Why Is Driving Without Insurance Illegal?

rb25

Serious question - why is it illegal to drive without insurance in Ireland?

Like any other product, it's a product for sale by a business but drivers are forced to purchase it.

As the Gardai are then required to enforce the administration of this law for insurance companies are insurance companies contributing to paying for the enforcement the Gardai provide?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the reasons behind the law could make it clear why it's compulsory to purchase car insurance products.

L1011

You can drive without insurance, but only when you've proven that you are financially capable of covering any potential costs of damage you cause. Dublin Bus have no insurance, for instance.

MagicMarker

Because cars are big metal boxes moving really really fastly.

partyatmygaff

Here's why:

Nearly bankrupt person buys a banger for €100. Said bankrupt person crashes head first in to a new Ferrari and slides in to five pedestrians causing hundreds of thousands in damage and multiple injuries/deaths. How is someone broke going to compensate any one?

arleitiss

MYOB wrote: »

You can drive without insurance, but only when you've proven that you are financially capable of covering any potential costs of damage you cause. Dublin Bus have no insurance, for instance.

Really? is that possible? Can I have some kind of link to info I am interested in knowing more (no sarcasm) I am serious, never heard of this.

norrie rugger

I always thought that if we were forced to buy it then there should be a non-profit insurance agency, state run.
Either that or a state issued licence, with a tendered payment. Along the lines of the lotto

L1011

arleitiss wrote: »

Really? is that possible? Can I have some kind of link to info I am interested in knowing more (no sarcasm) I am serious, never heard of this.

Section 61, Road Traffic Act 1961.

http://193.178.1.79/1961/en/act/pub/0024/print.html

Up to the Minister to decide how much, likely be about half a million plus.

Yakuza

It's only compulsory to have third-party insurance. From a legal (tort?) perspective, you can hurt yourself and damage your property without having to compensate anyone, but you have to be able to indemnify anyone else your driving affects.

@MYOB - I'd never heard of this, but I guess it makes sense. However unless I were mega wealthy (claims could run into millions) , I'd be buying at least 3rd party cover

Still, how could Dublin Bus not have insurance - don't they make losses during the normal course of events, surely claims would tip it over the edge?

Duiske

MYOB wrote: »

You can drive without insurance, but only when you've proven that you are financially capable of covering any potential costs of damage you cause. Dublin Bus have no insurance, for instance.

Its totally beyond me how Dublin Bus could be considered financially capable of covering any potential claim. Didn't they have to be bailed out by the government recently because they were about to run out of money ?

coylemj

Yakuza wrote: »

@MYOB - I'd never heard of this, but I guess it makes sense. However unless I were mega wealthy (claims could run into millions) , I'd be buying at least 3rd party cover

Still, how could Dublin Bus not have insurance - don't they make losses during the normal course of events, surely claims would tip it over the edge?

If your fleet is big enough then it makes economic sense to be your own insurer so you lodge a large sum (decided by the minister) with the minister and you become an 'exempted person'.

The alternative is to pay a premium to an insurance company for each of your vehicles but with a fleet as big as the ESB or Dublin Bus, you might as well cut out the middleman and cover your liabilities yourself. There might be spikes in some years but over the long term it saves money.

L1011

Duiske wrote: »

Its totally beyond me how Dublin Bus could be considered financially capable of covering any potential claim. Didn't they have to be bailed out by the government recently because they were about to run out of money ?

They would have some amount of cash retained for the purpose of dealing with everyday claims. However I'm surprised they still risk it after Wellington Quay and the Luas incident!

I'd guess their bond is from times long past, probably the pre-1961 £15,000.

coylemj wrote: »

The alternative is to pay a premium to an insurance company for each of your vehicles but with a fleet as big as the ESB or Dublin Bus, you might as well cut out the middleman and cover your liabilities yourself. There might be spikes in some years but over the long term it saves money.

If you're sufficiently large enough, a captive insurer (where there is an actual insurance firm, but you own it and it only 'sells' cover to you) may make more sense as they can do reinsurance on the same rates as any other insurance underwriter can. Nearly certain Tesco have a captive insurer for their motor and public liability.

coylemj

MYOB wrote: »

They would have some amount of cash retained for the purpose of dealing with everyday claims. However I'm surprised they still risk it after Wellington Quay and the Luas incident!

I'd guess their bond is from times long past, probably the pre-1961 £15,000.

