In article , Adrian wrote: }Huge gurgled happily, sounding much like they }were saying: }> The only people this will catch is the absent-minded but }> otherwise law-abiding middle classes. The chavs who didn't tax or insure }> their cars will carry on as before. } }Unfortunately, you're right about that second - although I'd argue that }you're being a bit pessimistic about the first, and it'll be wider than }that. } }So... } }What DO you suggest?
That we stop being so paranoid about people driving without insurance.
Trouble is that it's often associated with other things - like a poorly maintained vehicle and (at least round here) a completly crap attitude to other road users.
I was stopped once by plod, for no tax (he didn't see the trade plates I had inside the screen). After he realised the car was covered, we had a chat, and I said didn't he feel it was a waste of police time to be acting as tax inspectors for the government. He smiled and said that "very often, no tax is an indicator of other offences being committed...."
Wish I could find the report, now, but some time in the last five years or so I saw something that claimed that around 2/3 of vehicles pulled for no tax had other things wrong too. IIRC the situation with no insurance was similar.
1) Fell out of a tree - state support
2) Run over by someone that couldn't be identified - state support
3) Hit with brick by an unidentified thug - state support
4) Hit with brick by an identified and then convicted thug - state support + CICB compensation
5) Hit intentionally with car by uninsured driver with no assets/income
- state support + CCIB compensation
6) Hit accidentally with car by insured driver - state support + jackpot
7) Hit accidentally with car by uninsured driver with assets/income - state support + driver payments etc
The whole thing is a total lottery -even though the needs of the innocent victim are entirely the same.
I'd suggest that the state should be the primary insurer, in cases of personal accident. That would provide fairness - in each case the person would receive the same living expenses that they needed -irrespective of the circumstances of the guilty party. Guilt or innocence would be purely a matter for a criminal court - should the injury have resulted from criminal recklessness or intent.
The role of insurance companies would be to provide additional benefits to the insured above and beyond those considered essential by the state.
Driving without insurance would then not be a crime at all. Driving an unsafe vehicle would be. Driving without a licence would be. Driving under the influence of drink or drugs would be. Driving without an MoT would be. Driving whilst unfit to do so would be. Driving without adequate vision would be. Driving without due care and attention would be. Driving dangerously would be. Driving faster than the relevant speed limit would be. Driving through a red light would be. We really don't need a crime of driving without insurance as well to catch unsafe vehicles and drivers..there are more than enough other crimes to convict motorists for..
For the majority of those that are disabled - that "shit system" is what they do indeed get now.
Why on Earth should those "lucky enough" to be injured by an insured and identifiable motorist fare so much better than the vast majority of people who, through absolutely no fault of their own, ended up with disabilities?
Yes, taxpayers would end up paying for a better system that provided reasonable living expenses for all those that are *incapable* of providing one for themselves.
The present system cannot be defended on the basis that a lucky few are treated fairly and the rest.. well, tough luck to them.
For the vast majority of innocent people that end up with disabilities, there is no compensation payable.
Why should someone hit by a car, accidentally, have their standard of living maintained as far as is possible, yet someone hit by a brick, deliberately, think themselves lucky to get something from the CICB?
The state needs to provide a reasonable standard of living for all those with disabilities such that they cannot be expected to provide one for themselves.
Anyone who wishes to maintain a higher standard than that should take out their own insurance. They can clearly afford to do so.
Why should someone on £20kpa pay an insurance premium so that a millionaire can maintain their standard of living, when they would get far, far less if the roles were reversed?
You'd get the same standard of living and care that the state would provide to anyone. You just wouldn't get the little extra that the CICB provides. Which seems fair enough - the state has just spent far more than that on keeping you locked up. If you wanted more than that - spend some of the bank robbery proceeds on a personal insurance policy.
I don't know how well it works, but New Zealand has a state funded compensation scheme
"ACC is the sole and compulsory provider of accident insurance for all work and non-work injuries. The ACC Scheme is administered on a no-fault basis, so that anyone, regardless of the way in which they incurred an injury, is eligible for coverage under the Scheme. Due to the Scheme's no-fault basis, people who have suffered personal injury do not have the right to sue an at-fault party, except for exemplary damages"
In article , Skipweasel wrote: }In article , } snipped-for-privacy@chch.demon.co.uk says... } }> That we stop being so paranoid about people driving without insurance. } }Trouble is that it's often associated with other things - like a poorly }maintained vehicle and (at least round here) a completly crap attitude }to other road users.
Then it's stupid to worry about driving without insurance. Address the real concerns directly instead.
Tackling no insurance is a lot easier - and probably cheaper. I'm not sure why you have such an aversion to it. Do you also prefer tax evaders to be allowed to get away with it? Do you think putting more litter bins out will stop people throwing rubbish on the floor?
In article , Skipweasel wrote: }In article , } snipped-for-privacy@chch.demon.co.uk says... }> }Trouble is that it's often associated with other things - like a poorly }> }maintained vehicle and (at least round here) a completly crap attitude }> }to other road users. }> }> Then it's stupid to worry about driving without insurance. Address the }> real concerns directly instead. } }Tackling no insurance is a lot easier - and probably cheaper. I'm not }sure why you have such an aversion to it.
Because driving without insurance cannot by itself harm anyone except the insurance companies.
All drivers (can) make mistakes. If you aren't insured you can still be sued and have to pay. There aren't many who can afford a seven figure sum so the claimant may well be left on NHS waiting lists for treatment and living on income support for the rest of their lives. If you don't want to insure your own goods then buy RTA only.
You might recover personal injury compensation from a non insured driver - but not any other. And there's not much point in suing someone who hasn't any money. And even if you win, the courts don't enforce the award.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.