Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Jun 23, 2018 01:52

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: uninsured drivers
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 09:26 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
gopher wrote:
[...]My Approach is to include a 3rd party insurance levy on fuel, but for it to remain an offence not to have your own, that way victims are paid out regardless (and hopefully the levy remains a small fraction of fuel costs) but the scrote driver keeps their responsibilities.

Hmmm. Isn't that a bit unfair on the higher mileage drivers? And presumably also more tax will be paid as well then?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 09:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
Barkstar wrote:
More seriously what about a system like Germany? Where the plate belongs to the driver not the car? And which also acts as car tax and confirmation of insurance etc.

I think that Australia too has some form of a government managed compulsory third party insurance system that is connected to the vehicle registration.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: uninsured drivers
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 09:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:35
Posts: 643
Location: South Wales
BottyBurp wrote:
gopher wrote:
[...]My Approach is to include a 3rd party insurance levy on fuel, but for it to remain an offence not to have your own, that way victims are paid out regardless (and hopefully the levy remains a small fraction of fuel costs) but the scrote driver keeps their responsibilities.

Hmmm. Isn't that a bit unfair on the higher mileage drivers? And presumably also more tax will be paid as well then?


Yes it may be, I didn't say it was perfect, and in a world where taxation and government was fair they would use some of the tax already collected to ensure that 3rd parties losses were covered. However in the real world it would mean that 3rd parties are covered and the uninsured can still be punished for their crime.

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Uninsured drivers
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 13:18 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 16:24
Posts: 9
Safespeed wrote

Quote:
I've been looking at this on and off for years now and I am quite sure that the battle against uninsured driving has been comprehensively lost. The only answer is to give up and move on to something that we CAN control. (bad driving / drunk driving / etc).


OK, i'm new to this website, but it seems that when safespeed are saying lets forget one crime, you are losing all credibility. How safe will the roads be when there are 4 million uninsured drivers? 8 million? 16 million? The longer it's allowed to slide, the more the problem will grow.And what makes you think that bad drivers and drunk drivers ARE insured-dont you see that generally they are just different ways of describing the same people?

We dont have a website that tracks drunk drivers or bad drivers-or do we? Maybe its the same website that tracks uninsured drivers. Safespeed should be canvassing new ways of enforcement, not giving up!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uninsured drivers
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 13:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
lawman wrote:
Safespeed wrote

Quote:
I've been looking at this on and off for years now and I am quite sure that the battle against uninsured driving has been comprehensively lost. The only answer is to give up and move on to something that we CAN control. (bad driving / drunk driving / etc).


OK, i'm new to this website, but it seems that when safespeed are saying lets forget one crime, you are losing all credibility. How safe will the roads be when there are 4 million uninsured drivers? 8 million? 16 million? The longer it's allowed to slide, the more the problem will grow.And what makes you think that bad drivers and drunk drivers ARE insured-dont you see that generally they are just different ways of describing the same people?

We dont have a website that tracks drunk drivers or bad drivers-or do we? Maybe its the same website that tracks uninsured drivers. Safespeed should be canvassing new ways of enforcement, not giving up!


Nonsense. All problems should be solved as cheaply and as effectively as possible. You did understand that we're proposing that all drivers should be insured automatically funded from a levy on motor fuel didn't you? No one 'gets off'. Everyone has insurance, and we can claw back the massive resources that uninsured driving is consuming.

It is NOT Safe Speed policy that third party insurance should be included in the price of motor fuel, but it IS Safe Speed policy that the option must be investigated.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: uninsured drivers
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 14:28 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 16:24
Posts: 9
safespeed said

Quote:
Nonsense. All problems should be solved as cheaply and as effectively as possible. You did understand that we're proposing that all drivers should be insured automatically funded from a levy on motor fuel didn't you? No one 'gets off'. Everyone has insurance, and we can claw back the massive resources that uninsured driving is consuming.


Safespeed, i did understand that, and as i pointed out, this system has failed in south africa. I'd just add that i have spent 20 years working in motor underwriting, motor claims, and law, so i do have some idea of the issues.