The regulations say that you have to lodge and maintain a sum of money decided by the minister with the minister. The amount can be changed by statutory instrument and is a moveable feast so there is no way DB are hanging on to the status of exempted person with only £15,000. I'd say it's a few million these days.

MYOB wrote: »

If you're sufficiently large enough, a captive insurer (where there is an actual insurance firm, but you own it and it only 'sells' cover to you) may make more sense as they can do reinsurance on the same rates as any other insurance underwriter can. Nearly certain Tesco have a captive insurer for their motor and public liability.

Tesco would probably need that buffer (an insurance company) because they don't have anything like the size of fleet that the ESB and DB have.

Eric Cartman

Id say if you called an insurance company and offered them a 50k excess on every car in your fleet youd get insured 3rd party for a very very cheap rate

L1011

coylemj wrote: »

The regulations say that you have to lodge and maintain a sum of money decided by the minister with the minister. The amount can be changed by statutory instrument and is a moveable feast so there is no way DB are hanging on to the status of exempted person with only £15,000. I'd say it's a few million these days.

That's assuming the Minister has asked them to change it. Every chance they haven't - its a state company, they know who's going to be footing the bill if there's a horror regardless.

coylemj wrote: »

Tesco would probably need that buffer (an insurance company) because they don't have anything like the size of fleet that the ESB and DB have.

I wouldn't assume that. They operate across the globe, and it would handle other insurance needs too.

ESB with their now quite complicated structure would probably actually benefit from a captive insurer for the group. For DB it'd definitely be debatable though.

swarlb

How about this scenario...Govt decides that insurance is a rip off and declares that no-one need pay (unless they want to).
In the event of a crash or any kind of incident, 'sort it out amongst yourselves'
So, in this fantasy world...would we be more careful about how we drive......

L1011

swarlb wrote: »

How about this scenario...Govt decides that insurance is a rip off and declares that no-one need pay (unless they want to).
In the event of a crash or any kind of incident, 'sort it out amongst yourselves'
So, in this fantasy world...would we be more careful about how we drive......

Prisons would be full, within weeks, of people found in contempt of court for refusing to pay judgements

coylemj

MYOB wrote: »

That's assuming the Minister has asked them to change it. Every chance they haven't - its a state company, they know who's going to be footing the bill if there's a horror regardless.

It's not a case of the minister 'asking them', the regulations would state that you needed to have a given amount on deposit and every time the number went up, everyone on the list would have to come up with the extra cash or lose their ability to cover their liabilities without insurance.

Being a state-owned company is a double-edged sword. Under EU competition regulations, DB would not be able to use the fact that they are state-owned to gain a competitive advantage over private companies so they'd have to have the same amount lodged as anyone else to maintain their status as an 'exempted person' and the minister wouldn't be able to give them favourable treatment.

L1011

coylemj wrote: »

It's not a case of the minister 'asking them', the regulations would state that you needed to have a given amount on deposit and every time the number went up, everyone on the list would have to come up with the extra cash or lose their ability to cover their liabilities without insurance.

There are no regulations on the amount - did you read the act? The figure is entirely at the discretion of the Minister since 1961.

coylemj wrote: »

Being a state-owned company is a double-edged sword. Under EU competition regulations, DB would not be able to use the fact that they are state-owned to gain a competitive advantage over private companies so they'd have to have the same amount lodged as anyone else to maintain their status as an 'exempted person' and the minister wouldn't be able to give them favourable treatment.

Again, there is absolutely no specified amount. Ministers discretion.

I'm sure that if another long-standing bus company with ~800 vehicles operating in a fairly limited geographical area applied they'd legally have to be asked for the same deposit, though. Can't see that being an issue.

djh2009

Isnt that how Quinn started his insurance business initially ? He set aside a certain amount of funds for claims , but didnt have any " formal " insurance policies on his various vehicles.

Marcusm

rb25 wrote: »

Serious question - why is it illegal to drive without insurance in Ireland?

Like any other product, it's a product for sale by a business but drivers are forced to purchase it.

As the Gardai are then required to enforce the administration of this law for insurance companies are insurance companies contributing to paying for the enforcement the Gardai provide?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the reasons behind the law could make it clear why it's compulsory to purchase car insurance products.

Because otherwise the costs of dealing with injuries after car accidents would fall on taxpayers!

coylemj

djh2009 wrote: »

Isnt that how Quinn started his insurance business initially ? He set aside a certain amount of funds for claims , but didnt have any " formal " insurance policies on his various vehicles.

