OT car insurance.

Monkey Hanger said:

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?

Well, I'd imagine a proportion of those willing to deliberately drive
with no insurance will have no compunction about nicking someone else's,
should theirs be crushed.

I also have an aversion to seeing cars crushed, seeing as manufacturing
a car causes more pollution than it ever produces in its driving
lifetime (I don't have the reference to hand, but this is the kind of
newsgroup where you can sneeze and someone will instantly hand you a
tissue in terms of providing references ;-).

(I saw somewhere that the average lifetime of a car is 14 years. There
must be an awful lot of old bangers around somewhere - mine's 14 years
old this September and it's the most agedest by a long way in my neck of
the woods.)

My old 10-speed, on the other hand, is a good 20 years old or so. OK,
it had a new frame about 15 years ago...and new wheels...and bars...and
a saddle...and mudguards. Um. I think the brake calipers and the
handlebar stem are original. :-)

R.

Tony Raven 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.

It would if the third party bit was paid up front and non refundable.

In Oz the tax disk equivalent is (or was) also a 3rd party insurance
cover as well, which was all paid for up front (20 years ago, when I
last owned a car there). This resulted in me and my wife unwittingly
driving for a couple of months without insurance here (UK) a year after
we first arrived, because I'd naively assumed the same thing applied
here so didn't immediately renew the insurance on the rather old
vauxhall we bought on arrival, thinking it still had 3rd party with
the tax disk. Duh, TF we didn't have an accident!

Trev.

I think the statute of limitations has lapsed for the lack of
insurance in 1985??

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Most high mileage business drivers are covered by company insurance so
don't care two hoots about the cost of the insurance. In my last job in the
UK most of the people I worked with had company cars and there were a few
who stood out as being reckless drivers but were nowhere near to losing
their license (unfortunately). One in particular stands out as being
someone who most people refused to be driven by. His car handling skills
may have been fairly good, but his brain did not seem to register the fact
that there might be other road users just round that bend in the road that
he's taking at 100mph.

Graeme

Trevor Barton <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In Oz the tax disk equivalent is (or was) also a 3rd party insurance
cover as well, which was all paid for up front (20 years ago, when I
last owned a car there).

It still is, in WA at least. Mind you, there are other peculiarities where
it lags behind the UK. Such as the lack of an equivalent to the MOT. You
can drive pretty much any old heap of junk and only have to do something
about it if the police stop you and make you take your car to the test
centre.

Quoted message said:

I think the statute of limitations has lapsed for the lack of
insurance in 1985??

No. You're nicked sonny! ;-)

Graeme

Ricardo said:

I also have an aversion to seeing cars crushed, seeing as
manufacturing a car causes more pollution than it ever produces in its
driving lifetime (I don't have the reference to hand, but this is the
kind of newsgroup where you can sneeze and someone will instantly hand
you a tissue in terms of providing references ;-).

I've already posted the contradiction of this several times. Usage
accounts for about 8 times as much energy use as manufacture.

A

quote='Ambrose Nankivell'Ricardo said:

I also have an aversion to seeing cars crushed, seeing as
manufacturing a car causes more pollution than it ever produces in its
driving lifetime (I don't have the reference to hand, but this is the
kind of newsgroup where you can sneeze and someone will instantly hand
you a tissue in terms of providing references ;-).

I've already posted the contradiction of this several times. Usage
accounts for about 8 times as much energy use as manufacture.

indeed and the bigger the car the more damage, was there not a previous post about 4x4 drivers needing to commit to 130 years recycling or something to offset the environmental damage?.

[email hidden] (MartinM) 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.

does the value of an average car driven by an uninsured driver meet or
exceed the cost of insurance for the typical interval during which
they can expect to get caught. I suspect it may not just as typical
fines do not. If not, it makes financial sense for some to dispense
with insurance

best wishes
james

Velvet 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?

Those people are a high-risk group and accordingly pay more insurance in
the UK.

d.

davek said:

Velvet 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?

Those people are a high-risk group and accordingly pay more insurance in
the UK.

d.

HighER risk group yes - equally high risk as those the OP described, no.
Yes, I do pay more for insurance, but if I can drive lots of miles
without having an accident, why should I subsidise those who drive lots
of miles and through their attitudes to driving increase their risk of
accident.

