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
They should make third party insurance compulsory. I was in a not at fault accident and because I had third party insurance my car was not covered. The person at fault didn't have any insurance but he lied that he had and he would make a claim first thing in the morning. He didn't pick up his phone and when I went to the address on his license, I found that it was a share house and he had moved out months ago. he after weeks of trying to contact him. he sent me a message saying that he did not have any insurance nor any money to pay for the damages. I went to the cops but they said that because he had provided me with details there was nothing they could do and I would have to get a lawyer. I was a broke uni student who did door dash to support myself and definitely could not afford lawyers so had to drive around with a smashed up car.
My brother lives in UAE and over there you are required by law to get car insurance before driving the car off the lot regardless of what car you drive and how much money you have.
There are many 3rd party insurers these day that include a small not-at-fault coverage in your situation.
Yes, but budget insurance companies tend to interpret "not at fault" as "not at fault so long as we can get the money out of someone else". So it is up to you to make sure they can find the at fault party - true for both TPP and comprehensive insurance.
That is what a mobile phone camera is for. Lots of pics - everyone's number plate, their face and (if they'll show it) their D/L.
Sounds like another way to increase the cost of running a car. Also sounds like it would make it more likely a driver may choose to run unregistered.
Unregistered cars are quickly identified with the camera systems in police cars - I'd rather know that all the gronks are insured.
They might be quickly identified WHEN there is a police car, but there’s not enough cop cars around.
You mean like "slobbering citizens" running sovereign plates?
Every state uses regos to fund raise for non road purposes and 'insurance' is one excuse they milk. The public should prepare for rego rates that are lower on electric vehicles.
Most ppl would choose to do the right thing so the rates will be higher accordingly to recoup the % of opt-outers. It was always thus.
Pretty soon we'll be eating cars the way costs (of everything) are going through the roof.
People are too timid & apathetic to push back against poor govt management at the ballot box, so we get what we deserve.
Going against the grain here, but if everyone gets third party property, then in theory there would be no point in getting comprehensive.
The way I see it, I have third party property because I'm a decent human who doesn't want to cause more inconvenience to someone than I realistically need to should I crash into them (and I probably can't afford fix their car without it). I'd like to think everyone else thinks the same way. I don't have comprehensive as my car is worth $4/5k and I don't think the $1k per year premium is worth it.
Comprehensive is to protect your own car. Third party would not protect your own car if you are at fault.
I’m aware of the differences between the two, but in my mind the only reason you would get third party would be pay for the damage you cause to someone else, so if that became mandatory why would you bother paying additional money when it’s covered by someone else’s insurance?
Comprehensive usually includes third party property. Of course that would change if TPP became mandatory, comprehensive would still be needed if you wanted to cover your own vehicle against damage you cause, theft, acts of vandalism or storms etc.
Point remains: if TPP is compulsory lots of people will still get extra cover for whatever comprehensive would cover that TPP won’t.
If you're at fault, the other party's 3rd party insurance will not cover your car. In this case you would need comprehensive
You understand the difference but didn’t think this thru.. if two cars with 3rd party cover collide, only one car is getting fixed.. the one NOT at fault.
Mandating that every driver purchase third-party property insurance would have several potential consequences, both positive and negative, depending on the specific context and implementation. Third-party property insurance typically covers damage that a driver's vehicle causes to another person's property. Here are some potential consequences:
Positive Consequences:
Enhanced Financial Protection: One of the primary benefits is that it would provide financial protection to individuals and property owners who suffer damage or losses due to someone else's negligent driving. This can help ensure that victims are compensated for their losses.
Reduced Burden on Victims: Victims of accidents would not need to rely solely on the at-fault driver's ability to pay for damages, which can be uncertain. Insurance companies would handle compensation, reducing the burden on individuals seeking restitution.
Greater Accountability: Knowing they have insurance, drivers may be more cautious and responsible on the road, potentially reducing the frequency of accidents and property damage.
Fair Compensation: Insurance companies would assess and compensate victims based on established procedures and standards, aiming for fair compensation and reducing the likelihood of disputes.
Negative Consequences:
Cost to Drivers: Mandatory insurance would increase the financial burden on drivers, as they would need to purchase and maintain insurance policies, which can be costly, depending on various factors such as location, driving history, and the level of coverage.
Impact on Low-Income Drivers: For lower-income individuals, the cost of insurance may be prohibitive, potentially leading to non-compliance with the law.
Administrative Challenges: Implementing and enforcing mandatory insurance laws would require significant administrative resources. There would be a need for systems to ensure that all drivers have valid insurance coverage, which could be challenging to manage effectively.
Potential for Fraud: The requirement for insurance could lead to fraudulent claims and attempts to deceive insurance companies to obtain coverage.
Limited Coverage: Third-party property insurance typically covers damage to other people's property but not damage to the driver's vehicle. Drivers would need additional insurance for their own vehicle's protection.
Resistance to Government Mandates: Some individuals may resist mandatory insurance requirements on the grounds of personal freedom or opposition to government intervention.
