E-Petition to lower car insurance

[Wook]

In my case British Red I don't want the taxpayers to foot the bill either. I just don't agree with what basically functions as a pre-emptive fine.

If someone has wronged you, by all means seek restitution. But being legally required to make payments toward making restitution for a crime I have not committed yet seems unjust. I appreciate that adopting such an approach would not be without its problems (such as eliminating the possibility of very large compensation payments), but it strikes me as more moral.

I don't object to people voluntarily taking out insurance, or the providers making profits. I do object to being legally required to buy something from a private company.

Each man should be responsible for his own conduct, and he should only be held accountable for things he has actually done (as opposed to might/could do).

 

[FGYT]

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.

nope but my parents dont have a mortgage and no house insurance either ( I had ot get a letter from Mum n Dad stating no house insurance for Barclaycard to pay out on their policy as they wouldn't cover if you did have it they really where surprised and dont think they offer that cover any more for dive kit I lost of a dive boat ..... just like the Mr bean advert they did where his Binos bounce of the boat into the sea)

[video=youtube;UvQBly324i0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvQBly324i0[/video]



nore does my neighbour he cancelled the house insurance the day his mortgage was paid off

however I do carry insurance of several Million if I go shooting

and I have to carry Public liability Insurance for my trade stand at any organised event thats £5million

I dont bother with life insurance as that jumps from £20 to £200 a month cause Im qualified as a Technical diver and a PADI instructor so a danger to myself

Again if I teach Diving I have to have Public liability Insurance PADI requirement tho im sure some on here would eb happy if I put them in a coma for a few weeks and unable to look after them self with brain damage after a dive coc up with one off of the few thousand Im worth

ATB

Duncan

 

[Retired Member southey]

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.

No, they loose their liberty

 

[British Red]

Each man should be responsible for his own conduct, and he should only be held accountable for things he has actually done (as opposed to might/could do).

Now in may ways I agree with you there, in the case of causing death, it might meen they take all the money you will ever earn for the rest of your life, but that would be your risk to run.

Do you think that laso applies to an MOT - after all, why should you have to prove that your vehicle is roadworthy? It costs money to do so.

How about gun law? A man who want to own a machine gun for fun on the range has done nothing wrong. If he wants to carry it in the street, he is also not hurting anyone else by doing so.

How about racing cars in the street? Is that okay until someone gets hurt?

I know all those things are illegal now, but of course so is driving without insurance. In many ways I agree the Nanny state goes far too far, and people should only be responsible for what they do - not penalised for what they might do.

But I also fear that most people disagree - we have the toughest gun laws in the world for fear of what people might do. I don't agree with those laws, but since I live in a democracy, I have to accept them.

I guess we all do think that limits should be imposed for fear of what "might" happen. Speed limits, safety rules in nuclear power stations, and so on.

Every one of those restrictions impacts on someones liberty.

Just where the line should be drawn is something we will all have differing views on.

 

[santaman2000]

nope but my parents dont have a mortgage and no house insurance either ( I had ot get a letter from Mum n Dad stating no house insurance for Barclaycard to pay out on their policy as they wouldn't cover if you did have it they really where surprised and dont think they offer that cover any more for dive kit I lost of a dive boat ..... just like the Mr bean advert they did where his Binos bounce of the boat into the sea)




nore does my neighbour he cancelled the house insurance the day his mortgage was paid off

however I do carry insurance of several Million if I go shooting

and I have to carry Public liability Insurance for my trade stand at any organised event thats £5million

I dont bother with life insurance as that jumps from £20 to £200 a month cause Im qualified as a Technical diver and a PADI instructor so a danger to myself

Again if I teach Diving I have to have Public liability Insurance PADI requirement tho im sure some on here would eb happy if I put them in a coma for a few weeks and unable to look after them self with brain damage after a dive coc up with one off of the few thousand Im worth

ATB

Duncan

Yeah, as I said it's not a "legal" requirement here and many people do cancel their home owners once the mortgage is payed off (but that's about 30 years normally) I won't do though; it's just not smart in a hurricane area. Or with our sue happy mentality over here.

If you think life insurance is expensive for divers, try to get it with a pilot's certificate!

 

[rik_uk3]

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.

Lets say you run over Auntie Flo and she ends up paraplegic requiring intensive support and care, who pays for that? Lets say she needs her home modifying to the tune of £25,000, can you pay that? Modified vehicle £25,000, then live in 24 hour support @ bare minimum £10 an hour so about £7,000 a month, Can you afford that? Her loss of earnings £25,000 a year for the next 30 years so another £750,000 plus adjustment for inflation takes you up to about £1,000,000. You could not pay any of that really so why should old flo loose out because you are miffed at paying for insurance?

 

[cbr6fs]

Like most things in life things are not always as black and white as they seem.