Or come to think of it, why should I subsidize those driver who drive
bugger all miles yet when they do drive absolutely appallingly.

--

Velvet

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Ricardo said:

I also have an aversion to seeing cars crushed, seeing as
manufacturing a car causes more pollution than it ever produces in its
driving lifetime (I don't have the reference to hand, but this is the
kind of newsgroup where you can sneeze and someone will instantly hand
you a tissue in terms of providing references ;-).

I've already posted the contradiction of this several times. Usage
accounts for about 8 times as much energy use as manufacture.

With respect, that's not what I said. I said pollution, not energy use.
In this link you appear to cite the reference that I was looking for,
which confirms what I claimed:

http://tinyurl.com/4tsbw
or
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2157345381d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&selm=b16cnm%24vlpbf%241%40ID-93953.news.dfncis.de

(If you have any counter-citations, I'd be happy to add them to my files)
R.

On 12 Aug 2004 11:23:52 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Ricardo said:

I also have an aversion to seeing cars crushed, seeing as
manufacturing a car causes more pollution than it ever produces in its
driving lifetime (I don't have the reference to hand, but this is the
kind of newsgroup where you can sneeze and someone will instantly hand
you a tissue in terms of providing references ;-).

I've already posted the contradiction of this several times. Usage
accounts for about 8 times as much energy use as manufacture.

Depending on the level of use.

IIRC the last thread that argued this one way and the other showed
that for annual milages of 1000 miles or less, the advantage is with
keeping the oldster on the road.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Velvet said:

HighER risk group yes - equally high risk as those the OP described, no.

That's between you and your insurance company.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I do pay more for insurance, but if I can drive lots of miles
without having an accident, why should I subsidise those who drive lots
of miles and through their attitudes to driving increase their risk of
accident.

Have you considered the possibility that under the South African system
you might end up paying *less* because you would no longer be
subsidising the insurance dodgers?

Or have you got any better ideas?

d.

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

Quoted message said:

Velvet said:

HighER risk group yes - equally high risk as those the OP described, no.

That's between you and your insurance company.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I do pay more for insurance, but if I can drive lots of miles
without having an accident, why should I subsidise those who drive lots
of miles and through their attitudes to driving increase their risk of
accident.

As someone in the club pointed out, we all pay a proportion of our
premium towards a slush fund to help the victims of ininsured drivers,
which include cyclists and pedestrians, not ideal but better than
nothing, although of course this would be much less or even zero if
everyone was insured.

davek said:

Velvet said:

HighER risk group yes - equally high risk as those the OP described, no.

That's between you and your insurance company.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I do pay more for insurance, but if I can drive lots of miles
without having an accident, why should I subsidise those who drive
lots of miles and through their attitudes to driving increase their
risk of accident.

Have you considered the possibility that under the South African system
you might end up paying *less* because you would no longer be
subsidising the insurance dodgers?

Or have you got any better ideas?

d.

Oh, that might well be true - but I've not paid attention to the whole
thread and distinguised the SA vs UK way of doing it, I was just
responding to hte idea that making insurance a tax on fuel wasn't the
fairest way to do it. IMO.

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

I was just
responding to hte idea that making insurance a tax on fuel wasn't the
fairest way to do it. IMO.

Yes, and I was just pointing out that this was an ill-conceived kneejerk
reaction with no basis in reason.

Your principle objection is that /you/ are going to be the one paying
out extra, which is a purely selfish nimbyish attitude, even if you
disregard the fact that you're probably wrong anyway - after all, you
complain about subsidising other groups of road users without taking
into account that you are doing so to a significant level already under
the current system.

As for whether or not the South African system is "fair", look at it
from my angle: I'm a fairly low mileage motorist and I've never made a
claim on my insurance, but I still have to hand over great wads of cash
to the [censored] every year, a large part of which is paying for
insurance dodgers. Is that fair on me?

Anyway, the whether or not you have ever had an accident is irrelevant -
you are still in a high-risk group from an insurance company's
perspective. That is the way insurance works, which is why I suggested
taking it up with your insurance company if you have an issue there.

d.

davek said:

Velvet said:

I was just responding to hte idea that making insurance a tax on fuel
wasn't the fairest way to do it. IMO.

Yes, and I was just pointing out that this was an ill-conceived kneejerk
reaction with no basis in reason.

