Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[NSW] CTP submission - a very interesting read

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by TWEET, Aug 30, 2007.

  1. ok i red half way through that thing.
    Seems to come down to MCC claiming insurance companies are claiming huge profits of the back of greenslips of motorcycles while only a small percentage of claims come out of the CTP motorcycle pool so to speak. because riders cant claim CTP if they are at fualt and rarly hurt anyone else (car user pedestrains)

    GW for the MCC on putting it together.
  2. Excellent points: if I may summarise for those whos' time is more valuable than mine :grin:

    -CTP payments go into a pool out of which compensation is paid to injured claimants from auto accidents.

    -There are 3 types of bike stacks
    1) Motorcycle at fault, single vehicle crash.
    2) Motorcycle at fault, hits other vehicle or Vulnerable Road User.
    3) Other vehicle at fault, hits motorcycle.

    It then goes like this:

    -In situation 1, the rider can't claim off CTP which they've paid towards [their pillion may, but instances of this are VERY small].
    -In situation 2, it is usually property damage only: ie. people in cars aren't very vulnerable to injury when a bike hits them. Bike-on-pedestrian incident instances are also VERY small].
    -In situation 3, injuries sustained by the motorcyclist are claimed off the car's CTP cover: not the motorcyclist's. + the car driver is unlikely to be injured.

    Hence forth:

    Why do we riders have to pay so much for CTP, you bastards? Huh? HUH?
  3. cause they can?
  4. They only can because they have monopolised the service and fixed margins... I bet there are memo's we will never see that the ACCC could issue nice big fines over ^_^

    But it does present an interesting point: CTP insurance for motorcyclists as a very low financial risk to the provider.
    We are either at fault and can't claim, or it's claimed on the car's CTP: pillions and pdestrians are pretty much the only thing you are covering in most instances: and those types of accidents are few and far between.

    What does one have to do to setup an insurance co that offers CTP?
    Can you have a "bikes only" policy for that service?

    Well, we already know the math means you can be a lot more competetive than the current pricks in business...

    Who wants to register an ABN with me?
  5. yeah sign me up 50$ CTPs for everyone
  6. It's all about risk and being on a bike whether at fault or not you are at greater risk of serious injury and great treatment & rehab costs than a car or truck driver in a similar incident. If you drive a $200,000 Ferrari then your normal property damage insurance premium is always going to be more expensive than someone driving a $35,000 Commodore because of the repair costs involved.

    Then again in NSW you have a competitive CTP scheme but we in Vic have TAC which is government run, self funded, cheaper than your green slip system and no blame as well :)

    As I've said before the only good thing out of NSW is the Hume Highway :LOL:
  7. ..

    yea that NSW system seems really shiiit...
    Vic still pays through the roof and it's flawed but sounds better than NSW.
  8. No, it's not.
    Person A pays CTP, so if it's their fault when they hit and injure Person B - Person B is covered for medical stuff by Person A's CTP insurance.

    The point is that: motorcyclists very rarely cause injury to someone else when they are at fault in a multi-vehicle collision.
    Property is a different matter, and relies on crash stats and 'who's most likely to stack'.
    But the point is that the payouts from what motorcyclists pay into the CTP pool, are not proportionate to our liklihood to cause injury.

    The fact that heavy vehicles [buses and trucks etc] pay MORE [presumably because they can cause greater injuries to more people = more cash required] would indicate there IS a tiered system based on vehicle weight class and that motorcyclists are being treated incredibly unfairly by it.
  9. I agree & disagree with you here Ktulu.

    If a bike is brought down by a car and the cars at fault then in theory the car insurance covers it BUT if the same occured car to car then there may well have been no injury at all so perhaps they believe riders need to accept some level of risk in riding and charge accordingly.
  10. that's more to do with the vehicle being registered for business purposes than the weight straight up. You can have a lot of fun calling the companies and asking for a policy for a heavy vehicle (>4.5t GVM) that's for personal use only. The implication is that it's on the road a lot more than a personal one and therefore more likely to run over someone or be involved in an accident injuring passengers in the same vehicle.
  11. What an interesting concept

    We pay Compulsory Third Party Insurance to Insure a Third Party if we Injure them.

    But we pay more Compulsory Third Party Insurance because we are more likely to be injured by a Third Party.

