RAF model un­re­al­is­tic, un­vi­able

The Star Early Edition - - LETTERS - Alick Costa

YOUR thought-pro­vok­ing ed­i­to­rial “Broke RAF needs fix­ing” (The Star, Au­gust 7) refers.

The Road Ac­ci­dent Fund (RAF) is not ca­pa­ble of be­ing fixed be­cause the model is sim­ply not vi­able, work­able or re­al­is­tic if only (apart from any in­com­pe­tence or the like) in re­gard to the vo­lu­mi­nous num­ber of claims that have to be dealt with coun­try­wide.

I sug­gest that a study be un­der­taken to con­sider the rein­tro­duc­tion of the Third Party Act in terms of which all ve­hi­cle own­ers were obliged to pur­chase an­nu­ally third party in­sur­ance cover from a short­term in­surer and to dis­play on their wind­screen a disc is­sued by the in­surer.

It was an of­fence not to pur­chase such cover or if so, not to dis­play the disc on the wind­screen.

The in­sur­ers en­gaged many com­pe­tent and ef­fi­cient at­tor­neys coun­try­wide to deal with the claims.

The sys­tem worked be­cause the bur­den was spread.

The RAF should be re­tained to deal only with ac­ci­dents in which the ve­hi­cle own­ers were in breach of the act and had no cover.

This will dras­ti­cally re­duce the work­load and re­sult in a large re­duc­tion of costs of the RAF and claims against it.

The re­sul­tant large re­duc­tion in the fuel levy and the price of petrol and diesel will far ex­ceed the an­nual pre­mium payable.

Just a sub­ject which needs con­sid­er­a­tion. Joburg

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.