Safe Speed Forums

Why not run it as a PLC, your premium is a share in the company for 3rd party liability and it is openly calculated by the power to weight ratio of the car (the damage it is capable of causing). Profit is given back to no fault share holders.
A second optional premium is for fire and theft openly calculated as a %of the value of the car with similar profit rules.
A third optional premium will cover replacement of vehicle, again calculated against vehicle value.

ie individuals still get to choose the level of cover but they pay to insure the car which anyone can drive with permission. If the vehicle is involved in an at fault accident the policy expires and must be renewed plus X% for 5 years reducing at X/5 each year.
SO! IF you choose to allow young son/daughter to drive it, watch out. 2 accidents in a year will cost 3 premiums for starters plus 2X% loading.

Any car driven on the road which has no insurance and is not reported as stolen becomes PLC property.

No fault policy/share holders stand to get some of their money back. At fault policy/share holders are penalised. Road safety is drastically improved in the first year of implementation so ALL premiums are reduced.

OH! And stuff the effects this has on insurance companies, they have failed to be open, made massive profits and fleece every one of us.

But the law does not require cars to be insured. The law requires drivers to be insured.

Well thats a good place to start. Why not make the basic insurance requirements 3rd party ANY DRIVER.

That should do it..

....its a racket!

So sir, not for a bike but I have lots on my car and an advanced test too. But that doesn't matter. But any crashes and points on my car policy count against me on my bike insurerance. Huh?

WHY -i insure my car for me only as no one in house drives - don't make
sense of paying more when don't have to.
Still can't see whats wrong with abolishing road tax & put it on petrol - stops tax dodging.
At moment no insurance -no road tax.
Change the system to make it no insurance - no mot - and display an insurance disk on windscreen to cover all cars

2) Car insurances aren't a rip off as often thought. The last figures I saw which compared premiums to pay outs, put motor insurances on a loss of £100million in one year.

Net Premiums: 9.5 billion

Total claims and expenses: £9.6 billion

Naturally the reason to get into car insurance in the first place is to have access to a huge pool of liquid assets, to invest and make money. That's perfectly acceptable behaviour

As I said Paul:



If motor insurance was a near guaranteed way to lose 10million a year, no one would do it. Of course they gain from it. The issue isn't if motor insurance is a viable business model, but if the premiums the insurance people charge are unreasonable and are a 'rip off'. I think the fact that they pay more out in claims and expenses than they take in premiums would indicate that premiums are not a rip off, but a fairly accurate indicator of risk for the insurer.

I think the fact that they pay more out in claims and expenses than they take in premiums would indicate that premiums are not a rip off, but a fairly accurate indicator of risk for the insurer.

I think the fact that they pay more out in claims and expenses than they take in premiums would indicate that premiums are not a rip off, but a fairly accurate indicator of risk for the insurer.