What Insurance to Go for? Comprehensive or 3rd Party?

Comprehensive or 3rd party?

got a second or maybe 3rd hand, Suzuki Alto 2010(manual) for 3.4k, 88k kms (good deal or bad)?
Driving skills: Below Average
License: International
Age: 19

So if comprehensive, which I believe will be a better choice; Which provider to go for? And also What all are the tricks to get the premium down?
list myself as secondary driver and uncle as primary?
not list myself at all and pay like 1400under25 and 400unlisted excess?
or do we have anything like NRMA in which all the drivers will be insured regardless of listed?

Thanks

Comments

  • +9 votes

    Get third party through a solid insurer like NRMA or Allianz. Cheap insurers may exploit your inexperience by having exclusions in their policy.

    There’s also no point getting comprehensive as a $3,400 car is not worth insuring. Given you’re 19 the premium may be over a third of the value of your car.

    • +3 votes

      Assuming you can afford to replace the car should it get written off, then comprehensive is not worth it.

      Putting your Uncle as primary driver is a good way to slash the premium (provided he agrees and it's not unreasonable that he might be a driver of the vehicle - ie you're living at the same address).
      Bump the excess to the maximum (once again assuming you can afford to pay it should you need to!)
      Remove any hire car or exrta cover (like Windscreen replacement)

      • +1 vote

        Yes, I am living with him only so it's the same address and He will be using the car like twice a week too although just checked making himself or myself as a primary or secondary driver makes no difference in the insurance.

        •  

          I know people who have had their car insurance under their parents names even though their parents never drove the car and had no issues but YMMV

          • +1 vote

            @Nereosis: Parents can take out a policy, but if the regular driver is listed it will not be any problem.
            Need to remember though, with insurance, you are just paying out money and they’ll keep taking it. It is only when there is a claim to make that things might get a bit tricky if you didn’t tell the insurance co the full story up front.

          • -2 votes

            @Nereosis:

            I know people who have had their car insurance under their parents names even though their parents never drove the car and had no issues but YMMV

            And if they get caught they will never be able to get affordable insurance again, most insurance companies will refuse to insure them, they will have a criminal record and will have to live with this for the rest of their life.

            Why lie when applying for insurance? When your make a claim they will scrutinise the policy and the claim. If they find you lied you may as well not have had insurance.

            •  

              @Maverick-au: Why lie? Because the cost of insuring a car more than doubles just because you're a few months away from the magical maturity that follows with your 25th birthday?

              •  

                @Nereosis: So committing fraud is ok in your eyes because you believe it's justifiable?

                • +3 votes

                  @Maverick-au: I used to work for an insurance company. Let's be fair - insurers aren't exactly playing by the rules of honour either. The industry was full of sickening exploits and cash-grabs before the government stepped in to crack down. Even now many products are brilliantly designed to give the company the upper hand, although its much better than before.

                  When trying to get out of paying a claim, car insurers consider anyone who drives the car more than once a year a "regular driver" without considering other specific factors. OP is entitled to use the same benchmark (its only fair). Therefore if he believes there's a chance his uncle will drive the car more than once a year, his uncle is technically a regular driver. There's nothing untrustworthy about listing the policy under the name of someone who is considered a regular driver. It's the only way to get around the legalised discrimination car insurers conduct. Imagine the outrage if they charged older drivers higher premiums - there would be mass hysteria for ageism. Yet young people always get stereotyped even if they have a perfect driving record.

                  •  

                    @SlavOz: Is it simply stereotyping or is it a mathematical formula that looks at statistics such as number of claims, total value of claims in a certain age group?

                    •  

                      @t_c: insurance companies have been analysing statistics for ever. It’s what they do. Calculate the risk and apply s oremium based on the risk.

                      Stereotyping is a poor mans way of looking at statistics.

                    •  

                      @t_c: The mathematical formula they use looks at one of hundreds of indicators of risk. Even the so-called personalised insurers who claim to charge you less for how you drive etc do a half-ass formula. If even a single answer isn't to their liking your premium automatically jumps up like crazy.

