Why is driving uninsured such a big deal?

[datum77]

You're driving down a road bordered all the way by houses with cars either side of the road in your uninsured car. You're doing the legal limit, and the car has tax and MOT. A small child runs out between 2 cars and you run this child over and kill it. Who's fault is it?.

As you are pig-ignorant and stupid, I dare say you will say it's the child's fault. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You should NOT be on any public road in a vehicle that, having been involved in an incident, (it is NOT an accident), will not have the means to put right the very serious damage that you have done to this childs parents/siblings/family etc., etc.

I dare say you are also part of the brainless twallops that don't wear a seat belt and drives using his mobile phone.You probably drink and drive as well, oh, and take drugs. And then get behind a steering wheel.

God help us.

[Hol]

J4CKO said:

I pay £250 to insure a 350Z, it just isn't fair is it, the old farts like me with money and nice cars have all the fun dont they ?

What people dont see is those years building no claims, driving st boxes like the mighty Metro Clubman 1.0, Peugeot 309 "Look" and the Polo 1050, they don't see the times I had to leave my car at home and cycle in the pissing rain because I had no money for petrol. I had to work long hours, do exams, change jobs and generally get on with it, all for eight grands worth of aging Japanese sportscar

You are either born rich or you have to do your time, either without a car or with one you can afford to insure, you have to get older, prove responsibility, skill and care, or at least get away with being a dick.

So, it really annoys me when people still drive despite not being insured, taxed or MOT'd, I did my time, I took responsibility for my place on the road and am enjoying the benefits of that (and still paying for the privilege) so I don't want some scratter, smoking a spliff, driving a Punto they bought for £100 like a tt ruining that by piling into me, then running off like a marauding baboon rather than facing any consequences.

Sometimes, if your life is st, it may not be anyone else's fault other than your own, or you just haven't done your time and paid your dues, effort in generally equals rewards out and nobody is going to change the rules just for you, there are rarely short cuts.

I like that!

[Dr Jekyll]

datum77 said:

As you are pig-ignorant and stupid, I dare say you will say it's the child's fault. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You should NOT be on any public road in a vehicle that, having been involved in an incident, (it is NOT an accident), will not have the means to put right the very serious damage that you have done to this childs parents/siblings/family etc., etc.

A) It's an accident by any sensible definition of the word.
B) Bad example because no amount of money can put it right.

[simon1987]

yep its mental.

i never had insurance for the first 10 years of driving. just use to get producers and ignore them. totally mental how times have changed.

[maurauth]

Dr Jekyll said:

A) It's an accident by any sensible definition of the word.
B) Bad example because no amount of money can put it right.

OK, instead of that you cause massive injuries leaving the child in a wheel chair for the rest of his life requiring round the clock care and extensive follow up surgery etc

How you going to pay for that?

[AC123]

maurauth said:

Dr Jekyll said:

A) It's an accident by any sensible definition of the word.
B) Bad example because no amount of money can put it right.

OK, instead of that you cause massive injuries leaving the child in a wheel chair for the rest of his life requiring round the clock care and extensive follow up surgery etc

How you going to pay for that?

Well at least it won't be running out into the road again.

[Dr Jekyll]

maurauth said:

Dr Jekyll said:

A) It's an accident by any sensible definition of the word.
B) Bad example because no amount of money can put it right.

OK, instead of that you cause massive injuries leaving the child in a wheel chair for the rest of his life requiring round the clock care and extensive follow up surgery etc

How you going to pay for that?

Same way as you, I have insurance.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

AC123 said:

sidaorb said:

Now could that be because so many uninsured drivers on the road have pushed premiums up.

That reasoning has always bemused me.

Scenario 1: Driver 1 is insured, driver 2 is insured – insurers pay out.

Scenario 2: Driver 1 is insured, driver 2 is uninsured but causes the accident – driver 1 insurers pay out to driver 1.

The insurance industry as a whole never has to pay any more money regardless of liability and insurance cover - so how would that put premiums up?

