EU Insurance Ruling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tfp

Apparently, in australia, car insurance is optional:-) Which is a much better idea IMO, even though I have no idea how it works if you have a crash.

---

In NSW 3rd Party Personal Injury Insurance is compulsory (and is otherwise called a green slip). You can't even pay your motor tax until you've first got a green slip and a roadworthy certificate (if applicable).
3rd Party Property Only Insurance is quite common if you happen to own a cruddy car. That would mean that if someone drove their $500 Hyundai Excel into the side of a Rolls-Royce Cornish, then the Rolls-Royce would be covered but the Hyundai car wouldn't.

But that only works for NSW. Every state and territory is like its own little world and the rules are different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tfp

Apparently, in australia, car insurance is optional:-) Which is a much better idea IMO, even though I have no idea how it works if you have a crash.
I just begrudge paying car insurance:-)
This is why my imprezas value is only half that here in britain than what it would be down under. Bah, Humbug, Grumble, mumble

---

Not exactly, they have a different system, basically to put it in UK terms, they pay their third party insurance in with their car tax. Then they can buy comprehensive as well.

Personally I think combining insurance and tax is a good idea, I've said for a while that car tax should be scrapped and replaced with a car on car insurance, it would make it all much easier!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

In NSW 3rd Party Personal Injury Insurance is compulsory (and is otherwise called a green slip). You can't even pay your motor tax until you've first got a green slip and a roadworthy certificate (if applicable).
3rd Party Property Only Insurance is quite common if you happen to own a cruddy car. That would mean that if someone drove their $500 Hyundai Excel into the side of a Rolls-Royce Cornish, then the Rolls-Royce would be covered but the Hyundai car wouldn't.

But that only works for NSW. Every state and territory is like its own little world and the rules are different.

---

Aah I've got ya. My mate in Brisbane said something about you dont have to insure your car, only yourself. Thats cleared it up now:-) A much better idea, I reckon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tfp

Aah I've got ya. My mate in Brisbane said something about you dont have to insure your car, only yourself. Thats cleared it up now:-) A much better idea, I reckon!

---

I think that you'd be bonkers not to have 3rd Party Property Insurance. If you had an accident as the at-fault driver, you'd then be personally liable for the damage caused. Even a minor thud against something like a Hyundai i20 would still cost several hundreds of dollars; that's a gamble I'm not prepared to take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I think that you'd be bonkers not to have 3rd Party Property Insurance. If you had an accident as the at-fault driver, you'd then be personally liable for the damage caused. Even a minor thud against something like a Hyundai i20 would still cost several hundreds of dollars; that's a gamble I'm not prepared to take.

---

I get the feeling though, that people running around in Oz without 3rd party insurance is nowhere near as common as in the UK.

If you are hit by an uninsured driver in the UK you will usually still get your car fixed, there is a fund which insurance companies pay into to help with this.

I'm not sure what happens to uninsured drivers and if they are perused for the cost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Silly. Men should pay more for insurance than men. It typically men who have the accidents where people are getting scraped up off the road and women tend to have fender benders....

---

That is questionable.

What they are saying, correctly, is you can't tar everybody with the same brush.

From my experience the near misses I have had have come from either a) women pulling out at roundabouts without looking, b) young lads in souped cars driving like idiots.

So, why should responsible male drivers pay more than women when they have no evidence they are a bad driver.

It is about time they sorted it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Absolutely correct. Most young men seem to have this idea that they are all Michael Schumachers and that they have to show it to everyone. Just a testosterone and ego thing.

---

Yeah, they seem to drive like they are trying to make up for something...! Apparently Daniel does this a lot ;)

When you think about it, it's reasonable that if you are going to put people into 'boxes' based on risk, they should be a smaller sized box than half the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

That is questionable.

What they are saying, correctly, is you can't tar everybody with the same brush.

From my experience the near misses I have had have come from either a) women pulling out at roundabouts without looking, b) young lads in souped cars driving like idiots.

So, why should responsible male drivers pay more than women when they have no evidence they are a bad driver.

It is about time they sorted it out.

