Nissan Leaf Drive Away: Leaf 39kWh (270km Range) $39,990, Leaf e+ 59kWh (385km Range) $49,990 @ Nissan

11210

Nissan Leaf Drive Away: Leaf 39kWh (270km Range) $39,990, Leaf e+ 59kWh (385km Range) $49,990 @ Nissan

navman on 09/05/2024 - 08:05 nissan.com.au (6366 clicks)
Last edited 09/05/2024 - 10:43 by 2 other users

For those who missed out on the Peugeot e-2008 deal, this provides a good alternative for a Japanese built EV. Range is low on the base model, only 270km. It also has CHAdeMO port for DC fast charging, so it may be harder to find a compatible fast charger on the road. However, if you charge at home, it uses a standard type 2 plug for AC charging. Additionally, battery does not have active thermal management, so range may drop off further in several years. I would do thorough research before committing, but seems like a good deal given the usual price is $50k+.

Automotive Car Electric Vehicle Nissan

31 May

Related Stores

Nissan Australia

closed Comments

montorola on 09/05/2024 - 08:18

+50

Hopefully these are reputable cars… else I'll have to turn over a new leaf
- froodh on 09/05/2024 - 08:49
  
  +6
  
  ba-dum tish
- ColonelSanders on 09/05/2024 - 08:52
  
  +3
  
  Knee slapper…
- DGrayson82 on 09/05/2024 - 09:10
  
  +20
  
  Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here
  - donmakaveli on 09/05/2024 - 10:00
    
    +2
    
    great scott!
  - edfoo on 09/05/2024 - 10:43
    
    +7
    
    Yes, please leaf the room.
    - shutuptakemymoney101 on 09/05/2024 - 18:57
      
      +1
      
      I'm not leaving till gum leaves.
- noisymime on 09/05/2024 - 10:37
  
  +3
  
  I don't know, I've heard after a few years the batteries tend to be…. rooted.
  - shutuptakemymoney101 on 09/05/2024 - 19:00
    
    +1
    
    Batteries start off rooted - 270 kilometre range? Thanks for the post OP but range anxiety alone will probably rule out a lot of new EV buyers on this deal.
    - iDroid on 09/05/2024 - 21:46
      
      +1
      
      will probably rule out a lot of new EV buyers on this deal.
      
      will probably rule out ~~~a lot off~~~ those who often do over 200km a day new EV buyers on this deal.
    - Ryk on 09/05/2024 - 22:59
      
      270 kilometre range?
      
      39kWh
- randomvis on 09/05/2024 - 11:52
  
  +2
  
  But then you'd have to branch out.
  - montorola on 09/05/2024 - 11:54
    
    +2
    
    I usually go out on a limb when deals like this come around
    - GreyChris on 09/05/2024 - 21:56
      
      +1
      
      Does this car have a large trunk?
      - Igaf on 11/05/2024 - 15:56
        
        @GreyChris: No, you're barking up the wrong tree with that.
        
        GreyChris on 11/05/2024 - 22:21
        
        @Igaf: How does this leaf charge? Photosynthesis?
- Jamesx on 09/05/2024 - 12:25
  
  +5
  
  Nissan Leaf needs many new leaves to catch up with BYD
bigbadboogieman on 09/05/2024 - 08:21

+34

Personal and probably unpopular opinion but insuring and repairing electric cars after accidents or when things break is currently very expensive with long leaf times. My relative just got a 64% bump in his annual insurance for his BYD after shopping around.
- GregRust on 09/05/2024 - 08:23
  
  +29
  
  long leaf times
  
  I see what you did there.
- Guybrush57 on 09/05/2024 - 08:30
  
  +40
  
  got a 64% bump in his annual insurance for his BYD after shopping around
  
  Guess he shouldn't have shopped around?
  - fefris on 09/05/2024 - 08:32
    
    this ^ why shop around…
  - Hvrd on 09/05/2024 - 08:58
    
    +54
    
    shop around and find out
  - bio on 09/05/2024 - 11:01
    
    If it's not broken, don't fix it.
  - eciuj on 09/05/2024 - 11:36
    
    +4
    
    Not sure what you mean. Insurance premiums aren't fixed year to year. They get revised on each renewal… usually resulting in a higher premium and lower agreed value.
- Repposh on 09/05/2024 - 08:32
  
  +14
  
  This. My electric car is with insurance right now and just got quoted 8 weeks on delivery of parts
  - Drakesy on 09/05/2024 - 09:21
    
    +43
    
    My ICE vehicles has a 5 month lead time on parts
    
    Its not just ev's
    
    Insurer was going to pay me out when they found out how long the rental was going to be for
    - tessel on 09/05/2024 - 11:14
      
      +1
      
      My ICE vehicle has a few hours wait.
      - LFO on 10/05/2024 - 13:46
        
        -1
        
        @tessel:
        
        My ICE vehicle has a few hours wait.
        
