E-Petition to lower car insurance

[santaman2000]

Good suggestion . I took a different route . I didn't like paying the insurance premium, the tax, the MOT, the fuel. So I switched to a (pedal) bike ~ with the occasional lift from swmbo if trips/needs coincide.





There's always an additional choice or two ~ even if they don't appeal to you or are logistical difficult, they're still additional options . Sometimes you just need to jump in with both feet

Link to the story behind the pic.



The biggest thing to remember with insurance companies is that you really need to shop around. Find out whether the company you're already with can be beaten ~ and, if they are charging high, challenge them to give a more competitive quote .

All good advise.

 

[Wook]

Meh, I've always taken issue with being compelled to buy a product. Kinda seems like assuming bad faith.

By all means make the at-fault party responsible for damages in a collision. But that doesn't mean you need insurance. Even if you have to sell your stuff, take a second job etc. in order to make good on the damage you caused. This is the way it works in the case of most civil liability. Faced with the prospect of this many will choose to buy insurance anyway.

But I don't see that it needs to be mandatory. About the only person that really helps is the insurance companies themselves. What business wouldn't love it if buying their product was a legal requirement?

I don't recall what my first ever insurance was over 10 years ago, but it was over £1000 for a 750cc Fiat Panda. Now my insurance is about £300 a year for a 1.6 Vauxhall Zafira.

 

[santaman2000]

Meh, I've always taken issue with being compelled to buy a product. Kinda seems like assuming bad faith.

By all means make the at-fault party responsible for damages in a collision. But that doesn't mean you need insurance. Even if you have to sell your stuff, take a second job etc. in order to make good on the damage you caused. This is the way it works in the case of most civil liability. Faced with the prospect of this many will choose to buy insurance anyway.

But I don't see that it needs to be mandatory. About the only person that really helps is the insurance companies themselves. What business wouldn't love it if buying their product was a legal requirement?...

I don't now if it's still the case but years ago Texas offered a plan similar to what you describe. You could "self insure." That is you had the option to maintain a separate private account holding at least the minimum required liabilty coverage instead of a comercial policy. Instaed of an insurance card, you had to carrya card or paperwork showing you had said account.

 

[Wook]

I'd sign up for that in a second Santaman if it were available. Car insurance is like renting, but what you describe is like a mortgage - eventually you'll get the money back. You could even earn interest on it while you are busy not crashing ;-)

 

[Vulpes]

I don't now if it's still the case but years ago Texas offered a plan similar to what you describe. You could "self insure." That is you had the option to maintain a separate private account holding at least the minimum required liabilty coverage instead of a comercial policy. Instaed of an insurance card, you had to carrya card or paperwork showing you had said account.

What a great idea. But why did it fall through?

 

[santaman2000]

What a great idea. But why did it fall through?

I don't know if it did fall through. It was still in effect when I left Texas but that was in 1985.

 

[FGYT]

I don't now if it's still the case but years ago Texas offered a plan similar to what you describe. You could "self insure." That is you had the option to maintain a separate private account holding at least the minimum required liabilty coverage instead of a comercial policy. Instaed of an insurance card, you had to carry a card or paperwork showing you had said account.

yes you can do that in UK think you need circa £10million in the bank cash at all times

 

[FGYT]

Why not us discrimination it was used to stop cheap insurance for women

age discrimination is nearly as highly legislated against as Sex discrimination

 

[FGYT]

Meh, I've always taken issue with being compelled to buy a product. Kinda seems like assuming bad faith.

By all means make the at-fault party responsible for damages in a collision. But that doesn't mean you need insurance. Even if you have to sell your stuff, take a second job etc. in order to make good on the damage you caused. This is the way it works in the case of most civil liability. Faced with the prospect of this many will choose to buy insurance anyway.

But I don't see that it needs to be mandatory. About the only person that really helps is the insurance companies themselves. What business wouldn't love it if buying their product was a legal requirement?

I don't recall what my first ever insurance was over 10 years ago, but it was over £1000 for a 750cc Fiat Panda. Now my insurance is about £300 a year for a 1.6 Vauxhall Zafira.

cause your thinking of minor dents n stuff

a road traffic accident with deaths costs min £1million tax payer money and then there s the legal fees and damages etc you could be looking at several £million for your second job to pay off and who covers the person you put in a wheelchair and has to eat thro a straw while you build up enough to pay the first few weeks care

ATB

Duncan

 

[raskusdrotti]

Great idea in principle, but the actual outcome of stopping using age as a factor would be an increase in premiums for everyone. I paid high premiums when I was a kid and I'd rather not now thanks...

The price issues seen with young drivers now are due to the increase in third party liability costs that are averaging £5000 per person involved. Young drivers crash more - fact.

The prices getting quoted are actually the insurance companies just saying "we don't want your business"

 

[British Red]

Some companies do self insure their vehicles. They have to prove that they have assets that can cover the most serious of accidents. I have no idea how much the payout would be if you fell asleep at the wheel and caused a motorway pile up. Millions at least. If you don't have that kind of money, the insurance is there to ensure that the innocent victims of other drivers mistakes are not left footing the bill. There is another option, go third party (liability) only. Then if your car gets stolen or you hit a tree, tough, you get nothing.

As decorum says, the option if you can't afford it, is don't have a car. I had been working for years before I bought a car. Buses, trains, lifts, taxis, feet - they are all options. My Grandad worked every day of his life, never owed a car.

