OT car insurance.

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heard on the wireless this am police are to be given new powers to
stop uninsured drivers including computer searches and
impounding/destroying the vehicles. The figure of ininsured drivers
was etimated at 5% (at odds with the Mail's estimate of 20% mostly
asylum seakers, I kid you not!)
Surely there must be an easier way, an insurance disc in the window?

In South Africa all cars have a large amount of third party cover. It is not
possible to be uninsured since the policy is taken out by the Gov'mnt and paid
for by a levy on fuel. This has the benefit that those who drive more pay for
more cover.
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

Mark South said:

In South Africa all cars have a large amount of third party cover.
It is not possible to be uninsured since the policy is taken out by
the Gov'mnt and paid for by a levy on fuel. This has the benefit
that those who drive more pay for more cover.

Which sounds like a good idea - but in the UK we have such a basic driving
test that all manner of idiots are allowed to drive.

--
Kev

"Mark South" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In South Africa all cars have a large amount of third party cover. It is not
possible to be uninsured since the policy is taken out by the Gov'mnt and paid
for by a levy on fuel. This has the benefit that those who drive more pay for
more cover.

How would they make high risk drivers pay more? Would low risk drivers have to
pay for them, which would be very unfair?

Kevin Stone said:

Mark South said:

In South Africa all cars have a large amount of third party cover.
It is not possible to be uninsured since the policy is taken out by
the Gov'mnt and paid for by a levy on fuel. This has the benefit
that those who drive more pay for more cover.

Which sounds like a good idea - but in the UK we have such a basic driving
test that all manner of idiots are allowed to drive.

AIUI the UK driving test is more stringent than those in most other
countries. That negates the 'but' of the sentence, but not the 'all
manner of idiots' bit, of course.

A

MartinM said:

Heard on the wireless this am police are to be given new powers to
stop uninsured drivers including computer searches and
impounding/destroying the vehicles. The figure of ininsured drivers
was etimated at 5% (at odds with the Mail's estimate of 20% mostly
asylum seakers, I kid you not!)
Surely there must be an easier way, an insurance disc in the window?

As the man from the ABI said on the BBC this morning, lots of people
take out insurance to get their tax disc and then cancel the insurance
so an insurance disc would be no better an indicator of whether they had
insurance.

Tony

Adrian Boliston said:

How would they make high risk drivers pay more? Would low risk drivers have to
pay for them, which would be very unfair?

I like the concept they have in some countries of you all start with a
basic premium and then costs go up with claims - but unlike no claims
discounts there is no cap to how high the claims surcharge can go.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Adrian Boliston said:

How would they make high risk drivers pay more? Would low risk
drivers have to
pay for them, which would be very unfair?

I like the concept they have in some countries of you all start with a
basic premium and then costs go up with claims - but unlike no claims
discounts there is no cap to how high the claims surcharge can go.

My favoured concept is a compulsory excess equivalent to one month of
the person at fault's salary minus 'how much the law says you need to
live on' (the amount that person would be able to claim on Income
Support)

Claims to be paid out in full by the insurance company and then
reclaimed from the insured, and it'd be illegal to bypass the
insurance company. Ban fully comprehensive insurance, too. If you
can't afford to crash it, then don't.

A

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:45:31 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

MartinM said:

Heard on the wireless this am police are to be given new powers to
stop uninsured drivers including computer searches and
impounding/destroying the vehicles. The figure of ininsured drivers
was etimated at 5% (at odds with the Mail's estimate of 20% mostly
asylum seakers, I kid you not!)
Surely there must be an easier way, an insurance disc in the window?

As the man from the ABI said on the BBC this morning, lots of people
take out insurance to get their tax disc and then cancel the insurance
so an insurance disc would be no better an indicator of whether they had
insurance.

How about an annual license renewal scheme. To renew your license you
need to pay for third party insurance cover - this would be in the
form of a variable annual license fee dependent on age, experience,
previous claims and previous convictions.

The licensing authority already has information about the licensee's
age and would know for how long the licensee had held a license for
and thus be able to adjust premium according to risk. They also have
information about previous convictions and, of course, prior claims.

This would put the responsibility for third party insurance on the
driver, not the car owner. Of course, it would still be up to the car
owner to insure their vehicle for fire, theft, vandalism, collisions
with bollards, etc.