Claims are funded by premiums. If there are 1000 cars on the road with 100% insurance take up and 100 claims, the claims costs are spread over 1000 premiums. If there are 1000 cars on the road and 90% insurance take up, there will still be 100 claims, as all the cars are still being driven, but the cost will be paid for out of 900 premiums. Therefore each premium has to be higher to make up the shortfall of the premiums the 100 people aren't paying.

[Captain Muppet]

AC123 said:

sidaorb said:

Now could that be because so many uninsured drivers on the road have pushed premiums up.

That reasoning has always bemused me.

Scenario 1: Driver 1 is insured, driver 2 is insured – insurers pay out.

Scenario 2: Driver 1 is insured, driver 2 is uninsured but causes the accident – driver 1 insurers pay out to driver 1.

The insurance industry as a whole never has to pay any more money regardless of liability and insurance cover - so how would that put premiums up?

I'm going to retire. I've decided you get to keep working. Between us our bills will be exactly the same.

I'm hoping you won't spot that while the amount going out is the same, the amount coming in is now less and the shortfall has to be taken up by you.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Captain Muppet said:

I'm going to retire. I've decided you get to keep working. Between us our bills will be exactly the same.

I'm hoping you won't spot that while the amount going out is the same, the amount coming in is now less and the shortfall has to be taken up by you.

More concise than my explanation!

[TooMany2cvs]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Claims are funded by premiums. If there are 1000 cars on the road with 100% insurance take up and 100 claims, the claims costs are spread over 1000 premiums. If there are 1000 cars on the road and 90% insurance take up, there will still be 100 claims, as all the cars are still being driven, but the cost will be paid for out of 900 premiums. Therefore each premium has to be higher to make up the shortfall of the premiums the 100 people aren't paying.

Even more skewed than that, as the uninsured drivers will have a high overlap with the highest-risk drivers.

[The Mad Monk]

Monkeylegend said:

Ari said:

Ignore the imbecilic answers.

What you want to do is fold the rear seats flat.

This will lower and even out the centre of gravity, giving better handling and more traction.

That's twice tonight you have posted this

Well, if it was good advice the first time, it can't do any harm to repeat it!

[MGJohn]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Claims are funded by premiums.

There's a lot more to it than that. Re-Insurance.

Long time ago now but way back, I was involved with the then UK's largest Motor Insurance Company. Part of my job along with a few other Brokers, was to place various levels of ReInsurance with LLOYDS underwriters.

Fascinating subject.

Briefly most/maybe all Insurance companies, no matter how big and successful, need ReInsurance. Works like this simplified model. Say the company decides that they can cope with any one claim up to one million quid but not anything above that. So they arrange with the various brokers to spread and share any very large payouts with each "name" agreeing to cover a certain percentage above the set limit for which they will, in return, receive a percentage of that company's premium income they are giving ReInsurance cover for.

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the "Selby" Crash. That must have cost a huge amount and no doubt a range of Underwriters had to cough up huge sums under ReInsurance arrangements.

Things may be very different now but, the process must be much the same.

Without ReInsurance, one massive claim or series of claims in any one year could immediately bankrupt a Company and thus not all claims would be covered. What, an Insurance Company go mammories skyward! No way. Yes it did. That happened many moons ago. A relative had his shiny new car nicked by professionals ( broken up for parts later revealed ) but, he was insured ( so he thought ) with a company run by someone called Savundra. My cousin never got a penny. He even lost the very distinctive reg-plate.... 1111 MT if I remember correctly.

One of the most memorable TV programmes on British TV was when the late Sir David Frost cross examined Emil Savundra... may even be on YouTube...

[Wacky Racer]

I remember Vehicle & General going bust around 1968.

People were queuing up round the block at insurance brokers (No internet then) to buy another policy from someone.

[northwest monkey]

MGJohn said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Claims are funded by premiums.

There's a lot more to it than that. Re-Insurance.

Long time ago now but way back, I was involved with the then UK's largest Motor Insurance Company. Part of my job along with a few other Brokers, was to place various levels of ReInsurance with LLOYDS underwriters.

Fascinating subject.

Briefly most/maybe all Insurance companies, no matter how big and successful, need ReInsurance. Works like this simplified model. Say the company decides that they can cope with any one claim up to one million quid but not anything above that. So they arrange with the various brokers to spread and share any very large payouts with each "name" agreeing to cover a certain percentage above the set limit for which they will, in return, receive a percentage of that company's premium income they are giving ReInsurance cover for.

