It is worth pointing out that car safety ratings now also include tests that estimate how well-designed a vehicle is to reduce injury to a pedestrian it hits.

Since here in NZ we allow the taxpayer to shoulder responsibility for the outcomes of poor driving instead of the individual drivers (by making them pay for insurance that will cost them more or less depending on their driving record) I for one think that encouraging people to drive cars that protect both those inside and outside from more serious (read 'expensive to treat') injuries is a sane idea.

Any car built within the past 5 years is likely to have a multitude of features that will reduce both the likelihood of an accident occurring (traction control, stability control, brake assist, ABS etc) and the severity of one if it does (crumple zones, airbags, seatbelt pre-tensioners, curtain airbags, door intrusion bars etc).

Quite obviously there is a reasonable case to load premiums against unsafe cars.

Even more obvious to anyone who has travelled further than the next town should be the fact that NZ drivers and roads are amongst the least sophisticated in the Western world and massive improvements to the quality both are the only realistic way to reduce deaths and injuries.

My Mum owns a 1988 Mercedes 320SE. A few years back, she crashed head on into a fairly solid tree at 80kms on a slippery road and barely damaged the radiator. She was fine. That thing is a concrete tank. They cost about $5k these days and I've never felt so safe in a car. Plus, it does better mileage than my 2000 VW Golf.

Apart from maintenance costs, older cars are safe as.

Idiot ministers. Do your research.

Ironic that the vast majority of accidents are late model cars which, I would assume, have a higher safety rating.The ONLY way to reduce accident statistics is to force a higher standard of driving,its not rocket science

Driving a safer car may save your life, your partners life, your childrens life or some one elses life.

Why is it that we Kiwis would rather save a few hundred dollars (and probably, as Billy said, spend it on beer!) than grow up and improve the standards of our vehicles and - more importantly - the standards of those behind the wheel of them?

I just got back from 5 years in Europe and the biggest difference between here and there is that we revel in and encourage mediocrity instead of excellence like they do. And it is not enough to blame it on our poor earnings - there are many many people in Europe who are at least as poor as people here. That is just lazy thinking.

I like how people are flying off the handle with the "taxing the poor" comments. It's simple, if you are in an older car and get in an accident, ONE THAT'S NOT YOUR FAULT, you are going to cost ACC more money, and that's the thinking behind it. I think this is a good idea, but should be introduced AFTER mandatory insurance, tiered insurance levels (see #24 and #33), and mile-based ACC levies for classics/second cars that aren't driven daily. Coming from the lawyer-happy States, I've seen insurance rates that make mandatory insurance unaffordable for young people with powerful cars, and you can't get a warrant without insurance. I've owned classics most of my life, but now that I'm older and there are more crazies on the road, I feel far safer with an airbag in front of me. Simply put, most people don't pay the true cost of driving, and that's without even opening the emissions can of worms.

Agree to fix any ins/ acc lievy premium at the cause. Registration is not a cause of accidents. Useing the vehicle is ?, so charge it on kilometres. Granny will love you for being honest and delivering justice to the elderly.

I think everyone's forgetting that driving is a privilege, not a right. If you can't afford to buy a car with ESP and curtain airbags (and there are some cheap ones out there), you shouldn't be allowed on the roads.

Also, to whomever suggested that safety features only come into play once an accident has actually happened, you need to learn more about Active and Passive safety features and how newer cars are a lot more likely to avoid accidents in the first place (sometimes without any driver input - see the new Mercedes range which brakes for you when its radar knows you won't stop in time).

I can't believe how ignorant and unprepared people can be when it comes to car safety. You'd rather pay off a student loan and drive a deathtrap than spend a little each week financing a safe car?

Thank you, Richard, for being the first to comment: I couldn't have said it better myself.

Just because some one drives an older car does not mean they are poor I have loads of cash partly because i choose not to waste it on cars.Typical bureacrates stereotyping people on what car they drive. I agree with Nick put the cost on the fuel.

This is ridiculous. Tax on petrol makes much more sense as at least that way if you have a car you drive rarely you are not paying for that. I think compulsory insurance is a grand plan, but i agree that the prices will increase initially as you are going to have to pay what they ask. Competition will help this though. Why not have a rego system where the insurance you have and your previous driving records are taken into account and either reduce/increase what you pay? This seems to be a smarter plan than expecting the entire country to upgrade their cars!