Car Insurance (OT)

[Huge]

I'm not sure there's a good solution.

Assuming we could trust the Government (which, BTW, I don't believe), the first thing we should do is put the "road tax" on petrol and abolish the tax disk. Then we could have default third party insurance paid for again with a tax on petrol. I believe this is the system they have in New Zealand. That just leaves us with the problem of a roadworthiness inspection (aka MOT). I'm not sure how to deal with this, without ending up with disks and whanot, in which case we're back where we started only now with extra taxes on petrol (which is what I believe happened in Ireland; they abolished the tax disk and put the tax on petrol. Then had an admin fee for checking documents each year, which crept up until it was the same as the road tax had previously been, so now they're back where they started only with two taxes instead of one.)

[Adrian]

Huge gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

This specific government, the last specific government, or the very concept of government?

Except, of course, not all fuel is taxed at all (up to 2500l of home-made diesel) - and of that which is, not all is used in road vehicles.

Then just sit back and wait for the chavs to move on to nicking fuel. And the criminal fraternity to start with grey imports. That already happens cross-border Ulster-Eire.

[Species8472]

Here's one suggestion:

The cost of road use should be in proportion to use made of them. So that should be covered by a fuel tax.

All vehicles (irrespective of age) have an annual safety test. You get a "MOT" disk to display. A year old car may be a "cut and shut", after all.

Personal injury claims are settled by the CICB, at CICB rates, once criminal negligence/intent on someone's part has been proven. No criminal conviction - no claim. An unacceptable criminal history - no claim.

Property damage claims are settled by the "Criminal Damage Compensation Board", at CDCB rates, once criminal negligence/intent on someone's part has been proven. No criminal conviction - no claim. An unacceptable criminal history - no claim.

Any other cover to be provided by individual insurance policies - but with companies limited to the CICB/CDCB claims process when it comes to recovery.

The above would rein back this trend for car ownership only to be possible for the rich. All a motorist *has* to pay for is the car and fuel and maintenance costs plus an inexpensive annual safety test. Those who choose to pay for and risk an expensive car on the highway pay for the expensive insurance needed to cover it against accidents. (The "CDCB" rates would max out at £1000, or the book value of the vehicle, if less, for a total write-off).

[Species8472]

If someone has to go around smelling like a chippie to save £35 (which is what a tax disk *should* cost) - then good luck to them. They will probably die young and save the country far more than that on NHS costs.

If it was just the road tax that had to be absorbed into fuel costs, the difference in a tank full would be tiny.

If it were also 3rd party insurance - then what is needed is to reduce the costs of claims. It's totally unfair that a tetraplaegic's future living standard, indeed lifespan, should be determined by whether there was insurance cover, or not. So, limit personal accident claims to criminal injury compensation. Similarly, limit property damage claims. If the "insurance element" on a tankful had to cover £2000 max - then again, the added cost would be minimal.

[Adrian]

Species8472 gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

So, for the vast vast majority of road traffic collisions, there would be no compensation payable. Either that, or the court system would become massively overworked as every single rtc was prosecuted - probably still with few convictions, because of lack of evidence.

So you're a convicted bank robber, newly released from prison - and get run over on a pedestrian crossing... tough?

Home insurance would quickly fill the gap - you're just moving the costs onto the innocent party.

With that same caveat over conviction?

What "trend" is that? Would you care to share your definition of "the rich"?

You really aren't particularly clueful, are you?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Putting up the price of fuel would be a very popular move at the moment. ;-)

There's a lot to be said for paying the equivalent of the VED that way - except that you'd still need to have some method of registering the car. In theory, that is checked at least once a year at renewal time. Would that service now be 'free' - or a fee paid?

Insurance being 'given' to all means the good drivers would subsidise the bad ones - even more than is the case now.

[Huge]

Troo. But I suspect the amounts are too small to bother about.

I did say there didn't appear to be a good solution!

[Huge]

All three. :o)

[Huge]

LOL. Good point.

Gawd knows.

Hmmm, I don't think that's as big an issue as you might think.

[Adrian]

Huge gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Mmm. I'd have thought that the various areas of the world without a functioning government were fairly persuasive proof that "the very concept of government" might not be perfect but it's a damn sight better than the alternative...

Still, I'm sure there's nothing stopping you emigrating to Somalia.

[Huge]

[Steve Firth]

I believe that we went through the same process in the UK. Tax on fuel was raised with a promise that VED would be abolished in the 1960s. The first part happened.

As to MOT test, no need for a sticker. Plod can now check MOT status and insurance details using ANPR. The entire task disk farce is an irrelevance.

[F]

From the renewal documents: 'From 2011 if there is no record on the Motor Insurance Database showing your vehicle is insured, and you have not declared it as 'off road', you will receive a letter warning you that you could face a fine, prosecution, and the vehicle could also be clamped seized and ultimately destroyed.

This new approach is being introduced to protect honest motorists and do even more to prevent people from driving without insurance.

Most people obey the law, but there are still too many people driving without insurance. So in future all vehicles must be insured, even if they are not being used on the road. (Vehicles with a valid SORN are not affected by this legislation).'

[Tim Streater]

If you're in favour of anarchy, then my question is, where will you get your loo-rolls from?

[Huge]

You buy your loo rolls from the State? How odd. I wasn't aware that the State provided loo rolls.

[Andy Champ]

My brand new certificate says "The policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement."

with some caveats about licences. So it excludes my brother's bike. And the Nordschleife. But not next doors MG - which I very much doubt he'd lend me...

Andy

[F]

It should. Labour put the sh*ts up a lot of us with its spending...

[Huge]

Can you imagine what they'd be like, though? You'd be able to get Izal, but only a case at a time, it would cost 5 times as much and some months there wouldn't be any at all.

As the old joke went;

Q. What has 500 legs and eats only potatoes?

A. A Moscow meat queue.

Quite.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Only claim I had with them was on the old Rover when the rear screen self imploded. Eventually found the last new one in the country of the right tint and they paid up with no quibble. Autoglass who they insisted I used were hopeless, though.

[Tony Bryer]

UK Companies House require all UK companies to complete an annual return once a year. They've just dropped the price from £15 to £14 [the equivalent here for an Australian small company like mine is ten times as much] so it should be quite possible to handle vehicle registrations for a similar amount, if necessary backed up by a small transfer fee on change of ownership.