Why Do I Pay Two Lots of TAC Insurance?

[Deactivated] on 22/11/2020 - 13:06

Hi all. I have a project car and a daily driver. The project car is only 10 years old so it's not eligible for club registration. It sits in the garage and is driven at most once a week, usually far less. The TAC insurance component of my registration is almost $600. The actual registration component is only a bit over $200. Why am I paying TAC insurance on two cars? I can only drive one at at time. The state government are knowingly ripping people off, which I know is not unusual, but this seems to be bordering on dishonesty. Isn't this one of the many things the banks got into trouble for? Selling insurance products they knew their customers would never use?

My suggestion is the TAC component should be attached to the drivers licence, thereby insuring the driver, not the car.

For those wondering, the TAC insurance ONLY covers you or people you run over, or those otherwise injured on the roads (and for some reason cyclists who don't pay rego, but we'll chat about that later), etc for personal injury, emergency treatment, rehabilitation etc. It has NOTHING to do with car insurance.

Actually, I know why. It's because government is inherently dishonest and are addicted to the extra money. But it still sucks.

Automotive Car Insurance Insurance

Comments

  • iNeed2Pee on 22/11/2020 - 13:12
    +8

    Username checks out. Bloody Boomers.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2020 - 13:22
      +2

      LOL. I was waiting for it. I've had that nickname since I was a kid. Back in the 70's.

      • iNeed2Pee on 22/11/2020 - 13:26

        🤣 I used to be that way about the TAC duty as well….then a family member was involved in a serious crash and that TAC aspect came through for them big time.

        So I get where you are coming from, I didn't realise it had to be 10 years or older to be a part of a club to attain that permit..

        • MS Paint on 22/11/2020 - 15:33

          In Victoria car has to be over 25 years for club plates.

          • iNeed2Pee on 22/11/2020 - 20:46

            @MS Paint: Crazy. Until I realise a car from 1995 is good to go 🤣

  • whooah1979 on 22/11/2020 - 13:22

    No pay, no play.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2020 - 13:29

      Happy to pay. Just not twice.

      • whooah1979 on 22/11/2020 - 13:30
        +2

        It's a reasonable cost to use our public roads.

        It stops international visitors driving around uninsured (TAC) with their overseas licence.

        • brendanm on 22/11/2020 - 16:57

          As well as unlicensed people.

      • Euphemistic on 23/11/2020 - 12:30

        Well, if you linked it to a licence it’d probably cost twice as much. They work out the value of your ‘premium’ by the cost of the payouts/claims divided by the number of registered vehicles.

  • Ryk on 22/11/2020 - 13:32
    +8

    How many car batteries do you have? Do you transfer the battery between cars? Might be a saving if you did.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 22/11/2020 - 15:29
      +6

      …and fuel, take out of the car not in use at the moment, then there is oil and don't get me started on blinker fluid…..

    • mapax on 22/11/2020 - 18:41

      I did that when I had a project car.
      Why would I spend $400 on an extra battery when it’s a 2 minute job to swap them over?

      • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:15

        You blokes are peanuts. Your analogy is wrong. You should be saying, "Why don't you buy three batteries for your two cars and leave two of them sitting in the garage and never use them?" That is the same as paying for two insurance policies, one of which I will never use. Thanks for playing though….

  • Baysew on 22/11/2020 - 13:36
    +1

    Why am I paying TAC insurance on two cars?

    Wouldn't you be paying two lots of insurance (Comprehensive/Third Party Only) as well?

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:15

      Yes, but that insures my property, as in my two cars. I may use both of those policies. I will NEVER claim on two TAC policies because there is only one of me.

  • mskeggs on 22/11/2020 - 13:39
    +7

    Starting with "government is inherently dishonest" doesn't really imply you are discussing in good faith.

    In my house, we have 3 licensed drivers for 2 vehicles, so we would have the opposite problem with your proposed change to linking it to licences.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:17
      -5

      So your third driver would actually have to contribute their fair share and cover the cost of their own insurance instead of expecting me to? Oh how shocking. Typical Socialist thinking.

      • mskeggs on 23/11/2020 - 09:41
        +4

        My third driver can't drive when the two insured cars are in use by others, in much the same way your second car can't be driven by you if you are driving the first.

        I guess the question becomes, should we control the car, by forcing cars to carry insurance as part of the registration process, or control the human, by forcing them to carry insurance as part of the licensing process.