This could be linked in with a non-compulsory refresher driving course
after the first year of motoring and thereafter every five years.
Attendance of the course would allow a discount in the third party
insurance.

Gonzalez said:

How about an annual license renewal scheme. To renew your license you
need to pay for third party insurance cover - this would be in the
form of a variable annual license fee dependent on age, experience,
previous claims and previous convictions.

Except licenses aren't enforced either. For example 15 year old cyclist
Anthony Wakelin was killed by a speeding driver who had not got a
license. The driver James Boffey had nine previous convictions and
£1400 of outstanding fines for driving uninsured and without a license.
He was fined £200 and banned from driving for two years!

So unless they start to enforce licensing laws and have the stop and
search powers for frequent spot checks, tying it to the license is not
going to work either.

Tony

"Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How about an annual license renewal scheme. To renew your license you
need to pay for third party insurance cover - this would be in the
form of a variable annual license fee dependent on age, experience,
previous claims and previous convictions.

This would severely penalise people who hold a licence but don't own a car
(such as me), but sometimes need to drive their employers company car, when
requested to do so.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:39:09 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Gonzalez said:

How about an annual license renewal scheme. To renew your license you
need to pay for third party insurance cover - this would be in the
form of a variable annual license fee dependent on age, experience,
previous claims and previous convictions.

Except licenses aren't enforced either. For example 15 year old cyclist
Anthony Wakelin was killed by a speeding driver who had not got a
license. The driver James Boffey had nine previous convictions and
£1400 of outstanding fines for driving uninsured and without a license.
He was fined £200 and banned from driving for two years!

So unless they start to enforce licensing laws and have the stop and
search powers for frequent spot checks, tying it to the license is not
going to work either.

I couldn't agree more.

Those driving unlicensed should have their goolies cut off. It's the
only thing these people understand.

Seriously - they need to be far tougher on those who drive uninsured
and unlicensed. Linking third party insurance with licenses would, I
think, make enforcement easier.

Adrian Boliston said:

"Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How about an annual license renewal scheme. To renew your license you
need to pay for third party insurance cover - this would be in the
form of a variable annual license fee dependent on age, experience,
previous claims and previous convictions.

This would severely penalise people who hold a licence but don't own a car
(such as me), but sometimes need to drive their employers company car, when
requested to do so.

I'm in that position also, except it's my mum's car I borrow, not a
company car - and it's never necessary.

Perhaps day licenses could be issued at 1% of the license fee, week
licenses at 4% of the license fee and month licenses at 10% of the
license fee? You might even be able to get your company to pay the
fee for you.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Adrian Boliston said:

How would they make high risk drivers pay more?

Would low risk drivers have to

Quoted message said:

pay for them, which would be very unfair?

My take on that would be to put on a high surcharge, but offer the
alternative of a conventional insewerants policy. The latter comes
with a smart card that permits you not to pay the surcharge, but keeps
a record and makes you accountable for sticking to the terms (eg
only use it for the insured vehicle and/or driver).

--
Not me guv

"Adrian Boliston" wrote...

Quoted message said:

"Mark South" wrote

Quoted message said:

In South Africa all cars have a large amount of third party cover. It

is not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

possible to be uninsured since the policy is taken out by the Gov'mnt

and paid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for by a levy on fuel. This has the benefit that those who drive more

pay for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more cover.

How would they make high risk drivers pay more? Would low risk drivers

have to

Quoted message said:

pay for them, which would be very unfair?

Reckless driving generally equates with higher fuel consumption (high
speeds, hard acceleration), so high risk drivers would charge themselves
more. Under the present system, high risk drivers whose rates are raised to
very high levels are quite likely to simply drive without insurance, which
is simply not an option under the South African system. In theory there are
some inequities to this system, but to me it's a vastly superior system
because:
1. No uninsured motorists
2. Reckless drivers are penalized the next time they fuel their vehicle
3. Payment is in proportion to the amount of driving you do, no exceptions.
--
mark

mark said:

"Adrian Boliston" wrote...

Quoted message said:

"Mark South" wrote

Quoted message said:

In South Africa all cars have a large amount of third party cover. It

is not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

possible to be uninsured since the policy is taken out by the Gov'mnt

and paid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for by a levy on fuel. This has the benefit that those who drive more

pay for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more cover.