        Priceless !!!!
        
        When reality hits you in the nose.
    - Telios on 09/05/2024 - 14:43
      
      +2
      
      And just wait, there's been a bunch of flooding in China and general increasing unemployment from factory closures!
      
      More delays! More supply chain issues!
      
      Yay outsourcing!
    - bigbadboogieman on 09/05/2024 - 18:27
      
      +1
      
      My ICE vehicle was repaired on the spot as part of regular service. The front control arms had to be replaced.
      - Drakesy on 09/05/2024 - 22:46
        
        +2
        
        @bigbadboogieman: We're talking accident replacements :)
  - borgsta on 09/05/2024 - 13:26
    
    +8
    
    I waited 3 months for my electric window to be fixed on a cx-9.
    - tessel on 10/05/2024 - 16:19
      
      +2
      
      Bro, don't go electric. Hand wind that shit.
- Nuggets on 09/05/2024 - 08:47
  
  +20
  
  This is my concern. After insurers start seeing the costs come through for repairs the premiums are going to rise. However to some extent this isn't just an EV problem it's a new car problem, hybrids, ICEs, there are so many fancy sensors etc in new cars these days that the repair costs have gone up astronomically.
  
  Compared to my 2007 Corolla which couldn't be simpler to repair. My comprehensive insurance is a paltry $230 a year. I got a quote for a BYD and it's $1300.
  - Lucidium on 09/05/2024 - 08:55
    
    +7
    
    I just got a quote for a similar year Toyota and will be paying over $800!
    - mrXO on 09/05/2024 - 08:58
      
      +1
      
      Depends on where you park the car overnight.
      - Gdsamp on 09/05/2024 - 09:19
        
        +6
        
        @mrXO: and whether they can discriminate against you based on age and/or sex
        
        Nom on 09/05/2024 - 09:59
        
        +7
        
        @Gdsamp: They're charging you based on risk - premiums are higher for young males because those drivers are in fact higher risk.
        
        This is not discrimination - it's a higher cost because those customers, on average, reflect a higher cost to the insurer.
        
        Gdsamp on 09/05/2024 - 10:05
        
        +4
        
        @Nom: Charging customers more based on their age and sex is not discrimination BTW
        
        fantombloo on 09/05/2024 - 10:11
        
        +26
        
        @Gdsamp: It is discrimination. Of a valid and objective kind. Nothing wrong with discrimination, just not prejudicial discrimination.
        
        Gdsamp on 09/05/2024 - 10:35
        
        +2
        
        @fantombloo: Exactly, hence my initial comment. Perhaps i should have included a /s
        
        boretentsu on 09/05/2024 - 12:51
        
        @fantombloo: Agree. There's legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. Two separate things
        
        fantombloo on 09/05/2024 - 13:03
        
        +3
        
        @boretentsu: Legality bears no definite indication on whether something is "right or wrong". Slavery was once legal, and a man loving another man illegal. Today's laws might have come some way but nothing suggests they have it all right. (In fact they can't because they're different all over the world).
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/05/2024 - 13:52
        
        +4
        
        @fantombloo:
        
        Of a valid and objective kind.
        
        It is neither valid nor objective. It is accepted but only because people are emotional flawed, and it appeals to emotion are effective on the general population.
        
        Nothing wrong with discrimination, just not prejudicial discrimination.
        
        Which this is. Insurance companies are prejudging your risk profile based not on your or anything you have done, but purely on what other people who fit into some arbitrary random grouping as you have done. This is exactly what prejudiced discrimination is.
        
        Ethics is a hairy subject with no universal truth, but what most people in Western Civilisation agreed to (until only a few years ago) was that discrimination against immutable traits (things you are powerless to change about yourself eg age, sex, sexuality, race etc) is a bad thing. And insurance companies do exactly that.
        
        Now for some reason (emotional irrationality), people accept that it's ok to discriminate in some circumstances but not others, which is a slippery slope that doesn't end well. And to be ethically consistent you have to pick a lane. Otherwise why is it ok to discriminate for sex and age, but not race? If someone started the National Automobile Zealotry Insurance Party and offered cheaper insurance based on race, would that also be acceptable? Why/why not? I can easily provide objective crime statistics data to support the risk profiles, so it should be ok according to you right?
        
        fantombloo on 09/05/2024 - 14:09
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment: Immutable traits that affect outcomes, causally or otherwise, are fair to be considered where they should be considered.
        