However, since you think i haven't thought about what i'm saying, lets look at the maths. Take a currently uninsured driver who does 6000 milesp.a, in a car that averages 25mpg. he will therefore buy 240 gallons of fuel p.a. If the levy was an extra pound per gallon, this driver would be paying £240pa to 'insure' his car. Bear in mind that the average direct cost (ie not including admin costs) of a non personal injury claim is £1200, and you see that the fund would be bankrupt very quickly.

Also, all the 18 year olds who currently buy 1 litre cars because they're cheap to insure, would buy the fastest they could afford and claims, and claim costs, would rise.

The answer has to be punishment and enforcement-the various methods of fuel levies (south africa), basic insurance with the driver's licence (canada), or cheap tpo insurance with everything else an add on (Poland) have been tried and they dont work. Germany has strict checks,strict enforcement, and severe penalties, and it does work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: uninsured drivers
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 14:38 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4363
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
lawman wrote:
If the levy was an extra pound per gallon, this driver would be paying £240pa to 'insure' his car. Bear in mind that the average direct cost (ie not including admin costs) of a non personal injury claim is £1200, and you see that the fund would be bankrupt very quickly.

Is your £1200 average for the third party elements only of a claim as this is all that would be insured by this system.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: uninsured drivers
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 23:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 00:42
Posts: 310
Location: North West England
lawman wrote:
The answer has to be punishment


But what punishment? While we can look at the methods other countries use to generate cash to alleviate this problem, we also have to consider that national psychies are often very different. I don't know about Germany but we have a slice of society who are increasingly beyond the usual sanctions. Any money they have is either given by us, generated in the black economy or the result of criminal activity. Basic human rights mean we can't remove all support, using it to pay fines or for the insurance, as that would be to deny them basic human rights and any way more often as not they'd just go and make someone elses life a misery. Even locking them up cost us a fortune, and gives them a warm roof over their heads with meals. So what punishment?

The more insurance costs the fewer pay it the more insurance costs.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: uninsured drivers
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 07:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
lawman wrote:
Also, all the 18 year olds who currently buy 1 litre cars because they're cheap to insure, would buy the fastest they could afford and claims, and claim costs, would rise.

Costs of incidents are related to engine size and speed?

Really?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: uninsured drivers
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
lawman wrote:
safespeed said

Quote:
Nonsense. All problems should be solved as cheaply and as effectively as possible. You did understand that we're proposing that all drivers should be insured automatically funded from a levy on motor fuel didn't you? No one 'gets off'. Everyone has insurance, and we can claw back the massive resources that uninsured driving is consuming.


Safespeed, i did understand that, and as i pointed out, this system has failed in south africa. I'd just add that i have spent 20 years working in motor underwriting, motor claims, and law, so i do have some idea of the issues.

However, since you think i haven't thought about what i'm saying, lets look at the maths. Take a currently uninsured driver who does 6000 milesp.a, in a car that averages 25mpg. he will therefore buy 240 gallons of fuel p.a. If the levy was an extra pound per gallon, this driver would be paying £240pa to 'insure' his car. Bear in mind that the average direct cost (ie not including admin costs) of a non personal injury claim is £1200, and you see that the fund would be bankrupt very quickly.

Also, all the 18 year olds who currently buy 1 litre cars because they're cheap to insure, would buy the fastest they could afford and claims, and claim costs, would rise.


Currently motorists are paying for:

- Their own third party insurance
- The MIB
- The insurance database
- uninsured losses
- Their own uninsured loss recovery
- Policing uninsured driving
- ~250,000 prosecution per annum for uninsured driving (and No, they do not make a profit)
- ~100,000 vehicle seizures and a smaller number of crushing per annum (and no, they do not make a profit either.)
- cost of sales of ~30 million motor insurance policies per annum

Under my scheme motorists would pay for:

- third party motor insurance
- costs of sales of a few hundred 'block' policies.

Of course many would choose to purchase Comprehensive cover, but there's no change there.