How would they make high risk drivers pay more? Would low risk drivers

have to

Quoted message said:

pay for them, which would be very unfair?

Reckless driving generally equates with higher fuel consumption (high
speeds, hard acceleration), so high risk drivers would charge themselves
more.

You've forgotten those who drive without high speed or hard acceleration
yet have to cover many many miles in the course of doing their job, then?

Or were you tarring high mileage drivers with the same brush.

--

Velvet

"Velvet" wrote

Quoted message said:

You've forgotten those who drive without high speed or hard acceleration
yet have to cover many many miles in the course of doing their job, then?

Or were you tarring high mileage drivers with the same brush.
Velvet

I have not forgotten, and I agree that there are many people who have to
cover "many many miles in the course of doing their job", and who do so
without driving recklesssly. Those who do drive recklessly generally lose
their license, their insurance, and/or their job fairly quickly, IME. The
insurance industry in my country charges higher premiums to people who drive
many miles in the course of their job, is this not the case in the UK?

I am not intentionally "tarring high mileage drivers with the same brush",
but ISTM that a high mileage driver who is expected to drive in all weather
and traffic conditions would be exposed to greater risk of being involved in
an accident than the occasional driver who has the option of waiting for bad
weather/heavy traffic/fatigue to pass before venturing out on the roads.

The current insurance system does not prevent uninsured motorists from
driving cars in your country or mine, which means that law abiding motorists
are forced to subsidize those people who break the law by driving while
uninsured. There are inequities in the South African system and in the
system used in the UK and most countries, but the simplicity of the South
African system, and its effectiveness in eliminating uninsured motorists
from the roads make it very appealing to me.
--
mark

MartinM said:

Heard on the wireless this am police are to be given new powers to
stop uninsured drivers including computer searches and
impounding/destroying the vehicles. The figure of ininsured drivers
was etimated at 5% (at odds with the Mail's estimate of 20% mostly
asylum seakers, I kid you not!)
Surely there must be an easier way, an insurance disc in the window?

Yes they have to display their insurance in France. The problem with that of
course is that somebody could break in and steal it. Far better than nothing
though.

I heard a sugegestion that people caught driving uninsured could have their
cars confiscated and destroyed. Now how's that for a brilliant idea. Well I
can see some problems with that...

BTW you'd have got a much more interesting response if you'd posted this to
uk.rec.driving.

Brian

"BrianW" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

MartinM said:

Heard on the wireless this am police are to be given new powers to
stop uninsured drivers including computer searches and
impounding/destroying the vehicles. The figure of ininsured drivers
was etimated at 5% (at odds with the Mail's estimate of 20% mostly
asylum seakers, I kid you not!)
Surely there must be an easier way, an insurance disc in the window?

Yes they have to display their insurance in France. The problem with
that of course is that somebody could break in and steal it. Far better
than nothing though.

There's nothing to stop you carrying an insurance certificate to prove that
you have insurance, and mentioning the crime number you got when reporting
the disc stolen.

Quoted message said:

I heard a sugegestion that people caught driving uninsured could have
their cars confiscated and destroyed. Now how's that for a brilliant
idea. Well I can see some problems with that...

What problems would those be?

Quoted message said:

BTW you'd have got a much more interesting response if you'd posted this
to uk.rec.driving.

:-)

Quoted message said:

Brian

--
Chris

quote='BrianW'MartinM said:

Heard on the wireless this am police are to be given new powers to
stop uninsured drivers including computer searches and
impounding/destroying the vehicles. The figure of ininsured drivers
was etimated at 5% (at odds with the Mail's estimate of 20% mostly
asylum seakers, I kid you not!)
Surely there must be an easier way, an insurance disc in the window?

Yes they have to display their insurance in France. The problem with that of
course is that somebody could break in and steal it. Far better than nothing
though.

They would have to change the reg though, ISTR DVLA used to keep 2 pages worth of info on each driver for the Police, and that was in the days of big Eddie your ship-board computers. Surely they could store one poxy e-mail from the insurance company? (or two if you cancelled the policy)

I heard a sugegestion that people caught driving uninsured could have their
cars confiscated and destroyed. Now how's that for a brilliant idea. Well I
can see some problems with that...

Leaving the drivers in? ;-)

BTW you'd have got a much more interesting response if you'd posted this to
uk.rec.driving.

No sooner said than done.