---

I quite agree, you should propose a new question for the insurance companies to ask

Question 1: are you
A: Female
B: Male

If A proceed to question 2, if B proceed to question 3

Question 2: So you're a wimmin innit? Are you
A: An attentive driver
B: A dozey bint

If A you will pay lower premiums, if B you will pay more money for your insurance. Proceed to question 4

Question 3: Are you
A: an attentive driver
B: A yound lad driving around in a souped up car who drives like an idiot

If A you will pay lower premiums, if B you will pay more money for your insurance. Proceed to question 4

Question 4: Are you
A: A hard working heterosexual white person who is opressed in the name of political correctness gone mad?!?!?!?!?!
B: A gay lesbian black asian Welsh Scottish Northern Irelander who's from Poland?

If A you will pay more money for your insurance, if B, don't worry mate, the government will be taking care of your insurance.

It's about time you used your grey matter and stopped proposing that things need to be "sorted out" when certain things in life will never be 100% fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

When you think about it, it's reasonable that if you are going to put people into 'boxes' based on risk, they should be a smaller sized box than half the population.

---

But sex is merely one of many factors which insurance companies use to work out your insurance premium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I quite agree, you should propose a new question for the insurance companies to ask

Question 1: are you
A: Female
B: Male

If A proceed to question 2, if B proceed to question 3

Question 2: So you're a wimmin innit? Are you
A: An attentive driver
B: A dozey bint

If A you will pay lower premiums, if B you will pay more money for your insurance. Proceed to question 4

Question 3: Are you
A: an attentive driver
B: A yound lad driving around in a souped up car who drives like an idiot

If A you will pay lower premiums, if B you will pay more money for your insurance. Proceed to question 4

Question 4: Are you
A: A hard working heterosexual white person who is opressed in the name of political correctness gone mad?!?!?!?!?!
B: A gay lesbian black asian Welsh Scottish Northern Irelander who's from Poland?

If A you will pay more money for your insurance, if B, don't worry mate, the government will be taking care of your insurance.

It's about time you used your grey matter and stopped proposing that things need to be "sorted out" when certain things in life will never be 100% fair.

---

If that was an attempt at humour, it failed miserably.

I don't see why it can't done more fairly. Tarring people with the same brush should not be tolerated. I am happy that they are making an effort to take away this "positive discrimination".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

If that was an attempt at humour, it failed miserably.

I don't see why it can't done more fairly. Tarring people with the same brush should not be tolerated. I am happy that they are making an effort to take away this "positive discrimination".

---

You are the perfect example of the person who said "Why can't things be better?!?!?!" and then goes on to provide no actual workable way in which things could be made better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

You are the perfect example of the person who said "Why can't things be better?!?!?!" and then goes on to provide no actual workable way in which things could be made better.

---

Why did you bring up topics from other discussions to use in this one, when they are not at all relevant. Probably because you are getting desperate. Your post earlier was abysmal.

Women asked for equal rights in the past, quite rightly - as they were prejudiced against. They couldn't even vote! Thankfully this was sorted, but now we found ourselves full circle. Women only ever asked to be equal - car insurance is an example where the woman has been "better" than the man for some time. It is about time they sorted it out once and for all and the EU insurance is ruling is absolutely the correct step. I don't see why you have a problem with people being equal, Daniel?

All the women I have spoken to seem to think the ruling is fair and correct. All usual the over-sensitives of the forum are getting their knickers in a twist. Going to the pub with you would be like hell on Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

Going to the pub with you would be like hell on Earth.

---

Believe me, the feeling is entirely mutual. I would, however, say that your apparent dislike of any group of people who are in any sense different from yourself in not being a heterosexual white male, your feeling that all other such individuals are given special treatment despite this flying in the face of any real-life examples I have ever come across, and your overly aggressive manner, would seem to make you perfect for the career you desired in the police, so I would appeal the decision if I were you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

Why did you bring up topics from other discussions to use in this one, when they are not at all relevant. Probably because you are getting desperate. Your post earlier was abysmal.

Women asked for equal rights in the past, quite rightly - as they were prejudiced against. They couldn't even vote! Thankfully this was sorted, but now we found ourselves full circle. Women only ever asked to be equal - car insurance is an example where the woman has been "better" than the man for some time. It is about time they sorted it out once and for all and the EU insurance is ruling is absolutely the correct step. I don't see why you have a problem with people being equal, Daniel?

