KEY POINTS:
Almost a year ago, Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven abandoned his customary indecision to champion compulsory third-party insurance as a means of tackling boy racers. Over the past few weeks, he has been back on the same tack. This was "an idea whose time has come", he enthused, noting the strong support he had received from the public.
As such, it might be expected that third-party cover will soon be a fact of life. But nothing happens quickly in this minister's sphere of operation. All that has actually come is a ponderous 32-page discussion paper and the vague notion of a Government decision before the general election.
The delay is nonsensical. Almost all other developed countries demand such insurance. Its absence here, allied with the freedom for young drivers to buy whatever they want, the presence of cheap high-performance cars from Japan and relatively easy credit, are a recipe for the boy-racer problem. That, in turn, is a significant factor in the over-representation of young people in crash statistics.
Compulsory insurance would not take all young speedsters off the road but it can play a part in changing attitudes. It would also mean that insured motorists are no longer left out of pocket after accidents with uninsured drivers.
In Britain, the big initial cost of compulsory insurance premiums for high-performance cars has led to most young drivers opting for small, low-powered cars, at least until they have built a respectable no-claims record. They learn driving skills and responsibility while driving cars far different from those preferred by this country's boy racers, which provide little room for error and much room for terror. Tickets for speeding or drink-driving are a no-no because affordable premiums are also the product of good driving records. There is no reason to think that what has worked in Britain would not apply here.
Curiously, however, opposition remains. The Insurance Council worries that problem motorists would not take out third-party cover, just as they refuse to register their cars. But no law is universally observed. The key would be enforcement, whether through checks at the time of vehicle licensing or more intensive road-block policing. Those who did not insure their cars or did not pay the premiums could expect to have their cars automatically impounded for 28 days, the tactic currently used against extreme boy-racer activity.
The Automobile Association is also diffident, if on somewhat stronger grounds. It contends that compulsory insurance "demonises" young people. They, like everyone else, need access to cars, it says. In some extreme cases, it is possible that a youngster with a bad record could be denied insurance. Equally, compulsion means every young driver would be penalised for the behaviour of a few boy racers. Such concerns, however, pale into insignificance beside the grim reality of this country's crash statistics.
Other measures need to be introduced to complement compulsory insurance. Young people need to be taught better driving skills, and a higher emphasis should be placed on defensive driving courses. The Government's record on road safety provides no confidence this will be done.
Mr Duynhoven seems confident he can convince his ministerial colleagues of the merits of third-party cover. But he has managed that only belatedly on the equally straightforward matter of cellphone use while driving. There remains a lingering doubt that the talk of insurance compulsion is, first and foremost, about a looming election and a Government wanting to be seen to be doing something.
Only much quicker action on third-party cover would erase that suspicion.