                      Eg - younger drivers might get into more accidents, but of those younger drivers the ones with a 100% driving record, no claims, regular car that isn't a V6 or V8, and with a mortgage to pay are much less likely drive recklessly and be involved in an accident. Yet the insurance companies don't care - if you're under 25 of even 30 you'll be treated like any regular 18 year old no matter how favourable your circumstances are.

                  • -2 votes

                    @SlavOz:

                    I used to work for an insurance company. Let's be fair - insurers aren't exactly playing by the rules of honour either.

                    What does this have to do with committing insurance fraud?

                    There's nothing untrustworthy about listing the policy under the name of someone who is considered a regular driver. It's the only way to get around the legalised discrimination car insurers conduct.

                    Discrimination? Maybe you should take the government to court for discrimination over L and P restrictions? Are less experienced drivers involved in a substantial number of crashes compared to more experienced drivers? Yes.

                    Imagine the outrage if they charged older drivers higher premiums - there would be mass hysteria for ageism.

                    If old people were involved in many more crashes they would be charged more but older drivers also have a lifetime of driving history behind them.

                    Yet young people always get stereotyped even if they have a perfect driving record.

                    If you have a perfect driving record your premiums are lower. Take two identical drivers and one has made claims and one hasn't… One will pay less in premiums.

                    I can only assume you worked as a cleaner in the insurance industry as you have no idea how insurance works.

                    •  

                      @Maverick-au:

                      What does this have to do with committing insurance fraud?

                      Because the insurance game has been rigged by insurers for decades and still is. You obviously didn't see much of the royal commission or ever paid attention to all the crap before it. Insurance companies were committing mass fraud by deceptively selling policies they knew people would never need, taking advantage of confused or desperate people, hiding bullshit exceptions to get out of paying claims, jacking up auto-renew prices by a few bucks every year thinking policyholders wouldn't bother checking etc. Most of these problems are still rampant in the industry. This laughable notion you've got about some honour system in play means nothing.

                      Discrimination? Maybe you should take the government to court for discrimination over L and P restrictions? Are less experienced drivers involved in a substantial number of crashes compared to more experienced drivers? Yes.

                      Right - so using your logic we could say that Asian drivers are involved in more crashes per year compared to white drivers (per capita). Do you think it would be OK to charge drivers a higher premium for no other reason besides being Asian? Surely that would be OK by you too?

                      If you have a perfect driving record your premiums are lower. Take two identical drivers and one has made claims and one hasn't… One will pay less in premiums.

                      No, it's more like if you're young and have a perfect driving record your premiums are slightly less outrageous than a young person with a lot of accidents. Plus, young people with a lot of accidents can't even afford their damn premiums anyway, so most of them forego insurance all together. So technically, they're not paying higher premiums than their safe driving young counterparts.

                • +1 vote

                  @Maverick-au: The banks do it and the government knows about it and nothing happens to them re Royal Commission, no wonder why people think it's ok!

            •  

              @Maverick-au: It's not fraud. I had even spoken to the an insurance company about in the past. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. The only thing they said you need to be aware of is the payout goes to the person on the policy. If you trust your family to give you the money if something happens, it's not a problem.

              • -2 votes

                @TailsK:

                It's not fraud. I had even spoken to the an insurance company about in the past. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. The only thing they said you need to be aware of is the payout goes to the person on the policy. If you trust your family to give you the money if something happens, it's not a problem

                Utter bollocks, pretend to yourself all you like that it's ok but don't tell others that might be stupid enough to believe you that it's not a criminal offence.

                If caught this will affect them for the rest of their life.

                Fronting drives up insurance prices for everyone else as well. But you only care about yourself which says it all about your lack of morals.

                https://www.finder.com.au/car-insurance-fronting

                https://www.comparethemarket.com.au/blog/car/1-2-aussies-con...

          •  

            @Nereosis: Nothing will happen most likely, and chances of it being looked into are very, very low. However, technically it's insurance fraud and if the insurer knew about it your policy would be void.

