Mantashe says diesel should cost R14 per litre

[SauRoNZA]

I far prefer a RAF model in SA than compulsory insurance. It's far more "reliable" to collect the money at the pump, than to try and pull off some kind of enforcement of mandatory insurance, and where people who are hit by uninsured drivers then get absolutely nothing.

I also don't see how this will be any cheaper for drivers. If the RAF is 4x underfunded based on the amount they currently collect, then why wouldn't the insurance premium burden on motorists be at least 4x more than what they'd save from unbundling it from the fuel price?

The only thing this would help ensure is that electric/hybrid drivers can't escape paying their "fair" share.

If you are insured then you don’t have to worry about the uninsured.

Only the uninsured lose…as they should.

Drivers are ALREADY paying this between their medical aids and vehicles insurances so they will immediately save by not double paying. There won’t suddenly be a new cost.

 

[SauRoNZA]

Why do you think it's any better when the government puts a mandate an insurance company to "steal" the money from you? At least you can drive less or go electric to avoid having your money "stolen" by the RAF. With mandatory insurance the "theft" is compulsory.

There’s no mandate when the vast majority are already insured of their own accord because they aren’t stupid.

This will force everyone to be insured or they get nailed.

Right now it’s compulsory anyway but only some reap the rewards.

 

[km2]

If you are insured then you don’t have to worry about the uninsured.

Only the uninsured lose…as they should.

Drivers are ALREADY paying this between their medical aids and vehicles insurances so they will immediately save by not double paying. There won’t suddenly be a new cost.

You realise that you're not paying for this with your insurance currently?

Your insurance would need to go up DRAMATICALLY to cover this, as instead of the RAF holding all liability for injuries in a road accident it would be transferred to you and your insurer.

 

[Lupus]

You realise that you're not paying for this with your insurance currently?

Your insurance would need to go up DRAMATICALLY to cover this, as instead of the RAF holding all liability for injuries in a road accident it would be transferred to you and your insurer.

You are really struggling with this mandatory insurance part and how that would actually bring down your insurance. As the risk is lower, one of the biggest risk is uninsured drivers. Also in the cheapest insurance which is called third party, what do you think the third party is? If you're in an accident and it's not your fault, you're the third party and the other ones insurance will pay. But generally you just approach your insurance and they fight for you. So not sure why you think your insurance will go up dramatically, when technically it's already part of your insurance.
Unless you don't actually pay insurance so have no idea how it works?

 

[SauRoNZA]

You realise that you're not paying for this with your insurance currently?

Your insurance would need to go up DRAMATICALLY to cover this, as instead of the RAF holding all liability for injuries in a road accident it would be transferred to you and your insurer.

You are paying for it as your insurance (medical aid / gap cover) currently covers this for yourself for a lack of being able to claim from a third party and then goes after the RAF to try and recoup it.

Mandatory third party insurance of both the person and vehicle would in fact make your primary insurance cheaper as the risk of needing to recoup is removed.

The “pool” of funds is increased for less money due to more claims being covered.

Also it will be equalised for everyone, whereas at present people who use more fuel pay more for no logical reason or any difference in risk. Private insurance is entirely individual.

 

[km2]

You are really struggling with this mandatory insurance part and how that would actually bring down your insurance. As the risk is lower, one of the biggest risk is uninsured drivers. Also in the cheapest insurance which is called third party, what do you think the third party is? If you're in an accident and it's not your fault, you're the third party and the other ones insurance will pay. But generally you just approach your insurance and they fight for you. So not sure why you think your insurance will go up dramatically, when technically it's already part of your insurance.
Unless you don't actually pay insurance so have no idea how it works?

Third-party covers damage to the other persons car and possessions. It doesn't cover pedestrians, or injuries and the consequences of that. The RAF currently covers that. This would move all of that over from the RAF to your insurance, and the cost would go up accordingly.

 

[Lupus]

Third-party covers damage to the other persons car and possessions. It doesn't cover pedestrians, or injuries and the consequences of that. The RAF currently covers that. This would move all of that over from the RAF to your insurance, and the cost would go up accordingly.

Still struggling to understand how insurance works. The more people that have insurance the lower the premiums will be, with the RAF closing down insurance would need to cover pedestrians again like they did in the past. Technically if you look at your insurance policy there is an amount you're covered for damages to others.
Plus the RAF is broke and it's broke not because it helps people but because of lawyers and an unreliable collection method.
You're also forgetting that the drop of the RAF would be a saving to the people, not only in fuel, but in groceries, deliveries and anything else that uses fuel.
Your logic just screams of someone without insurance or even medical aid, or life insurance

 

[km2]

Still struggling to understand how insurance works. The more people that have insurance the lower the premiums will be, with the RAF closing down insurance would need to cover pedestrians again like they did in the past. Technically if you look at your insurance policy there is an amount you're covered for damages to others.
Plus the RAF is broke and it's broke not because it helps people but because of lawyers and an unreliable collection method.
You're also forgetting that the drop of the RAF would be a saving to the people, not only in fuel, but in groceries, deliveries and anything else that uses fuel.
Your logic just screams of someone without insurance or even medical aid, or life insurance

I hope you come to understand that the coverage of a new category of risk by an insurer will always result in higher premiums. Also read up about the RAFs financial situation, why even read the article this discussions is linked to, the RAF is getting reamed by claims that would still need to be paid.