Overall, the consequences of mandating third-party property insurance would depend on the specific policies in place, how well they are enforced, and how affordable insurance options are for drivers. Such mandates are often implemented to protect the interests of accident victims and ensure that they receive compensation for property damage caused by others. However, policymakers would need to carefully consider the potential impacts on individuals and work to strike a balance between protection and affordability.
Administrative Challenges: Implementing and enforcing mandatory insurance laws would require significant administrative resources. There would be a need for systems to ensure that all drivers have valid insurance coverage, which could be challenging to manage effectively.
Not too difficult to run administratively. NSW already do this for CTP, it’s not a lot different to adding TPP into the mix.
You can replace property - you can't replace your health.
Let people take risks; that's why if you are concerned about yourself - get comp insurance.
Please don't chatGPT the question and spam the comments like this.
ChatGPT always has something interesting to say, and people always have something interesting to say about Chat.
Surely if you can't afford third party premiums you definitely can't afford to have an accident?
Thoughts?Well, in an honest society those having full-full comprehensive insurance should not be forced to pay CTP as an extra, on top, insurance. Hence reducing rego charges.
Obviously the different rego moguls can not justify to legislate for yet another "CTP-like" forced top-up insurance.
But if everyone had TPP then from the insurance company's POV the only extra they have to cover with a comprehensive policy is at-fault damage to the insuree's car; the rest is covered by TPP. That is only a fraction of the total payouts they currently have to make.
Comprehensive premiums would, given competition, soon reflect that so those with comprehensive insurance would gain a lot from compulsory TPP.
Not having third party insurance is the same as being self-insured. If one chooses to manage their own risk rather than replying on corporations, what's wrong with that? This argument of compulsory property insurance is never going to work as it's only monetary property. When you choose to drive a car without any insurance, whether you're at fault or not in an accident, you're taking risk management into your own hands. I have no sympathy for those who self manage their risk and cry foul when things so sideways.
It isn't only for the individuals who self insure, it is for the other individuals who they hit.
I have an older Mazda 3 with 3rd party only because comprehensive isn't worth the expense. I'm planning on upgrading at some point, but if someone uninsured hits me then I become fully burdened with arranging for an interim solution and paying to repair my cair, or replacing my car and arranging for a hire car/other interim solution until I get it because of their actions.
If someone insured hits me, I would get hire car coverage and repair costs paid, or a small contribution towards the value of my new car.
I think on the balance compulsory 3rd party would do more good than bad as it protects the 3rd parties, but acknowledge the cost pressures it would put in a lot of people and may cause unintended issues.
No. Car insurance is gambling and are for irresponsible and poor people. I can afford to pay out any damages i may cause or buy a new vehicle for myself. I'm a responsible defensive driver and i want to have a choice to manage my own risk as per the comment above.
Anyone can have an accident regardless of how good they are. A momentary lapse in concentration and bang.
You claim you can pay out any damages, but have you considered what can happen if you hit and destroy a $100k car? Plenty of those driving around. Or you hit a power pole and take out the neighbourhood's power. I don't think it costs just a few thousand dollars to fix the damage.
Paying around $250/pa is a pretty good deal for $10M in third party damage coverage. No gambling required.
Or you hit a power pole and take out the neighbourhood's power.
This is something that a lot of people forget. It's not just other cars that you might have to make good on. If you cause an accident with a truck that spears off the road and takes a light pole - or worse, a power pole - out, and then runs through a house, you could be up for millions.
Yes, compulsory TPP would inevitably make prices rise, unless GovCo put in price controls, or had their own offer in the marketplace.
I carry comprehensive, because I can't be bothered relying on other people's insurance to fix my car if they are at fault.
I can payout 100k and more in damages and it wouldn't have any effect on my life or lifestyle. Probability of that happening? Close to zero. The implied probability and monthly premiums (plus excess) people pay for insurance is so badly in the favor of the insurance company. So why gamble for something with bad payout odds which is close to zero?
If you can afford to drop $100k and it has no effect on you then you're probably in the top 1% of income earners/wealth holders in Australia. That also means insurance costs are basically pocket change for you as well, and you wouldn't mind insurance being compulsory.
For the other 99% of Australians who are 'poor and irresponsible people', insurance makes a lot of sense.
If that's true then fine, you can afford to self insure. What about everybody else though?
Think about a situation where someone (uninsured) hits you, will you be happy forking out $100k to cover your own car due to the at fault driver not having insurance? I’ve been rear ended twice by folks with no insurance, first time (I had 3rd party prop only) I had to attend court no less than 10 times and the at fault party simply never turned up was subsequently arrested, released back to court etc, after many visits I gave up angry and annoyed justice was never served. Last time it happened, I didn’t even need to talk to the at fault party, I simply got the car towed to the repairer and forgot about the whole thing. I’m thinking that the small premium each year is worth saving the potential endless headaches, if nothing else.
It's people like you who I avoid like the plague.
The whole point of Insurance is paying the liability of unforeseen losses - you might think you're a responsible driver but, I can definitely say most people aren't. Also, as Cluster pointed out, there's dumb rich people who own cars much more expensive than yours.
you might think you're a responsible driver but,
Well … there's never been a responsible driver that's caused an accident. Didn't you know?