            It's not like the circumstances changed and you all of a sudden became the primary driver, you were always the primary and lied about it when obtaining insurance. You need to be listed as a primary driver of the vehicle if you are one.

            Insurance is one thing I don't cheap out on.

            •  

              @knk:

              Nothing will happen most likely, and chances of it being looked into are very, very low. However, technically it's insurance fraud and if the insurer knew about it your policy would be void.

              When they make a claim that is over a certain amount it will be looked at. Proving that fronting occurred is very easy, do the parents have other cars, who paid for the servicing, repairs, tyres, fuel etc. Who drives the car normally is easily checked with neighbours and employer. Dashcam footage can be checked to see who was driving.

              Once it's proven the policy is cancelled, insurance refused, claim refused, all parties are entered on an insurance blacklist and it may be referred to the police.

              This now means that all parties have to declare when they apply for insurance that they have been refused insurance which means substantial increases, refusal to insure and possible cancellation of existing policies otherwise a premium increase.

              •  

                @Maverick-au:

                Proving that fronting occurred is very easy, do the parents have other cars, who paid for the servicing, repairs, tyres, fuel etc. Who drives the car normally is easily checked with neighbours and employer. Dashcam footage can be checked to see who was driving.

                You need to stop posting nonsense. At this point you're just scare-mongering to get on some imaginary high-horse.

                Proving that someone was fronting their insurance is not easy. Even if the insurance company could compile video footage of the car being driven by OP's uncle everyday, that still wouldn't prove that OP's uncle actually drove the car more than OP himself. Perhaps OP had a night job and was driving the car late every night when nobody else was watching - including these spying neighbors you envision. There is also nothing on an insurance contract which prevents somebody else paying the policyholder's premiums for them, or even their servicing or repair bills. Many young drivers have their bills paid by parents, or stay-at-home women have their bills paid by their rich husband's credit card. This doesn't prove anything - an insurance company would be laughed out of court for suggesting the contract is void just because someone else's name was on the credit card payment details.

                Daschams don't record the driver. They only film what happens on the road. Hypothetically, even if accident footage recorded OP's uncle audibly reacting to an accident, there's no way to prove that he wasn't doing so from the passenger seat while the OP was driving. OP is innocent until proven guilty so the only way the insurance company could get out of paying a claim would be by finding undeniable evidence that he lied. Such evidence does not exist. The only hope insurance companies have is if the policyholder unknowingly gave away self-incriminating information on a recorded phone call - this actually does happen quite often (people usually forget the terms of their policy and end up saying something like "nah I don't drive the car that much anyway"). Otherwise, in normal circumstances an insurance company would not survive the ASIC pressure and negative publicity over refusing to pay a claim because of some half-assed evidence they think they have.

                •  

                  @SlavOz: I don't understand why you're encouraging fraud, regardless of whether it's easy to get caught or not.

                  •  

                    @jatyap: Because this great country operates on the presumption of innocence. Insurance companies are not above that inalienable right. That means OP is not guilty of fraud unless the insurance companies can prove so, which they usually can't. I wouldn't say I'm encouraging fraud anymore than I am encouraging OP to execrsise his right to be presumed innocent.

                    •  

                      @SlavOz: I see.

                      My personal opinion on this is that it will just worsen the situation for everyone. Customers will attempt to get away with wrongdoing. So will companies. All because we're banking on "presumption of innocence".

                      Why can't we just encourage everyone (companies and customers) to do the right thing, instead (e.g. follow laws and policy based on the intent they were raised/created)?

                      •  

                        @jatyap: That would be ideal, but we can't. Companies and customers have sifnificaly different interests and values. What's good for one is bad for the other, and like I said companies went decades without any legal ramifications during which they absolutely rorted thousands of people for their money. It's gonna take a while for that to be forgotten and forgiven, people will remain skeptical for a long time.