Anyway if this does come to pass I hope you have you have your dashcam working because when the liability model switches to people suing you for their injuries, you're going to see a lot more people staging their injuries and taking you to court for the 10 years they won't be able to work. Especially in good ol' South Africa.

 

[ToxicBunny]

I hope you come to understand that the coverage of a new category of risk by an insurer will always result in higher premiums. Also read up about the RAFs financial situation, why even read the article this discussions is linked to, the RAF is getting reamed by claims that would still need to be paid.

Anyway if this does come to pass I hope you have you have your dashcam working because when the liability model switches to people suing you for their injuries, you're going to see a lot more people staging their injuries and taking you to court for the 10 years they won't be able to work. Especially in good ol' South Africa.

What new category of risk? I already have personal liability which covers this sort of risk.

And I can guarantee you that those who stage injuries to fleece insurance companies will come off second best and that avenue will be nipped in the bud very quickly.

 

[Lupus]

I hope you come to understand that the coverage of a new category of risk by an insurer will always result in higher premiums. Also read up about the RAFs financial situation, why even read the article this discussions is linked to, the RAF is getting reamed by claims that would still need to be paid.

Anyway if this does come to pass I hope you have you have your dashcam working because when the liability model switches to people suing you for their injuries, you're going to see a lot more people staging their injuries and taking you to court for the 10 years they won't be able to work. Especially in good ol' South Africa.

Right and you're happy with it being reamed cause heaven forbid people actually pay for insurance. I don't get this love for government to look after you, are people that lazy and incompetent that they need government to hold their hands for everything?

 

[Lupus]

What new category of risk? I already have personal liability which covers this sort of risk.

And I can guarantee you that those who stage injuries to fleece insurance companies will come off second best and that avenue will be nipped in the bud very quickly.

He clearly doesn't have insurance, hence why he has no idea.

 

[km2]

What new category of risk? I already have personal liability which covers this sort of risk.

And I can guarantee you that those who stage injuries to fleece insurance companies will come off second best and that avenue will be nipped in the bud very quickly.

There's a pretty good chance your personal liability insurance in South Africa doesn't cover that, because CURRENTLY you're not legally liable for that.

"Under South African law, you can’t pursue another person for financial compensation in the case of a road accident."

This would change that. Now your personal liability insurance would need to cover it. That's going to make the premiums go up a whole lot.

 

[bwana]

I far prefer a RAF model in SA than compulsory insurance.

Why does my lawnmower, chainsaw, and generator need to contribute towards the RAF?

 

[Lupus]

Why does my lawnmower, chainsaw, and generator need to contribute towards the RAF?

Cause they might hurt a pedestrian...

 

[ToxicBunny]

There's a pretty good chance your personal liability insurance in South Africa doesn't cover that, because CURRENTLY you're not legally liable for that.

"Under South African law, you can’t pursue another person for financial compensation in the case of a road accident."

This would change that. Now your personal liability insurance would need to cover it. That's going to make the premiums go up a whole lot.

It actually wouldn't since the insured pool would be significantly larger than it currently is...

 

[bwana]

"Under South African law, you can’t pursue another person for financial compensation in the case of a road accident."

Interesting... I was sued for millions after a MVA. Lost my house and property in the process.

 

[km2]

Interesting... I was sued for millions after a MVA. Lost my house and property in the process.

I don't know what year that was or what it was for, but when the liability of the driver increases there's going to be far more people who will get to have that same experience. And I don't think its worth it to change from the current system to one that encourages more of it. Fix the RAF sure, but creating some new mandatory insurance that may or may not protect you from the liability of the courts is a step backwards (always a bit more of a gamble when you're depending on your insurance to come through).

 

[ToxicBunny]

I don't know what year that was or what it was for, but when the liability of the driver increases there's going to be far more people who will get to have that same experience. And I don't think its worth it to change from the current system to one that encourages more of it. Fix the RAF sure, but creating some new mandatory insurance that may or may not protect you from the liability of the courts is a step backwards (always a bit more of a gamble when you're depending on your insurance to come through).

Given that I've had 3 accidents involving another vehicle in my life and all 3 accidents were caused by an uninsured driver... Mandatory 3rd party sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[km2]

You are really struggling with this mandatory insurance part and how that would actually bring down your insurance.

I think what's sad is that you don't seem to understand that we already have a mandatory insurance.... it's called the RAF, and if nothing else it is exceptionally good at delivering on the "mandatory" part. Everyone is paying, even @bwana's lawnmower.

And now you want to move to a system where people will need to purchase insurance to cover 3rd parties injuries. Do you think everyone in South Africa will snap to attention and run out and buy insurance when they don't already have it? Or will it be like all the other mandatories like eTolls and the TV license with sloppy compliance.

So now you've gone from an insurance system that has a nearly unavoidable way of collecting premiums across high, middle and low income earners, and you're going to switch it to an insurance system that collects from people who are good little boys and girls and don't want to fall afoul of the law. Which one do you think is going to have a wider "client base"?

 

[porchrat]

Why do you think it's any better when the government puts a mandate an insurance company to "steal" the money from you? At least you can drive less or go electric to avoid having your money "stolen" by the RAF. With mandatory insurance the "theft" is compulsory.

The RAF is R350 billion in debt. It's a poorly run entirely unworkable mess. Give me some of whatever you are smoking.