lapin_windstar

Erm...

1) being at fault for an accident doesn't invalidate the insurance policy. If it did, then having insurance would be pointless because it wouldn't cover your liability if you were at fault, only when you weren't at fault - and didn't need to claim on it!

2) if your use of an unapproved helmet/seat/whatever contributed to the damage, then obviously you would have your damages reduced proportionate to the importance of the role that played. But that would have to be proved first. And those two factors are what make it significantly different from the "your insurance will automatically be invalid" claims, for which there hasn't yet been any substantiation. And if the OP is so cocksure that the carseat is safer, then s/he's not taking on any risk.

Enough for tonight, this is getting circular.

hevs

No, as I thought, not worth the risk....well it wouldn't be to me anyway....

Pollyana

Having worked for RACQ I will quite happily say where my information came from. The RACQ legal department, via their Technical Advice office.
Someone on here asked the question while I was working there, ao I asked them. I was told its a common issue with British migrants, they often bring seats with them, but if there is an accident and the child is injjured, and the child is in a non-approved seat, there is a very strong chance that the insurance is no longer worth the paper its written on because the seat is not in line with the law.

Whether I agree with this policy, and whether UK seats are better than Aussie ones or vice versa is irrelevant.

slipshot

I'm going to add my POV as I went through this too.

My viewpoint is that in some cases the standard of Aus seats is not as good as UK seats - although this is not always the case. There are some cheap seats that would never be sold in Europe that are here that are flimsy and thin. That said, pay for better seats and they seem comparable.

Aus seats are also far more expensive incidentally, although cost should obviously be far less of a factor in this.

From our standpoint we took the approach that we had two perfectly good ISOFIX seats in the UK which we brought to Aus and we left one at home. We then went shopping for a new seat which is when we did the comparison on costs and quality. Given both our seats were ISOFIX, they were naturally far heavier and stronger than Aus seats where ISOFIX is not approved.

I've also had chats with car importers on this given a few friends there. They incidentally said they have never heard of an issue with anyone being prosecuted for using a non-approved ISOFIX seat.

Bottom line is that for me, I know ISOFIX is better than the Aus system. We actually bought a top tether for one of the seats we have from the UK and used it here although the current car it is in does not have ISOFIX so we're using the belt and top tether - to my mind while it is NOT approved it is just as good if not better. And for me this is about my child's safety coming first. Sorry, but that's my viewpoint and I am well aware of the implications of it.

Secondly, we will shortly be changing the car to one with ISOFIX in and will then be using this, and with a top tether so the best of all worlds. ISOFIX HAS BEEN proven to be better than the Aus standard which is why most countries have adopted it. Australia has yet to but will probably do so, but only because their existing system IS better than a belt alone, being a belt and top tether.

So for me, if I did not have ISOFIX seats I'd probably have replaced them when we moved, funds permitting. But as we have good safe seats it seems a backwards step - financially and morally to replace perfectly good seats with inferior good seats.

It's nothing to do with not obeying the laws of the country - it's being practical with what I have, using the knowledge I have gleaned and being sensible - and most importantly putting my kids safety first.

That said, when it is time to change the seats I will be buying, at horrendous cost no doubt, Australian spec seats as it is appropriate to do so, and the eldest will be older and thus potentially more secure.

There is a certain irony that you 'could' get prosecuted for putting your child in a safer seat, yet you are allowed to drive around (here in Vic) in a car that is falling apart given no annual check is required, and could have a door held closed with string, and be rusting yet still have an approved car seat. Which is safer....?

Swerv-o

Hmmm. I am struggling to find any statute or case law that supports the affirmation that insurance will be invalidated, and am starting to wonder where this may have come from.

I found this on this site.

I have found statute that tells that it is illegal to sell and commercially import seats that do not carry the AUS/NZ mark, but I suspect that a family bringing in a seat from elsewhere would classify as commercially importing.


S

Geelong Gent

My reference would be my insurance company who stated if we had illegally installed car seats it would invalidate our insurance.

Now as all their phone calls are recorded for "training" purposes I would suspect any wrong information would of been reviewed and myself of been notified?

If you go through the past 30 years of insurance case law you will see a long list of issues where they have tried successfully and unsuccessfully to get out of paying claims.

ABCDiamond

Are you able to absolutely guarantee that ?

I personally feel it is better to be wary of the law, especially if in doubt, rather than say "Oh don't worry, it'll be alright"

Remember, we are talking about insurance assessors who tend to try to save paying out whenever possible.


We seem to have two schools of thought,
one that says: it doesn't matter if you ignore the law, no problems will occur,
and another that says: ignore the law and you are stuffed.

I doubt that either is 100% accurate.

The only certainties are:

1. a non approved seat can incur a fine.
2. a car seat correctly anchored to the vehicle using the Australian Standard’s approved anchorage system, is safer than relying on seat belts holding a child seat in place.

How many children in child seats are hurt per million in each country ?? If we knew that, it may give an idea as to which system is best.

New child restraint rules will be effective in Queensland from 11 March 2010.