Sure there are many insurance companies that are raking it in, their standard of conduct is also deplorable (did you know that if you ring for a quote that company then sells their quote to competitors?).

With some stuff they do have their hands tied though.
Folks putting in false whiplash claims dramatically increase car insurance premiums for all of us, as do those that push claims to screw the most out of them.

With modern cars it's also a LOT more expensive to have even the smallest of prangs.
If say 2 air bags go off, then the value of the air bags could well be more than the car is worth, never mind fixing the aesthetics of the car.
A guy a work recently had a 20mph bump in his Honda Insight, he was quoted €6000 JUST to replace the air bags.


So we as the general public do have a responsibility for increasing these premiums, as it's us that put in the claims.


What gets me as well is that folks spend more time and expend more energy moaning about their car insurance price rather than doing something about it.
The old gal was complaining about her insurance a while back, i made 6 phone calls and reduced her premium by half.

There are also several fairly easy things you can to reduce your premium.
Increasing your excess, can dramatically reduce your premium.
Fit a security device, fitting a Thatcham approved alarm and immobiliser reduces your premiums.
Reduce your mileage
Don't get caught on driving offences
Clear out those old bikes out the garage and garage your car at night
Think about any claims, if your claiming to respray a scratched bumper then your loss of no claims bonus is very likely to be more than you just paying for the repair yourself.
The car you choose also makes a MASSIVE difference to the premium, so go through and be choosy about the car you buy.

End of the day though like BR said you really have the choice on if to pay it or not.
If you don't want to pay it, don't drive a car.




Cheers
Mark

 

[andybysea]

If i buy a Potato for x amount, then why should i be charged again for eating it,then the price goes up again when i go to buy another, this is basically what insurrance does.

 

[ged]

If you think motor insurance is expensive here, try living in western Europe.

 

[Wook]

Lets say you run over Auntie Flo and she ends up paraplegic requiring intensive support and care, who pays for that? Lets say she needs her home modifying to the tune of £25,000, can you pay that? Modified vehicle £25,000, then live in 24 hour support @ bare minimum £10 an hour so about £7,000 a month, Can you afford that? Her loss of earnings £25,000 a year for the next 30 years so another £750,000 plus adjustment for inflation takes you up to about £1,000,000. You could not pay any of that really so why should old flo loose out because you are miffed at paying for insurance?

All well and good rik, but why should I start paying the price for this heinous crime before I have comitted it?

 

[Dannytsg]

Signed. Im a little sick of rising prices now also. Somehow even though I have 6 years of claim free driving my insurance is still rising year on year.

 

[dwardo]

The reason we have such high insurance is the claim culture we have adopted in the past 20 years and our "right" to damamges.
I remembe rmy first accident and the subsiquent trip to the doctor that was on the insurance companies books. I walked in with a bit of a stiff neck and walked out a cripple with phsychological trauma. I also think a lot is down to the way cars are now made too. This is less avoidable due to "crumple zones" etc but now even low inpact collisions and the more modern cars just disintegrate and are often written off at massive costs.

Great series to download here http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/reith The rule of law and its enemies. Canne for the life of me remember where they discuss insurance and the scary overlap into law and economy.

 

[Vulpes]

The reason we have such high insurance is the claim culture we have adopted in the past 20 years and our "right" to damamges.
I remembe rmy first accident and the subsiquent trip to the doctor that was on the insurance companies books. I walked in with a bit of a stiff neck and walked out a cripple with phsychological trauma. I also think a lot is down to the way cars are now made too. This is less avoidable due to "crumple zones" etc but now even low inpact collisions and the more modern cars just disintegrate and are often written off at massive costs.

Great series to download here http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/reith The rule of law and its enemies. Canne for the life of me remember where they discuss insurance and the scary overlap into law and economy.

We can thank the Americans for bringing all that legal claim rubbish this way...

 

[dwardo]

We can thank the Americans for bringing all that legal claim rubbish this way...

Pretty sure we came up with the idea first

 

[santaman2000]

We can thank the Americans for bringing all that legal claim rubbish this way...

Partly perhaps. But not entirely.

Don't ask me how many years ago this sequence of events happened but I know at least that it was since I returned to the US in 1989:

First: A US woman bought coffee at a McDonald's drive through window and placed the cup between her legs and pulled the lid off to add creamer and sugar. When the driver (a family member) went over a speed bump while leaving the parking lot the coffee spilled and scalded her thighs. She successfully sued McDonald's for an amount in excess of $1,000,000 (Unfortunately I don't remember the exact amount)

Next: A year or two later, a woman in the UK had a similar accident and tried a similar approach but the UK judge dismissed the case. I don't remember his exact words but they were something to the effect, "This is not America. We will not award massive amounts for people who simply want money for not displaying common sense. Only an idiot doesn't know that coffee is hot or doesn't take the appropriate precautions and expect someone else to pay for that lapse on their part."

