Insurance. - Page 2

entwisi · 11-08-2005, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

How did he get you then? I would have thought any biker worth his leathers would have poped the front wheel up as you saw him to hide the rear plate and flick him the bird as you went past.

Heh,
It was 7:45, I was slightly asleep or he wouldn't have got me in the first place. I did wonder about challanging it as he wouldn't have photo evidence but I reckon that one ticket in over 15 years isn't bad considering some of the speeds I may allegedly have travelled at at some fictional point in the past.

It all comes around at some point.

Ian

jambutty · 12-08-2005, 17:53

The logical answer to the no vehicle insurance debate is surely to put the cost onto fuel. But since when has this or any government ever been logical or for that matter done anything to make life better for the ordinary working person?

Every vehicle needs fuel to move so if a portion of the cost of petrol/diesel/lpg would buy a person 3rd party insurance then there would be no need for police catching insurance dodgers and courts fining them pitiful amounts. Adding the road tax to fuel would complete the picture. Think of the money that would save. Put simply – when you buy fuel you are automatically covered with a 3rd party insurance. If someone wants a fully comprehensive insurance for their vehicle then they buy it as an extra.

The other point is that only MOVING vehicles cause accidents so the more you move the greater the chances of your vehicle being the cause of an accident. The more you move the more fuel you need the more insurance you pay. I have yet to see a stationary car plough into someone’s garden or knock someone down. I accept that a badly parked car can be the cause of an accident but that is as rare as plaited sawdust.

In fact if you think about it the only time that your car needs 3rd party insurance is when it is moving. Think some more and calculate how many hours in a day your car is moving and how many it is in the garage or parked at your front door? I would guess that on average a car is not moving for some 80% of the time. So you are paying for something that you do not need for some 80% of the time.

OK! So it’s not quite as straight forward as I make out but Whitehall is full to overflowing of civil servants who do nothing more than push papers around, drink tea and mark time until they collect their inflation proof pensions. So put them to work and get the best brains working on the problem. If the will was there a working system could be organised.

Sadly such a scheme hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of being implemented because the people who have the authority to and can make it work are the same ones who have big gas guzzling cars and use them far more than the average person. They would have their fuel bill increased whilst we ‘peasants’ would have ours decreased and that would never do.

No doubt there would be dozens of reason put forward why such a scheme would not work. If only someone somewhere with the necessary clout would stand up and state, “Yes this could work. Let’s find out.”

entwisi · 13-08-2005, 20:43

I have always agreed that tax and insurance should be included in fuel costs. That way NO-ONE can avoid it. Those who as you rightly say use the most, pay the most(whoops, there go all those gas guzzling company cars

)
The problem is it would take a goverment with BALLS. And the last time I looked politicians seemed to have them removed when they first turned up at Westminster.

harwood red · 13-08-2005, 23:28

I have no probs with road tax going on fuel but think insurance may be a bit of a sticky one. It could lead to massive increases on the end price for products in the shops as most produce is transported by roads. Also public transport could be hit so massive ticket price increases would prob follow. There's also the issue of cars that don't move hardly paying the same as those who use cars regularly as staionary cars can still be targeted by thieves and arsonists and yet those car owners by hardly purchasing fuel would still be able to claim. It would also take away the reward of safer drivers as they who hardly claim would not be rewarded as those who are frequent claimers would in effect be paying the same insurance. I'm sure there would be some way round this but not quite sure what

entwisi · 14-08-2005, 18:32

But what we are talking about is 3rd party insurance. If you wanted cover against theft etc that would be an 'extra' that you would sort out yourself. i.e. split teh insurance into two components. The current legal minimum would go on fuel. The added extra of fire theft and comp cover would be a top up product for those who want to pay for it.

As for price increases there should not be any reason to ioncrease as we aren't talking about an increase in total premium, just an adjustment of how/where the money is collected.

Ian

vorlon24 · 14-08-2005, 19:29

I wouldn't support an increase in fuel costs - I put £15 petrol in my car earlier, and £3.25 of that was the cost of the fuel - the rest goes straight to the government, who use it to pay for caring for people who want to blow us all up.

We are taxed to the hilt as it is, and neither the public transport system nor the roads improve.

cashman · 14-08-2005, 22:39

replacing insurance by a tax on fuel is fine by me, i think most people that have had trouble-re- uninsured driver will agree. the uninsured usually drive unroadworthy cars cos they have not bothered with the M.O.T. anyway also road tax on fuel is fine,that as entwi says does not mean an increase- just redistribution of what EVERY driver should be paying,but some dont.