Your principle objection is that /you/ are going to be the one paying
out extra, which is a purely selfish nimbyish attitude, even if you
disregard the fact that you're probably wrong anyway - after all, you
complain about subsidising other groups of road users without taking
into account that you are doing so to a significant level already under
the current system.

As for whether or not the South African system is "fair", look at it
from my angle: I'm a fairly low mileage motorist and I've never made a
claim on my insurance, but I still have to hand over great wads of cash
to the [censored] every year, a large part of which is paying for
insurance dodgers. Is that fair on me?

Anyway, the whether or not you have ever had an accident is irrelevant -
you are still in a high-risk group from an insurance company's
perspective. That is the way insurance works, which is why I suggested
taking it up with your insurance company if you have an issue there.

d.

I don't have an issue with it at all, I was merely (for the second time)
responding to a point that was made where I felt it wouldn't lead to a
fairer system for all, as the OP was suggesting it would, by their
assumption that high mileage drivers all drove like [censored].

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

I don't have an issue with it at all, I was merely (for the second
time) responding to a point that was made where I felt it wouldn't
lead to a fairer system for all, as the OP was suggesting it would, by
their assumption that high mileage drivers all drove like [censored].

OTOH, there could be an assumption that risk per mile stayed constant
regardless of mileage, which may or may not be true.

A

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Velvet said:

I don't have an issue with it at all, I was merely (for the second
time) responding to a point that was made where I felt it wouldn't
lead to a fairer system for all, as the OP was suggesting it would, by
their assumption that high mileage drivers all drove like [censored].

OTOH, there could be an assumption that risk per mile stayed constant
regardless of mileage, which may or may not be true.

A

Yes, that might be the case, though I thought that the stats actually
showed something different than that happening - I don't have the time
(or the inclanation ) to go dig it all up.

I'm well aware that by driving more miles per year it means I am more
likely to be involved in an accident, for a number of reasons. However,
I don't accept it is necessarily equivalent to those drivers who drive
dangerously and cover many less miles.

If insurance is done as a levy on fuel, then the people who drive low
miles but are [censored] will pay low insurance rates. People how drive high
miles but don't drive like [censored] will pay high insurance rates.

I can't see how that even begins to be any fairer than the situation as
it is today - it completely removes any incentive to drive sensibly.

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Velvet said:

I don't have an issue with it at all, I was merely (for the second
time) responding to a point that was made where I felt it wouldn't
lead to a fairer system for all, as the OP was suggesting it would, by
their assumption that high mileage drivers all drove like [censored].

OTOH, there could be an assumption that risk per mile stayed constant
regardless of mileage, which may or may not be true.
A

Yes, that might be the case, though I thought that the stats actually
showed something different than that happening - I don't have the time
(or the inclanation ) to go dig it all up.

I'm well aware that by driving more miles per year it means I am more
likely to be involved in an accident, for a number of reasons.
However, I don't accept it is necessarily equivalent to those drivers
who drive dangerously and cover many less miles.

If insurance is done as a levy on fuel, then the people who drive low
miles but are [censored] will pay low insurance rates. People how drive
high miles but don't drive like [censored] will pay high insurance rates.

Well, it's not as if the insurance companies do a [censored] test before
covering people, and a fair proportion of idiots get away without
crashing or not claiming or telling their insurance company when they
do crash, so it's not particularly advanced as it is.

Of course, if fines were used to cover some of the lack of
discrimination in the insurance costs, that would be good, along with
my preferred solution of 1 month's income as a compulsory
excess. (minus a hardship allowance)

A

Velvet said:

I was merely (for the second time)
responding to a point that was made where I felt it wouldn't lead to a
fairer system for all

Yes, I understood that the first time you said it, and the second time,
and I still understand it the third time around. And I still think
you're wrong. But we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

, as the OP was suggesting it would, by their

Quoted message said:

assumption that high mileage drivers all drove like [censored].

People who drive like [censored] are a subset of the set of people that
consume lots of petrol. (This is the bit the OP said.)

People that drive high mileages are another subset of the set of people
that consume lots of petrol. (This is the bit /you/ said.)

If you plotted all this in a Venn diagram there may be some overlap
between the subsets but they are by no means identical. (This is the bit
you're accusing the OP of that he didn't actually say.)

d.