        A doctor may prioritise telling their redhead patients that they should be aware of the sun's effect on their skin because that may affect them more than others. They have no business prioritising telling them they should root around less to minimise chances of an STD since that has nothing to do with being a redhead.
        
        The ability to use a specific public toilet or sit on a bus is not affected by your race, therefore such discrimination has no good place. Having seats for people with standing difficulties, usually more common amongst the elderly, is a fair call.
        
        I can easily provide objective crime statistics data to support the risk profiles, so it should be ok according to you right?
        
        Like what? And how do you intend to apply them? Note there is also a big difference between entering into a voluntary contract between 2 parties making bets against each other, and potentially violating specific universal rights.
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/05/2024 - 10:20
        
        +2
        
        @Gdsamp:
        
        Charging customers more based on their age and sex is not discrimination BTW
        
        It actually is.
        But it interesting to see how you justify this discrimination. It's exactly how all discrimination throughout history was justified.
        
        bozleh on 09/05/2024 - 11:29
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment: Insurance is institutionalised gambling - and younger males are a bad bed, so get higher premiums
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/05/2024 - 10:18
        
        +4
        
        @Nom:
        
        premiums are higher for young males because those drivers are in fact higher risk.
        
        It's a logic error though becasue why only group people on age and sex? Why not height, weight and skin colour too? By this logic, we could charge people different rates based on their religion and sexuality? Where does this end?
        
        This is not discrimination - it's a higher cost because those customers, on average, reflect a higher cost to the insurer.
        
        It is discrimination because people should be treated like individuals, not based on some loose group association based on immutable traits. That is precisely what discrimination is. It is how all discrimination works.
        
        The following is a fact, not an opinion (trigger warning): Black people commit more crime at a higher rate than White people.
        So, should we have laws that address this becasue, and I quote, "those customers on average, reflect a higher cost to the insurer."?
        
        Nom on 09/05/2024 - 10:44
        
        +6
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        It's a logic error though becasue why only group people on age and sex?
        
        They don't.
        
        Insurance companies group you on a huge number of metrics - there are many many things they use to calculate your risk profile, not just age and sex.
        
        Why not height, weight and skin colour too?
        
        They would absolutely do this if they thought they could get away with it, and if those things meaningfully affected risk.
        
        By this logic, we could charge people different rates based on their religion and sexuality?
        
        Absolutely, see above. Insurance companies will factor in everything and anything that they can.
        It's a financial calculation - more data makes it more accurate.
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/05/2024 - 10:53
        
        +3
        
        @Nom:
        
        They would absolutely do this if they thought they could get away with it
        
        My point exactly. Just because they are doing it doesn't make it non-discriminatory.
        
        Insurance companies will factor in everything and anything that they can.
        
        That's right. So how is that not discrimination?
        
        Nom on 10/05/2024 - 21:06
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Just because they are doing it doesn't make it non-discriminatory.
        So how is that not discrimination?
        
        I think we need to be clear that some discrimination is illegal, and some is not.
        
        Insurance has a specific exemption providing the insurer can show you the data behind their decision : https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda19…
        
        This specific exemption is why they can assess risk based on an immutable trait like your sex.
        
        bio on 09/05/2024 - 11:05
        
        +7
        
        @Nom:
        
        Insurance companies group you on a huge number of metrics - there are many many things they use to calculate your risk profile, not just age and sex.
        
        And that's what we call discrimination. Why would my premium be higher because someone who looks like me had 5 accidents in a month?
        
        fantombloo on 09/05/2024 - 12:24
        
        -1
        
        @bio:
        
        Why would my premium be higher because someone who looks like me had 5 accidents in a month?
        
        Not someone, many.
        
        If looks could be objectively correlated with statistical data about claims then they would be. The combination of sex and age has, I am led to believe, pretty solid correlations with car accidents. For other types of insurance it might be weight or age or if you smoke.
        
        You are not treated as an individual because they can't do that - they do not track your every movement with the car, and even if they did that might lead to a too complex calculation to even do, and even then you might change the next day. Same reason a male non-smoker with a 25 BMI will pay the same for life insurance whether they eat pringles or fruit every day for breakfast.
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/05/2024 - 12:36
        
        +2
        
        @fantombloo:
        
        I am led to believe, pretty solid correlations with car accidents
        
        And herein lies the problem.
        First rule of statistics, correlation is not causation.
        
        You are not treated as an individual because they can't do that
        
        Of course they can. They choose not to because it is more profitable to discriminate and people like you accept it. This is the exact logic that is used in all discrimination.
        I hate to play the Godwin card, but how is that different from the logic used by the Austrian Painter to purge certain groups from Germany? High risk groups need to be treated differently, it's for the common good…
        
        fantombloo on 09/05/2024 - 12:49
        
        +2
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        First rule of statistics, correlation is not causation.
        
        That's a rule of logic (induction, etc.), not statistics. They are only concerned with statistical outcomes, not reasons. Why would they care?
        
        how is that different from the logic used by the Austrian Painter
        
        Because he did not have a good set of data to work with, just casual observations and mostly opinions. And even if they were right, the ideas of "common good" and whatever are much more complex and well outside the scope of what we're talking about here.
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/05/2024 - 13:32
        
        @fantombloo:
        
        That's a rule of logic (induction, etc.), not statistics.
        
        Oh ok then… https://www.jmp.com/en_au/statistics-knowledge-portal/what-i…
        
        Why would they care?
        
        Who's 'they'? A 'correlation' is a statistical relationship, from the field of study known as 'statistics'…
        
        Because he did not have a good set of data to work with
        
        Now that is a logical fallacy… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
        
        fantombloo on 09/05/2024 - 14:52
        
        @1st-Amendment: Yes, people apply logic to statistics. (In fact collecting statistics without is of questionable value.) They are separate disciplines that may, often do, use one another. Not sure what you think that article is trying to say otherwise. Insurance companies don't specifically care about what causes things, just statistical outcomes.
        
        I've no idea what no true Scotman has to do with this. Please enlighten me. Are you saying he did have good data? He was by most accounts highly illogical himself.
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/05/2024 - 17:04
        
        @fantombloo:
        
        Not sure what you think that article is trying to say
        
        It shows that understanding correlation behaviour is a core principle of understanding statistics.
        
        Insurance companies don't specifically care about what causes things, just statistical outcomes.
        
        Yeah so to understand valid statistical outcomes you need to know the basic rules of statistical analysis, hence the original comment
        
        I've no idea what no true Scotman has to do with this
        
        Your claim was that it's ok for insurance companies to discriminate because "it's valid and objective'' but the Austrian Painter can't do the exact same things becasue 'he did not have a good set of data to work with". This is exactly how the fallacy works, because his data wasn't the 'true and valid' data.
        
        This begs the question, what is the objective measure for 'valid data'?
        
        Merging threads here…
        
        Immutable traits that affect outcomes, causally or otherwise, are fair to be considered where they should be considered.
        
        'Considered' is different from 'excluded' or 'rewarded' or 'punished'. This is an important distinction.
        
        A doctor may prioritise telling their…
        
        Medical advice is not 'exclusion' or 'reward' or 'punishment'.
        
        The ability to use a specific public toilet or sit on a bus is not affected by your race
        
        That wasn't the question. Could you legitimately discriminate on race for insurance premiums if the data shows a clear risk pattern? Why/Why not?
        
        therefore such discrimination has no good place
        
        Who decides what 'good' is? What is the objectively measurable determining factor?
        
        Are you saying he did have good data?
        
        Normal regular people on the street bought into the ideology, and so if you are curious as to how that happens and wish to avoid a repeat of such things, it generally helps to know how that happens. ie Accepting discrimination
        
        Note there is also a big difference between entering into a voluntary contract between 2 parties making bets against each other, and potentially violating specific universal rights
        
        That is true. But when some insurance is compulsory via government mandate then one blurs into the other.
        It also doesn't negate that the behaviour is discriminatory, it just is easier to swallow if you have a choice of whether to participate in it or not.
        
        fantombloo on 09/05/2024 - 18:42
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        We agree.
        
        We agree again. Still not sure what you're trying to teach me.
        
        For insurance companies - ultimately, making money.
        
        Considered for exclusion, reward, or punishment then.
        
        It can be any or none of these.
        
        Legitimately? In the sense of reasonably - maybe. Doesn't mean it's automatically the best or otherwise an appropriate thing to do.
        
        In that context, civil rights.
        
        No shit.
        
        a. Not specific to this case but good point. Deserves thought.
        b. I'm discriminating between conversations on this site and opting out of this one.
        
        larndis on 09/05/2024 - 19:36
        
        @1st-Amendment: Do you also object to health insurance companies charging based on age and pre-existing conditions? What home insurance considering flood risk?
        
        1st-Amendment on 10/05/2024 - 08:42
        
        @larndis:
        
        Considered for exclusion, reward, or punishment then.
        
        Which is legally not the same thing. I can think you're inferior based on your race/sex/age etc, but if I act on it then it becomes a legal issue. This is an important distinction which I think you are missing.
        
        In the sense of reasonably
        
        Who decides what that is?
        
        In that context, civil rights.
        
        Which one specifically, because the ones we all fought for were equality, not discrimination. These are opposite things.
        
        I'm discriminating between conversations on this site and opting out of this one.
        
        Which is fine because it's not based on an immutable trait, and you are not the government forcing participation. I hope this has helped you work out the why this distinction is important.
        
        1st-Amendment on 10/05/2024 - 08:56
        
        -1
        
        @larndis:
        
        Do you also object to health insurance companies
        
        I object to government enforced mandatory health insurance yes. Without that the rest becomes a lot easier to solve.
        
        charging based on age
        
        Yes. And older fit person should not punished for the life choices of others their age who are obese and smoke.
        
        pre-existing conditions
        
        Depends on the condition. For self afflicted conditions (smoking, weight issues etc) I have no objection because that is based on the choice of each individual, and judged individually. For genetic disorders it falls in the category of immutable trait. The individual had no choice in so they should not be punished for it.
        
        What home insurance considering flood risk?
        
        No problem as this is an individual choice. No-one is forcing you to buy a house in a flood plane.
        
        I answered your questions, now try answer mine. If it's ok to charge different prices based on age and sex, is it ok to charge differently based on race?
        
        larndis on 10/05/2024 - 22:35
        
        @1st-Amendment: I'm more interested in the practicalities than the theory.
        
        So suppose there is an agreed, legislated list of what you can and can't price discriminate on. How to you propose to police what insurance companies do and don't consider when they calculate premiums, or refuse to insure?
        
        If they can't pass the extra cost on to those they estimate will cost them more, they either have to pass it on to everyone else or not offer insurance.
        
        Nom on 10/05/2024 - 22:45
        
        @larndis:
        
        So suppose there is an agreed, legislated list of what you can and can't price discriminate on.
        
        I already posted this further up - but there is.
        
        Here's the Insurance Sex Discrimination Exemption : https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda19…
        
        Note that it specifically calls out that the discrimination is only lawful if the insurance company can provide the data to backup their case.
        If they want to charge more to young men, they need to be able to show that young men really are statistically higher risk. And you can request that data.
        
        Here's some more, but note that the categories at the end don't seem to include motoring insurance - https://www.humanrights.vic.gov.au/for-organisations/excepti…
        
        Exceptions in insurance.
        It is not against the law for an insurer to make discriminatory decisions about the cost of insurance or other risks when insuring a particular person or group of people. However, these decisions must be based on an analysis of statistical data or other relevant factors, and must be reasonable in the circumstances.
        This exception covers annuities, life assurance, accident insurance and illness insurance.
        
        1st-Amendment on 11/05/2024 - 08:17
        
        @Nom:
        
        Here's some more, but note that the categories at the end don't seem to include motoring insurance
        
        I actually lodged a formal compliant with the Human Rights Commission a few years ago around employment discrimination because a role I was interested in was more or less excluding men from the opportunity. The response I got was pretty much that they are only interested in cases that discriminate against women. Apparently 'equality' isn't really equal after all…
        
        1st-Amendment on 11/05/2024 - 08:00
        
        @larndis:
        
        So suppose there is an agreed, legislated list of what you can and can't price discriminate on
        
        We don't have to suppose, this already exists in most industries. We just need to apply discrimination laws equally.
        
        If they can't pass the extra cost on to those they estimate will cost them more, they either have to pass it on to everyone else or not offer insurance.
        
        Correct. The whole concept of insurance is to socialise the total cost of the system to everyone in it. If you only make those who need it pay for it then you don't need it.
        
        The idea that you make some people pay more, not for actually doing anything wrong but for merely looking_like someone who did something wrong, is the very discrimination that the civil rights movement fought so hard to abolish.
        
        larndis on 12/05/2024 - 07:54
        
        @1st-Amendment: Ok, so in summary you want people who are statistically lower risk to pay more to cover people who are statistically higher risk. Because not all young men in V8s will have an accident so it's unfair to charge them all more.
        
        And you want some non-specific, incredibly complex regulatory system to oversee it. I bet you also complain about lazy, overpaid public servants.
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/05/2024 - 13:01
        
        @larndis:
        
        Ok, so in summary you want people who are statistically lower risk
        
        Nope.
        
        And you want some non-specific, incredibly complex regulatory system to oversee it.
        
        Nope
        
        I bet you also complain about lazy, overpaid public servants.
        
        I do, both of your premises are false so your conclusion does not follow.
        
        What I would like is the concept of 'equality' and 'non-discrimination' to apply equally across the board. Because that is what equality actually means. It does NOT mean sometimes but not others. But this in the world we live in now, where 'equality' somehow now means special privileges for some and removal of opportunity to others. 'Equality! But not really!'
        
        And it's actually very simple to do, all the complexity comes from the convoluted mental gymnastics you need to do to justify that's is ok to discriminate in some case but not others, usually from some vague perception of 'injustice' based on arbitrary group membership.
        The government currently spends Billions of taxpayer dollars each year doing these mental gymnastics. Aboriginal Affairs and WGEA are two obvious examples. Take WGEA, they burn $10M in funding every year in the name of 'gender equality', yet the agency itself is 80% Women. It truly is a parody.
        
        You also keep avoiding my question. Assuming you are correct with the idea that insurance discrimination based on age and sex group membership, is ok, is it then also ok to do it based on race? Why/why not? Surely it is the exact same logic?
        
        larndis on 13/05/2024 - 07:56
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        it's actually very simple to do
        
        , provides zero insight on how to do it…
        
        Tell me you know nothing about regulation without telling me.
        
        I'm not making any statements as to what is and isn't ok, I don't have any expertise in the insurance sector. I'm just asking how you propose to implement the changes you're imposing on private industry, who operate for profit.
        
        I will note that race is much more difficult to define/measure/record than age and sex. Do you have data that shows that race has a statistically significant impact on likelihood of having an accident?
        
        1st-Amendment on 13/05/2024 - 09:10
        
        +1
        
        @larndis:
        
        provides zero insight on how to do it…
        
        Well I did, you must have missed it
        
        Tell me you know nothing about regulation without telling me.
        
        Cute little cliched catchphrase. You were doing well up to this point, now I'm losing confidence.
        
        I'm just asking how you propose to implement the changes you're imposing on private industry, who operate for profit.
        
        I already said this. We already have anti-discrimination laws, then we made exceptions to this to allow certain discrimination if politically expedient to do so. All that is required is to simply remove the exceptions and apply equality equally.
        
        I will note that race is much more difficult to define/measure/record than age and sex
        
        The Census doesn't seem to have a problem with it, nor does every major employer that spruiks their diversity credentials. We also live in a time where sex is now subjective. It's not difficult, it's just not politically acceptable. We both know that this is the real answer. Discrimination is acceptable in some case but it isn't in others.
        
        Do you have data that shows that race has a statistically significant impact on likelihood of having an accident?
        
        If you gave me the data I probably could. We know it exists in other areas of law so no reason to suspect it would be different here. The problem is that you won't get access to the data because it is not politically expedient to do so.
        
        bozleh on 09/05/2024 - 11:31
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        people should be treated like individuals
        
        They are - you have lower premiums if you have had zero crashes/claims (along with other predictive attributes such as age, gender and parking location)
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/05/2024 - 12:30
        
        +4
        
        @bozleh:
        
        along with other predictive attributes such as age, gender and parking location
        
        So not individual then…
        Tell me, is race ok to use as a 'predictive attribute'? Why/why not?
        
        Igaf on 13/05/2024 - 08:35
        
        @1st-Amendment: How about head size? Or perhaps EQ?
        
        bio on 09/05/2024 - 14:31
        
        @bozleh:
        
        you have lower premiums if you have had zero crashes/claims
        
        But still higher than other individuals with zero crashes/claims if I'm in a risky group.
        
        Nom on 09/05/2024 - 22:54
        
        @bio:
        
        But still higher than other individuals with zero crashes/claims if I'm in a risky group.
        
        Obviously.
        
        What is your point ?
        
        Of course your premiums will be higher if your risk is higher - if you're going to take more out of the pot, then you need to put more in.
        
        1st-Amendment on 10/05/2024 - 09:07
        
        @Nom:
        
        What is your point ?
        
        The point is that he himself has done nothing wrong, he is being judged based on other people that aren't him. This is the very definition of prejudiced. When did prejudice suddenly become ok again?
        
        Of course your premiums will be higher if your risk is higher - if you're going to take more out of the pot, then you need to put more in.
        
        But his risk isn't higher (necessarily - don't know his circumstances), and he hasn't taken more out. He are not being judged by anything he has done himself, he is being judged by what someone who isn't him has done merely by some arbitrary group association. This is the exact definition of prejudice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
        
        Nom on 10/05/2024 - 20:42
        
        @1st-Amendment: Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say, or why you're asking questions about Prejudice.
        
        Is your position that insurance should not operate the way it currently does - by calculating premium based on statistical risk ?
        
        If you disagree with risk-based premiums because you think they're discriminatory, then just say so. But I don't think you have much chance of changing the entire premise of the insurance industry, and especially not by using OzBargain as your soapbox 😁
        
        1st-Amendment on 11/05/2024 - 08:06
        
        @Nom:
        
        If you disagree with risk-based premiums because you think they're discriminatory, then just say so.
        
        I thought I already did.
        There is a difference between risks based on your actual behaviour, and perceived risks based on other_people's behaviour.
        And lumping everyone into a basket because they look the same is actually illegal in most other industries. I'm not sure how the insurance industry gets away with it.
        
        But I don't think you have much chance of changing the entire premise of the insurance industry
        
        Was just making an observation and having discussion about it. Isn't that what discussion forums are for?
        
        Igaf on 11/05/2024 - 12:23
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        It's a logic error though becasue why only group people on age and sex? Why not height, weight and skin colour too? By this logic, we could charge people different rates based on their religion and sexuality? Where does this end?
        
        You delving into logic again? Roflmao. You clearly know next to nothing about how actuaries or insurance work, how aggregation works and why it's necessary, let alone how and why societies function, or don't. Here's a simple question for you. Do highly educated and/or prosperous black people commot more crime than their white peers?
        
        bio on 11/05/2024 - 14:08
        
        @Igaf:
        
        You clearly know next to nothing about how actuaries or insurance work, how aggregation works and why it's necessary, let alone how and why societies function, or don't.
        
        The question you are avoiding that @1st-Amendment and I are trying to ask is "what is so special about insurance industry?". Why societies stop functioning if insurance companies (but only insurance companies) don't discriminate?
        
        For example, it is a known fact that the prospective job performances of men and women are different for some jobs, but we are not allowed to ask the gender of an applicant because it is discrimination and everyone deserves an equal chance (which I agree). How is insurance industry different? Why shouldn't everyone be paying the same premium given everything else (the value of the car, the individual's accident history etc) the same?
        
        Nom on 11/05/2024 - 15:39
        
        @bio:
        
        "what is so special about insurance industry?". Why societies stop functioning if insurance companies (but only insurance companies) don't discriminate?
        
        Because insurance companies have specific legal exemptions to allow them to charge based on risk - they are doing purely statistical calculations (and they need to show these calculations to prove that is the case).
        Without this exemption, every single woman would have to pay more for their car insurance, to cover the higher risk of men. This would arguably be worse than the exemption they use to charge men more.
        
        For example, it is a known fact that the prospective job performances of men and women are different for some jobs, but we are not allowed to ask the gender of an applicant
        
        You absolutely are, when you have a good enough reason.
        For example, if you're hiring someone to perform Brazilian waxing on ladies, you can exclude men from your hiring.
        If you're hiring a male character in a play, you can exclude women.
        There are many more examples.
        
        Why shouldn't everyone be paying the same premium given everything else (the value of the car, the individual's accident history etc) the same?
        
        Because everyone's risk is not the same.
        
        Insurance is effectively the cost of risk. If you can't calculate this accurately, then you'll end up out of business because you weren't charging enough for the high risk customers, and the low risk customers went somewhere else for cheaper premiums.
        
        If it wasn't a competitive market, and there was only a single insurer, then you could make the case for equal premiums for all.
        
        Igaf on 11/05/2024 - 15:49
        
        @bio:
        
        known fact that the prospective job performances of men and women are different for some jobs
        
        You've aggregated - just as insurance companies do - by assuming all men are roughly equal and all women are also roughly equal. Clearly that's utter nonsense.
        
        I'm not avoiding anything. I've crossed paths with that bloke many times and his modus operandi is well known to me. His comment regarding skin colour is simplistic, igorant and obnoxious, pretty much in line with the demographic his views represent.
        
        If you want a truly level vehicle/life/medical insurance playing field then you'll need to regularly subject yourself to all manner of intrusive and time comsuming tests. For vehicle insurance they would include driving competency, experience, physical, mental, and attitudinal (psychological), lifestyle etc, AND convince millions of others to submit to the same regime. Good luck with that idea.
        
        Why are insurance companies allowed to aggregate risk when every individual is different? I guess because to make insurance workable for both insurees and underwriters some level of aggregated risk has to be accounted - and paid - for. Already people with long histories of zero claims and near perfect driving records are being penalised "for the greater good". Exactly the same principle works for medical insurance - the majority support the minority to some extent because they understand there's always a chance they might at some point become part of that minority.
        
        Igaf on 11/05/2024 - 16:25
        
        @bio: Here's a paper on the topic for actuaries if you're interested. Pretty broad/unspecific. Section 2.4 on:
        https://actuaries.asn.au/Library/Miscellaneous/2020/ADWGPape…
        
        Some background to Commonwealth insurance exemptions:
        https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/access-all-ages-older-wo…
        
        This ^^ one is better than the first
        
        billdsl on 10/05/2024 - 07:57
        
        +2
        
        @Nom: I got a 240% bump in my insurance renewal for my 7 year old Ranger. Went from $860 to $2800! Bugger if im paying that but just the hide to try and gouge that much is absolutely ridiculous
        
        Old white dude, great suburb, secured, no claims
        
        I personally love getting gouged, at least the government is pushing hard to help drive down the cost of um, no, drive down how much money we have left to live
        
        Igaf on 11/05/2024 - 15:54
        
        @billdsl: Insurance company costs have risen - but so have their profits. Like renters, their ability to set prices ought to be controlled but this country apparently thinks that such actions are "socialism."
        
        billdsl on 12/05/2024 - 12:16
        
        @Igaf: Any product sold that includes government gouging should be regulated or very closely monitored. This renewal includes nearly $500 of govt fee’s, nearly as much as last years premium. So yep gouging and little incentive for crap govts to allow it to keep BS taxes and duties rolling in.
        
        Igaf on 12/05/2024 - 15:58
        
        @billdsl: Apart from GST what other "govt fees" are showing on your insurance quote?
        
        Despite your repeated "gouging" whinge, Australia is actually one of the lowest taxed countries in the OECD. https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-australia.p…
        
        If "legitimate" tax evasion (rorts) - primarily by business (eg RTPDS Au which paid $109 on a total income of more than $17B in FY21-22) and the wealthy - were clamped down on even further than they have in the last 5 years or so then the vast majority would be paying significantly less.
        
        billdsl on 13/05/2024 - 08:56
        
        @Igaf: $240 stamp duty, $240 GST. GOUGED by the insurer and thus GOUGED further by our great government
        
        Igaf on 13/05/2024 - 11:25
        
        @billdsl: Stamp duiy is usually included in the premium. Govts have to raise revenue to pay people, provide services and infrastructure. Got any ideas on how that might be achieved without taxes - or "gouging" as you like to think of them?
        
        Buddy195 on 09/05/2024 - 10:32
        
        +9
        
        @Gdsamp: My son’s friend saved $80 off his premium by clicking the none binary box instead of male. So yes they do discriminate.
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/05/2024 - 10:54
        
        +7
        
        @Buddy195: I identify as the lowest risk insurance group…
        
        Igaf on 11/05/2024 - 12:26
        
        @Buddy195: Link? My home and car insurances are coming up.
        
        Igaf on 12/05/2024 - 16:00
        
        @Buddy195: So far I've done 5 different quotes and not one included a "non-binary box". Apparently NRMA does but they aren't in the ballpark for me.
        
        ferrisb on 10/05/2024 - 00:04
        
        +1
        
        @Gdsamp: This caused so much controversy. I can't beleaf it!
    - OzPeter on 09/05/2024 - 14:18
      
      My Toyota Aurion is $950 with AAMI…
  - Nom on 09/05/2024 - 09:08
    
    +7
    
    At least a grand to insure a new car is pretty standard - at $1300 that BYD quote just falls into the perfectly normal price category.
  - soan papdi on 09/05/2024 - 09:18
    
    +4
    
    My comprehensive insurance is a paltry $230 a year
    
    Which insurer? What's your excess?
    - Marmaduke on 09/05/2024 - 09:27
      
      +6
      
      This is third party property pricing territory… or an error!?
      - Nuggets on 09/05/2024 - 10:34
        
        +1
        
        @Marmaduke: I know right, third party comes in higher than comprehensive for some mind boggling reason.
        
        I did misremember, $230 was my comprehensive in 2022. It's now $340. Still came in lower than third party by some distance.
        
        I crank the excess to the maximum, I think it's $2000. I don't drive much, 5000-10,000 km/yr. Parked under a carport in a safe suburb.
        
        Jamesx on 09/05/2024 - 12:29
        
        @Nuggets: Is a 2007 Corolla worth $2000?
        How much is a new Corolla hybrid cost you? This is compare apple to apple.

This was posted 7 months 13 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Nissan Leaf Drive Away: Leaf 39kWh (270km Range) $39,990, Leaf e+ 59kWh (385km Range) $49,990 @ Nissan

Related Stores

closed Comments

Related Products

Top Deals

New Deals