        Except for your narrow self interest, I'm not sure which approach is better. I am certain the current arrangement is because for many years drivers out numbered cars, so people would have felt having more drivers insured than could take the road would be unreasonable.

        I don't know if that is still numerically the case.

        Ending with mock outrage and calls of socialism doesn't make your argument stronger, but will cause some people to dismiss it as they will think you may be unhinged to carry on like that over a discussion about the best way to insure vehicles.

        • SBOB on 23/11/2020 - 09:49
          +2

          I guess the question becomes, should we control the car, by forcing cars to carry insurance as part of the registration process, or control the human, by forcing them to carry insurance as part of the licensing process.

          its also much easier to identify unregistered (and therefore uninsured) vehicles via plate recognition, than it is identify registered vehicles being driven by unlicensed drivers

  • SBOB on 22/11/2020 - 13:56
    +2

    the TAC insurance ONLY covers you or people you run over, or those otherwise injured on the roads

    by the car… the driver is irrelevant in this equation :)
    a person with a licence, but no car, is unlikely to run someone over

    If you were driving, or someone else, car still covered..

    Hence why the insurance and mandatory tac/greenslip/whatever it is in other states is attached to the car

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:24
      -3

      "by the car… the driver is irrelevant in this equation :)". OMG. That's like saying ,'The gun shot him. I was only pulling the trigger'. Seriously, you have to do better dude. The driver was driving the car. Steering it, braking, accelerating. The driver should be insured for TAC, not the car.

      "a person with a licence, but no car, is unlikely to run someone over". Unless they were driving a vehicle…..

      "If you were driving, or someone else, car still covered." The car is not covered by TAC. It's personal injury insurance.

      "Hence why the insurance and mandatory tac/greenslip/whatever it is in other states is attached to the car". You would have the same outcome if the TAC component was attached to the licence. Whomever was driving the car would be insured.

  • northern nsw on 22/11/2020 - 14:01
    -1

    I do hold out hope that one day the federal and state governments introduce a user pays system for motor vehicles, whereby rego, insurance and CTP is abolished and a user tax is applied to fuel. So the less you drive the less you pay, the more you drive (and the higher the accident risk) the more you pay, No one avoids paying at the fuel pump, no more under-insured drivers or no one driving without insurance or registration.

    Will it ever happen?

    • pjetson on 22/11/2020 - 14:32
      +4

      the more you drive (and the higher the accident risk)

      I think it's the other way around. Just look at the roads at the moment - so many people who don't normally drive, so many bad drivers.

    • SBOB on 22/11/2020 - 14:42

      So the less you drive the less you pay, the more you drive (and the higher the accident risk)

      ignoring electric or hybrid cars, that ruin that user tax..

      one would assume thats also not a linear correlation

      if you only drive 1000km a year its likely you don't get much practice
      if you drive 30000km a year you're on the road more, so the chance is higher, but its unlikely to be a liner 30x higher (which is also why things like comprehensive insurance that offer the choice of pay per km are also not linear in their price increase as kms increase)

      regardless, government is going to take their $, shuffling the pieces on the board to try and make it more fair is generally only fair depending on which side of the board you're standing on :)

    • bobbified on 23/11/2020 - 14:15

      whereby rego, insurance and CTP is abolished and a user tax is applied to fuel.

      Why would they abolish anything when we already pay for everything AND they already have the user tax applied to fuel! LOL

  • Jules855 on 22/11/2020 - 14:01
    +4

    So people who have drivers licenses but don't own cars should pay more, just so those privileged enough to have multiple vehicles can pay less? Username definitely checks out.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:25
      -4

      YES! People who don't own cars should have to pay their own TAC insurance component. Contribute to society dude instead of expecting me to pay two premiums to cover your socialist arse.

    • Pro-crastinator on 23/11/2020 - 23:42

      Yeah… this is the kinda guy who, if he got what he wanted, would then post:

      "We've downsized to 1 car and my wife and adult kid want to drive the car… why are we paying 3 lots of TAC when there can only be 1 driver at a time!"

  • brendanm on 22/11/2020 - 14:22
    +1

    Sell your other car if you don't like it.

    CTP even covers an unlicensed driver, and someone that is hit by them.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:29
      -3

      So that's your answer. Sell my project car? Goose.

      "CTP even covers an unlicensed driver, and someone that is hit by them." So what's your point mate? Captain obvious.

      • brendanm on 23/11/2020 - 09:43
        +4

        The point is that even if someone steals your car, or you let some unlicensed goose drive it, the person they hit, and themselves, are still covered. This wouldn't happen under your licence scheme.

