Not referring to CTP
Seems bizarre to me that this hasn't been legislated yet - Surely if you can't afford third party premiums you definitely can't afford to have an accident?
Thoughts?
Should Third-Party Property Car Insurance Be Mandatory?
Comments
- 1
- 2
cOmMuNiSm!!!
Why, yes, yes I do. Then you for asking.
You realise third party insurance is legally required right? (not TPP) so yes they can effectively legislate insurance for all idiots.
3rd party insurance for personal injury in an accident has always been part of vehicle registration for as long as I remember.
But only fools drive without any vehicle insurance.
One would expect common sense and responsibilty to prevail@HeWhoKnows: But thats my point. If 3rd party insurance is legislated/part of vehicle rego then TPP could also become part of it if required.
@Piranha2004: So you want the governement to have rules and laws for EVERYTHING!
You want to live in a nanny state where you have NO CHOICE.
What happened to being "responsible"
@HeWhoKnows: Where did I say that?
Stop making things up. I was responding to your ridiculous assertion that you cant legislate motor insurance when clearly you can.
Responsibility only goes so far as the cost-benefit of making people make their own decisions. Im sure at some point 3rd party was never compulsory.
Based on your logic we should let people do anything and everything and hope that they are responsible? Lets not have laws at all since we expect people to be responsible. Give me a break.
@Piranha2004: You implied you want more government control.
Just how much is enough if not too much?
Based on you logic you assume people cannot act responsibly or dont have the intelligence to make a decision.I believe in less government and freedon of choice
@HeWhoKnows: No I didnt. Stop posting rubbish. I said the government can make it compulsory (by citing the example of 3rd Party insurance) not that I want them to make it compulsory.
I dont give two flying wazoos what you think or dont think.
Is your return key broken? There are 3 lines in
Your post that are longer than 10 words and I
Think that your keyboard might be broken and you
Need a new one
But you cannot legislate for all the idiots out there.
Seems like that’s exactly what people prefer according to the poll.
Cookers like you probably need a little bit of Nanny control right?
There’s so many circumstances where if you want to use, participate in or sell something you are required to have insurance. This is no different. Want to use public roads with your personal vehicle? Have appropriate insurance. It makes things simpler for everyone. It’s not a nanny state, it’s society.
Should Third-Party Property Car Insurance Be Mandatory?
Yes, but then this is why you have full comp to cover yourself from those that don't have it.
No, you have 'full comp' so that if you prang your car into a tree and destroy it, the nice insurance company will buy you a new one. In other words, the main idea of 'full comp' is that you are covered/your car gets fixed/replaced even if you wreck it yourself. That's exactly why the cost of your full comp tends to go up if you cause accidents.
Hey mine keeps going up and I don't HAVE accidents!
Myth Busted!
Try one, and it will go higher..
Just tick the box to identify as non-binary with your insurance applications and it will drop to the cheapest possible amount.
the nice insurance company will buy you a new one
Most won't buy you a new one… They pay you what you are covered. But sure a select few policies will do this in the first few years of policy if you meet the requirements.
No, you have 'full comp' so that if you prang your car into a tree and destroy it,
Close…. you have full comp to cover you when there isn't any other 'insurance party' to cover you.
That's exactly why the cost of your full comp tends to go up if you cause accidents.
Yeah nah, no claims here and it still keeps going up each year as the value of my car goes down.
I have a policy with Suncorp Comprehensive Advantages policy that is supposed to buy me a new car regardless of age (yes I checked). My only concern is that is can't get the same make and model within 90 days they might buy the next closest thing. In my case I don't think there is one.
@EightImmortals: That sounds pretty good… is the policy premium significantly higher than a regular car insurance policy that pays out market or agreed value?
I'm also assuming you'd likely need to have insured it with them since new (otherwise I can see a bit of fraud going on if they had new-for-old replacement. regardless of age and when insurance commenced).
is the policy premium significantly higher than a regular car insurance policy that pays out market or agreed value?
Generally yes, as its a 'top level' cover that comes with these features.
I'm also assuming you'd likely need to have insured it with them since new
Correct, needs to be covered from new with no lapses in the insured covered under top level cover.
