Safe Speed Forums

I would like to a the question regards this new Motor Insurance Database, Why? and why is it the individuals liability?
This just sounds to me like a massive intelligence gathering exercise aimed at honest drivers,
another way to grab money and impose on our rights as a flesh and blood human being.
If am just the registered KEEPER of the vehicle and it's actually the DVLA/GOVERNMENT who own
everybody's vehicles then it's them who are liable for everything. i.e. they can tow away your vehicle and scrap it. If you truly owned your vehicle they would be committing theft/stealing but you don't so they CAN!
Why don't they simply introduce a method by which insurance companies provide the car tax when you insure your car. No tax disc showing.......well it's obvious. I know the scammers would probably find a way round it....hey that's Human nature but i think its a simple suggestion to start with. It can be tweaked by introducing colours to months with dates etc.

All in all, like the tv advert says ` there are an estimated 2 million uninsured drivers in Britain today` blah blah. Use resources to target them NOT THE ESTIMATED 20 MILLION OR SO HONEST,HONOURABLE DRIVERS IN BRITAIN.....LOL.

Any comments welcome.

Placing the insurance on fuel (at least 3rd party anyway) solves a lot of problems, especially those related to administration.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It is only a simple and ,to me, logical extension of the SORN system and is aimed at the reducing the number of uninsured cars on the road. Like all processes aimed at catching miscreants it requires the cooperation of the honest majority, - who, in this case, are barely inconvenienced.

The problem with the system, as with your suggestion of discs and , to some extent, with Steves's suggestion of a fuel surcharge is the fact that the legal requirement is that the driver be insured, not the car. A car can be on all the databases in Europe and be covered with discs but still be driven by an uninsured driver.

And, Steve, how do think that the fair fuel brigade would react to a rise in price to include insurance

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

This problem is easily solved: change national policy such that insurance is placed on the vehicle. I believe (but haven't checked) this is applied in Germany.


(I saw the smiley, but just to flush out that point ...)

Being as it should eliminate some administration costs, such a scheme would be for the common good.
Hence heavy fuel users may not see any significant increase in overall travel costs; light users would see a dramatic reduction. So yes some would winge about it, but I reckon the "fair fuel brigade" (which would also incorporate a comparatively smaller "fair tax brigade") would recognise the overall benefit.

Seeing as travel costs would be disproportionately reduced for light users (approaching pro-rata), I expect those against fuel use (for whatever reason) would welcome this change because there would be a stronger financial incentive to use less fuel.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

But then, presumably, the weighting of insurance cost against individual risk goes out of the window? Given similar cars and annual mileages, the several-times-banned, 11-point menace, living in the high crime area pays the same as the driver with the clean licence, impeccable driving record and advanced driving qualifications living in a low crime area?

That would revoke the insurers's ability to weight the premium according to the risk. There would be no opportunity for the insurer to place a financial sanction on the driver with many convictions for bad driving.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Or you get the high mileage, careful driver who never has a dent, subsidising the low mileage person, who very rarely uses their car but seems to scrape everything within ten yards of them.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Not necessarily. As a solution, we could have "insurance fines" applied with penalty points, perhaps with a scaling factor dependent on the number of existing points on the license. I've not thought that idea through, and I suspect some won't like it.

Added to that, folks can still purchase personal policies that cover them for their own vehicles, as well as possible "insurance fines" (again based on their risk). Given that these policies wouldn't be mandatory, I bet the prices would become very competitive !!


The level of the insurance loaded onto the fuel cost can be adjusted for the risk of the local area.

As non-ideal as those ideas may be, I prefer them to people driving around with no insurance at all - wasn't the latest figure 1 in 10 not being insured?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

This is true, but it isn't doesn't necessarily make the high-mileage driver worse off when compared to today's system.

