MOTOR RISKS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 230, 28 September 1928, Page 15

MOTOR RISKS.

SOME STARTLING FIGURES.

PROTECTION FOR THE PUBLIC

COMPULSORY INSURANCE SCHEME. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary -ttei>orter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. Opening with the declaration that "it is the duty of the State to protect the •lives and iimbs of citizens."' the Hon. F. J. Rolleston. Attorney-General, moved the second reading 111 the House to-night of the Motor Third Party Risks Insurance Bill, and gave an indication of what risks are to-day. The statistics, he said, are startling. In 1927 deaths attributable to accidents caused by motor cars totalled 138, and in the period from February till August of the following year there were ISO death*. In the same period there were 41 serious accidents likely to cause death. In addition there were convictions for negligent driving totalling 4259 in 1926, and 517 i in 1927. There were 294 persons convicted in 1927 of being drunk while in charge of motor vehicles.

Some would say, continued the Minister, that this position could l>e met by stricter regulation of traffic but lie thought the more effective way of dealing with the matter was to provide a scheme for the payment of compensation or damage to those injured. There had been a strong demand for this from motor associations, farmers' unions, and other bodies. What the Bill Covers.

The Minister went on to state tliai the risk covered by tiie bill was the third party risk, which related to injuries or death of persons, and excluded damage to property. He could only give a very rough estimate of the number of cars now covered by insurance, and it was believed 25 per cent of those on the roads were not insured. It would probably he found that the insured persons were those who had something to lose, asainst whom a claim could l»e prosecuted with success, while those uninsured would include persons with no assets, or those whose record was such that no company would insure them. In making comparisons between existing premiums and those proposed for the insurance under the bill members should realise the fact that it was onlv for third party risk. It would provide an insurance for every vehicle on the roads, and would even cover injuries inflicted through accidents caused by persons driving who were not authorised to do so.

"It does not matter whether it is a thief or a joy-rider, whoever drives a car and causes an accident under circumstances which throw a liability on the driver, there is an insurance." Risks to Passengers. Mr. , Samuel (Ohinemuri): Does it cover passengers? The Minister: It is not possible to provide for everything at once. "The whole scheme was something in the nature of an experiment, and it was impossible to forecast the liability. If, after a year's working, it was found possible to extend the benefits, this could be done or the premium reduced. Passengers riding in cars were not protected."

Mr. Savage (Auckland West): If there are conditions on the ticket?

The Minister replied tliat this point had been anticipated, and he would provide against it in case of a payins passenger. But the voluntary passenger took the risk voluntarily.

Several questions were asked regard•ngr other exemptions, and the Minister replied that of course if the House desired he could double the premium and ♦ake out the exemptions. Mr. Holland (Leader of the Opposition): Have you an arrangement with the companies? The Minister: Yes. it is in the bill. There will be no policy or proposal, the insurance will be made before a license can be issued, and the license will be the receipt. No Negligence, No Claim. In reply to a query, Mr. Rolleston said that a man with two cars would pav two premiums. Mr. Atmore: Ah! Two killing machines. (Laughter). The Minister said that the liability per passenger in commercial vehicles was £2000, and the total liability per vehicle was £20,000.

The Leader of the Opposition: How about a cas* when 30 passengers are involved ?

Mr. Rolleston: It would be pretty difficult for all 30 to be killed. Experience has shown that £20.000 is a reasonable liability. In any case, there would be a liability over and above that in the bill for claims concerned. A man knocked down by a vehicle would have a common law claim, and could get damages to any extent the Court might award. The only defence to a claim would be: First, the usual defence that there was no negligence. The Act could not cover cases where there was no negligence on the part of the driver. No negligence, no liability, was the rule, ">xcept in ca-es where the vehicle was Infective. The Premiums Compared. "It is impossible for me to compare the premium rates in this bill and existing rates, became existing premiums cover damage or 10-s in respect of property as well as personal injury, whereas this bill covers only the personal aspect,"' continued the Minister.