        My point does still stand, if $600 for rego is too much to afford, sell your "project", or cancel the rego.

  • pjetson on 22/11/2020 - 14:31
    +4

    but this seems to be bordering on dishonesty

    They do it to counter the dishonesty of the general public. Far better to have one single clear rule and then no-one tries to "get around it".

  • CodeXD on 22/11/2020 - 15:32
    +2

    build a bridge and get over it. Sell the 'project' car if you can't afford the upkeep.

    Some families have 1 car and that's shared around between 3-4 people. You want them to pay 4 x TAC? Don't be ridiculous.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:31
      -2

      Ahhh the socialist. I should pay two lots of insurance to save you from having to contribute to the TAC system, but you'll happily claim if you need to, even though you haven't paid for it. This is exactly why it should be attached to your licence. So people like you pay your far share.

  • EFC94 on 22/11/2020 - 16:16
    +1

    This should be merged in a thread about how cyclists need to pay rego.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:32
      -2

      Yep

  • SF3 on 22/11/2020 - 16:33
    +1

    What if your vehicle runs someone over whilst you were not driving it? (Eg on a hill).

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:33

      You are still covered. As are pedestrians and for some reason, cyclists who don't pay registration.

      • Euphemistic on 23/11/2020 - 12:35
        +1

        Pedestrians don’t pay rego. Why should they be covered? Alternatively, cyclists cause as many injuries as pedestrians on the roads so they don’t need to pay for TAC insurance.

        • Pro-crastinator on 23/11/2020 - 23:50

          For a cyclist to be able to claim TAC, they have to be hit by a car. So they pay nothing, but also get nothing unless greeted poorly by a moron.

          As a cyclist, I pay Bicycle Network membership every year to cover me for 3rd party liability, like what you get included in your registration.

          My Bicycle Network membership is $129 per year.
          Trailer/caravan registration is $60.50 per year.

          Considering both a trailer and a bicycle is unpowered, and the bicycle is far lighter (and cannot be similarly loaded) and therefore little to no road damage, I would be extremely happy to have (what I would assume to be) $30 odd bicycle registration cost per year. I'd save quite a bit of money!

          But then the anti-cyclist brigade would be angry anyway, because now they have to pay registration when their kids want to ride their bikes! And their kids have a BMX & a MTB… that's more than 1 bike, why should we have to pay for 2 bikes when they can only ride 1!

          • Euphemistic on 24/11/2020 - 05:33

            @Pro-crastinator: Your membership covers property damage. Bicycle registration would not cover property damage, only personal injury. So you’d have to pay $30 plus $129.

            A trailer is unpowered, but will be towed by a registered vehicle which will have TAC.

            Paying $30 for bicycle registration would cost the state money as it would not cover the costs of the system.

            The only good reason to register bicycles is to shut up the whiners that think it’ll mean they can report bicycles for running red lights etc, The reality is a bicycle number plate will be so small you won’t be able to read it at any distance and they’ll just find another reason to want bicycles off the roads.

            • Pro-crastinator on 24/11/2020 - 15:09

              @Euphemistic: No, I wouldn't be paying both. Bicycle Network membership only covers 3rd party property damage. Because I have comprehensive bicycle insurance to cover my bike, it essentially double covers 3rd party property. There is no other option to have personal liability insurance for cyclists (because no rego) and you can't separate them.

              I agree with you - the rego is just an excuse to hate on bikes whilst appearing to have a valid reason.

              There would be even more complaints if bicycle riders paid rego… they would all complain about how cyclists who only pay a tiny amount for rego (and who are more vulnerable to injury following an at fault accident) are costing the system vast sums greater than they collect. And why are parents now having to pay rego for their 12 year old to ride to school (the age that you can no longer ride on the footpath)… and why are they discouraging cycling by charging rego when it's more environmentally friendly etc.

              • Euphemistic on 24/11/2020 - 16:20
                +1

                @Pro-crastinator:

                they would all complain about how cyclists who only pay a tiny amount for rego

                That’s the thing. Cyclists in reality cause very little personal injury to others. So little, that the government know there are other options for victims of cycle incidents - Medicare for one.

                (and who are more vulnerable to injury following an at fault accident)

                And many cyclists recognise this and ride accordingly. You learn quickly to ride defensively when you know it hurts when you crash. Unlike drivers that can do a significant amount of damage and walk away with very minor injuries.