The removal of the admin cost, as well as the 'loaded' insurance now not being for profit (I can only hope), as well as forcing the insurance companies to become competitive with their supplementary policies, could well result with the high-milers breaking even.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

And this is going to change the current arrangements; how ?
At the moment the uninsured/uninsureable drivers accidents are paid for by the insured drivers cost going up to cover the loss.
how is putting insurance cost onto fuel going to change this ?
You will then have an "insured" vehicle riven by an uninsureable driver, which then has an accident, and the costs are paid by.....other insured drivers ?
It is not the cost of the insurance (or no insurance) which leads to the problem, it is the cost of the accident or injury.
Unlicenced drivers are still going to be uninsured, because they are excluded from having valid insurance anyway.
The proposal to load insurance cost to fuel will legitimise driving illegally.
And exactly how will it change the current arrangements, such as the Motor Insurers paying-out for uninsured drivers accident costs ?
Whichever way you chose insurance will remain high because somebody has to pay for the accidents at some time.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I was chatting with a South African chap yesterday, they do the 3rd party on fuel there. Unfortunately the scheme has been bankrupt for years and the payout for injuries leaving you unable to work is likely to be about £2500.

While the payouts here may be better can you imagine the gleam in the eyes of the crash scam mob?

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Not necessarily so.
Accidents have to be compensated, of course!

My point is that we could/should/would have cheaper insurance costs because we then wouldn't be paying for a level of administration, as well as not being forced to give our incomes to profit-making businesses. There's also the ending of our upkeep of the 1 in 10 drivers who are currently not insured.


I would still expect every accident to be investigated, with compensation payments withheld and prosecutions initiated where appropriate.



Please note: I'm not fully for insurance on fuel, but I would like it to have the best chance at withstanding scrutiny before rejecting it.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

In what way is insurance on fuel any different ?
A levy on fuel for third-party insurance would benefit who ?
The insurance companies and the government, since any levy would include insurance premium tax.
YOU would still buy extra for comprehensive insurance.
The uninsurable or expensively-insurable would have basic insurance, which would not cover the much greater cost of providing for the extra risk in insuring that group of drivers. That extra cost would fall on us still.
So you would pay extra for less ?
I repeat: how is the fuel+ scheme different from the levy on drivers via their current insurance ?
The young are not targeted for expensive insurance because they can afford it, it is because they are a higher risk, much higher.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Did my previous post not answer your three questions?

If not, what did I miss?


This is true, but I suspect this group is somewhat over-represented in the 10% group of drivers who currently aren't insured; therefore the significance of your point is somewhat negated because they would then be forced to pay insurance via the fuel they purchase.


Perhaps a more fundamental question needs to be addressed to help resolve this point.
What is the reason for charging the young their higher insurance premiums (as opposed to having a flat rate for everyone) ?
Is it to dissuade 'the young' from driving? Or is it to dissuade them from driving performance cars (which the fuel+ scheme would do anyway) ? Or else?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Disqualified drivers would still be uninsured. That means the young without licence as well.
Research shows that young males drivers have dramatically raised chances of an accident and that the accidents they have are worse.
http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving.pdf
And that's just one stab out of the bing closet.
Lower admin ?
Get-outa-here....MORE admin more likely, and more expensive admin...you don't think the costs of collection are going to be held low ?
Did you know that a card transaction is charged to the retailer ?
You pay at tesco, by card, and the 2.95% fee is paid by all....including cash customers
You think the banks/retailers are going to do it free ?
You're STILL going to be paying for the bad drivers, and the uninsured drivers, because the cost of accidents is not going to be covered by the fuel+ income....which will be third party anyway...so you are still going to buy fully comp...and it won't be cheaper either..
And with fuel at 140p/ltr in many places now I doubt that many young drivers will be driving, or driving on their own fuel.
Those "running on red" are not going to be paying insurance either....and no doubt those running on low-tax-legal-fuel (gas) will be paying above the cost...I doubt it will be a percentage....more likely another 10p/ltr
Let's see....at about 20 million litres per day....