                        •  

                          @SlavOz: That's quite a pessimistic point of view, but to be honest, I find that ~80% of people are willing to do the right thing, without pressure from others. There have been many cases of excellent give and take relationships between customers and companies as well, as can be evidenced by the amount of positive reviews on Google and other review platforms.

                          There are a few greedy ones around, though, and owing to the fact that there is greed in each and every one of us, encouraging that just makes it all the more difficult to stay on the straight path.

                          OP, I would not encourage fraud, even if it saves you a few dollars. If you put yourself on the other side (as an insurance agent/assessor/validator, or even one of the stockholder in those companies), and you find out about one of your customers that does this, how would you feel?

        •  

          NRMA covers unnamed drivers under certain conditions. If your uncle is driving it two days a week it might be best to only list him, if, under NRMA's policy, you would still be covered. Read the link. I am not your slave.

    •  

      thanks mate, seems like the most appropriate approach.

  •  

    Cheap insurers may exploit your inexperience by having exclusions in their policy.

    Cheap insurers will have exclusions in their policy to keep their price competitive.

    Fixed it for you!

  • +12 votes

    Your cheapest Insurance is to move away from being a Below Average driver.

    Aim for average or even above average…

    • +4 votes

      Acknowledging he's below average is a good start at least, most people don't even get that far.

    • +11 votes

      Is it really fraud though? A main policyholder doesn’t necessarily have to be the registered owner, just the person who drives the car the most.

      At the end of the day an insurance policy is a private contract and if OP has to pay an exorbitant excess when he\she makes a claim the insurer has hedged its risk.

      • -5 votes

        Is it really fraud though? A main policyholder doesn’t necessarily have to be the registered owner, just the person who drives the car the most.

        Yes it is fraud.

        Insurance is based on many factors and one of those is who drives the vehicle. If he lies and insures this in his uncle's name (known as fronting) the insurance company is exposed to a more risk which it is not aware of. There is a reason why drivers who have no experience pay more for insurance.

        This is no different to claiming the vehicle is garaged when it's parked on the street or making other false claims.

        The OP has already said he wants to do food deliveries as well, this is another risk that the insurance company needs to know about.

        Policies are clear in what your obligations are. This is from budget direct and your can see that your cannot do paid ridesharing or food deliveries with them at all as these greatly increase the risk of an accident.


        Your Duty of Disclosure (What You Must Tell Us)
        The information you give helps us determine whether we can offer you insurance, and on what terms. So it’s important it’s both honest and complete.

        If you’re taking out this insurance for the first time you must be honest when you answer our questions. You need to tell us everything you know that a reasonable person in similar circumstances would include in their answer.

        If you’re renewing, extending, varying or reinstating your insurance you must tell us everything you think could be relevant to us in deciding whether we can offer you insurance. However, you don’t need to tell us anything that:

        diminishes the risk to us as the insurer
        we know (or should know) based on our business
        is common knowledge.
        When you’re giving this information, you’re doing it not only for yourself, but also for anyone else being insured under the policy.

        If you don’t tell us what we need to know

        If you don’t comply with your Duty of Disclosure, we may reduce (or even refuse to pay) your claim and/or cancel the policy. If we feel you have been deliberately fraudulent, we may treat the policy as if it never existed.

        Permitted Use Of The Car
        If you insured your car with us, you won’t be covered if it’s used for any purpose you haven’t declared to us. What you can use your car for is shown on your Insurance Certificate, and will be one of the following:

        Private and/or Commuting
        Car is used for social, domestic and pleasure purposes, as well as travelling between home and a regular place of work only. Does NOT include ridesharing for payment, e.g. UberX.

        Private and Occasional Business
        Car is used for social, domestic and pleasure purposes, as well as travelling between home and a regular place of work. It also includes occasional business use by the regular driver or their spouse only. Occasional business means the car is not registered for business use and is not an essential part of earning income from such business.

        Private and Business
        Car is used for social, domestic and pleasure purposes, as well as travelling between home and a regular place of work. It also includes use for the business of the regular driver or their spouse and only provides cover for drivers listed on the policy.

