MOTOR ACCIDENTS

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 28 September 1928, Page 5

MOTOR ACCIDENTS

THIRD PARTY RISKS.

PROVISION OF INSURANCE. BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE. v ßy Telcgrapn—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 27. The second reading ot- the' Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risas; Bill was moved in the House of Representatives to-day by the Hon. r. J. Rolleston. He said it was one or the hrst duties of the State to protect the lives of its citizens. The rapid development of motor traffic in recent years had been so great that some stex> in this direction• had become necessary. In 1927, said the Minister, there were 138 deaths from motor accidents, and in 1928, from February to August, the number was 130, while in the same period there were 41 serious accidents which were likely to result in death. Other statistics all went to emphasise the necessity lor ■some protective steps, and that was the reason for the Bill being introduced. The measure provided for the compulsory taking out of third party insurance covers by the motorists and other motor vehicle owners when they renew or take out fresh licenses.

Companies willing to undertake this class of business were to notify the registrar of motor vehicles, and they would be bound to accept the business offered them. Every motor owner would be required to pay the insurance premium simultaneously with the payment of liis license fees. After the deduction of administration expenses the balance of the premium was to be paid to the insurance companies which the owner nominates. The rate of the premium was to be prescribed by regulation. No license or registration plates were to be issued until the insurance premium was paid, and insurance was to take effect from the time of the payment of tlie premium. The liability of companies was limited by the Bill to £209 in. the case of individual passengers- in a motor vehicle, and to £2009 where more than one passenger is involved j otherwise the liability was unlimited in amount. The cover was not to extend to members or an owner’s family nor to relatives not more remote than fourth, of to his servants, employees, or his guests. The cover was not affected by a change of ownership, although the former owner must advise the insurance company of the change. Owners were to fie required to (advise the insurance company of all accidents. An important section gave insurance companies the right to apply to a magistrate for an order cancelling a motor driver’s license on the grounds that the safety of the public was being unduly endangered. Licenses so cancelled were, to he delivered to the court, but provision was made for an appeal by a person ’to the Supreme Court. In so far as it required payment of insurance premiums by or on behalf of the owners of motor vehicles, the Bill sought to bind the Crown. It would thus be seen, said the Minister, that they were going very much rurther than had previously been done. I’he legislation .was somewhat experimental. He Wanted to point out that the premiums were very low, and after die scheme had been in operation for some time they would be able to say whether they could best- reduce the premiums or extend the benefits, iliere were many cases not covered which he would have liked to- include, out that could only be done if the House agreed to increase the . premiums. He preferred to begin with a low premium rather than overweight the scheme upon its initiation. For this reason the voluntary passenger •iad been excluded.

Figures in his possession led him to conclude that this class of risk was too great for the proposed premiums to stand. He anticipated the premiums would bring in over £IBO,OOO per annum. These premiums would be lower than those charged now, and the scheme as a matter of ordinary prudence would assure the car owner against absolute ruin in case of a. serious accident. This cla'ss of insurance •was not being made a State monopoly jeeause it was not considered wise that one office should be burdened with the whole of the risk. Mr. D. G. Sullivan said that however much members might disagree with some of the details of the Bill they must all agree with its principle. He supposed there was now' a great necessity for some such measure, but be was afraid it would be a big harvest for the lawyers and insurance companies. What he meant by that was • that what hadi happened in connection with workers’ compensation would ‘ happen here, namely, that the companies would challenge every case and they would all have to be fought out in 'the courts. He regretted the dill did not propose to make insurance a State monopoly. Mr. D. Jones . suggested that the scope’ of the Bill be extended so that a car owner might be able to take out an alternative risk; one that.covered a third party risk only, and one that covered the third party risk and damage to property, at the saue time. Such important proposals should not be rushed into legislation before the people had had time to acquaint themselves with them. He therefore asked the Government to delay the passing, of the Bill till next session.

Sir Joseph Ward urged the inclusion of the voluntary passenger, because it was very unpleasant when a ear owner was obliging a friend an accident occurred and an action was taken against the car owner by the one whom he had been obliging. He did not favour a State monopoly. This country was under a considerable obligation to the 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 have taken evidence from those concerned, but as that could not now be done this session he would not have the Bill imperilled, in view of the large number of accidents which were taking place in all parts of the Dominion.

After the Minister had replied the Bill was read a- second time.

A COMPREHENSIVE COVER. WHAT THE RISKS ARE. MINISTER QUOTES STATISTICS. (By Telegraph—Special to The Star.l WELLINGTON, Sept. 27. Opening with the declaration “that it is the duty of the State to detect the lives and limbs of its citizens,” the Hon. F.« J. Rolleston, AttorneyGeneral. moved the second reading in

the House or the Motor (Third Party. Rusks) Insurance Bill, and gave an indication of what the risks -are to-day. r - “The statistics,” lie 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 wore 130 deaths, and in the* same period 41 serious accidents likely ‘i to cause death. In addition there were convictions for negligent driving totalling 4259 in 1926, and 5171 mi 1927. There were 294 persons . oon- . victed in 1927 of being drunk while in charge of motor vehicles. Some would say, continued the Minister, that this position could .be met by stricter regulations of-‘traffic* ~ but he thought the more effective way of dealing with the matter was to provide a scheme for the payment of compensation or damages to those injured. There had been a strong demand for this from the motor associations, Farmers’ Unions, and other bodies. _ The Minister weiit on to state that the risk covered by the Bill was the., third party risk, which related- to injuries or death of persons and exelud--ed damage to property. He could only give a very rough -estimate of the number of cars now- covered by insurance, and it was believed that 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, against whom a claim could be 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 the existing premiums and those proposed for insurance under the Bill, members should realise the fact that it wasonly for third party risk. It would provide an insurance for every vehicle ; on the roods, and even covered injuries inflicted through accidents caused by persons driving who were not authorised to do so. “It does nofimatter whether it is a thief or ‘jov rider’; for whoever drives a‘ car and -auses accident under circumstances ijhich throw a liability on. to the driver, there is an insurance,” declared the Minister.