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

At least those drivers would still be forced to ay towards the insurance pot, even if they cannot make any claim from it. That sounds like an improvement to me!


You need to answer one of my previous questions to you in order for you to validate your point:




I think your cynicism is getting the better of your logic.


A redundant comment. This is already in effect.


They'll do what they are doing today with the tax and duty.


Like it isn't that way today? I cannot see how your point has any real-world relevance.


You are wrong. Fully comp insurance will be a real choice, and being as that insurance companies won't get guaranteed income, they will have to become competitive. If you disagree, can you explain how without resorting to cynicism?


Are 1 in 10 drivers driving on the fuel of others?


Why not?


You are obviously against the idea, but so far I can't see that you've given any real substance behind why.

However, one real downside is the lack of financial incentive to drive safely. For whatever reason, the No Claim Bonus policy is a significant motivation towards remaining safe, separate to not dinging your car or injuring/killing someone.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I don't agree with this. I don't think anyone drives along thinking "I'd better be careful in case I lose my NCB".

Ask yourself the converse of this. Do people go out one day and say to themselves "Today I don't give a stuff about my NCB, I'm going to drive recklessly"?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

You are right. I was in a boring seminar when I typed that and I was switched-off enough to forgot to include my crucial weasel: "some people".
I do believe (but cannot substantiate) the NCB makes a difference to the way some people drive: "I want to protect my NCB".

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I agree - plus the impact of claims leading to higher premiums and difficulty in obtaining cover. Across the driving population as a whole the effect is maybe less than many suppose, but it's still there to some extent.

Remember that you would have to obtain additional insurance for fire, theft and own damage, so a large majority of legally driven cars would have a specific insurance policy as well.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

If insurance were much cheaper tomorrow would those without insurance actually all cough up anyway? The ones that drive uninsured are likely to be driving an incorrectly registered and uninsured vehicle because they are likely to be a criminal in many other ways.

The uninsured aren't caught often enough or punished hard enough. A pathetic few hundred quid fine isn't sufficient. Those that have been driving around for a while uninsured perhaps need a spell in prison or a massive life damaging fine that leaves them in penury so they are a deterrent to others. An uninsured person involved in an accident regardless of fault should perhaps be forced to pay back whatever the costs were to the insured party. Again, another way of forcing responsibility on those that refuse to take it.

Near me a guy that was driving uninsured has just been sent to prison as he hit a motorcyclist and said motorcyclist died. The accident was mostly the motorcyclists fault as he made the mistake of braking on a white line, lost control and ended up dead. It is quite a harsh thing to do. Quite unfair in many ways but will it actually deter the uninsured driver more as they realise they will be held to blame automatically? Clearly the recalcitrant uninsured driver needs to be treated in this harsh way not the accidentally uninsured eg wrong level of use or honest lapsed policy. Differentiating between the two might be tricky.

Loss of NCD is significant. Most policies will step you back two years if you have a fault claim and load you for several years after Some insurance companies are now even loading people with non fault claims.

Insurance on fuel is a nice idea but yet again it is rewarding the feckless not the responsible. Insurance needs to be much cheaper for those with claim free years and good driving histories. Those that are always bumping into other people and causing accidents should pay a lot more and checked upon to make sure they're not weasling out of insurance. Compulsory further driving tuition should be introduced for those having 2 fault claims in 5 years as their standard of driving is starting to fall below what you'd expect.

I don't think there is an easy answer. Third party insurance on fuel seems like an easy answer but it raises more questions and creates just as much unfairness. Making those pay that don't currently seems to be the fairest way. Consequences beyond the monetary for the feckless again is another possibility. A return to learner status for more than 3 fault accidents in X years would also be quite a good way of ensuring that more people would behave, especially if it were published in the local paper so they couldn't pretend it hadn't happened. Humiliation is a powerful motivator. Imagine how uncool it would be to be returned to being a learner.