Dorothy

Mine too. I have been reading this thread for days now thinking "Has anyone bothered to ring their insurance company and ask?" Well, I did and according to my insurance company which is Australia wide, using a non-approved car seat will invalidate an injury claim same as wearing a non-approved motorcycle helmet would.

dave7370

End of discussion then me thinks.

desperatehousewife

Totally agree..... and too go further I think its ridiculous that ISOFIX seats have not been able to pass Australian standards ......

lapin_windstar

I'm not guaranteeing anything - it's your source and the legislation say in plain language! If you think your own source is unreliable, then it's worthless and let's forget about it; and if you think your source is reliable, then it doesn't say what you suggested it said originally. And the legislation to which you originally referred may well not apply because of, for instance, some further statute that suspends/amends/extends that general rule in some way and/or because of what the specific terms of the policy are. You brought it up as relevant and determinative.
There is a third school of thought, to which I belong, which says "if people are going to make dramatic and definitive claims about what the law is, universally, they'd better be prepared to back them up with something credible". Is that unreasonable?

Insurance law and insurance policies are complicated: any claim about what is or isn't the case has to be backed up, and detailed - which jurisdiction? What kind of damage? What kind of injured person? Which contracts, which companies? So far we've had NSW law and Queensland law and a second-hand report of a WA insurance policy cited as substantiation for a claim being true everywhere in Australia. But auto insurance is regulated differently in each state, and each company's policy terms can differ (although to be fair they're likely to be fairly consistent in most things). If someone doesn't appreciate why this is significant, then I wouldn't trust their judgment on how to understand the issue.

There are forums which I read and post on which simply do not allow any legal advice or supposed claims of what the law is at all, because they're always so filled with error or inaccuracy. On one hand, that rule's a bit of a drag because sometimes it's easy to see what's nonsense and usually you will get a useful response. On the other hand, I can see that it does its part to hack away at internet myth and bush lawyering - at least in their little corner of the internet. At best, an unsubstantiated answer to a question is useless (because it's not specific enough to be useful in making a decision) and at worst it's complete nonsense.

Well, if they're so easy to find and so obvious, then give a couple of examples and the question will never arise!

Well, this is a bit more helpful than a mere claim by an anonymous person on t'internet (or even patently wrong information) as has been the basis of everything else so far, so it's a good start and an improvement on "20 years ago, my dog's vet's auntie's cousin used to work as a insurance agent"! (A trap which the OP fell into a little as well, btw - being a JP in England & Wales and practicising a lot of petty criminal law doesn't give you a huge amount of insight into, say, auto insurance requirements in WA which are going to be heavily contract and statute based).

Two immediate fuzzy question marks, though: firstly, it's asking the insurance company what they think their legal rights and obligations are in the event of a claim. They might give an objective answer or they might be tempted to give the answer that favours them (after all, we're all agreed they're total bastards), and the call centre person is not necessarily perfectly informed. But at least you'd know something more than what you knew before you called, and it's from someone that is actually involved in insurance claims.

Secondly, it seems to undermine the principle identified in the NSW Lawlink document linked to earlier that contributory negligence isn't fatal to damages but merely reduces them according to the proportionate role that negligence played in the damage. But that's a statutory rule in NSW that might apply in other ways in other states/territories; and it might be varied under CTP statutory schemes; and it might be varied by contract between policyholder and insurer; and it might differ from personal injury and property damage...without any concrete details to back up the claims, we can never be sure of anything.

But yes, in this case as you suggest, it would have been about 100 times more useful to suggest to the OP that she picked up the blower and asked an insurance company than just to make a groundless statement one way or the other!

fish.01

Why ridiculous? Wasn't the UK on a very poor system up until compulsory ISOFIX was introduced fairly recently. The whole time the UK had their previous poor system Australia was way ahead with compulsory bolt and top tether. Now it is Australia's turn to be behind...that's just how these things happen isn't it or am I missing something?

slipshot

Ridiculous may be too hard a word, but ISOFIX was introduced (in terms of available seats being sold) in 2004 in the UK, but it appeared in cars a good few years before that, so some five years ago for the UK is certainly not 'fairly recently'.

And it was not just the UK that had a inferior (though not poor) system, much of the rest of the world did too.

ISOFIX was meant to be a global standard for the fitment of car seats. One which Australia has failed to adopt, and IS a better system. It is also one that does not require extensive testing since in many cases the seats are the same but the connection method changes by fitting onto a base that connects rigidly to the cars chassis, and coupled with the fact that many cars sold in Australia have ISOFIX as standard (many if not all Subaru, Toyota, Citroen, Peugeot to name a few) or can easily be retro-fitted with two bolts and a bracket (Ford Focus as an example), it's hardly introducing something totally new as a replacement but actually something else in addition to the existing system that works in conjunction with it.

Taking that into account, it is pretty silly that these seats could easily be licensed and approved but are not...

Swerv-o

I imagine that there are many vested interests at play there - though I have no idea what they could be if most of the seats are made by Britax, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me...


S

ABCDiamond

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 5/05 – Anchorages for Seatbelts) 2006
mentions Isofix 185 times.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...257569001E4576

I got fed up at the 25th mention... who else wants a read ?

Oh yes, and there is also this: