Mandatory comprehensive insurance for p platers in NSW?

[Maka]

G'day guys, my partners car was smashed into & written off by a red p plater 2 weeks ago. He only had third party insurance. Is it a responible thing for p platers to get on the road knowing they have no comprehensive insurance when at any moment anything could happen when they drive? How many of you have suffered the same thing?

This thread is not about p plater bashing at all but the fact remains some p platers are responsible and some are not. Imo they need to protect themselves as well as other road users. As the title states do you think mandatory comprehensive insurance for p platers should be legislated? As i dont want this thread locked at any time, please be constructive & civil - this incedent has caused a lot of stress. I would really like to hear from you if you've got a opinion.

cheers,Maka

[FGII-XR6]

Not full comprehensive but third party property damage should be manadatory. Don't care if some bogan loses his car but I want my damage covered.
that being said if you can identify the driver at fault your insurance (decent companies that is) will pay with no excess and no loss of no claim bonus.
they will tyhen hound him till the day he dies if needed to get their money back

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

Not full comprehensive but third party property damage should be manadatory. Don't care if some bogan loses his car but I want my damage covered.

Agreed, in fact i have said before that drivers should be insured, not the car they are driving.
L and P platers are a good example as they regularly drive vehicles they dont own ie, parents, mates cars.
If the driver was insured based on their driving record it could be made mandatory as with 3rd party now, and added to the cost of your license.

The excess you pay if you stack a car depends on the value of the vehicle and the damage done.
This excess should be unavoidable even to bankruptcy like taxes and fines etc. so it follows you until it is paid.

This would put the onus back on the driver to be more vigilant as the more strikes against their record, the higher the premium.

[STINKY NINJA]

You should get paid out if he had 3rd party insurance then.
In wa you get 3rd party personal injury included on your vehicle rego payment so if your car is licensed its covered if someone dies or gets hurt real bad,so do you mean he just had that or did he have 3rd party insurance for vehicle coverage for smashing into somebody elses car?

[xisled]

Originally Posted by TE 220

You should get paid out if he had 3rd party insurance then.
In wa you get 3rd party personal injury included on your vehicle rego payment so if your car is licensed its covered if someone dies or gets hurt real bad,so do you mean he just had that or did he have 3rd party insurance for vehicle coverage for smashing into somebody elses car?

The OP is talking about property damage.

[STINKY NINJA]

I dont think it was explained good enough because there is more than 1 type of 3rd party insurance.
Take the guy to court,its the only option.
It happened to me when i was 17 and hit a car without insurance,i got taken to court and had to pay.Simple
I think everbody should have to have full comprehensive like the uk does.

[hawkgirl]

so he had 3rd party or just his greenslip?

3rd party will cover other motorists.

When on my p's I saw it as my responsibility as a driver to make sure I had insurance to cover the inevitable. I dont think it should be legislated (look how well it worked to make greenslip prices more competitive...not) but really, the attitude is "it'll never happen to me im an awesome driver...."

Insurance for younger drivers is risk assessed & as such its more expensive generally than for a 30 year old. At my most broke I still had the Ambo with 3rd party, fire & theft, but couldnt afford full comp.

[FGII-XR6]

A green slip is third party, there are 2 types of third party
third party bodily injury and third party property damage. both should be the minimum requirement for everyone

Originally Posted by hawkgirl

so he had 3rd party or just his greenslip?

3rd party will cover other motorists.

When on my p's I saw it as my responsibility as a driver to make sure I had insurance to cover the inevitable. I dont think it should be legislated (look how well it worked to make greenslip prices more competitive...not) but really, the attitude is "it'll never happen to me im an awesome driver...."

Insurance for younger drivers is risk assessed & as such its more expensive generally than for a 30 year old. At my most broke I still had the Ambo with 3rd party, fire & theft, but couldnt afford full comp.

[Kryton]

Why just P platers?
Why shouldnt EVERY road user have full comp?

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Kryton

Why just P platers?
Why shouldnt EVERY road user have full comp?

Never a truer word spoken.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Kryton

Why just P platers?
Why shouldnt EVERY road user have full comp?

For the same reason that cars older than about 10 or 15 years shouldn't be banned from the roads for normal daily use.

