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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[LTDHO]

It will never happen..

end thread.

[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.

[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 )

[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.

[Fiesta_Man69]

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

[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

[creative]

Originally Posted by TE 220

I think everbody should have to have full comprehensive like the uk does.

They dont.

They have third party, third party fire and theft and finally fully comp.
Insurance in the uk is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy more expensive than over here for new drivers...my girlfriend is fully comp on her 2lt beetle on her red p's for about $800 over here. The same car over there fully comp is 2200gbp or $3033pa at todays rate under her circumstances.

[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?

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Fiesta_Man69

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

What absolute garbage.

If you're that pro-insurance then obviously you'll have comprehensive yourself, in which case whether or not other drivers have insurance is none of your business.

[The Yeti]

Originally Posted by Fiesta_Man69

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

Why

what if you have a complete shitter, I dont see why you cant take the gamble on your own assett

Ive had several cars that honustly if they went missing or a tree fell on them I would be dissapointed but I didnt beleive their value was enough to warrent comprehensive insurance,

3rd party Property however I wouldnt leave the garage with out

just becasue I feel my car is worthless doesnt mean I want the financial burdon of paying off your car should I stuff up and damage it

heres an example for you

I paid less than $500 for this, my plan is to re register it and use it as a run around, (down to Bunnings, the land scaping supply joint and so on)

I dont see why I would bother with full comprehencive insurance, but Knock on is a bust have and if I do re register it (I havent driven it on the road since it was delivered) it will only be getting 3rd party property

[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 .

[Vesper Martini]

In the UK its compulsary.
Rego, MOT cert, and drivers licence check are all linked in.
so yes it can be rather expensive for an inexpensive car.
not policed very well though

[Falcon SXR8]

No way should you be forced to have full comprehensive insurance, third party property yes I agree with that. I drive an old ute for work no way will I pay $500 a year to cover a ute thats worth at most $1000. I pay about $80 for 3rd party property damage on it so if I hit someone there coverd.

[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

[supershifty]

I've always believed in at least having 3rd party property insurance on my cars. It's cheap and gives peace of mind. Although I've never had to make a claim, I don't want to be the position of owing a stack of coin to another driver when I'm at fault and having to fix my ride as well. I believe that 3rd party property insurance in QLD also has the added benefits of automatic cover for irrecoverable loss via fire and theft - I don't think this applies in other states.

I may watch too much Judge Judy, but in the USA I believe that you don't insure your car for 3rd property damage, you insure yourself as the legal sober driver of any given roadworthy car - not the car itself. I've probably got that all wrong. However, if that is the case, wouldn't it make things more simple and affordable for all? Or would the insurance companies be raping it for all it's worth?

To answer the OP's question though - yes, some sort of 3rd party property insurance should be mandatory, not just for L's or P's - for all. My 2 cents.

Quote 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.

I get your point champ, but I'm one of the non screaming minority that maintains my +10yo cars in immaculate mechanical condition. I choose to own them as: a) I can't afford newer cars, b) I can fix them myself, c) I like them. Sorry if I've misinterpreted your statement as I don't always "get" what you say - I think you may have your tongue in cheek though!

Cheers!

[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.....

[Smoke Pursuit]

Comprehensive is not required, third party property and theft is tho (covers the other vehicle in the occurrence of an accident).

Anyone with half a brain or any assets they want to protect will at least have property and theft, otherwise they are leaving themselves open to bankruptcy and living on the street.