And its only a 'new' car if it is a total write off. So generally that means most crashes are repairable as they are 'cheaper' than a replacement. ie your $15k car, gets $20k worth of damage would normally be written off. But if the new replacement is $40k, they'll fix it instead.
@JimmyF: Erm, re this:
'So generally that means most crashes are repairable as they are 'cheaper' than a replacement.'
That may be true if you are talking a 'minor bingle/one panel damaged', but you would be amazed at what constitutes a 'write-off' these days. This is because of the now astronomical costs of car repairs, combined with the astronomical increase in the standards legitimate car repairers are required to adhere to, and indeed, guarantee with respect to their work.
For example, a car made in 2010 is brought in with a mildly damaged frond left panel, because the driver was distracted and veered into someone. Based on the year/model of the car, it is deemed to be 'worth' about $7k, and all the rigmarole involved with 'fixing' it would exceed that substantially … so it is declared a 'write-off', and goes to 'Pickles Auctions'.
It's amazing what constitutes a 'write-off' accident these days …
That may be true if you are talking a 'minor bingle/one panel damaged', but you would be amazed at what constitutes a 'write-off' these days. This is because of the now astronomical costs of car repairs, combined with the astronomical increase in the standards legitimate car repairers are required to adhere to, and indeed, guarantee with respect to their work.
I see you didn't keep reading, I gave an example of why there will be more repairs than write offs when you have this 'clause' for a new car on write off regardless of the cars age.
What makes it a write off is generally when the cost of repair goes above ~60-70% of the pay out figure. So yes on a cheap car, and the crazy cost of repairs, 'minor' bingles can be a write off as its 'cheaper' for the insurance company to pay you out.
For example, a car made in 2010 is brought in with a mildly damaged frond left panel, because the driver was distracted and veered into someone. Based on the year/model of the car, it is deemed to be 'worth' about $7k, and all the rigmarole involved with 'fixing' it would exceed that substantially … so it is declared a 'write-off', and goes to 'Pickles Auctions'.
But with this 'new' car on write off clause, the 2010 car isn't deemed to be 'worth' $7k anymore, as the replacement cost of a new car is say more like $40k. So the 2010 car is now deemed to be worth '$40k'. So paying $10 or even 15k in repairs is the cheaper option for the insurance company than paying out $40k
It's amazing what constitutes a 'write-off' accident these days …
I'm not amazed at all, fully aware repairs are crazy costly, cars are crazy cheap. But you need to factor in the replacement car cost as that metric has changed with this new car on write off regardless of the age.
Honestly cars are no different than appliances etc. Decades ago people repaired them as they had been crazy costly and repairs cheap, these days, the cost of repairs are crazy, so people just buy new. You don't spend $500 fixing a 10 year old fridge that you can buy new for $800.
@bobbified: It's about 1K per year for my vehicle (2021 Rav4 Hybrid), yes there are conditions attached as well.
I have a policy with Suncorp Comprehensive Advantages policy that is supposed to buy me a new car regardless of age
Think AAMI has this 'feature' as well, you have to meet the requirements though, first owner of the car, and keep the policy going from the car being brand new. Skip one year and that 'feature' is void.
In my case I don't think there is one.
Then they'll pay you out.
@EightImmortals: they will most likely pay you out if they can't source the car or if you can't find one yourself
but then again that comprehensive advantages they can charge what they want each year if you want to keep your lifetime new for old
@Poor Ass: Cheers that's my understanding also.
The neat thing is they bumped the value of the car up about 12K this year so if the worst did happen I'd come out of it OK. Otherwise planning to keep it for 15 years at least.
@EightImmortals: yes crazy thing with the values these few years
but usually the agreed value goes down and the premium goes up (it doesn't make sense really even adjusted for inflation) but then it would probably be a good 15 years (from new) before the car / policy reaches equilibrium and the the premium every year would be a few hundred bucks to cover a few thousand bucks. At this point this is when lifetime new for old is good but the model might not exist and the payout would suck bad.
@EightImmortals: I remember there was someone on here that had this policy and was going to get a new xc40 to replace their pranged 2010 c30. Still wasnt happy even though the car was a huge upgrade.