    Cool have you ever read "Catch 22"
  12. CTP covers medical costs for a person ONLY and it's compulsory to pay it with rego.

    So, if a bike is brought down by a car, and the car is at fault then in theory the car's CTP covers the rider's injuries ONLY. Property damage is a separate issue.
    If the rider wasn't injured: there'd be no claim on CTP.

    Car to car: no injury = no claim on CTP, also.

    The point is riders usually only injure themselves, no matter who's at fault: so what we are charged is disproportionate to the liability we present to insurance companies.

    This is statistical, and has nothing to do with 'making people more careful' - and nor should that enter into it.

    Insurance companies over-charge riders unreasonably, and get away with it through price-fixing, because it would be very easy to justify more competitive policies for riders based on statistical analysis.
  13. Ktulu is correct here, however what is more disturbing, is that rates are set by the MAA (Motor Accident Authority) and they analyse data and tell insurers what to charge, yet as the MCC have questioned in this document the cost of CTP for a given rider varies greatly between insurers.

    I recently had to get CTP for rego, and from NRMA (who I have multiple policies with) they wanted $565, GIO who I have no policies with wanted $353 - both offer almost identical benefits. Guess who got my business??

    The $200 difference in premium cannot be justified based upon risk alone, riders in NSW are being gouged by price fixing insurers, in collusion with the MAA. Read the document I posted the link to entirely and tell us what you think of the comments made by the director of the MAA regarding why CTP for bikes is so expensive, and why it can vary so greatly. The guy seems like he has an agenda, and it's to shaft riders.
  14. That's what I'm getting at. They'd use the line that riders put themselves at greater risk by choosing to ride so should subsidise that extra risk.

    As with all forms of insurance you should always compare premiums & benefits they pay out before handing over your hard earned.

    Did I see someone post in a previous thread that you can actually get a no blame policy in NSW?? No doubt it would cost a fair bit more than the no blame versions though.

    Perhaps you guys need to lobby for the current system to be scraped and a TAC style no blame scheme started in NSW.

    While on the subject of CTP did you know that you pay CTP on trailer rego in SA & WA?? I didn't until I had 20 trailers made up to be deployed to all corners of the country. To allow them to be moved around initially I had them rego'd in Melbourne and our Fleet guru's told me about the lack of CTP cover for the units if towed by SA or WA rego'd 4x4's (Vic rego covers any trailer you are towing at the time) so as soon as they arrived in Adelaide & Perth they went over the RTA pits there and got local rego.
  15. Then we should be telling the companies to f*&% off and find a way to get some cash out of bicyclists and pedestrians too; rather than expect us to grab our ankles tighter than everyone else.

    If they want to play the vulnerability card: that's fine.
    But the bastards should play it on the table, not under it.
  16. My only comment on this is that it shouold be based upon the third party. The rider not being the third party do why do we pay? If the risk to the third party is lower then the premium should be lower.
  17. Hooray for living in the ACT is all I have to say. CTP is part of your rego, and pretty damn cheap.
  18. Sorry for rehashing an old post, but I just chucked the sjits about CTP green slips blah blah blah, so I did a search of Netrider and came across this Thread.
    So, I followed the initial link posted by TWEET, saw the submissions, read the 8th report and response (I also read the 9th reponse) and I was interested in Recommendation Number 5 from the govt. (Govt Response)
    Does any one know what is happening with this and is there any sign of green slips being more in line with actual risk of motorcycles CAUSING injury than, well let's put it bluntly a lie!
    Oh it's intersting to note that in the 9th report (9th Report)there is stuff all on motorcycles! Does this mean they've stopped listening or are they still waiting for the research from the joint MAA and NSWMSC?
    Is the NSWMSC well on track on collating the data that was recommend?
    So, many questions, and I'm a tight arse! I want to pay cheaper green slips!!!![/url]
  19. I have read the responses to this further in the thread, before anyone mentions anything.

    I would just like to say, that faceless company X Y or Z has no business in charging an individual more simply because they want said individual to ponder the potential risks the activity (in this case motorcycling) carries with it.

    The idea is absurd. I pay them for a specific service, not to give me a sermon from the mount.

    I realise that companies may not in fact operate with this in mind and quite frankly I hope that is the case.