At fault driver with no insurance (car hire costs??)

[EG52NV]

If their car is off the road, it's not unreasonable to expect that they'd need alternative transport. Normally her insurance would pay for it, but that's not an option.

Thought these we're optional extras as in perks sold by your own insurance company?

[sensei_]

Third-party insurance is a necessity

I have to disagree with this part of the post. It should read comprehensive insurance is a necessity. what if some 17yo P plater rear ends you in the wet on your brand new accord, and not having comprehensive, you are pretty much well and truly screwed. because they wont be able to pay up the damages. whereas with comprehensive, you pass the buck to the insurance company, and they can deal it out amongst themselves.

[butterfingers]

yes and no

Having illegal mods doesn't necessary mean its gonna be a instant void on the insurance if ur at fault... on small claims like light body damage and scrapage insurance couldnt give a rats ass if u have coilovers and turbo kit, but if its a major issue were police is involved than its a different story, as they may determine that the illegal mods have contributed to the accident, which than ur screwed! prepare to lube up and cope it hard!

but as usual when it comes to cars, police are wrong and 1 in a million traffic accidents are attributed someone not being able to control his vtec because of the TODA headers....

[e240]

I have to disagree with this part of the post. It should read comprehensive insurance is a necessity. .

I think what he meant was 3rd Party property damage insurance, not 3rd party CTP.

and I agree with that, 3rd party property damange should be compulsory to protect other drivers on the road. If one can't afford the insurances, then one needs to asesses if they can even afford to drive.

[sensei_]

now i got you! i thought there was two types, third party and comprehensive only.

[Indie]

I have to disagree with this part of the post. It should read comprehensive insurance is a necessity. what if some 17yo P plater rear ends you in the wet on your brand new accord, and not having comprehensive, you are pretty much well and truly screwed. because they wont be able to pay up the damages. whereas with comprehensive, you pass the buck to the insurance company, and they can deal it out amongst themselves.

But not everybody is driving a brand new Accord. If I'm driving a 1990 Pulsar, I don't need comprehensive, and it is a waste of money. Third party, however, is a requirement for every car.

[sensei_]

fair point you got there. i guess one thing everyone can agree on is; get third party property damage. no matter how "poor" you may be,

[ericl33]

fair point you got there. i guess one thing everyone can agree on is; get third party property damage. no matter how "poor" you may be,

not me.

[EG52NV]

not me.

note to self never go on a cruise with this fool around because he has no insurance

[ericl33]

note to self never go on a cruise with this fool around because he has no insurance

that right, don't go near me m8.

[Drifter995]

I keep thinking third party property is compulsary... Doesn't rego include a bit of third party?

I have made it a thing to always have at least third party property on my cars... stupid to not have insurance on your car. Never know when some idiot will run into you, and ruin your work, or even when you'll lose control and hit somebody. You'd be stupid not to have insurance, imo.

[ericl33]

I keep thinking third party property is compulsary... Doesn't rego include a bit of third party?

I have made it a thing to always have at least third party property on my cars... stupid to not have insurance on your car. Never know when some idiot will run into you, and ruin your work, or even when you'll lose control and hit somebody. You'd be stupid not to have insurance, imo.

it coveres people you put into hospital.