Prev: NSW: CTP Protest Rally Aug 31
Next: SUV drivers and door opening
From: TimC on 6 Aug 2010 07:29
On 2010-08-05, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 06:50:18 +1000
> Marts <marts(a)ymail.com> wrote:
>> What about when the rider is at fault?
>
> They are out of luck unless they have their own insurance.

Did such a thing ever exist for motorcycle riders?

I seem to recall that most CTP schemes had at-fault cover as a
"bonus", but none covered at-fault motorcycle riders, because we're
all irresponsible dangerous hoons, of course. However, these latest
changes make at-fault cover just an ordinary part of CTP rather than
an optional extra:
http://www.greenslips.com.au/at-fault-driver-cover.html

Does this mean riders are finally covered? Will this explain why the
cost has suddenly exploded, to cover single-vehicle, at fault riders?

--
TimC
Yesterday, after years of trying, I finally managed to take a photo of a
subway train that said "INSTRUCTION CAR" just so that someday I can caption
it "...but where's the DATA CDR?" when I'm ready to make a joke that's
nerdy even by the standards of jokes about LISP. -- James "Kibo" Perry
From: Marts on 6 Aug 2010 16:56
Zebee Johnstone wrote...

> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 06:50:18 +1000
> Marts <marts(a)ymail.com> wrote:
> >
> > With NSW's CTP scheme, when a fatality occurs, say a rider in a single vehicle
> > crash, does the insurer pay out anything?
>
> No. 3rd party only.
>
> > And when a rider's clouted by a car/truck, who pays to cover the rider's health
> > care costs if the car driver is at fault?
>
> the 3rd party insurance, that's what 3rd party means!

OK. Now that we've cleared that up, I cannot understand how the government can
justify these price increases if the rider gets no payout, no benefit from it
when he prangs, if no-one else caused it.

I can see why you guys are ropeable over this.


From: George W Frost on 6 Aug 2010 20:46

"Marts" <marts(a)ymail.com> wrote in message
news:gnlo5693u1ocgjiacavhdc1vci1ljaft7r(a)astraweb.com...
> Zebee Johnstone wrote...
>
>> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 06:50:18 +1000
>> Marts <marts(a)ymail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > With NSW's CTP scheme, when a fatality occurs, say a rider in a single
>> > vehicle
>> > crash, does the insurer pay out anything?
>>
>> No. 3rd party only.
>>
>> > And when a rider's clouted by a car/truck, who pays to cover the
>> > rider's health
>> > care costs if the car driver is at fault?
>>
>> the 3rd party insurance, that's what 3rd party means!
>
> OK. Now that we've cleared that up, I cannot understand how the government
> can
> justify these price increases if the rider gets no payout, no benefit from
> it
> when he prangs, if no-one else caused it.
>
> I can see why you guys are ropeable over this.
>
>


There is always the old excuse car drivers use
I swerved to miss a child on the road
or insert dog, cat, other car, elderly pedestrian, kangaroo, wombat, learner
driver
whatever you wish


From: Zebee Johnstone on 8 Aug 2010 16:42
In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 6 Aug 2010 21:29:01 +1000
TimC <tconnors(a)rather.puzzling.no-spam-accepted-here.org> wrote:
> On 2010-08-05, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 06:50:18 +1000
>> Marts <marts(a)ymail.com> wrote:
>>> What about when the rider is at fault?
>>
>> They are out of luck unless they have their own insurance.
>
> Did such a thing ever exist for motorcycle riders?
>
> I seem to recall that most CTP schemes had at-fault cover as a
> "bonus", but none covered at-fault motorcycle riders, because we're
> all irresponsible dangerous hoons, of course. However, these latest
> changes make at-fault cover just an ordinary part of CTP rather than
> an optional extra:
> http://www.greenslips.com.au/at-fault-driver-cover.html
>
> Does this mean riders are finally covered? Will this explain why the
> cost has suddenly exploded, to cover single-vehicle, at fault riders?

It is my understanding that a) the at fault driver cover was fairly
useless (especially as it was basically "medicare plus ambulance"
so it was pretty much ambulance fees, and b) the main increase has
been in the new lifetime care scheme which *covers non-insured
people* such as kids on farm bikes.

It isn't clear what the cost breakdown is, because no one is
publishing any figures. The at fault thing is the government trying
to push hospital costs from the state system to the greenslip system,
but just how that's being done and what the figures are is not known
aside from some handwaving.

The only thing known is that the numbers being used to calculate crash
costs are drawn from RTA crash stats *not* CTP claims. It's more
handwaving.


Zebee
From: George W Frost on 8 Aug 2010 19:26

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrni5u5me.1654.zebeej(a)gmail.com...
> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 6 Aug 2010 21:29:01 +1000
> TimC <tconnors(a)rather.puzzling.no-spam-accepted-here.org> wrote:
>> On 2010-08-05, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 06:50:18 +1000
>>> Marts <marts(a)ymail.com> wrote:
>>>> What about when the rider is at fault?
>>>
>>> They are out of luck unless they have their own insurance.
>>
>> Did such a thing ever exist for motorcycle riders?
>>
>> I seem to recall that most CTP schemes had at-fault cover as a
>> "bonus", but none covered at-fault motorcycle riders, because we're
>> all irresponsible dangerous hoons, of course. However, these latest
>> changes make at-fault cover just an ordinary part of CTP rather than
>> an optional extra:
>> http://www.greenslips.com.au/at-fault-driver-cover.html
>>
>> Does this mean riders are finally covered? Will this explain why the
>> cost has suddenly exploded, to cover single-vehicle, at fault riders?
>
> It is my understanding that a) the at fault driver cover was fairly
> useless (especially as it was basically "medicare plus ambulance"
> so it was pretty much ambulance fees, and b) the main increase has
> been in the new lifetime care scheme which *covers non-insured
> people* such as kids on farm bikes.


Kids on farm bikes should be covered by the householders insurance for
incidents on the property
If they are claiming the increases are because of that, then they are double
dipping and clearly ripping the insured off.






> It isn't clear what the cost breakdown is, because no one is
> publishing any figures. The at fault thing is the government trying
> to push hospital costs from the state system to the greenslip system,
> but just how that's being done and what the figures are is not known
> aside from some handwaving.
>
> The only thing known is that the numbers being used to calculate crash
> costs are drawn from RTA crash stats *not* CTP claims. It's more
> handwaving.
>
>
> Zebee


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: NSW: CTP Protest Rally Aug 31
Next: SUV drivers and door opening