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the "Selby" Crash. That must have cost a huge amount and no doubt a range of Underwriters had to cough up huge sums under ReInsurance arrangements.

Things may be very different now but, the process must be much the same.

Without ReInsurance, one massive claim or series of claims in any one year could immediately bankrupt a Company and thus not all claims would be covered. What, an Insurance Company go mammories skyward! No way. Yes it did. That happened many moons ago. A relative had his shiny new car nicked by professionals ( broken up for parts later revealed ) but, he was insured ( so he thought ) with a company run by someone called Savundra. My cousin never got a penny. He even lost the very distinctive reg-plate.... 1111 MT if I remember correctly.

One of the most memorable TV programmes on British TV was when the late Sir David Frost cross examined Emil Savundra... may even be on YouTube...

Pretty sure what you talk about is what killed an unnamed insurance company a few years back. From what I heard, they had taken the premiums for life insurance (or similar) for loads of Councils. Something happened with a chap that had worked as a fitter for a council and had developed a lung disease as a result of breathing in asbestos. It had ended up in court & the court decided that although he hadn't worked for the council for over 20 years, it was a direct result of working for them that he now required constant care, specialist equipment etc. and that the council were liable. The council obviously passed it over to the insurance company to cough up, but the precedent had been set and the floodgates were open. The insurance company hadn't reinsured enough of the risk and went bust.

[caelite]

The issue isnt with the mandating of 3rd party cover it is with the lack of regulation in the insurance industry. Insurers are pricing people off the road. Not only the young but many others who are living just above the povertyline in the UK. They are doing this well running huge profit margins. The other and even larger issue in my eyes is the legalese that insurers are using these days to try harder and harder to actually NOT do there jobs as fking insurers and pass the buck onto the people they are SUPPOSED to be insuring. Like seriously

I do not pretend to be an expert in law but some of the reasoning that I have seen recently to not payout claims and drop IN10s on people are getting rediculus. An obvious example that springs to mind is recently (2014 i believe) tesco insurance refused to pay out to the 3rd party because there client passed out behind the wheel. The legal reasoning was that he wasnt in coherant control of his actions therefore he couldnt be at fault (This defence has been used in the past as a result of involuntery bodily actions resulting in manslaughters and other crimes (i.e i sneezed and stabbed him with a pair of scissors)). The 3rd party then attempted to claim back off of there own insurance who refused payment because the tesco client was found to be at fault. Leaving the 3rd party out of pocket OR having to take on the lawyers of a huge corporation out of his own pocket.

Which moves me on to the 3rd point. IN10s. WHAT THE fk. So insurers response to people not being able to afford insurance / refusing to pay for whatever reason is to INCREASE THERE INSURANCE FIVEFOLD. Like seriously WHAT THE fk. How can they even argue that they are a higher risk client. They DIDNT have insurance. Now they are showing and intrest and attempting to get insurance, OH but then they are having another brick wall thrown at them.

Ugh the more and more I think about it the more and more I just want to say sod the law and see how long it takes for them to jail me for driving without insurance/license/all the other jazz. Laws are only for the abiding and all that pish. ;D

PS: drunk post

[mustdash]

He's been here before. Poor trolling effort is poor....

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[sticks090460]

The worrying thing about this thread is that some of the people on here (one presumes) are driving around on the public highway, and are also allowed to vote,, whilst demonstrating an IQ roughly equal to that of a paramecium.

[masermartin]

mustdash said:

He's been here before. Poor trolling effort is poor....

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Yep, but it's still suckered in 6 pages of replies.

• realises he has contributed
• doh

[Megaflow]

masermartin said:

mustdash said:

He's been here before. Poor trolling effort is poor....

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Yep, but it's still suckered in 6 pages of replies.

• realises he has contributed
• doh

Help me out here, but what is the point in trolling like the OP, does he judge his sucess by how many response or something he gets?

I don't see what's in it for him. But, then again I have a life, that involves the outside world, I don't live in my bedroom, dating Mrs Palm and her five lovely daughters...