All the women I have spoken to seem to think the ruling is fair and correct. All usual the over-sensitives of the forum are getting their knickers in a twist. Going to the pub with you would be like hell on Earth.

---

Well the women you've spoken to must be different to most of those interviewed on the news or those that I've spoken to.....

At the end of the day, anyone who knows anything about insurance knows it's down to risk and it's a proven factor that men have more big accidents than women and this is why they were and should still remain more expensive to ensure. It's like a smoker having to pay more for health cover, of course they should pay more because they're at a higher risk of having lung cancer and other illnesses. But in your world everyone should all be equal apparently!

You're exactly the sort of person you accused me of being when you said that I only voted Labour because they let people like me in the country easily. This all despite nothing that the Condem's or your beloved British Nazi Party have proposed would have any impact on me being allowed in. You happily criticise the EU when they do things you don't like and say how useless they are then you're willing to say how fantastic they are when they do something you feel will benefit you.

You're a massive hypocrite Bezza.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Well the women you've spoken to must be different to most of those interviewed on the news or those that I've spoken to.....

At the end of the day, anyone who knows anything about insurance knows it's down to risk and it's a proven factor that men have more big accidents than women and this is why they were and should still remain more expensive to ensure. It's like a smoker having to pay more for health cover, of course they should pay more because they're at a higher risk of having lung cancer and other illnesses. But in your world everyone should all be equal apparently!

You're exactly the sort of person you accused me of being when you said that I only voted Labour because they let people like me in the country easily. This all despite nothing that the Condem's or your beloved British Nazi Party have proposed would have any impact on me being allowed in. You happily criticise the EU when they do things you don't like and say how useless they are then you're willing to say how fantastic they are when they do something you feel will benefit you.

You're a massive hypocrite Bezza.

---

I think stating that I love the BNP is a step too far pal, but it pretty much sums up the way you think.

You are BDunnell are like two peas in a pod. Eager to jump on someone just for having an opinion different to their own. Of course, I must be racist / a nazi / homophobic etc JUST because I don't agree with your excessively left-wing view of everything.

We are not even talking about the stuff you have just posted yet you decide to bring into the conversation.

Your smoker analogy doesn't make sense. I agree with you that people who smoke should pay more health insurance. However, that does not correlate to car insurance at all. People who have crashes should pay more? Or just because I am a man and some idiots younger than me have had a crash whilst I have a clean license, I should pay more?

Your last paragraph is deplorable and BDunnell you are almost as bad.

We are allowed to have differences of opinion in this country you know. Sadly if you two were in charge, we really wouldn't be allowed that priviledge.

You can have the last word, Daniel (as always) as this is the last I have to say on this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

I think stating that I love the BNP is a step too far pal, but it pretty much sums up the way you think.

You are BDunnell are like two peas in a pod. Eager to jump on someone just for having an opinion different to their own. Of course, I must be racist / a nazi / homophobic etc JUST because I don't agree with your excessively left-wing view of everything.

We are not even talking about the stuff you have just posted yet you decide to bring into the conversation.

Your smoker analogy doesn't make sense. I agree with you that people who smoke should pay more health insurance. However, that does not correlate to car insurance at all. People who have crashes should pay more? Or just because I am a man and some idiots younger than me have had a crash whilst I have a clean license, I should pay more?

Your last paragraph is deplorable and BDunnell you are almost as bad.

We are allowed to have differences of opinion in this country you know. Sadly if you two were in charge, we really wouldn't be allowed that priviledge.

You can have the last word, Daniel (as always) as this is the last I have to say on this matter.

---

Boohoo.

If you knew anything about insurance you know it's all about risk and you don't raise someone's premium's after the event. If someone lives on a floodplain the insurance company doesn't wait till there's a flood till they charge the person on the floodplain more than the person living on the hill. Personally I think it's wrong to penalise low risk people to supposedly iron out some perceived unfairness which is actually justified.

So just because Ben and myself don't agree with you then were' excessively left wing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

Going to the pub with you would be like hell on Earth.