This is a problem that can be made to vanish overnight at a saving to society of £100s of millions per annum.

lawman wrote:
The answer has to be punishment and enforcement-the various methods of fuel levies (south africa), basic insurance with the driver's licence (canada), or cheap tpo insurance with everything else an add on (Poland) have been tried and they dont work. Germany has strict checks,strict enforcement, and severe penalties, and it does work.


Who say the system in South Africa doesn't work?

And clearly the system in this country isn't working. We HAVE increased enforcement - at great cost - and it isn't getting better.

The problem is that this is a Genie, and once out of the bottle it's very hard to put back in. In fact, I'd say it was impossible, given real world resource constraints. If we hadn't let it out in the first place, that would be one thing. But we did. That's history. Now we have to find our way out and there's absolutely no indication that increased policing is likely to be effective AT ALL, let alone cost effective.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:07 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 16:24
Posts: 9
Malcolm W-based on the figures supplied by a major insurer (you will appreciate i can't name names as the information is possibly commercially sensitive), £1200 is the average cost of repairs to a vehicle involved in a 2 car accident. In a 2 car accident, generally one driver is at fault and one isnt, but even if it were 50/50, the hypothetical road accident fund would have to pay out a total of £1200 per accident.

Icandoit
I'm not saying engine size affects the likelihood or severity of an accident, but clearly speed does-ask yourself what would damage your car more-a 4mph crash, or a 40mph crash? If your car sustains more damage, QED it will cost more to repair. Also, engine size is an indicator of vehicle weight, and since momentum is mass x velocity, a larger engined heavier vehicle will be intrinsically more dangerous if it is the 'bullet' vehicle rather than the 'target' vehicle.

As far as injuries are concerned, they are more likely at low speeds, but less severe and therefore less costly-therefore faster cars would probably lead to faster accidents, more severe injuries, and higher claims costs.

Before you take issue with my claim that injuries are more likely at low speeds, i'd point out that is a generalisation, and dependent on many other factors, but if you want to look into it i suggest you visit the Thatcham and Transport Research Laboratory websites.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 16:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
lawman wrote:
I'm not saying engine size affects the likelihood or severity of an accident,

Really? That is exactly what 'all the 18 year olds who currently buy 1 litre cars because they're cheap to insure, would buy the fastest they could afford and claims, and claim costs, would rise' read as.
lawman wrote:
but clearly speed does-ask yourself what would damage your car more-a 4mph crash, or a 40mph crash? If your car sustains more damage, QED it will cost more to repair. Also, engine size is an indicator of vehicle weight, and since momentum is mass x velocity, a larger engined heavier vehicle will be intrinsically more dangerous if it is the 'bullet' vehicle rather than the 'target' vehicle.

I don't think 'speed' has much to do with it either. Come to a dead stop from 70mph in a Ka or a Ferrari and the chances are the deceleration will kill you, never mind the vehicle.

As for cost of repair, what has that got to do with a 'compulsory' THIRD PARTY insurance anyway? You are not going to presume the wayward yoof would choose what cars to hit are you?

lawman wrote:
As far as injuries are concerned, they are more likely at low speeds, but less severe and therefore less costly-therefore faster cars would probably lead to faster accidents, more severe injuries, and higher claims costs.

Before you take issue with my claim that injuries are more likely at low speeds, i'd point out that is a generalisation, and dependent on many other factors, but if you want to look into it i suggest you visit the Thatcham and Transport Research Laboratory websites.

I suggest you look for and post up some data that supports your premise rather than expect others to do that for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: uninsured driving
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 17:03 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 16:24
Posts: 9
Icando it wrote,

Quote:
Really? That is exactly what 'all the 18 year olds who currently buy 1 litre cars because they're cheap to insure, would buy the fastest they could afford and claims, and claim costs, would rise' read as.

Icandoit wrote
I don't think 'speed' has much to do with it either. Come to a dead stop from 70mph in a Ka or a Ferrari and the chances are the deceleration will kill you, never mind the vehicle.

Icandoit wrote
As for cost of repair, what has that got to do with a 'compulsory' THIRD PARTY insurance anyway? You are not going to presume the wayward yoof would choose what cars to hit are you?


