UK buy a basic insurance called RTA (Road Traffic Act) which is probably a near equivalent to your NZ basic cover.

[411514]

Something like 40% of the drivers on the road in NZ are uninsured. I'm not saying that's a good thing, its just how it is. Because insurance companies don't have a captive market they can't fleece consumers quite as much. If their prices are too high a significant chunk of people will just go without and take the risk.

I completely agree with that thinking and that insurance should be optional as Addo mentioned.
The insurance industry has got to be the least competitive market around with more or less every UK adult legally
required to purchase product originating from about 2-3 underwriters. I often find that whilst the only cover I want is
3rd party its often cheaper to get tpft or even fully comp, I'v heard a few vague explanations of this being circulated around,
but ultimately there is no logical reason why a product costing a supplier less should be more expensive to the consumer than
one costing them more. There is also no credible explanation as to why a particular policy with one broker can cost hundreds if not
thousands in some cases more than an identical one from another broker. That sort of pricing structure exists for no other product
at all, you could probably buy 10 mars bars from all over the country and they would be within 1-2% of each other in price.
Sorry rant over, Sam

[Gibbo2286]

411514 They can't win really can they, if their prices are too close together they're accused of colluding to fix the price, running a cartel, if they're too far from the next lower price they're accused of profiteering, the same applies to petrol suppliers.

[qprdude]

Of course the real answer is for insurance companies and the authorities to clamp down hard on the cheats who cost us all 50% higher premiums. Anyone caught without insurance should have their vehicle impounded and sold, no excuses. If it is possible for me to insure my two cars, it is possible for everyone. Anyone found trying to defraud insurance companies by making false claims for damage or injury should have their vehicle impounded and sold. The laws may not be fair, they may not suit everyone, but they apply to everyone and should be applied equally.
Take away the reasons for insurance company excuses and the prices would have to be reduced.
On a slightly different tack, I was incensed last month when a Scottish sheriff allowed a three times over the limit drunk driver to keep his car, even though the law says it can be confiscated. His reason? The car was a highly expensive Mercedes S class worth over £50 grand and would be disproportionate compared to someone with a Ford Focus. I thought a drunk driver could do as much, or more damage in a high powered Merc, and your car is your car, no matter if it's a Corsa or a Ferrari. It is the driver who is a drunk, not the car. Shocking double standards. I bet he can still get insurance when his three year ban is up.