---

Daniel would definetly be a trip, as i magine after a few drinks, life would be scary.

Dunnel on the other hand, BORING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Boohoo.

If you knew anything about insurance you know it's all about risk and you don't raise someone's premium's after the event. ?

---

I need you to talk to my insurance company, as they are very strongly insisting to the contrary after a certain family member wrecked out....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

We are allowed to have differences of opinion in this country you know.

---

Indeed. So, when I see you writing that minorities of various types receive special treatment, am I supposed to just let it go even when I know your comments to be nonsensical and completely lacking in foundation other than hearsay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Indeed. So, when I see you writing that minorities of various types receive special treatment, am I supposed to just let it go even when I know your comments to be nonsensical and completely lacking in foundation other than hearsay?

---

Like I just said......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Like I just said......

---

So you would just let something you disagree with vehemently go, would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Indeed. So, when I see you writing that minorities of various types receive special treatment, am I supposed to just let it go even when I know your comments to be nonsensical and completely lacking in foundation other than hearsay?

---

I am not asking anybody to agree with me. I am just sick of this elitest attitude that appears when something is said that they don't agree with, dropping down to name-calling and directly accusing somebody of being something they are not. You have done that yourself, BDunnell, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up with. I know what you are insinuating, and it is this attitude that I really don't like. It happens more and more thesedays and no wonder people are scared to say what they think.

My comments are clearly not nonsensical as I was agreeing to a ruling made by the EU! What further back up do you need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

My comments are clearly not nonsensical as I was agreeing to a ruling made by the EU! What further back up do you need?

---

I sit on the fence with this one, but you can't go using EU politicians to back up your argument :D :p : It's like talking about sportsmanship and then saying "My mate Flavio agrees".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

I am not asking anybody to agree with me. I am just sick of this elitest attitude that appears when something is said that they don't agree with, dropping down to name-calling and directly accusing somebody of being something they are not. You have done that yourself, BDunnell, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up with. I know what you are insinuating, and it is this attitude that I really don't like. It happens more and more thesedays and no wonder people are scared to say what they think.

---

Well, clearly I'm not scared to say what I think. And given that you appear to have nothing bar anecdotal evidence for your allegations of positive discrimination, it is a bit rich for you to suggest that I have nothing with which to 'back up' my comments. You say that minorities of one sort or another are constantly given a leg-up by way of positive discrimination. I stated that my experience is that this assertion is untrue. Were it accurate, I might expect to have experienced some of this positive discrimination, as would various friends of mine, but they haven't. What's wrong with my saying that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Well, clearly I'm not scared to say what I think. And given that you appear to have nothing bar anecdotal evidence for your allegations of positive discrimination, it is a bit rich for you to suggest that I have nothing with which to 'back up' my comments. You say that minorities of one sort or another are constantly given a leg-up by way of positive discrimination. I stated that my experience is that this assertion is untrue. Were it accurate, I might expect to have experienced some of this positive discrimination, as would various friends of mine, but they haven't. What's wrong with my saying that?

---

I said boring, because you come across with this elite, intellectual snobbery, while engaging in provocation and name calling. Scared got nothing to do with it. You should have a litttle fun; it probably will not kill you.


Oh well, got more important things to do. Like get a second job, so my kid can keep wrecking the truck. I guess Daniel is not calling those a**hos at my insurance company and telling them how wrong they are.

Daniel, all talk and no action!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

I need you to talk to my insurance company, as they are very strongly insisting to the contrary after a certain family member wrecked out....

---

Sorry what I mean to say is that if someone is a risk before the accident because they fit into a group which is likely to have an accident then it's right to make them pay more, if they have an accident that's their fault then they should be made to pay more.

I do (honestly) apologise for not being clearer in making my point Markabilly.

I just don't think it's right, wise or sensible for for what Bezza seems to suggest which is for there to be no "discrimination" upon the basis of whether or not someone is in certain proven risk categories. It'd be like having a 18 year old who's just got their licence and a 30 year old who has just got their licence and making them pay the same when the statistics say that the 18 year old is far more likely to have a serious accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

My comments are clearly not nonsensical as I was agreeing to a ruling made by the EU! What further back up do you need?