But yeah
Great policy
You pay for it though
That's exactly why the cost of your full comp tends to go up
Non sense and everyone knows that all insurance premiums went up, my premium went up 25% and I never made a claim, the result is from now on no more insurance.
if it is an older car and you got comprehensive, it's more for those instances where someone hits you (stolen car or driver can't be identified) where the owner is not liable and you are left with something rather than nothing
where someone hits you (stolen car or driver can't be identified)
For this specific purpose I installed the dashcam, roads have became dangerous and there are too many crooks and criminals who have no respect for others.
I decided to drive without insurance because I don't want my money being stolen by corporate, they increased the premium plus they rose the off the pocket contribution from $600 to $750 without giving any explanation so FU insurance companies and who works for them.For this specific purpose I installed the dashcam, roads have became dangerous and there are too many crooks and criminals who have no respect for others.
So your plan is to go after "crooks and criminals" yourself IF the dashcam works and the footage is good enough to identify them???
What's your plan if you hit a really expensive car and it is actually your fault?
You'll learn unfortunately.
So your plan is to go after "crooks and criminals" yourself
Only fouls try to put their own words in other people's mouth.
It sounds like you got offended because I mentioned a category of road drivers LOL@billadm: Only fouls?
So tell me you legend, what do you plan to do with your dashcam footage if it works? Are you going to hire a lawyer and sue? I'm sure that'd be cheaper than insurance. Send a letter of demand that will get ignored? Hire bikies? I'd hate to put any more words in your mouth, so you tell me what you would do with no insurance and dashcam footage of someone at fault of writing off your car?
It should be common sense that a dashcam doesn't replace insurance.
@billadm: You didn't bother to answer a single question, after complaining that I put my own words in your mouth. You're wasting my time. In fact I suspect you're just trolling.
Only fouls try to put their own words in other people's mouth.
This is one of the best typos I've seen for a while.
Yes!
Too many people are unaware of the financial burden they are risking if they ever get into an at-fault accident.
I get why full comp is optional. Your own car might not be worth the premiums.
Unfortunately, even not at-fault puts premiums up with some companies (i.e woolworths car insurance)
I rather there be a legislation, maybe from the EU Commission, so that EVERY personal NEW car that is sold past 2030, must come with a factory installed cameras, and a means to access footage.
With the minimum being a front and back, and I'm sure the more pricey cars will have a whole array, parking/sentry mode, and a way to monitor them remotely. They could even make additions access through a subscription model.
That large-scale movement (since it's mandatory) would be great not just for insurance, but also police work, fraud, and just people in general. That is a much more effective and better means than legislating that everyone needs insurance, but I'm in support of both.
That is what I didn't believe when a kangaroo bumped into my car, on a highway. It was classed as a not at fault accident ( accident with an animal). Still my next premium went up considerably, apparently because kangaroo didn't have an 'owner' to get the expenses reimbursed from. Even though this was the only time I got a claim in 15 years !
No.
Forums would be dead.
There is still plenty of hilarity, rage bait and crazy stories even without the car stuff imo
Hello… Pam
No, with mandatory third party insurance companies would jack the prices and we'd all be worse off.
If insurance companies didn't have to compete with the 'No insurance option' they would only have each other to base their prices on.If you have a car valued at 5-7k and going with third party, choose one with cover 'Up to 5k cover for uninsured drivers'.
This way your insurance will pay you out then chase up the at-fault driver. You can put this money towards repairs or a new car and sell the wreck for scrap.
Insurance companies jacking their prices up will only work up to a point. If they try to push it too far then they invite competition, which would push the prices back down. Free markets generally work, especially if other companies see a market segment where profits can be made.
If the profits to be made are greater than the barriers to entry, then more competition will enter the market.LOL. I have a bridge you might be interested in buying, M-Nass.
If they try to push it too far then they invite competition
Price-fixing is rampant in most/all industries. There is ZERO chance these or any companies are doing to "do the honorable thing" in the long term.
That’s why the American health insurance industry is so cost effective?
Insurance companies jacking their prices up will only work up to a point
But I want that point to go down, not up.
Dumbest take ever,
CTP is compulsory.
If you can't afford comprehensive insurance to protect you from uninsured drivers…
At what point would you stop insisting people have insurance? I think 3rd party property is not unreasonable, but I'm leery of the government forcing people to purchase insurance to protect the goods of somebody else who could have made their own insurance decisions.