Completely different scenario. Quinn was an insurance company writing policies and as a motor insurance company, they were required to have solid reserves in place to handle future claims i.e. money that would be available to pay out the big claims that take several years to process involving death or disabling injuries.

The problem arose when it transpired that the reserves were being used for risky investments such as wind farms and even worse, as collateral on Sean Quinn's personal debts, that's why the Govt. stepped in and took it over. It was almost a carbon copy of the PMPA debacle in the 1980s when Joe Moore treated the reserves as his personal money box and almost ran the business into the ground.

coylemj

MYOB wrote: »

There are no regulations on the amount - did you read the act? The figure is entirely at the discretion of the Minister since 1961.

Your not seriously basing that statement on the 1961 act alone? It was amended in 1968 and probably on multiple other occasions since.

djh2009

coylemj wrote: »

Completely different scenario. Quinn was an insurance company writing policies and as a motor insurance company, they were required to have solid reserves in place to handle future claims i.e. money that would be available to pay out the big claims that take several years to process involving death or disabling injuries.

The problem arose when it transpired that the reserves were being used for risky investments such as wind farms and even worse, as collateral on Sean Quinn's personal debts, that's why the Govt. stepped in and took it over. IT was almost a carbon copy of the PMPA debacle in the 1980s when Joe Moore treated the reserves as his personal money box and almost ran the business into the ground.

What I meant was that in the early days of Quinn's empire building, he decided that rather than pay a premium every year on each of his delivery trucks for his haulage or glass businesses, he decided that rather than insure them formally through one of the existing insurance companies, but instead set aside some funds for paying claims. This then eventually turned in to Quinn Insurance. That is my undertanding of how Quinn Insurance came about. ?Maybe I'm wrong ?

Doop

besides dublin bus etc, I believe no 'state vehicles' are insured, such as garda cars etc. Easier to pay out of state money than insure all the vehicles... afaik

washman3

coylemj wrote: »

It was almost a carbon copy of the PMPA debacle in the 1980s when Joe Moore treated the reserves as his personal money box and almost ran the business into the ground.

BTW what ever happened that ganster, was he ever brought to account?
or did he just retire on a gigantic pension? sounds familar, some things never change.!!
Oh, and the taxpayer picked up the tab that time too...:mad:

L1011

coylemj wrote: »

Your not seriously basing that statement on the 1961 act alone? It was amended in 1968 and probably on multiple other occasions since.

I'm basing it on having actually researched it. There isn't any specified figure. Are you just guessing now?

The 1968 Act does not specify a figure in its near identical replacement of the text (s54 and s55). It is entirely within the Ministers discretion as to what deposit must be lodged.

The only further "amendments" if you can even all them that have been a number of occasions where the incumbent Minister has delegated the responsibility to a Junior.

Yakuza

coylemj wrote: »

If your fleet is big enough then it makes economic sense to be your own insurer so you lodge a large sum (decided by the minister) with the minister and you become an 'exempted person'.

MYOB wrote: »

If you're sufficiently large enough, a captive insurer (where there is an actual insurance firm, but you own it and it only 'sells' cover to you) may make more sense as they can do reinsurance on the same rates as any other insurance underwriter can.

Of course! A captive insurer (I should have remembered that, having studied general insurance many moons ago). I misread what was posted as their having no insurance at all whereas they effectively insure themselves.

MYOB wrote: »

Nearly certain Tesco have a captive insurer for their motor and public liability.

Yep, as do Marks and Sparks (it's all coming back to me now!).

L1011

Yakuza wrote: »

Of course! A captive insurer (I should have remembered that, having studied general insurance many moons ago). I misread what was posted as their having no insurance at all whereas they effectively insure themselves.

DB, etc, don't actually have a captive insurer though - they just fund any incidents from general funds :eek:

coylemj

MYOB wrote: »

There are no regulations on the amount - did you read the act? The figure is entirely at the discretion of the Minister since 1961.

coylemj wrote: »

Your not seriously basing that statement on the 1961 act alone? It was amended in 1968 and probably on multiple other occasions since.

MYOB wrote: »

I'm basing it on having actually researched it. There isn't any specified figure. Are you just guessing now?

Get off your high horse.

'No amount specified' - did you read the act - see below where it's set at £15,000.

Subsection 4 says that the minister may make revisions as to how the deposit is maintained, nothing about him having the power to vary the actual amount which in the act is stated as a fixed sum, not as a sum 'not less than xxx'.

You say 'The figure is entirely at the discretion of the Minister since 1961.' In fact in S.61(1) the deposit to be lodged is clearly stated as a fixed amount. Can you point out where in the 1961 act the minister is given powers to vary the actual amount?

61.—(1) A person (other than a vehicle insurer) who intends to carry on the business of issuing approved guarantees or who desires to become an exempted person may deposit and thereafter keep deposited with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice the sum of fifteen thousand pounds.

(2) The Accountant of the Courts of Justice shall invest a sum deposited under this section in such of the securities authorised by law for the investment of funds in the High Court as the depositor directs, and the income accruing on the securities shall be paid to the depositor.

(3) The Accountant of the Courts of Justice shall not accept a deposit under this section save on a warrant of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

(4) The Minister for Industry and Commerce may make rules with respect to applications for warrants for the purposes of this section, the payment of deposits and the investment thereof or dealing therewith, the deposit of stocks, shares or other securities in lieu of money, the payment of the income from time to time accruing on securities in which deposits are for the time being invested and the withdrawal and transfer of deposits.


I know the minister now has more discretion in setting the amount, I'm simply making the point that in 1961 he wasn't given those powers as you claim he was.

L1011

coylemj wrote: »

Get off your high horse.

'No amount specified' - did you read the act - see below where it's set at £15,000.

Subsection 4 says that the minister may make revisions as to how the deposit is maintained, nothing about him having the power to vary the actual amount which in the act is stated as a fixed sum, not as a sum 'not less than xxx'.

You say 'The figure is entirely at the discretion of the Minister since 1961.' In fact in S.61(1) the deposit to be lodged is clearly stated as a fixed amount. Can you point out where in the 1961 act the minister is given powers to vary the actual amount?

61.—(1) A person (other than a vehicle insurer) who intends to carry on the business of issuing approved guarantees or who desires to become an exempted person may deposit and thereafter keep deposited with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice the sum of fifteen thousand pounds.

(2) The Accountant of the Courts of Justice shall invest a sum deposited under this section in such of the securities authorised by law for the investment of funds in the High Court as the depositor directs, and the income accruing on the securities shall be paid to the depositor.

(3) The Accountant of the Courts of Justice shall not accept a deposit under this section save on a warrant of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

(4) The Minister for Industry and Commerce may make rules with respect to applications for warrants for the purposes of this section, the payment of deposits and the investment thereof or dealing therewith, the deposit of stocks, shares or other securities in lieu of money, the payment of the income from time to time accruing on securities in which deposits are for the time being invested and the withdrawal and transfer of deposits.


I know the minister now has more discretion in setting the amount, I'm simply making the point that in 1961 he wasn't given those powers as you claim he was.

You're getting ridiculous now.

The specification for the amount was removed completed in 1968. This means that your repeated claims that there is still a specific amount were completely wrong.

If there's any "high horse" here its yours. Your initial claim was disproven, you then tried to claim that the were other amendments that proved it - and there aren't. There is no specified amount, minimum or otherwise.

Are you now going to accept that there are no further regulations on an amount, as you stated there were in Post 17?

whomitconcerns

It also says in the referenced section 78 explaining an exempted person

(3) A person shall not be an exempted person unless there is in force an undertaking by him in terms approved of by the Minister that he will deal with third-party claims in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles owned by him on terms similar to those standing agreed from time to time between the Minister and the Bureau in respect of the Bureau.

Bureau being Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland

Does this not mean that he can decide in conjunction with them how much is needed too be on terms similar to others? So its €X,000 on deposit and that you will have to be able to comply with whatever additional conditions are set?

afatbollix

djh2009 wrote: »

What I meant was that in the early days of Quinn's empire building, he decided that rather than pay a premium every year on each of his delivery trucks for his haulage or glass businesses, he decided that rather than insure them formally through one of the existing insurance companies, but instead set aside some funds for paying claims. This then eventually turned in to Quinn Insurance. That is my undertanding of how Quinn Insurance came about. ?Maybe I'm wrong ?

Yup this is how it all started. It was in our school books years ago. Think it was 11 million that they had to put aside when they started to do it for there truck business. Quinn direct came out of that a few years later.

whomitconcerns

ok im being pedantic now but road traffic act 1968 amends exempted person to be the below, so how could Quinn have done that?

54.—The following section is hereby substituted for section 60 of the Principal Act:

‘Exempted person.

