Drivers face compulsory third-party insurance

Too many people are driving motor vehicles,who cannot in fact afford them. I am 54 and did not obtain a licence or a car until I was 26,which saved me getting into any trouble during the vulnerable under 25 age-bracket. The 1986 car I was driving until recently has never been the same since an 18 year old girl ran into the back of it while looking in a shop window[my wife was driving]. Between State and FMG the panelbeater selected did not repair the vehicle properly,and through water leakage causing rust,it eventually failed its warrant. I replaced it recently with a 2003 model,but two months ago I stopped at a pedestrian crossing behind another car,but the car behind me did not stop. My good mountain bike on the back of the car was written off,which saved the boot from serious damage,but it is still expensive to fix. The young driver,who had been tailgaiting me for about 20 kms,was on a resticted licence and has no insurance. I will have to pay a $250 excess on both the car and bike claims,and because I will receive insurance based on the second hand value of the bike,it will cost me personally to replace it with a new one of the same model. I am strongly in favour of compulsory insurance. The driving age should also be increased substantially. The test to obtain a licence is set at a ludicrous standard.and should be made much harder. Too many people think they need a car when they do not. Yesterday's luxuries are today's necessities.

Too many people are driving motor vehicles,who cannot in fact afford them. I am 54 and did not obtain a licence or a car until I was 26,which saved me getting into any trouble during the vulnerable under 25 age-bracket. The 1986 car I was driving until recently has never been the same since an 18 year old girl ran into the back of it while looking in a shop window[my wife was driving]. Between State and FMG the panelbeater selected did not repair the vehicle properly,and through water leakage causing rust,it eventually failed its warrant. I replaced it recently with a 2003 model,but two months ago I stopped at a pedestrian crossing behind another car,but the car behind me did not stop. My good mountain bike on the back of the car was written off,which saved the boot from serious damage,but it is still expensive to fix. The young driver,who had been tailgaiting me for about 20 kms,was on a resticted licence and has no insurance. I will have to pay a $250 excess on both the car and bike claims,and because I will receive insurance based on the second hand value of the bike,it will cost me personally to replace it with a new one of the same model. I am strongly in favour of compulsory insurance. The driving age should also be increased substantially. The test to obtain a licence is set at a ludicrous standard.and should be made much harder. Too many people think they need a car when they do not. Yesterday's luxuries are today's necessities.

While I support compulsory 3rd party insurance, the large number of unregistered vehicles being driven around even at present indicates that this is a possible loophole. Wasn't compulsory 3rd party insurance used in NZ in the 60's? Reg

Many drivers, not just young ones, are not insured because they are struggling to manage their finances. This is partly reflected in lapses in registration payments, frequently leading to repeated listings as bad debtors with a debt collection agency. If "compulsory" third party insurance is gathered via registration this already substantial problem will multiply, as the cost being greater will lead to even higher avoidance action. It is difficult to see how this will be countered, other than by bringing in more draconian action, such as vehicle confiscation. With this in mind, it would be timely to find out how the current confiscation practices, for more limited reasons, are working, as they apply in part to the same targets.

as a kiwi living in oz they have compulsory third party insurance and it works well,however learner drivers cannot have v8;s or turbo cars.think it is about time nz sorted it out and not say it is to hard.

Of course the AA don't support the proposed new law, they're in the business of vehicle insurance as well. It makes business sense they only insure the known "good drivers", if this law comes in they'll be insuring drivers of unknown risk.