Yes it is sensible.
Yes it would improve most situations.

But it would set off the screaming minority about how they "can't afford/should have the choice/don't need/prefer not to" as always happens.

[fat4D]

Originally Posted by flappist

For the same reason that cars older than about 10 or 15 years shouldn't be banned from the roads for normal daily use.

Yes it is sensible.
Yes it would improve most situations.

But it would set off the screaming minority about how they "can't afford/should have the choice/don't need/prefer not to" as always happens.

Really... So every au should not be on the road while I see the occasional one that's in bad condition but 10 years is nothing for a car.


As a younger person who didn't have insurance for the first couple of years purely because instance companies slog young people to A point it's not affordable. I had a car worth 3000 and they wanted 900 a year for third party property.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by fat4D

As a younger person who didn't have insurance for the first couple of years purely because instance companies slog young people to A point it's not affordable. I had a car worth 3000 and they wanted 900 a year for third party property.

It's not affordable if you happen to bump into a $200,000 Benz either.

They don't care how much your car is worth, they're gambling you wont hit anything too expensive for your $900.

[2011G6E]

Full comprehensive is crippling for anyone under 25...all our kids started out with basic third party insurance, then progressed to third party fire and theft, then when they reached 25 or were makiing enough money, on to full comp. You also start accumulating a no claim bonus from your first insurance, even basic third party.

Try over a grand for even an old car...more like $1500 plus for a new small car.

As for third party in your rego, I don't see why it's there...I'm covered full comprehensive on both our cars, with something ridiculous like $20 million damages to people and property (or, as one insurance guy jokingly put it when I signed up: "Now you could run over a bus queue of old people and then spear into a Rolls Royce dealership and trash a half dozen cars and you'd still be covered") . Why do I need the one in my rego which makes up the largest component? I know it covers not you, not your car, but the other guy, but so does "normal" insurance.

Insurance companies always whinge about having to pay money out, but hey, insurance is one big gamble...if you don't want to pay out, then don't get involved in the business. You can't honestly expect to collect policy payments for years and not have to actually pay some back now and then...do you...? I suspect we all know the answer to that...

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Kryton

Why just P platers?
Why shouldnt EVERY road user have full comp?

^^^^^^ what he said . i think comprehensive insurance should be compulsory , along with licences . this would stop people fleeing accidents .
and if you dont have them than jail for you if you cannot afford to pay damages .

[xisled]

Comprehensive to 3rd party property damage insurance should not be made compulsory.

It is expensive to own a car at a young age and if people cannot afford it then they do not get it.

Instead of worrying about other drivers, get full insurance yourself, then you are covered for any at fault, not at fault claims.

Even if you can only get Third party property, heaps of these policy cover your if you have a not at fault accident and the other driver is not insured.

End of the day all my cars have full comp insurance, so if another person hit's my car, i really do not care if they are insured or not, because I know my car is covered.

Even if a person under 25 has full comp, they have a at fault claim, they still have to pay the excess before the insurance company would pay out. Too bad if the kid that hit your car has paid out all the money on the car, rego, ctp, full comp insurance and cannot pay the excess, then having insurance is useless.

[LTDHO]

It will never happen..

end thread.

[vanman_75]

it would be good if there was more options with insurance , example my panel van is in resto mode undrivin but i have paid full rego for ten years ... forced insurance no thanks , work car au not conceerned about theft or accident the car is not worth it ... bike full comp high risk motoring ( more for my stuff ups if they were ever to happen ) prado full comp as its leased with high replacement cost ...
They cant make blanket rules as the circumstances vary , and for those situations if you value your car or its valuable then i wouldnt hesitate to have full comp as your insurance covers it , even though you will possibly have to pay the excess .
i would love a one insurance that covers all my vehicles under an umbrella , thta covers me and the missus in any of our vehicles ( higher premium but only one policy ) with options for extra drivers if ever more than one of my cars were drivin at the same time ( rare )

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by vanman_75

i would love a one insurance that covers all my vehicles under an umbrella , thta covers me and the missus in any of our vehicles ( higher premium but only one policy ) with options for extra drivers if ever more than one of my cars were drivin at the same time ( rare )

This is what im suggesting.
Rather than have to have seperate policies for every vehicle, if you were personally insured you could drive any of them at any time and know that if you stack it, the liability you hold in terms of excess is determined by the vehicles type, condition and value of the damage to both yours and the second party should there be one.