60. (1) In this Part of this Act “exempted person” means, subject to subsection (3) of section 78 of this Act—

(a) a board or other body established by or under an Act of the Oireachtas or an Act of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Éireann,

(b) a company (hereinafter referred to as a State-sponsored company) within the meaning of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 1963 , in which the majority of the shares are held by or on behalf of a Minister of State, or

(c) a company within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 1963, in which the majority of the ordinary shares are held by a State-sponsored company or a board or other body mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection,

teddansonswig

im not 100% on this but.... i think Australia has a state insurance deal thats compulsory and is paid with your car tax, it provides for 3rd party on all cars in the state so that you are always covered in the event of an emergency having to drive any car ?

non-for-profit insurance companies would be ideal, as it is one of the oldest scams that we are force fed.

sweeney1971

rb25 wrote: »

Serious question - why is it illegal to drive without insurance in Ireland?

Like any other product, it's a product for sale by a business but drivers are forced to purchase it.

As the Gardai are then required to enforce the administration of this law for insurance companies are insurance companies contributing to paying for the enforcement the Gardai provide?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the reasons behind the law could make it clear why it's compulsory to purchase car insurance products.

Sorry have you been off the Planet for a while? Wait until you have had an accident with an un insured driver and it will be explained to you.

L1011

teddansonswig wrote: »

im not 100% on this but.... i think Australia has a state insurance deal thats compulsory and is paid with your car tax, it provides for 3rd party on all cars in the state so that you are always covered in the event of an emergency having to drive any car ?

non-for-profit insurance companies would be ideal, as it is one of the oldest scams that we are force fed.

A number of states do, think their car tax is noticeable higher for small cars than here, on average, in those states though.

Some other countries have compulsory but state-run or state-bulk-purchased third party insurance that's a fraction of the cost of TP here.

whomitconcerns

MYOB wrote: »

A number of states do, think their car tax is noticeable higher for small cars than here, on average, in those states though.

Some other countries have compulsory but state-run or state-bulk-purchased third party insurance that's a fraction of the cost of TP here.

Here in Romania everyone has to pay what's called RCA for their car. Generally people just pay the cheapest one which is about 70€ for the year, its for third party cover. After that you can buy what they call Casco which is more like our insurance cover and priced similarly and is completely at your discretion.

coylemj

whomitconcerns wrote: »

ok im being pedantic now but road traffic act 1968 amends exempted person to be the below, so how could Quinn have done that?

54.—The following section is hereby substituted for section 60 of the Principal Act:

‘Exempted person.

60. (1) In this Part of this Act “exempted person” means, subject to subsection (3) of section 78 of this Act—

(a) a board or other body established by or under an Act of the Oireachtas or an Act of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Éireann,

(b) a company (hereinafter referred to as a State-sponsored company) within the meaning of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 1963 , in which the majority of the shares are held by or on behalf of a Minister of State, or

(c) a company within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 1963, in which the majority of the ordinary shares are held by a State-sponsored company or a board or other body mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection,

That provision amended S.60 to provide a blanket exemption from having motor insurance to Govt departments (e.g. Garda cars) and vehicles owned by semi-states like Bord na Mona.

S.61 of the 1961 act provided for a person or a corporate body slapping down a hefty deposit to become an 'exempted person' in which case any motors owned and operated by such person or company would be exempt from the requirement to have an insurance policy. So someone like Quinn or any other non-statutory body like Guinness would be relying on S.61 rather than S.60.

teddansonswig

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Here in Romania everyone has to pay what's called RCA for their car. Generally people just pay the cheapest one which is about 70€ for the year, its for third party cover. After that you can buy what they call Casco which is more like our insurance cover and priced similarly and is completely at your discretion.

Casco is from the state or private? i guess you mean irish style insurance by 'more like our insurance cover'

so your total insurance bill could be just 70 for the year?

L1011

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Here in Romania everyone has to pay what's called RCA for their car. Generally people just pay the cheapest one which is about 70€ for the year, its for third party cover. After that you can buy what they call Casco which is more like our insurance cover and priced similarly and is completely at your discretion.

I'd hazard a guess that the RCA doesn't require any details on drivers either?

whomitconcerns

MYOB wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that the RCA doesn't require any details on drivers either?

Nope, over here i can drive anyones car of any size or description once i have their permission (once its in my irish licence class of course) and my name doesnt have to be on any car related paperwork whatsoever.