Icandoit, let me deal with your points in order.

1. As a precise person, i was making the point that engine size per se does not cause or aggravate accidents. The proof of that is that a large engined car is no more likely to be hit whilst stationary, than is a small one. However, large engined cars are generally faster than small engined cars.
2. Your point about deceleration is valid if you hit a wall. However, most accidents involve issues of relative elasticity and angular momentum and it is the rate of change of velocity that is the key issue in determining injury, and that is governed primarily by car design. For instance, a head on collision between 2 cars each doing 35mph involves an impact velocity of 70 mph, but i would be extremely surprised to see a severe injury.

3. I think you misunderstand what third party means in insurance. It means that the at fault (first) party compensates the innocent (third) party. I have never suggested that people choose what cars to hit. The whole point of an average cost is that it reflects some claims costing more than others. Given the size of the pool of drivers, even if several idiots played a game of deliberately crashing into rolls royces, it would make very little difference to the average cost.

4. The reason i referred you to websites is that is suspected you would take issue with the statement that injuries are more likely at low speeds. I dont see this forum as a place for me to teach people about complex issues, so i referred you to independent sources where you could check that what i am saying is true.

Lawman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: reply to safespeed
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 17:34 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 16:24
Posts: 9
In reply to Paul Smith i'd just like to say that i understand his point of view. Maybe the reason i disagree is that my work stops me viewing this debate impartially-i've seen too many lives ruined by uninsured drivers. The problem with a bias is that you can never recognise your own. However, we're all human, so thats equally true for him, and possibly i'm right and he's wrong. Thats why i believe a forum like this needs to keep an open mind. Maybe there's a solution that neither of us can see, but if everyone gives it some thought, who knows?

I dont think that cost can be an issue though-most socially desirable things are unprofitable eg the NHS, Fire Service, Police, etc, but that doesnt mean the world would be a better place if we stopped funding them.

Here are a few new issues to throw in the mix;

1. what happens to insurance companies (and jobs in them) when insurance is funded by a government levy on fuel?
2. Whatever we do, we cant stop funding the MIB or Motor Insurance Database, because they are required by EU law.
3. The database is required to keep insurance details on every vehicle, accessible by the reg number-i dont see how this is compatible with a fuel levy.

I'm going to leave this forum to other people now. Hopefully one of you has the answer, and we can start petitioning the government.

Best wishes
Lawman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: uninsured driving
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 17:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
lawman wrote:
1. As a precise person, i was making the point that engine size per se does not cause or aggravate accidents. The proof of that is that a large engined car is no more likely to be hit whilst stationary, than is a small one. However, large engined cars are generally faster than small engined cars.

You have not shown us that 'speed' simply because of a 'larger' engine size has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with accident likelihood. I was trying to point out that outside fairly mundane speeds you are not likely to survive. Mundane speeds that even a lowly 1.0L car can manage that is.
lawman wrote:
2. Your point about deceleration is valid if you hit a wall. However, most accidents involve issues of relative elasticity and angular momentum and it is the rate of change of velocity that is the key issue in determining injury, and that is governed primarily by car design. For instance, a head on collision between 2 cars each doing 35mph involves an impact velocity of 70 mph, but i would be extremely surprised to see a severe injury.

And?
lawman wrote:
3. I think you misunderstand what third party means in insurance. It means that the at fault (first) party compensates the innocent (third) party. I have never suggested that people choose what cars to hit. The whole point of an average cost is that it reflects some claims costing more than others. Given the size of the pool of drivers, even if several idiots played a game of deliberately crashing into rolls royces, it would make very little difference to the average cost.

No, you claimed 'If your car sustains more damage, QED it will cost more to repair. Also, engine size is an indicator of vehicle weight, and since momentum is mass x velocity, a larger engined heavier vehicle will be intrinsically more dangerous if it is the 'bullet' vehicle rather than the 'target' vehicle.'