  • Seraphin7 on 22/11/2020 - 16:33
    -2

    The state government are knowingly ripping people off

    Agreed. On everything they charge for. Local and Federal as well.

  • slknv on 22/11/2020 - 17:08
    +1

    "Why am I paying TAC insurance on two cars? I can only drive one at at time"

    Yeah but guess what, someone else could be driving the other car while you're driving one of them. I do feel your pain, I've got 4 cars and was thinking this morning the registration and insurance on these each year does add up to quite a lot.

    • Seraphin7 on 23/11/2020 - 09:23

      Why not attach the insurance to the driver's licence?

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:34
      -2

      No one drives my project car and if they did, they would have TAC insurance as it would be attached to their drivers licence.

  • pegaxs on 22/11/2020 - 18:04
    +3

    I can only drive one at at time

    You see, that's where you are wrong. You could drive one and someone else could drive the other. But I agree, it's a bit stupid to insure the car and not the driver (it should be part of your license renewal, not car rego renewal). I have 3 motorbikes and 2 cars… and you're complaining about 2 TAC to pay, I've got 5. The reason I don't complain is that, this spreads the load on the system out over multiple users. If it were a per driver insurance, you would find that your TAC/CTP could well be more than double what you are currently paying.

    • Euphemistic on 23/11/2020 - 12:36

      And upping the price for licence holders to pay for TAC would mean poor people who can’t afford a car, but need a licence for other reason would be more likely to go unlicensed, further increasing the costs to legit licence holders.

  • mapax on 22/11/2020 - 18:42
    +1

    Everyone knows that your project car is meant to be old enough for club reg…

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:36

      Agreed, but the budget kicked in. I went for a future classic.

      • brendanm on 23/11/2020 - 12:02

        Nice VN commo mate, a little gem.

  • lainey13 on 22/11/2020 - 20:22

    Because you might be able to drive only one car, but there's nothing stopping both cars being driven at the same time and thus both being able to run over people.

    • DoctorCalculon on 22/11/2020 - 22:34

      The OP does have a valid point. The TAC insurance component should be tied to your driver licence, and not the vehicle.

      there's nothing stopping both cars being driven at the same time

      True. However, you clearly missed OP's point. Even if OP owns the two vehicles, they aren't going to be driving both vehicles at the same time.
      If someone else drives the OP's project car whilst OP is traveling around using their daily use vehicle, each driver could have paid for their TAC insurance under their respective driver's licence.

      I guess OP will need to bring this up with their local MPs.

      • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:37
        -1

        I have already bought it up with the local and state MP's. I was just hoping to get a discussion and ideas here. Not many sane ones so far.

        • Euphemistic on 23/11/2020 - 12:37

          Not many sane ones so far.

          Could be here’s a reason for that. Perhaps it makes more sense to link it to vehicles.

  • Bruce76 on 23/11/2020 - 08:47

    "and for some reason cyclists who don't pay rego"

    Hey I'm a cyclist and I pay rego!

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:40
      +1

      For your bike? You are arguing my point. You're saying you pay one lot of registration, which includes a TAC component, so you should be allowed to ride or drive as many different vehicles on the road as you wish. I couldn't agree more. Pay your TAC as part of your drivers licence and drive whatever car, truck, bike, scooter or whatever you wish as much as you want.

      • Euphemistic on 23/11/2020 - 12:40
        +1

        But when I ride my bike I’m not using my car/s so I shouldn’t need to pay multiple amounts of …..

        You are arguing for cyclists to pay rego to pay TAC, but you only want to pay TAC with a licence that cyclists don’t need to ride a bike.

        Your arguments are not solid.

  • kale chips suck on 23/11/2020 - 09:02

    The other advantage of charging it on the licence rather than the car is that it can be adjusted on a per-driver basis - that way, rubbish drivers who cause accidents play a higher premium.

    Just like car insurance.

    Also, if you want to dig a bit deeper - have a look at how much profit the TAC return to the Vic gov each year.

  • sietes on 23/11/2020 - 09:19

    I think the real answer is that you choose to have two cars. Sell one and your problem is solved.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:42

      No, the real answer is to attach the TAC component to my licence so I can drive any car, any time, even if it's not one of mine, and I'll be covered by insurance. I could borrow your car and still be covered.

      • Slippery Fish on 23/11/2020 - 09:45

        Do you insure a house or the occupant…

      • MrBear on 23/11/2020 - 09:47

        So everyone who has a license must pay TAC even if they don't own a car?