Both these occurences were in the news over here and my point is simle. Sue culture and ridiculous awards is indeed common over here and it may well be the model you're now using. However, your judges at least had the common sense to reject it at one point. You cain't blame us if they've abandoned that common sense; they did that on their own.

 

[santaman2000]

Pretty sure we came up with the idea first

Our basic legal system is indeed a copy of English common law (or on some states, the Napoleonic Code) but I think he's right that we're the ones who took frivolous claims to the extreme.

 

[FGYT]

You cain't blame us if they've abandoned that common sense; they did that on their own.

Which is strange as in the USA you can Sign away liability

but in UK its not legally enforcable even if you want to

i.e. the signs about saying you leave your car at your own risk . They have supplied a parking space and the sign basically says they take no liability for it assumption is that by parking there you agree to them not being liable
this isn't legally true Even if they made you sign a waiver stating they have no liability you can still take them to court if your car gets damaged as they provided the facility etc

We have totally different Legal forms for Dive students to sign because if that
PADI being a USA based company in America you basically sign to say you and your family cannot sue if your instructor causes you harm by accident or incompetence

For PADI UK you sign an assumption of Risk stating you understand there is a risk But the Dive instructor needs Public liability Insurance (recommended with records for 7yrs after you stop teaching just in case) in case they cause you harm by accident or incompetence and you do Sue etc.

ATB

Duncan

 

[cbr6fs]

If i buy a Potato for x amount, then why should i be charged again for eating it,then the price goes up again when i go to buy another, this is basically what insurrance does.

All well and good rik, but why should I start paying the price for this heinous crime before I have comitted it?

Purely out of interest would you prefer insurance to be optional, or would you like to see insurance companies run at a loss because they're paying for the thousands of dozy drivers on the roads?

 

[wingstoo]

Hmmm, best not go down that route...There are far more "toe rags" ripping off those companies which is inflating my costs every year because of their dodgy claims... some people now claim for whiplash for accidents that before the ambulance chasing lawyers came along was just a fact of life, now it's a nice little earner when it can get you anything upwards of £2500 for a night of discomfort...Others do have a good claim, but when you see the payouts made on some incidents compared to the actual cost of the insurance the driver gets away very lightly...Just look at the Selby rail crash... The driver who caused that paid very little insurance premium compared to the millions the insurance company paid out.

Legal sources suggested that the bill for insurers could be greater than the record £30m paid out after the Selby train crash three years ago, when a van driver, Gary Hart, fell asleep at the wheel and sent his vehicle careering down an embankment into the path of an intercity train.

Meeting the cost of claims from illegal drivers cost each of Britain's 31 million legitimate motorists an average of £30 in premiums last year.

More than one in 20 drivers on Britain's roads has no valid insurance policy

It's the usual thing, if everyone did the right thing then costs come down, shops add a percentage to the unit costs because shop lifters steal things, but do we say they are "Toe rags" for pricing that way?

My first insurance premium was under £90 for a 3 door Escort Estate with business cover third party for a year, I am still paying under £400 a year with a fully comp, protected no claims, and legal cover with easy payment scheme, that's for a 2.5TD5 Discovery. costs me more than that for a set of tyres.

 

[Vulpes]

The point is, insurance is a good thing and it's not the only thing in life that's going to take your money, true. It's there for a sensible reason. The point is, the price is ridiculous. Young drivers should pay a high premium, because a high percentage of young drivers have an accident within the first two years of driving, especially at night, but there's a point when it crossed the line to when it gets so high that it's ludicrous. I payed out on trade insurance about £65 a year as an apprentice plumber I think. I could have gassed someone, flooded a house or blown something up - what's the difference? Flood an engineered oak floor and you'd be looking at £2000.

With disability costs, I think some of that would be covered with incap benefit. Also there's grants and other funding from the government. I know someone with severe cystic fibrosis who's just got a brand new Seat Ibiza, so there has to be some scheme out there funding accessibility and mobility for the disabled.

I'd say that mostly the middle aged men in shirts and trophy wives going up the M25 in SLKs, X5s and other silly, high maintenance cars at 120mph tick me off most. Then it's the old folks, who are just to be honest, pure lethal and are responsible for most of the head on collisions down this way. A driver of 17 is a very rare thing these days.

True a car is a luxury, but that depends on where you live and work. If it makes life that much easier, then you save and sacrifice and find the cheapest way to get and maintain one, like most normal people do. If you've got the cash to throw at everything, then well, good for you.

A car is another tool that deserves respect like any other. I've done some silly driving in the past and I've learnt my lesson and gained a lot of experience.