OUTA says shutting down the Road Accident Fund to save R2.25 per litre is a bad idea

[Swa]

Huh? By law it is intended to cover loss of income and disability. It is literally in the law. It has been that way since at least 1965's MVA Fund (which after several reincarnations is the Road Accident Fund). And you can't blame the ANC because they were banned at the time and not in government.

And I disagree with "people should have their own insurance". Frankly if a drunk dude drives into a mother telling the kids to suck it up ain't going to fly. I can see there must be a limit -- i.e. if you earning millions then it is reasonable to expect you should have your own insurance to cover your loss of millions in income. But remember a lot of road victims are pedestrians which aren't even road users.

We need some kind of insurance scheme. I would support mandatory third party personal injury insurance (which *doesn't exist* today - third party cover doesn't cover personal injury) if there was a proper and easy way to enforce it. Fuel used to be a good proxy because it correlated with how much you used the roads and it was difficult to not pay. But it is coming to and end and I don't see a good alternative on the horizon.

Regardless the fundamental problem is still the number of accidents on roads. Somebody will have to pay the medical bills and support the people who can't work and the children who don't have parents anymore. And the carer of last resort will always be the government which need to pay for it via taxes.

Temporary while you recover. But then why does it pay out someone in school with nearly 100 bar? Someone earning a million a year can't expect to be covered like someone earning 60k. There needs to be a reasonable limit per injury. If you need more or have dependants then get your own or take out life insurance. RAF doesn't cover you for general accidents in any case.

Then as far as pedestrians and passengers go these are unrelated to the risk they pose. Pedestrians pay nothing despite being the biggest risk. A bus with 40 people pays the same as a truck with one driver. There needs to be changes and perhaps some form of risk based assessment should be employed but 3rd party won't be the answer.

 

[Bad Ballie]

Should that not be billion?

Yes 8,2 Billion

 

[rustypup]

Folks, there is a whole industry constructed around the RAF trough. Legal. Medical. Piggy.

THINK OF THE JOBS*

*...and corruption. So much corruption. Everywhere

 

[konfab]

This mandatory part is doing a lot of heavy lifting and brings the government dependency right back in. Are you expecting the government to better enforce mandatory 3rd party insurance or enforce the fuel levy?

Mandatory insurance is stupidly easy to enforce. Governments are good at enforcement. They are not good at running businesses, which is what the RAF is.

1) You submit proof of cover as part of the licence renewal.
2) You keep the insurance details in the vehicle that can be looked up by law enforcement.


And the best part is that the insurance is risk based.. So if you have a history of accidents and drive a BMW, you are going to pay more than the accident free ouma driving her 2001 Toyota Corolla.

 

[konfab]

Temporary while you recover. But then why does it pay out someone in school with nearly 100 bar? Someone earning a million a year can't expect to be covered like someone earning 60k. There needs to be a reasonable limit per injury. If you need more or have dependants then get your own or take out life insurance. RAF doesn't cover you for general accidents in any case.

Then as far as pedestrians and passengers go these are unrelated to the risk they pose. Pedestrians pay nothing despite being the biggest risk. A bus with 40 people pays the same as a truck with one driver. There needs to be changes and perhaps some form of risk based assessment should be employed but 3rd party won't be the answer.

Thing is the RAF fuel levy treats a bus with 40 people in it the same as a truck with one driver. Both are big diesel engines. But one obviously presents a colossal risk to more people than the other.

For any vehicle transporting passengers, they should follow something similar to the Montreal convention:

• The Montreal Convention: International flights are governed by the Montreal Convention. [1, 2, 3]
• Strict Liability: For most in-flight accidents leading to bodily injury or death, airlines have strict liability (up to a specific cap of Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs). You generally do not need to prove the airline was at fault to recover compensation up to that threshold. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Higher Damages: For claims exceeding the strict liability limit, the airline can only avoid paying more by proving it was completely free of negligence or that a third party caused the injury.

