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.

VIC - Lower Speed Limits & Lower Insurance Premiums

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Sir Ride Alot, Aug 5, 2010.

  1. According to the bureaucracy and the ALP state government lower speed limits make roads safer.

    If the roads are safer then it stands to reason there will be fewer accidents.

    If there are fewer accidents then there are fewer claims.

    If there are fewer claims then insurance premiums must drop.

    At the next renewal I will demand a reduction in my premium based on this argument. Insurance companies can’t keep charging these ridiculous high premiums when the conditions have changed.

    The bottom line is lower speed limits mean lower revenue and lower earnings for insurance companies.
  2. The insurance companies set their policy prices on accident statistics, risk assesment of rider/bike, history of thefts in area, riders history/age etc. Also, whether we like it or not, they can set their premiums at whatever level they like, they aren't owned by the government so the government policy on speed limits won't mean anything to them. If the government policy actually does reduce the number of accidents (I don't think it will by the way), then insurance may drop, but again, commercial profit will probably outweigh that and they can make more money.

    It sucks, but not a lot you can do but take your business elsewhere or not insure, which is not a good option.
  3. Well speed limits are pretty pointless when they assign "driving at speed unsafe for conditions" to any accident that they can.
  4. My last insurance premium was reduced to less than the previous year. I will be looking for a 20% reduction the next time around.
  5. I am really not understanding your angle on this.
  6. They argue that you should (shouldn't doesn't mean that it's optional) drive to the conditions and that the limit is an upper limit, based on conditions, not a target to set your throttle demand to.
  7. well theres two particular distinct groups drivers on the road that have no hope of operating a vehicle properly and no hope for improvement.
    ..and both of these groups are growing on our roads an at alarming rate.
    one being an ageing population, the other being immigrants who have never even seen a car, prior to being given a job driving taxis here.. and basically operate the car the same way they would their water buffalo back home.

    now your old driver can't process information at speeds faster than mobility scooter pace.. and your immigrant is accustommed to maximum top speed on his water buffalo of around 20-25 kph.

    .. therefore inherent dangers in either of these groups travelling at speeds over 40kph prevail... and therefore government policy is a reduction of all speed zones to a maximum of 40kph.
  8. Don't forgot that insurance premiums are not just based on the road toll or number of crashes. There are lots of other factors that drive the cost such as the amount of thefts, vandalism and events like the hail storms Melbourne experienced last year that damaged or wrote off thousands of vehicles.

    Your point does make me think of product manufacturers who are continuing the practice of making their packaging (or goods) smaller without ever reducing the price. This is pretty much the same as putting the prices up by stealth.
  9. I'll bite.

    What do you class as "old"?

    Or do you post this stuff to get a reaction?
  10. From Older drivers: Crash involvement rates and causes, MRJ Baldock, AJ McLean, Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide

    Older drivers, when compared to those in younger age groups, have relatively few crashes. They are only over-represented in crashes when adjustments are made for distances driven by drivers in different age groups. This over-representation in crashes per distance driven is given a great deal of emphasis in the literature but, for practical purposes, the two most
    important indices of crash involvement are total crash numbers and crashes per licensed driver, neither of which show an over-representation of older drivers.

    Full report...
  11. Yesterday, I spoke to a dog turd, that made more sense than your post.

    My doctor says that it is quite normal to talk to manure, when all there is to read is manure.

    Biggest "Danger" on our road is drivers with poor skill, made worse by a lack of training, and common decency.

    A bit of common courtesy, some physical training on what a car feels like traveling in anything but a straight line, and a good dash of common sense should fix the majority of the perceived road problems. Add to that Enforcement of other Risk Intensive attitudes on the road(Tail gating/poor indication/Give way issues/etc.) and presto. I reckon it would make a difference.

    Make it more intensive to get your learners.
    Make the driver more educated, better informed, and you'll make the driver more capable.
  12. Don't see how you can possibly win that argument when crash statistics and the road toll this year prove conclusively that progressively lowering the speed limit has NOT made anything safer.
  13. Hard to get crash stats by place of birth but for 1992-94 we have:

    Standardised mortality ratio by place of birth for motor vehicle fatalities...

    Australia 1.0
    UK & Ireland 0.93
    Other Europe 1.02
    Asia 0.72
    Other 0.92
  14. It’s easy. Make low speed unprofitable. First Insurance then TAC insurance, Ambulance Subscriptions etc. Every time there is a renewal or a purchase of an item or service throw in the lower speed factor and ask for a discount.

    An extreme example would be if the speed limits are only 80kph then why would I need airbags? Don’t you think its overkill? If the limits were 140kph then yeah throw them in.

    It does not matter how ridiculous an argument is. The aim is to pressure the market into thinking safety only sells when there is a perceived risk. As soon as revenue is threatened things usually change fairly quickly.

    Speed is profitable.
  15. You overlooked my earlier point that insurance covers a lot of other events besides collisions on public roads. What about theft, vandalism, natural events (like the hail storms), car park incidents.... the list goes on.
  16. I didn’t overlook the earlier post. Aren’t most insurance claims from accidents and isn’t speed a “factor” in every accident?

    I’m pushing the argument that if the government reduces speed limits then there will be repercussions. We will pay less for other things making it extremely difficult for organisations to push the bullshit safety argument. Another example is “Buddy I’m not paying $300 bucks for a tyre that will hardly see more than 80kph. I’ll give you $250 for it.”

    The government is gambling that if they reduce speed limits then many of their costs will reduce for example the TAC, Ambulance, Police etc.

    On the other hand they are not reducing our taxes or fees yet they continue to slug everyone with fines and slowly turn us into hoons.

    It’s an absolute f’cking scam!
  17. yeah, the best kind.... for them.
  18. I'm really not getting your angle.
  19. Speed might be a factor in all accidents, but It still costs insurers the same amount to replace a written off vehicle whether it was travelling at 40kmh or 50 kmh at the point of impact.

    You would have a better argument for reduced premiums if there was a demonstrated reduction in the number of accidents and claims made.
  20. Petrol should also be cheaper. If you're not going as fast and using less it should be cheaper.

    Services should also be cheaper. The motor isn't working as hard so it shouldn't need as much labour to service it. It will put an end to mechanics ripping us off.

    Actually the more you think about it the better this gets.

    If trucks can't go as fast then things they deliver should be cheaper. Go to Harvey Norman and say $5000 for that big screen TV, no way I'll give you $3500. Or that loaf of bread at Safeway, $2.49, forget it I'll give you $1.99