And yes your entire insurance bill could be 70€ here....driving here is nuts...but the insurance is cheap

coylemj

MYOB wrote: »

The specification for the amount was removed completed in 1968.

So you accept that this statement is incorrect....

MYOB wrote: »

The figure is entirely at the discretion of the Minister since 1961.

L1011

coylemj wrote: »

So you accept that this statement is incorrect....

Yes. Its a minor issue, however, not a repeated assertion as fact of a non-fact; particularly one of the importance as what you repeatedly claimed.

rb25

sweeney1971 wrote: »

rb25 wrote: »

Serious question - why is it illegal to drive without insurance in Ireland?

Like any other product, it's a product for sale by a business but drivers are forced to purchase it.

As the Gardai are then required to enforce the administration of this law for insurance companies are insurance companies contributing to paying for the enforcement the Gardai provide?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the reasons behind the law could make it clear why it's compulsory to purchase car insurance products.

Sorry have you been off the Planet for a while? Wait until you have had an accident with an un insured driver and it will be explained to you.

Unfortunately I have had an accident (rear end) with an uninsured driver. I am clear on it thanks.

As well I have been on the planet and unfortunately living in this gombeen infested country that I was born and rarefied in.

My point is that we are force-fed an insurance product here with no alternatives, enforced by our laws.

Nobody seems to be questioning this system while the insurance companies profit and don't contribute a cent to the enforcement of their products. Our tax payments pay for the enforcement of their product.

Feel free to correct me if they do contribute to the enforcement of the products they sell and we (drivers) are forced to buy.

wonski

rb25 wrote: »

Unfortunately I have had an accident (rear end) with an uninsured driver. I am clear on it thanks.

As well I have been on the planet and unfortunately living in this gombeen infested country that I was born and rarefied in.

My point is that we are force-fed an insurance product here with no alternatives, enforced by our laws.

Nobody seems to be questioning this system while the insurance companies profit and don't contribute a cent to the enforcement of their products. Our tax payments pay for the enforcement of their product.

Feel free to correct me if they do contribute to the enforcement of the products they sell and we (drivers) are forced to buy.

You have a choice of several insurance companies offering different covers for less/more money.
If you had to pay it to the state you would have no alternative, would you?
Country, as such, is lacking money at the moment, so let private companies paying out.
Insurance is part of the motoring cost, and i rather pay it and have peace of mind, than take a loan to pay off cost of accident i was involved in.

wonski

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Nope, over here i can drive anyones car of any size or description once i have their permission (once its in my irish licence class of course) and my name doesnt have to be on any car related paperwork whatsoever.

And yes your entire insurance bill could be 70€ here....driving here is nuts...but the insurance is cheap

The average claim is lower than in Ireland, hence the price (I guess here, but i believe it's true).

mandrake04

teddansonswig wrote: »

im not 100% on this but.... i think Australia has a state insurance deal thats compulsory and is paid with your car tax, it provides for 3rd party on all cars in the state so that you are always covered in the event of an emergency having to drive any car ?

non-for-profit insurance companies would be ideal, as it is one of the oldest scams that we are force fed.

Insurance in Australia is often mis-understood here.

In Victoria for example the Rego (car Tax) contains the TAC compulsory 3rd party insurance. TAC is Transport Accident Commision which is state run.

In NSW you can not get your car Rego'd unless you have a CTP greenslip (Compulsory Third Party)

This insurance only covers personal injury to anyone injured in an accident except the driver-at-fault, it doesn't cover any 3rd party property (ie. other cars)

That all you need to keep you legally on the road.

You can get 3rd party property insurance but it's not a legal requirement, if dont have it and you crash into someone and wreck their car you better have deep pockets.

Fully comp covers your car and 3rd Party property.

big syke

MYOB wrote: »

You can drive without insurance, but only when you've proven that you are financially capable of covering any potential costs of damage you cause. Dublin Bus have no insurance, for instance.

I can tell you for a FACT Dublin Bus have a wide range of insurance covers.

Tallon

big syke wrote: »

I can tell you for a FACT Dublin Bus have a wide range of insurance covers.

Go on...

advertsfox

big syke wrote: »

I can tell you for a FACT Dublin Bus have a wide range of insurance covers.

Tallon wrote: »

Go on...

ResearchWill

big syke wrote: »

I can tell you for a FACT Dublin Bus have a wide range of insurance covers.

Is that insurance or reinsurance, my little understanding is that up to x is self insured, above x but bellow y is a insurance company and above y is another company.