        Business Only
        Car is used for the business of the regular driver or their spouse and only provides cover for drivers listed on the policy. It also includes use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes, as well as travelling between home and a regular place of work.
        Uses that are never covered

        Carrying passengers for payment (including taxis and/or ridesharing, e.g. UberX)
        Making deliveries or carrying other people's goods for payment (whether as a contractor or otherwise)
        Driving tuition for payment
        Hiring the car out to other people
        Use that’s always covered

        Whatever policy you choose, you will be covered for private car sharing and voluntary home or community service (providing you’re not profiting from it).

        • +3 votes

          "The OP has already said he wants to do food deliveries as well, this is another risk that the insurance company needs to know about."
          As far as that is concerned Domino's got it's own insurance if I use it for the food delivery purposes so I don't think I need to worry about that.

          • -3 votes

            @anonymous58008:

            As far as that is concerned Domino's got it's own insurance if I use it for the food delivery purposes so I don't think I need to worry about that.

            Yes you do need to worry about insurance for the delivery.

            You have to arrange the insurance with Domino's, pay them a per delivery fee and in the event of an accident an excess and an additional under 25 excess.

            And if you have an at fault accident you should report this to your personal insurer.

      •  

        If you read the other post by the OP:
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/475949

        It would seem unlikely a Main Policyholder (other than the OP) would have the opportunity to drive the vehicle more given the intended use and possibility of it being used to make deliveries.

  • +4 votes

    "Driving skills: Below Average"
    Spend some $ on driver training.
    You are looking for ways to save money… start with that.

    •  

      Some people will never become even average drivers no matter what training they do. The licensing system in Australia is totally broken and the road toll will never drop until we address this issue and make getting a license difficult and accept that a percentage of people will never have the skills to hold a driver license.

      • -1 vote

        Need to make licence tests to be in manual transmission cars. It is all too easy just having a stop & go pedal in a tiny car these days, a monkey could do it.

        • +1 vote

          Yep, there's no question about this. Been saying the same thing for decades. If you can't multi-task by shifting gears while steering relative to the speed and Revs of the car, you don't have the skills and coordination to drive. End of story. Currently the licensing system is treated like a money-making scheme where the government is happy putting more idiots on the road because it means more fine revenue for them. Those dead bodies? We'll just put a few ads on TV to pretend we care. Easy.

          Anyway, I digress. OP - the thought of getting comprehensive insurance on a $3.5k car is outrageous. Your premiums will exceed the total value of the car in just a few years. Don't bother.

          • +1 vote

            @SlavOz: Yes, no, maybe but 10yrs from now good luck finding a manual daily driver. Most kids aren't even going to remember what a clutch is. I know an airline pilot who can't drive a manual.

      •  

        It'll all get solved by automated transport. Its so close now that a license redesign now would be a waste of money. Better to just hobble along for the time being, sweeping the bodies under the rug, until that becomes practical to implement.

        •  

          LoL this is Australia, we're so far behind the rest the world and most of our roads will never be suitable. And how long until you get a big uptake of self driving cars given the age of our car fleet? 30 years?

          •  

            @Maverick-au: Way more than that. We might have the tech for self driving cars but then you gotta think about manufacturing - will the big companies be able to implement it and produce on a mass scale while still selling for cheap? Will the market be on board or will most of us prefer to put our life in our own hands?

            Don't expect self driving cars to replace driven ones for a long, long time.

    •  

      Well let me phrase it good enough that for the driving school, just lacks the overall road confidence.

  • +3 votes

    3rd party.

  • +1 vote

    Third Party Cover

  • +3 votes

    Why get a car? In your situation, the best, safest and most economical option is to use public transport.

    • +3 votes

      takes 2h to reach the uni when it takes 30 mins from car, Also the convince of going to the shopping center without walking.

      •  

        Why don't you move closer to uni? Would be cheaper then buying a car with all the running costs.