I am more OK with injury insurance, as the tax payer pays if there is no insurance.
the at fault driver is obligated to pay, but what if he/she hit you and don't have money to pay? would you say something else otherwise?
It's an absolutely shitty situation to be in (i've been in that situation, at-fault uninsured and refuse or cant pay), but the government adding more regulation that will merely be gamified by companies is nothing but an illusory fix, it will undoubtedly leave us all worse off.
If my kid was murdered, I might want the perpetrator hung, but we don’t let the victims frame the law.
If you don’t insure yourself, how do you deal with someone who forgot to pay their premium, or stole a car, or caused the crash from a bicycle?If you have a vehicle too costly for you to self insure, yet you don’t buy insurance, you are self insured anyway in many instances.
I agree that you should protect yourself with full comp insurance, but that doesn't mean enforce 3rd party isn't a good thing for most.
@OMGJL: Think of it this way, if I can afford to self insure my $5k car, and could readily pay for damages up to a similar figure, why should I be forced to buy it insurance because you choose to drive a Bugatti?
If Auspost loses my uninsured parcel I get the same compensation regardless of whether I posted diamonds or scraps, and if Qantas loses my uninsured bag, I get the same compensation for a bag of kmart clothes as for a bag of Luis Vuitton.It's common for people to have to provide their own insurance if they choose to increase their exposure - home insurance costs more for fancier houses and comprehensive car insurance costs more for fancier cars.
So I might be persuaded that we should mandate a low value of 3rd party property insurance, but why should it cover some exotic Ferrari a rich kid chooses to drive?
If I wish to insure against a civil claim if I was at fault in such a circumstance, I can, but the fancy car driver's choice to risk their vehicle isn't something the government should force everyone to pay for.@mskeggs: This is an entirely well-reasoned argument, not sure why people are downvoting regardless of whether or not they think TPP should be mandatory.
@mskeggs: Because - in this scenario - it's your fault? It's my decision to drive a Bugatti but it's your fault my car gets scratched, no?
@oranglama: I understand it is my fault and I'm obligated to pay for it, but the government requiring a level of insurance to cover Ferrari damage isn't reasonable.
If you are driving a car that might cost 100 times what it costs to repair a normal car, then you take the risk the person crashing into can't cover it, it isn't something you can force the government to make people cover.
The government gives you the court to enforce a judgement if it is the other drivers fault, they can't also make the other driver have insurance to cover that too (in my opinion) because the extra cost of the repair is due to the Ferrari driver's choice to drive a fancy car@mskeggs: I think I understand your point, it's more about the government forcing it. But "reasonable" is a relative term.
It doesnt need to be Ferrari. Would you accept if i destroy your 5 years old mazda and pay you 1000 dollar because thats what my car is worth?
@oranglama: You need insurance if you worry about someone crashing into you.
Even if the law said you must have 3rd party, there would still be plenty of crooks or careless who didn't have it.
It would be silly to not insure a fancy car and rely on others to cover you.
@mskeggs: There are other expensive things you could damage with your car that aren't exotic cars: a house, for example.
If you damage someone's property you should pay for it, or have the means to pay for it.
@Dalton: And the court enforces that. But making the government force people to have insurance as well seems a lot. Surely if you have property that might get damaged, and you are worried the damage would be very costly, you should insure it yourself?
@mskeggs: Is your problem with government enforcement, or with additional costs being heaped on those who can't afford it?
@Dalton: A bit of both. I don't think the government should enforce someone to buy a commercial product to cover someone else's property risk. As I said, I might feel differently about a default "everyone pays" for the first $x of 3rd party claims.
That would be a benefit to the poor buggers on here who get smashed into by a deadbeat.
But why should I be forced to pay for insurance I have judged I don't need to make a Ferrari driver's premium lower for cases where someone else crashes into them? Because that is how insurance works, by pooling the risk and benefits.@mskeggs: You make an interesting counter-case. I don't fully agree with you, but I do agree that government regulations that force individuals to buy commercial products seldom work in favor of the consumer.
but what if he/she hit you and don't have money to pay?
That's why we pay compulsory road insurance plus tax every time we renew the vehicle registration, that fund goes to help people who have been involved in road accident so they can get the right support.
CTP is for personal injury only.
"CTP Insurance covers costs like medical treatment and lost income for people who need it after they’re injured in a road accident.