---

That's specious reasoning.....

So if the EU says for you to jump off a cliff will you do so?
If the EU dictate that every friday morning we should all get up, put our pants on our head, stand in a black forest gateau and sing Girls just wanna have fun by Cyndi Lauper then should we just do this blindly?
etc etc etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

That's specious reasoning.....

So if the EU says for you to jump off a cliff will you do so?
If the EU dictate that every friday morning we should all get up, put our pants on our head, stand in a black forest gateau and sing Girls just wanna have fun by Cyndi Lauper then should we just do this blindly?
etc etc etc

---

To be fair, nowhere did he say that every EU ruling is right and worthwhile on the basis that one might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

To be fair, nowhere did he say that every EU ruling is right and worthwhile on the basis that one might be.

---

To be fair I may have misread his post :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

That's specious reasoning.....

So if the EU says for you to jump off a cliff will you do so?
If the EU dictate that every friday morning we should all get up, put our pants on our head, stand in a black forest gateau and sing Girls just wanna have fun by Cyndi Lauper then should we just do this blindly?
etc etc etc

---

It sounds like a good plan to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

It sounds like a good plan to me.

---

Go and lobby your 'local' MEP now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Sorry what I mean to say is that if someone is a risk before the accident because they fit into a group which is likely to have an accident then it's right to make them pay more, if they have an accident that's their fault then they should be made to pay more.

I do (honestly) apologise for not being clearer in making my point Markabilly.

.

---

oh YEAH, that really helps...I point you out to the mean nasty insurance company, and then you say this.....now I will have to get THREE jobs to pay those premimums, unless they cancel me....in which case, I will just have to go bare..................girls just wanna have fun, oh yeah,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Well, clearly I'm not scared to say what I think. And given that you appear to have nothing bar anecdotal evidence for your allegations of positive discrimination, it is a bit rich for you to suggest that I have nothing with which to 'back up' my comments. You say that minorities of one sort or another are constantly given a leg-up by way of positive discrimination. I stated that my experience is that this assertion is untrue. Were it accurate, I might expect to have experienced some of this positive discrimination, as would various friends of mine, but they haven't. What's wrong with my saying that?

---

I don't mind hearing you say what you think - that is the whole point! You can say what you want! I don't like people who say something and then just shoot down other people because they don't agree.

When it comes to statistics we all know the saying "lies, damn lies and statistics". Premiums based on statistical evidence alone is wrong. And it only takes into account the statistics they want to. Just like politicians do!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

I don't mind hearing you say what you think - that is the whole point! You can say what you want! I don't like people who say something and then just shoot down other people because they don't agree.

---

Exactly what you have done, without any statistical evidence to back yourself up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Exactly what you have done, without any statistical evidence to back yourself up.

---

I haven't shot anybody down at all. I stated my opinion and then Daniel, and then you jumped all over it with a fair amount of abuse. If you scroll up you will see what I mean! If you base your comments like this then I have to take everything you say with a pinch of salt.

And furthermore the discussion was about car insurance only. It was Daniel and then YOU who brought other topics into this debate that were completely irrelevant, presumably to help you with your viewpoint here. Can you not have an independent debate on this topic without bringing conjecture into the conversation? Try and keep the discussion on track in future. According to Daniel I support the BNP - apparently because I think men and women should be equal ! Does that really make sense to you? Do you agree with this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

According to Daniel I support the BNP - apparently because I think men and women should be equal !

---

Not because you want equality, because you're ignorant and think that Britain should only have straight white British people in it.

Daniel, your begining to sound like a real bully on this thread in my opinion. Bezza, for what it's worth you don't and never have ever appeared to be a BNP fanatic. Also, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with certain aspects of BNP thinking not that it deserves any discussion on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GridGirl

Daniel, your begining to sound like a real bully on this thread in my opinion. Bezza, for what it's worth you don't and never have ever appeared to be a BNP fanatic. Also, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with certain aspects of BNP thinking not that it deserves any discussion on this topic.

---

Have you read some of the drivel he posts about immigrants though? I suspect he's the sort of person who thinks your dad doesn't have the right to be here.....