For example, say im a 'p' plater and can fully comp a 90 EA Falcon for $500yr.
If i stack it into a 2012 FG and write both off, both cars would be payed out and my premiums would go up accordingly, i would also need to pay $800 excess.
If i did it in my mates VX i could be up for the lot if i was not a nominated driver.

If I was personally insured to drive any thing upto a N/A 6cyl sedan, with a clean driving record i could still pay the extra $500yr for the privelege, but if i was driving my mates VX home as the designated driver and i hit the FG, i'd be covered, but up for a much greater excess to cover the increased value.
The following year my premium would go up with regard to the accident as per normal.

The onus would then be me to keep my premium down and update my insurance class to suit my ongoing requirements

[vanman_75]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

This is what im suggesting.
Rather than have to have seperate policies for every vehicle, if you were personally insured you could drive any of them at any time and know that if you stack it, the liability you hold in terms of excess is determined by the vehicles type, condition and value of the damage to both yours and the second party should there be one.

For example, say im a 'p' plater and can fully comp a 90 EA Falcon for $500yr.
If i stack it into a 2012 FG and write both off, both cars would be payed out and my premiums would go up accordingly, i would also need to pay $800 excess.
If i did it in my mates VX i could be up for the lot if i was not a nominated driver.

If I was personally insured to drive any thing upto a N/A 6cyl sedan, with a clean driving record i could still pay the extra $500yr for the privelege, but if i was driving my mates VX home as the designated driver and i hit the FG, i'd be covered, but up for a much greater excess to cover the increased value.
The following year my premium would go up with regard to the accident as per normal.

The onus would then be me to keep my premium down and update my insurance class to suit my ongoing requirements

Yer i sorta was off topic , what you suggest would be good for any high risk driver ( unfortuate that all would be tarnished with same brush )
my off topic view was more how much insurance i pay a year , well above 10 closer too 20 , and never use it .there is always the one day what ifs , but its a lot of coin , in my life even from now( not including what i have already paid ) , by the time i retire that adds up to 600000 ..or 4 years gross pay for the what ifs .they are looking at forcing flood insurance on everyone .... another 2 g on each of my properties , 1 on a hill the other in aflood zone ( our house is flood proof i just leave for aweek and come back and fix gardens )
forced insurance i dont really agree with ,sorry for ops problem though .

hate insurance companies

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by vanman_75

Yer i sorta was off topic , what you suggest would be good for any high risk driver ( unfortuate that all would be tarnished with same brush )
my off topic view was more how much insurance i pay a year , well above 10 closer too 20 , and never use it .there is always the one day what ifs , but its a lot of coin , in my life even from now( not including what i have already paid ) , by the time i retire that adds up to 600000 ..or 4 years gross pay for the what ifs .

Yeah i get your angle, and this is why my suggestion would suit your situation.
As you said it is rare for more than 1 of your vehicles to be used at any 1 time, yet you pay a premium based on an assumption thet their use is 24/7 52 weeks of the year and therefore covered whilst sitting in your shed motionless.
If you could pay a set premium based on catagory's 4cyl, 6cyl, 8cyl, FI, etc. You would only have 1 policy, covering anything you drive under the catagory you have elected to pay a premium for.
If you have a 6cyl NA policy and jump into a 335GT your uncovered and up for any reprocussions.
The same as if you had no insurance under the current system, except as it is now you can go bankrupt on insurance claims if you have no cover, under my system you couldn't.

[FPV+fteT3]

I own 3 cars 2 have full comprehensive insurance and the mighty excell has 3rd party property only. If I bend an Aston in the excell the Aston is covered and the excell is on the way to simms and with the money I saved on comprehensive insurance over the last five years I can buy another pair of excells and ram some more high end luxury cars whose owners tick me off cause I have insurance.....