CTP Insurance doesn’t cover damage to your vehicle, other vehicles or property - only injuries."
https://www.nrma.com.au/ctp-insurance?nts=0&mid=iagps1__GEN_…
the government forcing people to purchase insurance to protect the goods of somebody else who could have made their own insurance decisions.
bingo
Look at your rego fee and where it really goes. There's all sorts of insurance supposedly included.
Yet it goes up exponentially every year.
The amount we pay for regos should well & truly already cover it. And yet…?Insurance is going to explode. Climate change is the excuse they'll use and any other that they can dream up. Including the number of under and uninsured ppl out there. It's a snake eating it's own tail. The fact the Comminsure was predated on by a foreign company shows how tasty & lucrative it is and how gullible consumers are. Comm used to be a great insurance(from our experience) Car and home.
Strayas arse is owned by OS vampiresIt doesn’t go up “exponentially” every year.
Regos going down are they?
Love to see which states they remain the same cost for more than 3 yrs running, if ever. Here's a few breakdowns of components per state
https://www.gio.com.au/know-more/insuring-your-car/car-regis…
2021 report: Regos going up in ALL states>
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-trans…@Protractor: I figured you didn't understand exponential growth since you claimed registration costs are growing exponentially.
@Protractor: Costs are going up. Possibly linearly, but certainly not 'exponentially.'
This is like some 15 year old saying "I literally died!"
@Protractor: I guess this really has to be explained, to a ridiculous level of detail. If you're going to have a username based on a mathematical instrument, then you should know what mathematical terms mean.
"Exponential growth" means that something is growing by an exponent. i.e. a mathematical power.
Let's use integers to start with. The smallest integer for exponential growth is 2. So if rates increase by 2% this year, they will increase by 4% next year, and 8% the year after. This is what people mean when it comes to something like Covid or a zombie apocalypse, where each infected person infects another 4, 6, or 8 people.
There clearly hasn't been this kind of exponential growth with insurance.
We can also use whole numbers for exponents (e.g. 1.1, 1.2) for slower exponential growth. This means that each year, premiums increase, and they always increase at a greater amount than the preceding year. Has this been happening? Who knows, probably not, but it's not supported by your links which discuss changes between one year.
What you can say is that "insurance premiums go up every year". What you can't say (if you want to be taken seriously) is "insurance goes up exponentially"
I can't believe this really needed to be spelled out like this.
It has gone up ~4.5% since 3 years ago in Victoria. That is not even exponential growth over 3 years, much less every year. Also your second link is the number of registered vehicles, not the cost of registration.
@Miss B: also did you read this? at > (second link)
(keeping in mind the newest data is likely to reflect increases as well)States and territories
An increase in registrations was reported in all states and territories.
Queensland, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory each reported the largest increase from the previous year (2.3%).
In contrast, Victoria's fleet grew the least by 0.7%.Relevant
Medical insurance/cover for any accident you cause is already mandatory, because it's 'bundled in' with rego.
'Third-party property car insurance' is only payable if you are deemed to be at fault.
Why should someone who is confident that they will not be at fault in an accident that occurs be forced to pay hundreds of dollars to a commercial outfit every year simply because 'the state' decides to institute mandated policy based on a blanket assumption that all these people are wrong?
If an uninsured person causes third-party damage by way of a car accident, all the standard legal channels available re damage caused by other forms of accidents (or indeed, 'on purposes') are available to the aggrieved party; without the need for 'nanny-state' mandated annual payments of hundreds of dollars; soon to be over $1000, no doubt. I.e. why should car accidents be a 'special case'?
Some US states have a system whereby if you are of meagre means you have to have third party property accident insurance, but if you can show (via an annual tax return I think, or something like that) that you possess a certain amount in financial assets, you do not; because you are 'good for it' if someone needs to come after you for property damage you caused. That is an interesting system, and in my view that would be better than simply assuming that no one is capable of accurately determining their capacity not to cause a car accident, and charging every driver hundreds of dollars a year based on that blanket assumption.
I see the way the vote has gone so far, and I am fully aware that this comment will be 'negged into oblivion', and that numerous semi-abusive responses to it will ensue. Bring it. I don't care :P.
- 1
- 2
Absolutely!