I have seen more than my fair share :P (aka I'm an Insurance Broker)
Nah, i disagree. Its a gamble that something bad might happen. Its like going to a casino but for the long run. Read up on how implied probability works, look up the statistics of accident events, insurance premiums and payout amount. Put all of them together on a spreadsheet and see how badly it is in favor of the insurance company. Even blackjack, baccarat or roulette have better "returns".
Insurance companies of course are betting that you don't have an accident and cost them money. In the long term they make a profit (mostly from money invested from premiums) while customers know they won't be bankrupted if they are unlucky enough to hit something expensive.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052015/what-main-bu…
The difference between insurance and a casino is that I can only lose as much money as I choose to spend at the casino. In an accident my liability is basically uncontrolled and could cost me nearly everything.
@Cluster: Added to that, Car Insurance Liability, in Australia, is usually minimum $20M and that's the part that gets used to pay the really fun items like lawyers fees, third party medical bills etc.
Side note - The reason why Americans get absolutely rolled, even after having comprehensive, is that they can drag the said Liability figure down to $20K. I dunno about you but, $20K gets you nowhere fast when lawyers get involved.
You don't take out insurance as an investment. Its a safety net and yes, the insurers are allowed to make money out of it!
People not as wealthy as you seem to enjoy pointing out that you are may need such a safety net if something unforeseen happens. People whose property is damaged by somebody not insured (or as wealthy as you to just pay the costs) could also suffer a large financial loss.
If you can afford to pay out any damages and are honest enough to not evade payment (giving false details, just declaring bankruptcy, etc) fair enough. Just don't bother complaining when one of those "irresponsible and poor people" smashes up your pride and joy and either gives you false details or is too poor to pay.
But of course you will complain. Not to mention that you are a fool if you think there is no risk of you smashing up someone else's pride and joy, with their pride and joy being a Lambo or a brand new Lexus.
It is of course YOU who is gambling.
100% yes.
When I moved here from the UK, where it is compulsory, I couldn't believe that it wasn't here. Good luck if you hit someone's $200k car and don't have cover.
It's no problem, mrvaluepack has either unlimited funds, good fortune, or a convenient mix of both. He's fine, and therefore no one else should get insurance either.
On a side note. I always find that the term of if you can’t afford X you definitely shouldn’t have Y. As I get older I find this seriously lacks any empathy.
If Australia was designed and structured to be public transport first then I would say driving is a luxury.
But hell there are just parts where people need to get to work for that have poor public transport.
Public transport is woeful here.
I'm originally from London and while it is a far from perfect place, it is genuinely feasible to live without a car there. Between the underground and overground train network and bus services that link all suburbs, you can get by using public transport only
In Sydney where I now live this is certainly not the case. Most public transport is aimed at getting people in and out of the CBD, that's it. For inter suburb stuff, good luck. It either doesn't exist, or where it does is so inefficient that it takes a ridiculously long time to get anywhere.
This is true, though having lived at some stage in several of the major Australian cities I would say that Sydney is easily the worst for this.
Agree, it's woeful. It was built that way.
Because we built (tacked it together, and added on, ad hoc) the place in a sprawling mess, and were in it for profit not designing efficiency.
We privatise everything that shouldn't be, and allow self regulation, and we import more humans than existing infrastructures can cope.
Should Third-Party Property Car Insurance Be Mandatory?
Even if this is mandatory, whats going to encourage the person to give you the details voluntarily is cases of hit and run, car park accidents etc where one party was not present?
Being a good citizen.
You are essentially creating a problem here and then try to sell people the solution.
Yes yes yes. I think it's incredible that someone can damage your car, they don't have insurance, evade you and then you need to chase them via legal means.
If it stops the car accident but no insurance posts then sure, why not.
So everyone here is the victim and not one is a perpetrator of these hit and runs and all are fully or appropriately insured.
Yowsers.It is a bit unfair that expensive cars must increase the TPP cost for those driving around in sensible cars. If I bump and write off a Maserati, it's $200k more than if I bumped into a Camry. It's a life destroying booby trap just waiting to happen to some unfortunate insurance-less driver sharing the road with the Maserati. It would be better if the expensive car owner carried some of the damage burden, even if they are not at fault. I guess it is what it is.
Yes, it is mandatory in Europe, and it was shocking that it is optional here.
People who care about their car take comprehensive. The rest (only TPP or without TPP) take risks at different degrees.
Forcing TPP mandatory does not change the nature of people who take risks (they might have TPP but bet on the victim does not have comprehensive to not make a claim). I don't think it changes anything for this group of people.
On the other hand, people who drive expensive cars on shared streets r f… life bobby trap. Even you have TPP, there is a chance your claim is refused. There should be a limit of how much compensation for a car can be.
I voted no because money for drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and poker machines is more important.
- 1
- 2
Great breakdown.
Your #3 and #4 points reminded me of another scenario:
What if somebody simply doesn't pay the new "mandatory" insurance and they hit you? Well, legally they were suppose to - but you're still (profanity). So it has to be paid as part of rego and the gov distributes it (or something akin).
So what happens if an unlicensed driver hits you with an unregistered car? You're still (profanity).