It doesn't upset me one jot that a 17 year old can't afford car insurance....I can't see how they can afford a car, tax, servicing, MOT, fuel etc. anyway. I'm fairly sure the reason it costs so much more for them is that they are a bad risk. I certainly couldn't have afforded car insurance at that age!

Really a car is just one of those things you have if you can afford and do without if you cant afford. Its hardly a "human right"

Where I live now, in the sticks, miles from the bus stops (literally), there are people who manage without cars. One family has five kids and manage with bikes and the school bus.

 

[rik_uk3]

Why should the fella driving a Bently pay the same as me driving a Fiat Doblo?

 

[Wook]

cause your thinking of minor dents n stuff

a road traffic accident with deaths costs min £1million tax payer money and then there s the legal fees and damages etc you could be looking at several £million for your second job to pay off and who covers the person you put in a wheelchair and has to eat thro a straw while you build up enough to pay the first few weeks care

ATB

Duncan

I think that be a chicken and egg kind of thing though FGYT. Courts award those sorts of damages because they know people have insurance to pay it. The insurance companies just put their premiums up and don't care. All the while the compensation awards get bigger and bigger as do the premiums.

In other areas of civil liability you cannot ask people for things they do not have. If my wall collapses and destroys your greenhouse which you claim cost you £50,000, you can only ask me to pay that which I have. So if my total net worth is £20,000 you can either ask me to sell everything I have and take the £20k, or you can settle to receive whatever amount I can afford each month until the debt is paid off.

 

[British Red]

Its got to do with the cost to the injured party. If a driver kills a guy who was 35 who earned £40k a year, his children lose out to the tune of 30 years of their dads salary. Should they lose their home, holidays etc. because the driver can't afford to pay out? 30 years at £40k a year is >£1,000,000

The fact is most people can't affor a million, so they have to insurance to make sure the innocent parties don't suffer

 

[Wook]

I dunno British Red, but if driving is so dangerous that it can only be done with £10,000,000 worth of liability cover I think one of two things need to happens:

either

A) We stop driving

or

B) We come to accept that a degree of risk is inherent to certain activities.

I don't think legally mandating increasingly massive levels of insurance cover is the correct approach. As I said, this is not how it works in other areas of civil liability and has not been how it worked for most of British history.

If someone wrongs you then they are bound to make good to the best of their ability. You cannot ask for more than that by definition.

Also if we're talking multi-car pileups then we are starting to get into the boundaries between civil and criminal matters. If someone through incompetence or malice causes the deaths of dozens of other people, we are really talking a criminal matter. Do murderers pay £1,000,000 compensation to the families of their victims? Should we all take out murder insurance in case we decide to commit homicide?

Not all risk can be mitigated.

 

[Vulpes]

I dunno British Red, but if driving is so dangerous that it can only be done with £10,000,000 worth of liability cover I think one of two things need to happens:

either

A) We stop driving

or

B) We come to accept that a degree of risk is inherent to certain activities.

I don't think legally mandating increasingly massive levels of insurance cover is the correct approach. As I said, this is not how it works in other areas of civil liability and has not been how it worked for most of British history.

If someone wrongs you then they are bound to make good to the best of their ability. You cannot ask for more than that by definition.

Also if we're talking multi-car pileups then we are starting to get into the boundaries between civil and criminal matters. If someone through incompetence or malice causes the deaths of dozens of other people, we are really talking a criminal matter. Do murderers pay £1,000,000 compensation to the families of their victims? Should we all take out murder insurance in case we decide to commit homicide?

Not all risk can be mitigated.

Here here! An excellent point.

 

[Vulpes]

On the subject of criminal compensation, I think it often comes out of their dole cheques, £5 per week!

 

[andybysea]

Insurannce= rip off, i understand the need for it,and in principle i agree, what i dont agree with is your paying for a service that when you use it you get ripped off, why should you have to pay a excess on that service if you make a claim=rip off,then your premiums go up next year=rip off sure pay for insurrance but you should'nt have to pay twice or three times for the same product=rip off. And the initial cost are a scandal,they pretend they have to put costs up to cover all the claims but i bet the bosses are raking it in=rip off.

 

[santaman2000]

...In other areas of civil liability you cannot ask people for things they do not have. If my wall collapses and destroys your greenhouse which you claim cost you £50,000, you can only ask me to pay that which I have...

So you don't have home owner's insurance? Including a liability component in case someone is injured in the home and sues? It's not a "legal" requirement over here but the bank certainly requires me to have it as long as they hold the mortgage. Failing to maintain said insurance is "legal" grounds to foreclose the mortgage by reason of the original contract. Neither I nor most people I know could affard to pay cash for our homes.

 

[British Red]

Not all risk can be mitigated.

Agreed, but driving is dangerous, so as a responsible car driver, you should cover the risk.

I do carry multi million pound insurance for other dangerous activities I choose to aprticipate in (e.g. shooting). Its the responsible thing to do.

No-one needs a car. Its a luxury. Many people manage without.

If you shift the responsibility to the taxpayer, then people who can't afford cars, but have to pay tax, will end up paying out for those who can afford cars. Thats even less fair.

Equally the current system means that bad drivers, or drivers who drive more powerful cars, or the inexperienced, pay more. That seems fair surely?

If you are anti profit, why not insure with a "not for profit" organisation?

The co-op give any profits back to their members

http://www.co-operativeinsurance.co...1202285792989,CFSweb/Page/Insurance-GetaQuote

Whats unfair about that? No profits taken