        Hmmmm, sound logic there.

        • kale chips suck on 23/11/2020 - 11:34
          -1

          Yes, because its the driver that has the accident, not the car.

  • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2020 - 09:44
    -3

    The main argument so far against the idea of attaching the TAC component to the drivers licence is coming from people who don't pay TAC at all as they don't have cars. The Socialists who think others should be paying for their TAC insurance. How about you pony up and start paying your own insurance?

    • MrBear on 23/11/2020 - 09:48
      +3

      the Socialists who think others should be paying for their TAC insurance

      Nice way to politicise your feeble attempt at whining about own 2 cars.

      The socialist thing would be for everyone who as a license to pay TAC whether they own a car or not. Now you're the socialist Boomer Marx.

    • SBOB on 23/11/2020 - 09:50
      +3

      OP name definitely checking out after that string of thread responses :)

      The Socialists who think others should be paying for their TAC insurance

      ah, the old 'socialist' bomb :)

      As i mentioned above, its also much easier to identify unregistered (and therefore uninsured) vehicles via plate recognition, than it is identify registered vehicles being driven by unlicensed drivers
      So having it attached to vehicles is much easier on an enforcement and compliance issue

      but ok boomer :)

    • brendanm on 23/11/2020 - 12:03

      I have cars, and still argue against you.

  • kingsville on 23/11/2020 - 09:57
    +1

    TAC charge is based on the number of people the vehicle can carry - licence holders or not.

    Does this influence your thinking?

  • shakman on 23/11/2020 - 12:06

    What happens if a friend/relative borrows your car and has an accident and they are injured and you are driving your project car….

    What happens with the TAC then? Should it only cover you and tough luck to your friend/relative as you only pay TAC for one of the cars?

  • OzHunterNSW on 23/11/2020 - 12:14

    You do have the option of a 6 monthly cover

  • abcdefghi on 23/11/2020 - 12:17

    I performed a financial analysis in a similar situation. Living inner city, taking short trips in my car about once a fortnight.

    I worked out about $50 per trip (rego, insurance, petrol, repairs, etc), which is $600 / 12 (assuming annual TAC).

    The only question you need to ask yourself, is it worth $12.50 per trip to have this project car. If yes, then be comfortable in that decision. If no, then make changes.

    My hobby is appreciating live music. For lots of gig, I would spend at least $50 per outing for entry, food / drinks, CDs / merch. Immersing myself in live music fills my soul with joy, so I make room in my budget for it.

    I hope this helps. It incorporates the analytical with the emotional into the decision.

  • Ken1977 on 23/11/2020 - 13:04
    +1

    I was told TAC is a no fault insurance, meaning if a car is unregistered, the driver unlicensed or drunk / on drugs all parties are still able to claim TAC. It basically comes down to where the money for your hospital stay / rehabilitation comes from, because if it's not TAC footing the bill it will be Medicare.

    • Warehouse on 28/11/2020 - 01:11

      Pretty much. If you are hurt on a road TAC will pay no questions. A lot of dirt bike riders will drag their bikes off a trail to a road before calling for help to cover their personal injuries. TAC cover is quite comprehensive and way better than what Medicare will provide for you.

  • magpuy on 23/11/2020 - 17:31
    +1

    Just because you aren't driving one of your cars doesn't someone else isn't going to drive it. You could be out having a great drive in your project car and someone at home needs to be somewhere. No way to prevent both cars on the road at the same time. Easier all round to just build it into a neat little "tax" scheme :-)

  • shakman on 24/11/2020 - 08:27

    Why not have comprehensive insurance on your main car and 3rd party on your project car or even have 3rd party insurance on both and that would save money, except if you caused an accident and that could cost you more?

  • Warehouse on 28/11/2020 - 01:17
    +1

    Basic points is if you register the car, it is expected to be on the road. Proving who and when they are driving a car is a logistical nightmare.

    You're paying for the risk of that car or cars hurting another person, or the occupant (as you know). That's as far as the logic currently does and needs to go.

    Lots of people also don't drive or have cars, but have a license. Why should they pay for the risk when they are not contributing to it? Sounds like Communism to me…

    You want to have 1 vehicle or 6, you cover the risk you're introducing. Simple as that. \

    Noone is a perfect driver. There are too many deaths, serious injuries and minor fender-benders on our road network to prove that. And you guessed it, caused by motor vehicles.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join