"There are various class-ps of vehicles, each with their own premium. As the bill does not operate till next June, there will be time to consider the question, but I think it can be taken that these rates are the maximum. The bill does not operate till next June, because

owners of vehicles <! n't ;-.<y t'ne'r : . tration fees and ; . ■i- i .;i ; - year. "Under the exist i urn rates private car owners hi. 2. am £4 10/ up to £10 10/, accorautg to horse power, and that, of course, is in respect of both car and personal risk. Under this bill the owner of a private car will pay only £1 premium in respect of injury to a person only. Sir Joseph Ward: What is the maximum that an injured person can b« paid under the bill?

Mr. Kollestou: The amount is unlimited so far as private cars are con cerned, but in respect of buses tin limit is £2000 per person, and the t*'tal limit £20.000. I think it will be seen tVut this private car cover of £1 is m >re advantageous than the existing rate of from £4 10/ upwards. Having paid his £2 registration fee and £1 premium a private car owner is covered against loss, and has effected a considerable sai - ing also. The public are protected in regard to injury by his car by whomsoever driven. The risk involved is more than the premium will stand on information available. There are 180,000 motor vehicles in New Zealand, but many of them are not private cars, and would pay more than £1 each. So that premiums will yield more than £180,000 a year. Are Premiums Too High? Mr. Nash (Palmerston North): Surely £180.000 a year is not paid out in claims in New Zealand!

Mr. Rolleston: We have no figures to go on, but a big accident, involving £20,000, would soon make a hole in it. It may be, of course, that £180,000 a year is too much. It is quite a question whether risks should be increased and tlie premium raised. It would be quite open to consider it next year. Mi. Parry (Auckland Central): Oh! The labour party will consider it next vear.

Mr. Ttolleston continued by saving that tbe £1 premium was no hardship on motorist?. Anyhow, insurance was an obligation that the motorist owed the public. He wanted members to regard this bill in that light. Ordinary commercial vehicles would pay 30/ a year. Vehicles used for commercial purposes and occasionally for the carriage of passengers would pay £3. whereas they paid from £10 to £18 now for their cover. Fire brigades would pay £2 per vehicle, as against £S to £17 5/. Taxis, which now paid from £15 to £34, would pay £7 10/, and £1 10/ extra for seats over six. Seats in larger vehicles exceeding 25 would be 10/ each. So far as municipalities were concerned it would be good business for them to come in under this scheme, because they would get cover much cheaper than at present. Both the Government and municipalities would come in and reap considerable benefit. This would be seen from the fact that an omnibus carrying 20 passengers now paid £44 premium, whereas they would under the bill pay only £24. A vehicle carrying 30 passengers would pay oidy £31 10/, against £49 now, and that was a considerable saving. Motor Cycles Fifteen Shillings.

Continuing recital of the schedule, the Minister said motor cycles would pay only fifteen shillings, as against £4 10/ to £6 10/. The maximum cover in respect of a motor cycle was unlimited.

Mr. Rolleston went on to show that for the very low rates quoted motorists and cyclists could cover themselves ~ against financial ruin. Every motorist, who drove an uninsured car- had ruin staring him in the face in case he be involved for a claim totalling £2000. Sir Joseph Ward urged the inclusion of voluntary passengers, because it was very unpleasant when a car owner was obliging a friend, an accident occurred, and an action was taken against the car owner by one whom he had been obliging. He favoured extending the scope of the bill. If a moderate premium were charged it would permit of this. He did not favour State monopoly. This country was under considerable obligation to big insurance companies for subscriptions to loans in time of necessity, and it would not be wise to enact coercive legislation towards them. He would support the bill.

The Leader* of the Opposition thought the bill should have been sent to a special committee which could hare taken evidence from those concerned; but, as that oould not now be done this session, he would not have the bill imperilled in view of the large number of accidents which wer« taking place in all parts of the Dominion. The bill was read a second time.