[The Yeti]

Personaly I beleive it should be compolsary to have 3rd party property as well as the greenslip CTP

not just P Platers, but it should be for all cars forget the driver if its registered it should at least have 3rd party property

Lets face it if you cant afford 3rd party property you cant afford the car

[Fairlane]

Yeah I dont believe Comphrehensive should be mandatory. I remember when I was 17 full comp was over 2K and i had a clean record. Not a valid option except for the filthy rich.

Third party property yeah that should be mandatory. I personally have never had a car without the minimum of third party property. My theory is what would happen if I ran into a Bentley.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Fairlane

I personally have never had a car without the minimum of third party property. My theory is what would happen if I ran into a Bentley.

My parents made me do this as requirement of getting a car. even when i was unemployed i kept at least 3ppd. Now that my car is financed, i needed full comp, but i'm keeping it going while i'm working full time. As for running into an expensive car, you could end up like 'future marty' in Back to the Future 2 (crashed into a rolls royce)

[Fiesta_Man69]

If you can't afford/be bothered with full comp insurance you shouldn't be on the road.

[leighm]

Originally Posted by Fiesta_Man69

If you can't afford/be bothered with full comp insurance you shouldn't be on the road.

As if, insurance is a choice. If a driver hits you and you are insured, your insurance will fix it and go after the at fault for costs by way of the courts, though you will probably have to pay the excess which sucks. If a driver hits you and they have 3rd party insurance, again your car gets fixed with no cost to you. Why does everybody need to have full comp? What difference does it make if they have full or 3rd party to the one they hit?

When I was younger I went with 3rd party because it was so much cheaper when I was insuring a car that was worth a couple of grand.

So what people who are arguing for this are saying is this: you have a $2000 car and I expect that you spend $2000 to get full comp insurance so that you can get yours and my car fixed if you run into me. Really?

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by leighm

As if, insurance is a choice. If a driver hits you and you are insured, your insurance will fix it and go after the at fault for costs by way of the courts, though you will probably have to pay the excess which sucks. If a driver hits you and they have 3rd party insurance, again your car gets fixed with no cost to you. Why does everybody need to have full comp? What difference does it make if they have full or 3rd party to the one they hit?

When I was younger I went with 3rd party because it was so much cheaper when I was insuring a car that was worth a couple of grand.

So what people who are arguing for this are saying is this: you have a $2000 car and I expect that you spend $2000 to get full comp insurance so that you can get yours and my car fixed if you run into me. Really?

Whilst you do have a point, if it were made mandatory hopefully (longshot i know) insurance co's could make the pricing realistic for cars worth not so much. I think it should be mandatory, but they way they charge these days it is unrealistic for cars not worth much.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by DJM83

Whilst you do have a point, if it were made mandatory hopefully (longshot i know) insurance co's could make the pricing realistic for cars worth not so much. I think it should be mandatory, but they way they charge these days it is unrealistic for cars not worth much.

Ah yes but the problem is that these cars that are not worth much still cost a fortune to fix and are therefore going to be written off more often than not even for a slight dent.

So your worn out 500,000km E series or VL worth maybe $3k needs a new engine, transmission, tyres and whatever else so you just sideswipe some other idiots similar junkheap in a parking lot at 20 km/h.

The paint would be more than $3k each so they both get their $3k to buy another worn out mess with a slightly less stuffed engine or whatever.

Meanwhile everyone else's premiums go up to cover this fraud......

[leighm]

Originally Posted by DJM83

Whilst you do have a point, if it were made mandatory hopefully (longshot i know) insurance co's could make the pricing realistic for cars worth not so much. I think it should be mandatory, but they way they charge these days it is unrealistic for cars not worth much.

Insurance premiums will never go down. The Green Slip joke in NSW proves that. I have to pay at least $450 a year, and that is relatively cheap. On the old Rodeo we had worth $2000, it cost $800 a year for a Green Slip....and this is a mandatory insurance!

Look at Victoria where they regulate the price of the personal insurance with your rego, it's only about $300 for everybody. The only way insurance premiums would come down is to regulate them.

When I get full comp for my XR6 Turbo every year, most insurers are over $2000, I go with QBE every year because their price is $1500, doesn't ever change year to year. If competition worked in insurance those other prices would come down. By the way, I am over 30, no traffic infringements and no accidents.

If I bought the exact same insurance but had my address in Victoria, I would pay one third of the premium. Same sort of suburb too.