You MUST have a 'box' installed before insuring you - wtf?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Podie said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

pingu393 said:

I'd quite like to self-insure for the comprehensive element and the 3rd party element that I could afford. I'd insure myself for 3rd party above a certain limit and legal protetion, and that's it. But for me, 3rd party only costs the same, or more than, TPF+T, and the comprehensive element is only an additional 15%.

Supposing you could do that, insure yourself for tp up to a certain limit you could afford and then buy insurance for the rest. In effect, tp insurance with an excess. Say you decided you'd pay tp claims up to £10k, and you bought cover for anything over £10k. You buy an annual policy in january and in March you lose your job, or have some other financial disaster. By the time you hit me in July, you no longer have £10K. Where do I get my money???

Put it in Escrow?

That would work, but already you're adding in another layer of complication.

[Podie]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Podie said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

pingu393 said:

I'd quite like to self-insure for the comprehensive element and the 3rd party element that I could afford. I'd insure myself for 3rd party above a certain limit and legal protetion, and that's it. But for me, 3rd party only costs the same, or more than, TPF+T, and the comprehensive element is only an additional 15%.

Supposing you could do that, insure yourself for tp up to a certain limit you could afford and then buy insurance for the rest. In effect, tp insurance with an excess. Say you decided you'd pay tp claims up to £10k, and you bought cover for anything over £10k. You buy an annual policy in january and in March you lose your job, or have some other financial disaster. By the time you hit me in July, you no longer have £10K. Where do I get my money???

Put it in Escrow?

That would work, but already you're adding in another layer of complication.

Excellent, like a real insurer.

Obviously this facility will cost you a £15 admin fee...

[LoonR1]

Yazza54 said:

It's true he's not stuck up, but the tt part....

Just because you can't keep up on your bike. Oh and there's no black box on it either.

[skwdenyer]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No regional variations? Just checked your profile, and you're in the South East, one of the higher rated areas! There's a coincidence.

Fair observation. I hadn't really thought about it that way - even in London, E1 (which many insurers seem to believe is permanently in a state of civil war), I pay only around £230 per year to insure my V8 Land Rover, fully comp. I was brought up (from a driving perspective) in the Lake District. I've lived all around the country, and on multiple continents. My experience is that there are often much greater factors on premium and risk than location.

Growing slightly older has a much, much greater influence upon premiums for many drivers than moving house.

What I was trying to do was to remove the marginalisation of certain groups based upon postcode. If you want regional bandings then fine; but I don't believe society's interests are well-served by charging a lot more (say 2x) for E1 1-5 when compared to E1 6-10 (say). It just encourages further malfeasance on the part of those who disadvantaged.

FWIW, I've seen far more shunts in the Lake District than I have in London

TwigtheWonderkid said:

People in rural communities are already finding it hard to run a car, with the higher mileages they have to do on school runs, shopping trips etc. Now you want to whack up their insurance costs by having them subsidise those living in cities. You really haven't thought this thru have you.

As above, yes, I have. There are many ways in which the playing field could be levelled. Insurance costs are not the major driver on rural car-ownership; over-reliance upon fuel duty and VAT (both regressive taxes) to raise general taxation is primarily at fault, coupled with (in some rural areas) uncontrolled housing costs.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Ps. I live in London. I like your idea, but from a fairness point of view as opposed to a self interest stance, why should some bloke in the wilds of Norfolk subsidise my lifestyle choice to live in London.

I'm not actually worried about your 'lifestyle choice'; I'm more concerned with my neighbours in social housing. They don't get the same choices you apparently have, to choose where to live. But we all have to share the roads with them.

Insurance premiums which (almost invariably) are loaded for those who live in the poorest areas are just another form of de facto regressive taxation. We are IMHO never going to get ourselves out of the social and economic mess we have right now if we continue to apply such strategies as shall only favour the middle-class, moderately-well-off types.

[skwdenyer]

LoonR1 said:

I've done the insurance in petrol tax thing several times on here. It's 48p per litre along with other wider social and economic impacts. None of which are particularly favourable.

I understand your point of view. Frankly, I think it should be out of general taxation, which itself needs to be overhauled.

LoonR1 said:

Thin end of the wedge? What do you know that I don't? I know expected uptake rates and also the cap being applied on uptake.

I understand that the present and immediate past are no certain indicators of the path of future policy. I understand market economics. I understand the interplay between private initiative and public policy, the degree to which the insurance companies' implementation of a "Type A" black box helps to pave the way for a mandatory "Type B" Government-spec black box to implement road pricing (itself yet another form of regressive taxation - despite my political views, is it really any wonder how much the poor of this country hate basically all governments?). I understand that principles are principles.

Apropos your 48p / litre estimate, yes, that's what everything currently costs. My back-of-the-envelope calculation said it was nearer 50p / litre. However, without rehearsing old ground, it assumes:

• no foreign drivers drive in the UK;
• no aggregation savings;
• comprehensive cover is extended to all;
• HMG doesn't (finally!) legislate to reign-in some parasitic costs;
• etc.

Further, it is not regressive upon low-mileage drivers as the current system is.

The debate will run and run, but that, I believe, is a good thing - there are seldom 'right' answers to most social problems.

[otolith]

skwdenyer said:

Further, it is not regressive upon low-mileage drivers as the current system is.

VED would be fairer to low mileage drivers were it added to fuel duty, but insurance costs do take into account mileage.

The only "benefit" I can really see for universal insurance is that lower risk drivers will subsidise higher risk ones.

[LoonR1]

otolith said:

The only "benefit" I can really see for universal insurance is that lower risk drivers will subsidise higher risk ones.

We already do to a large extent. The other proposal just suggests that we do it more and move further towards one fixed price for all. Ironic really when PH is awash with people complaining already about high premiums and demanding more bespoke insurance premiums.

[Countdown]

skwdenyer said:

<snip>I understand your point of view. Frankly, I think it should be out of general taxation, <snip>

No, we really shouldn't. Car insurance isn't a basic "essential". Paying for it out of general taxation just means that one bunch of people subsidise another and removes any personal responsibility and personal choice.