        • +1 vote

          Rn where I live: work is at 5 mins walk, pretty affordable considering the amenities I get

          If I move: need to find another part time work, rent would be higher but not that significant

          Okay it might be a better idea ._. anyway let's see, how much expensive it is to run a car.

          •  

            @anonymous58008: How expensive is it to run a car= $300-400 for ctp + 600-700 for registration + 200-300 for servicing + depreciation of asset (??$) = 1200-1500 per year at a minimum not counting running costs like fuel.

        •  

          LOL wtf dude? Are you just taking the piss at this point? How is moving out and taking on extortionate rent prices cheaper than running a car? A car costs a few grand a year to run. Good luck finding rent close to Uni's/business hubs for 2 grand a year.

          •  

            @SlavOz: Logic escapes you I guess.

            Option 1 - move closer

            Say he is paying $100 a week rent now.
            Let's assume he has the option of paying $150 a week for a room two minutes away from uni.
            That's $50 extra a week and no need to buy a car.

            Option 2 - buy a car

            Let's say he stays where he is and buys a car. He's 30 minutes away from uni so say 20km way which is 200km per week so with weekend travel etc say $50 a week in fuel.

            Plus you have the cost of buying a car, registration, maintenance, insurance, repairs, parking of say $100 a week.

            As you can see he would be $100 a week better off and doesn't waste hours each day commuting.

            •  

              @Maverick-au: I assumed since OP is on an international visa and lives with his uncle, he's probably paying minimal to no rent, or uses some other form of government rent assistance. If that's not the case, moving closer to Uni means a lot more than just an extra $50 a week. Uni campuses are usually in or near major cities or network areas. Moving into one of those areas would cost an extra $200-400 a week. Plus, factoring in bond, advanced payments, and moving costs. Buying a car would likely be cheaper and still allow him to live his life outside of public transport hours.

              •  

                @SlavOz: He has already said he is paying rent.

                Why does he need to get his own apartment when he can share a room?

                Why does he need a car to live a life? He can get an uber or use a private rental car or one from a commercial service if required. Also all of this is a lot cheaper then buying a car.

                •  

                  @Maverick-au: Really? I'm pretty sure a year of public transport, Uber, and rental cars will cost a lot more than owning your own car.

                  Assuming OP lived close to his Uni or work, train rides there and back will cost around $5-7 a day. Thats almost $2000 a year. It's a lot smarter to throw in a few more grand on top of that to buy your own car which you can own forever, borrow against, sell for cash, or use to attend urgent things when public transport isn't feasible. This should be common sense man.

                  • +1 vote

                    @SlavOz: No it's not common sense, he is a student and doesn't require a car which is not an asset but a liability. He already said he's not a good driver, he will have a high insurance premium because he had no driving history, foreign driver, capital city, traveling in peak hours etc.

                    You fail to appreciate the real costs of running a car includes a lot of costs and given he's looking at a cheaper older car many potential repair costs.

                    If he has an urgent need for transport use an uber, taxi etc.

                    •  

                      @Maverick-au: I disagree. A car is always a an asset. You need to remember that a portion of every dollar you spend on car maintenance stays in your pocket. It's money that goes to maintaining a legal asset which is just as good as cash.

                      And a 2010 Suzuki with 88,000kms is not a car which will give you headaches with needless repairs.

                      Like I said, taxi and Ubers are a massive ripoff. You can pay like 200-400% more per kilometre in a taxi than you would to travel the same distance in your own car. If OP has a need to travel, even occasionally, it's worth owning a cheap car. Using a taxi or Uber is literally throwing your money away on something you'll never see again. Just my 2 cents though. Everyone's financial needs are different.

  •  

    I know NRMA offers open drivers policy so it insures anyone who drives the car but you have to pay large amount of excess you crash and your not the policy holder.

    •  

      I am willing to take that risk, All I need insurance is for the peace of mind and in any case I hit a way more expensive car.
      Although I couldn't select vic on the NRMA website, Do they provide insurance in VIC?

  •  

    Third party IF you can afford to replace the car in case someone else hits you and won’t pay up or if you crash the car and make it undriveable. If you cannot afford to replace the car then get comprehensive, but you pay for that convenience.