I simply was asking what the cost of repair of these 'larger' vehicles had to do with anything since this is about a compulsory THIRD PARTY insurance.
lawman wrote:
4. The reason i referred you to websites is that is suspected you would take issue with the statement that injuries are more likely at low speeds. I dont see this forum as a place for me to teach people about complex issues, so i referred you to independent sources where you could check that what i am saying is true.

No, you are expecting me to do your work for you. Please post up a link to anything on the Thatchem or TRL sites that supports your statement if you think there is any. Why should I do your work for you?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: reply to safespeed
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 00:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
lawman wrote:
In reply to Paul Smith i'd just like to say that i understand his point of view. Maybe the reason i disagree is that my work stops me viewing this debate impartially-i've seen too many lives ruined by uninsured drivers. The problem with a bias is that you can never recognise your own. However, we're all human, so thats equally true for him, and possibly i'm right and he's wrong. Thats why i believe a forum like this needs to keep an open mind. Maybe there's a solution that neither of us can see, but if everyone gives it some thought, who knows?


Hey, we're open to anything that works - but I can't see any sign at all that present plans are likely to work - hence the radical proposal.

Better proposals would be extremely welcome.

lawman wrote:
I dont think that cost can be an issue though-most socially desirable things are unprofitable eg the NHS, Fire Service, Police, etc, but that doesnt mean the world would be a better place if we stopped funding them.


When we spend public money we expect benefits. If we can get equivalent benefits for less, then that's a very good thing.

lawman wrote:
Here are a few new issues to throw in the mix;

1. what happens to insurance companies (and jobs in them) when insurance is funded by a government levy on fuel?


Almost no change. In our proposal the government uses the levy on fuel funds to 'block purchase' insurance policies by registration mark group under competitive tender from existing insurance companies. Because there would be hundreds instead of millions of insurance policies the insurance companies would lose some sales staff.

Compehensive insurance policy 'top ups' would be purchased by millions of car owners as they are now.

lawman wrote:
2. Whatever we do, we cant stop funding the MIB or Motor Insurance Database, because they are required by EU law.


If everyone has insurance they are redundant and any EU regulation (not 'law', I think) would need to be amended.

lawman wrote:
3. The database is required to keep insurance details on every vehicle, accessible by the reg number-i dont see how this is compatible with a fuel levy.


As above - if everyone has insurance it is simply redundant.

lawman wrote:
I'm going to leave this forum to other people now. Hopefully one of you has the answer, and we can start petitioning the government.


You're going? Was it something I said? :hehe:

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: reply to safespeed
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 08:13 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
lawman wrote:
Here are a few new issues to throw in the mix;

1. what happens to insurance companies (and jobs in them) when insurance is funded by a government levy on fuel?


Almost no change. In our proposal the government uses the levy on fuel funds to 'block purchase' insurance policies by registration mark group under competitive tender from existing insurance companies. Because there would be hundreds instead of millions of insurance policies the insurance companies would lose some sales staff.

Compehensive insurance policy 'top ups' would be purchased by millions of car owners as they are now.

And presumably the "basic" policies would not cover Fire & Theft either, and so even those people who currently have TPF&T insurance would want a top-up too.

Also, because the third party risk element was removed from the equation, there would tend to be less variation in the cost of "Fire, Theft & Own Damage" policies.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: uninsured drivers
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 09:44 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
lawman wrote:

However, since you think i haven't thought about what i'm saying, lets look at the maths. Take a currently uninsured driver who does 6000 milesp.a, in a car that averages 25mpg. he will therefore buy 240 gallons of fuel p.a. If the levy was an extra pound per gallon, this driver would be paying £240pa to 'insure' his car. Bear in mind that the average direct cost (ie not including admin costs) of a non personal injury claim is £1200, and you see that the fund would be bankrupt very quickly.


Not every driver is going to have an accident. And very few people will see "free" insurance as an excuse to run into a bus queue for a giggle.

Third party insurance via fuel duty would eradicate the problem of uninsured drivers and free police time (hmmm, I've heard that one before) for other duties.

Of course, what will happen is the money will disappear in a black hole somewhere, as seems to happen with national insurance contributions and police numbers will be cut. Or am I being too cynical?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.835s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]