Car Insurance (OT)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Mostly they don't buy them. Or not for very much. A no tax no MOT good runner is as little as 50 quid these days.

[John Williamson]

Not many of which, when happening to or caused by the mythical man on the Clapham omnibus, can result in significant numbers of people injured in such away as to require 24-hour a day care for life. For instance, how many people can you kill/injure at a time by riding a pushbike? Or a horse? Or by dropping a slate from a roof? In a car, I have the ability to kill or injure dozens in one incident. If I were driving a lorry, it could, potentially, be hundreds.

(1) Taking them out of circulation *before* they have an accident completely removes any need for them to pay compensation. That's how I read the proposal, anyway. The Powers That Be already tend towards putting uninsured drivers in the pokey after they've had an accident, though not necessarily *just* for not being insured.

(2) "Pour encourager les autres" Taking uninsured drivers out of circulation just for being uninsured would make most people think twice about it. Though obvously some will not give the proverbial ess-aitch-one-tee, and will enjoy the break at our expense.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The whole things has become a vicious circle: the more uninsured drivers there are, the more the premiums go up, and the more the temptation is there not to insure. Because MOT and car tax is also expensive, and the tax depends on insurance and MOT, ipso facto there is no incentive to license either, and without that no incentive to get an MOT.

In short the cost benefit is between paying about £500 quid to legalise a motah, or paying nothing and taking the risk. Since a very decent car can be obtained without paperwork for less than £200, or stolen for nothing, people who simply fail to register at and insure can be up to £7-800* a year in pocket AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT CAUGHT.

If they are involved in an accident, with luck, just walk away. The car is probably not traceable to the perp anyway.

I used to know people to whom such practice is the norm. The car breaks down. Leave it, call a mate on a mobile phone, get picked up, another mate knows of a car..no tax or MOT, give him a bullshit address for his forms, drive off in car, run till it breaks down, repeat ad infinitum.

Drive carefully and not at night where police are likely to be on the lookout. Ge way with it.

*since they wont service such a car either.

[John Williamson]

Also, inceasingly, stay away from motorways and town centres, where they have ANPR cameras turned on and connected direct to DVLA. They might not have your right address, but enough pictures and failed tickets could trigger an alert to stop the vehicle next time it's seen by a patrol.

And the 100% guaranteed method to make sure that *all* drivers are insured, no matter what they're driving?

Add a percentage to the cost of fuel, and set up an insurance scheme of last resort, paid for by the extra fuel cost. Can't be dodged, and it's vaguely proportional to the risk, as thirsty vehicles, which tend to be more dangerous to others per mile, use more fuel per mile. Unless you steal the fuel, there's no way to dodge paying the premium. Except that if you steal the fuel, the premium's already been paid, unless you steal it from the refinery. It'd only take a decent actuary a few minutes to work out the figures.

Too easy? It works (Not terribly well, due to other administrative problems, but it works) in South Africa, and as long as I've got a valid licence, I can borrow any car there and *know* I'm insured to drive it. Heck, personal injury to others is covered even if I steal the car, though the government would no doubt find a way to make me pay if I were caught.

You can buy optional insurance in addition to the basic, governent stuff, and most people with decent cars and all those in a commercial setting do.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Indeed. And as this country is more and more resembling south africa, its probably a good place to copy.

(if you map township, to e.g. Hackney and homeland, to e.g. Scotland).

Exactly. In the old days you hard third party, or third party fire and theft, and that was cheap. If you bent the car, you paid to get it fixeds.

Nowadays its expensive, because people know that if they back into you at a filling station, and claim you drove into them, and they have got whiplash and cant work, the courts will award them ten times the write off value of the car they drive into you with.

[Tim Streater]

OK - put them in the stocks then.

[Cynic]

Being careless with a match can cause just as many injuries and deaths as well as huge costs in property damage as just one example. Driving is simply a very common activity that has a fairly high probability of causing a lot of damage and injury, but it is far from being the only activity where a small mistake can cause a great deal of harm.

Insurance is not legally required for boats or aeroplanes. The former doesn't even have an age restriction or need a licence to legally operate (drive).

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I doubt it since scrap value is very much higher than that. But just confiscate the car no matter what it's worth. Do this often enough and they'll get the message.

BTW, it's not always old bangers which have no insurance. Often a youngster's pride and joy which he can't afford to insure.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

New Zealand have something similar. However, the maximum payout is very small so you'll still be liable.

[Dave]

Son is a police officer in the Manchester force and holds the record for the number of uninsured cars he has had scrapped and crushed.

Dave

[Charles Bryant]

}> 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.

Only if you crash and are held to be at fault. Lack of insurance *by itself* cannot harm anyone.

}If you don't want to insure your own goods then buy RTA only.

I suggest you look at the price of it - in particular the price in comparison to comprehensive for the same driver.

[dennis]

It is harming me as I have to pay more for my insurance (even though I have only ever had a claim for a stolen radio in more than a million miles).

That depends on how bad a driver you are (or are thought to be) and how stupid the car is.

[Skipweasel]

Strangely, it doesn't seem to work like that.

I've not made a claim for over twenty years, but RTA wasn't=20 significantly cheaper last time round - only =A350 or so in it.

--=20 Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

[John Williamson]

Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive was cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were through the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

[dennis]

Different insurers. There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA, they think people that want RTA are a poor risk. They are probably right.

Insurance is odd any way.. I got a quote for the wife and I forgot to put me on as a driver, it was £580. When I added me it came down to £280, the wife is still the main driver and its still in her name. I told her she owes me half the savings. 8-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

RTA is not the same as TPF&T.

[dennis]

I don't see anyone saying they are.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Then what did you mean?

[The Revd]

It's not even the same as TP.

[dennis]

What I said. I could have said TPF&T but then I would have been talking about something else about which I don't have any recent experience. I would imagine what I said about RTA applies to TPF&T but unless I look I can't be sure.