    Don’t lie to the insurance company. While it is fraud and you could go to jail the most likely problem it will cause is a denied claim.

  • +2 votes

    Sit the test and get a local licence.

    So many crap drivers in my area on international licences that bolt home the moment they have a crash

    •  

      Being 19 years old, getting Australian licence isn't really worth it for me as I will probably get P plate and will give up on my Internationals which also has the permit to drive motor bikes.

      Also, I am pretty sure I will be able to pass the test in a manual.

      • -2 votes

        The International Drivers Licence (also known as an International Drivers Permit or IDP) is an official United Nations sanctioned permit for tourists.

        You can only use your IDP for 3 months maximum unless you are a bonefide tourist.

        You aren't a tourist. If you can't abide by the laws of the country that you are a guest in then go home and break the law there. Alternatively, do the right thing and get your documentation in order.

        • +1 vote

          Actually I can legally use my driving licence for as long as 3 years being on student visa.

        • +2 votes

          A person can use overseas license up to a point when he is granted PR visa.

          So not only tourists, but also people on working and student visas.

    •  

      Getting a local license is not required by law for people on student and working visas.

  •  

    Why car? The traffic in the city is a nightmare. Parking is going to f**k your bank account.
    Public Transport is bullshit, at least here in Sydney. Trains delayed, buses well, good luck on that even with bus lane access.

    I would have bought a motorcycle.
    I used to take public transport and spend easily above $40 per week.
    With my motorcycle I spend what, $10-14 depending the petrol95 price, per week. So far I save something around $120 pm or $1440 py, plus:

    • You don't have to wait
    • You don't have to take a bus for 2h
    • Free parking

    Yeah Yeah, change tire once a year, oil change, filter oil. Still cheaper, I do everything on my time, and no regrets.

    It depends on your financial situation. If you can afford a write off, then go with 3rd Party
    If you cannot afford a write off or you have no skills, comprehensive is the way to go.

    •  

      Well I am typing this while in a train. Didn't take the car today cause the traffic was nightmare, as I had to leave at officetime.

      I spend around 30 in a week for public transport let's see how much fuel and other expenses does the car takes.
      It's pretty much an expirement only, will have it till the summer break and might well it off. And I do wanted to take a motor bike the initial cost might have been the same and the Melbourne weather is terrible in itself.

      • +4 votes

        Wouldn't advice using a coffin on 2 wheels nowadays with looking at screen zombies driving everywhere without adding the drugged out ones :)

        •  

          I still love motorcycle lol
          I ride since God knows when. I have a dash cam in my helmet just in case.
          Good point tho.

      •  

        Melbourne and motorcycle in the same line does not work hahaha
        Got ya.

  • +3 votes

    Best insurance is get a dash cam to prove not at fault accidents

    •  

      Still a great idea to have at least a 3rd party insurance at least.
      I have a GoPro at the top of my helmet recording everything. The drivers respect you much more with it than without it.
      Also, I have 3rd party insurance with fire and thief as extra, for piece of mind. Here in Sydney at least they steal motorcycle like 3rd world.

    • +3 votes

      But what if you are at fault? Not having third party insurance is crazy. I know someone who got into not one, but two car crashes without TPI. He had to buy out both cars. Luckily he hit old cars in both cases but was still out near $10k.

  •  

    progressive insurance full cover it cheap as chips

  •  

    When I was that age and a poor student I only had CTP. Never got into an accident where I was at fault - guess I got lucky!

  •  

    off topic but how do you get airfare insurance in case concert got cancelled?

  • +1 vote

    Driving skills: Below Average

    Next post: Car crash, Who's at Fault? (with poll)

    Get a test and get local license. Please.
    Also, list yourself as Primary, be a responsible adult. Please.
    Can't fulfill the above, take Train/Bus. Please.

    •  

      Next post: Car crash, ms paint drawing no insurance who's at fault

      Ozbargainers: Popcorn ready

  • Top