In fact, this likely should apply for vehicle passengers as well come to think of it.

Insurance company can still take all the risk, but they can legally fight it after the cap.

 

[Johand]

Mandatory insurance is stupidly easy to enforce. Governments are good at enforcement. They are not good at running businesses, which is what the RAF is.

1) You submit proof of cover as part of the licence renewal.
2) You keep the insurance details in the vehicle that can be looked up by law enforcement.


And the best part is that the insurance is risk based.. So if you have a history of accidents and drive a BMW, you are going to pay more than the accident free ouma driving her 2001 Toyota Corolla.

Good at enforcement? Do you have any idea of the number of unlicensed vehicles out there? And probably there is a correlation between unlicensed vehicles and unsafe vehicles.

Look it would be great if we can get secure encrypted vehicle license identifiers that can be read electronically from a distance. Then we can eliminate the stupid paper disk as well. But that ain't happening...

The alternative is roadblocks everywhere all the time...

 

[mpdjhb]

Not sure why I must pay for some form of insurance just because I drive more, or have a less fuel efficient car etc.
Flat rate 3rd party licence disk and impound vehicles not displaying it.
Win. Win.

 

[Johand]

just because I drive more, or have a less fuel efficient car etc.

That is actually perfect. The more time you spend on the road the more time you are exposed to having an accident. And bigger vehicles create bigger accidents. So that part is actually pretty good.

 

[Swa]

Folks, there is a whole industry constructed around the RAF trough. Legal. Medical. Piggy.

THINK OF THE JOBS*

*...and corruption. So much corruption. Everywhere

Jobs yes. You know this is where I'm with Dawie Roodt. We shouldn't be creating jobs. You can easily create two jobs by getting someone to dig a hole and another to fill it up. That's not productive work that solves problems. The private sector doesn't concern itself with creating jobs. It's only when government is involved it takes advantage of it.

 

[Swa]

Mandatory insurance is stupidly easy to enforce. Governments are good at enforcement. They are not good at running businesses, which is what the RAF is.

1) You submit proof of cover as part of the licence renewal.
2) You keep the insurance details in the vehicle that can be looked up by law enforcement.


And the best part is that the insurance is risk based.. So if you have a history of accidents and drive a BMW, you are going to pay more than the accident free ouma driving her 2001 Toyota Corolla.

Nothing is easily enforced in SA. You only need it one month a year to renew so that is useless.

It's not risk based by how much you drive.

 

[konfab]

Nothing is easily enforced in SA. You only need it one month a year to renew so that is useless.

It's not risk based by how much you drive.

Your insurance company knows your individual risk already, and uses it to set your premium. If they want to, they can give lower premiums to people who have driver monitoring, like Discovery does.

The fuel levy just looks at how much fuel you use. A gas guzzling skedonk that can only go 60km/h pays more than a hybrid BMW that can go 0-100 in 6 seconds.

As for enforcement, yeah, one a year. And then you are required to have it on your person. Which is how the police check in the US when they pull you over.

 

[Swa]

Your insurance company knows your individual risk already, and uses it to set your premium. If they want to, they can give lower premiums to people who have driver monitoring, like Discovery does.

The fuel levy just looks at how much fuel you use. A gas guzzling skedonk that can only go 60km/h pays more than a hybrid BMW that can go 0-100 in 6 seconds.

As for enforcement, yeah, one a year. And then you are required to have it on your person. Which is how the police check in the US when they pull you over.

Where is the guarantee? It should be standard and regulated.

Cars use more or less the same amount. It's usually the more you use the higher risk your vehicle is and also the wear on the road. It's not perfect and you'll get exceptions but it's better than other methods.

We don't have the checks here and it's also open to corruption whereas it's fairly hard to dodge fuel levies. In the US you get a fine if you don't have insurance. Bribes result in "are you trying to bribe a police officer mam?" Also if you don't have insurance and cause an accident the state still pays.