Nationalise Car Insurance

[simoid]

Why?

At present, those who run our roads are influenced by pressure groups and the like.

If the authorities were (more) directly responsible for the costs and risks of accidents, it follows that they should put more time and effort into making our roads safer, instead of merely slowing us down (>95% of accidents aren't because a driver was breaking the speed limit).

Car insurance companies want to make profit (fair enough) but they aren't particularly concerned with making the roads safer - only making sure their investments are covered.

Perhaps not a thought for this point in the economic cycle, but for future, directly align the priorities of insurance companies and governments.

[alfabadass]

The government force us to have car insurance.

They should provide the service.

Something that is fair, non profit and no piss taking large amounts so cash for crash etc is eliminated.

[kambites]

There's certainly an argument for using taxes to provide third-party only cover.

[AlfaDogvan]

kambites said:

There's certainly an argument for using taxes to provide third-party only cover.

which would be perfect for my Alfa that's worth less than a pack of crisps, yet strangely fully comp is cheaper than 3rd party?

also if this happened then the price of insurance would suddenly drop, due to the loss of a captive market.

online petition anyone?


ADV

[GadgeS3C]

AlfaDogvan said:

also if this happened then the price of insurance would suddenly drop, due to the loss of a captive market.

ADV

I believe the car insurance market currently makes a loss which is subsidised by other areas of insurance - so separating it would actually increase the price of insurance.

Then of course there's the minor issue of the government administering it - insurance by those awfully competent people at the DVLA - "oh, we cancelled your insurance because we lost the form somewhere...".

No thanks.

[otolith]

I can't think of anything worse. You would create the opportunity for arbitrary political interference in insurance costs and cover availability:

• We're putting your insurance up because your car emits too much CO2. If you don't like it - tough.
• We no longer cover the under 25s on high performance cars. If you don't like it - tough.
• We are going to load speeding convictions with a 200% increase in premium. If you don't like it - tough.
• We are going to treat speeding drivers as at fault in all accidents. If you don't like it - tough.

You would have to deal with the public sector. If you got bad service - which, on track record, you would - you would have no option to go elsewhere. Don't like the approved repairer, or the speed or quality of service - tough - we've got your money, now fk off.

[kambites]

Personally, I'd like to see the whole "like-for-like hire car" thing toned down. I could put up with driving a Hyundai i10 or similar for a couple of weeks if someone hit the Lotus for the savings it'd give in premiums if everyone had to.

[wombat172a]

No thanks.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

* We're putting your insurance up because your car emits too much CO2. If you don't like it - tough.

• We no longer cover the under 25s on high performance cars. If you don't like it - tough.
• We are going to load speeding convictions with a 200% increase in premium. If you don't like it - tough.
• We are going to treat speeding drivers as at fault in all accidents. If you don't like it - tough.

So whats different?

[otolith]

Killboy said:

So whats different?

You can take your business somewhere else - if the loading is arbitrary rather than deserved, another insurer will be able to undercut it, win your business and still make a profit.

[Triumph Man]

kambites said:

Personally, I'd like to see the whole "like-for-like hire car" thing toned down. I could put up with driving a Hyundai i10 or similar for a couple of weeks if someone hit the Lotus for the savings it'd give in premiums if everyone had to.

Yeah I can agree with that. There's also something cleansing about driving a small under powered shopping trolley as well. If more people drove one, we might see a resurgence in being in control of the driving, rather than some electronica sorting it all out for you.

[The Black Flash]

kambites said:

There's certainly an argument for using taxes to provide third-party only cover.

Indeed, as visited many times on here, and something I would definately support.
But I wouldn't fancy the government running any other sort of insurance, because they're less trustworthy than insurance companies. You need look no further than how all governments have treated National Insurance. Intended as an insurance scheme to pay for your healthcare, it has since become just another tax. Healthcare now relies on the next generation to pay for the costs of the previous (i.e. a Ponzi scheme). Governments would be no more prudent with a car insurance scheme.

[SrMoreno]

They do this in Canada, or at least in British Columbia, through ICBC. I think you also have the option of using insurance through commercial providers.

Sounds like it's well implemented over there, so may be worth looking at.

[AlfaDogvan]

otolith said:

I can't think of anything worse. You would create the opportunity for arbitrary political interference in insurance costs and cover availability:

• We're putting your insurance up because your car emits too much CO2. If you don't like it - tough.
• We no longer cover the under 25s on high performance cars. If you don't like it - tough.
• We are going to load speeding convictions with a 200% increase in premium. If you don't like it - tough.
• We are going to treat speeding drivers as at fault in all accidents. If you don't like it - tough.

You would have to deal with the public sector. If you got bad service - which, on track record, you would - you would have no option to go elsewhere. Don't like the approved repairer, or the speed or quality of service - tough - we've got your money, now fk off.

some good points I hadn't really thought of, however something needs to be done.
as for the insurance doesn't make a profit argument, my understanding was that they don't declare the money made buy investing insurance money as profit. which really is all part of running insurance. if they truly ran at a loss they wouldn't be doing it. its just another tool for asking for more money. happy to be corrected if im wrong on that.

ADV

[Scootersp]

GadgeS3C said:

I believe the car insurance market currently makes a loss which is subsidised by other areas of insurance - so separating it would actually increase the price of insurance.

This notion just has to be complete nonsense given the advertising time given to car insurance over the other supposedly profitable types?

If there is no profit in it why do companies on finding out that you have got a lower quote elsewhere then magically price match it, surely they'd let you go over and there by save themselves the certain loss.

I accept a bad year can happen for an individual company here and there every year but the industry as a whole must be profitable.

[randlemarcus]

Triumph Man said:

Yeah I can agree with that. There's also something cleansing about driving a small under powered shopping trolley as well. If more people drove one, we might see a resurgence in being in control of the driving, rather than some electronica sorting it all out for you.

OK, so you're creating case by case differences already. It's sensible to say you can live without a sports car for the duration, but what about if you bought an estate because you very regularly have two adults, three kids and two labs? Still OK with that microcar?

[kambites]

AlfaDogvan said:

some good points I hadn't really thought of, however something needs to be done.
as for the insurance doesn't make a profit argument, my understanding was that they don't declare the money made buy investing insurance money as profit. which really is all part of running insurance. if they truly ran at a loss they wouldn't be doing it. its just another tool for asking for more money. happy to be corrected if im wrong on that.

As ever, it's almost impossible to accurate gauge whether car insurance is profitable or not. However, it is highly competitive, so I don't believe that the profits are large in percentage terms if they exist at all. I'm certain it wont be out of single figure percentages overall.

[kambites]

randlemarcus said:

Triumph Man said:

Yeah I can agree with that. There's also something cleansing about driving a small under powered shopping trolley as well. If more people drove one, we might see a resurgence in being in control of the driving, rather than some electronica sorting it all out for you.

OK, so you're creating case by case differences already. It's sensible to say you can live without a sports car for the duration, but what about if you bought an estate because you very regularly have two adults, three kids and two labs? Still OK with that microcar?

This is why I said "toned down" rather than "removed". Obviously a car that can provide the same level of practicality may be needed, but it should be the cheapest such car available, IMO.

[CaptainSlow]

otolith said:

I can't think of anything worse. You would create the opportunity for arbitrary political interference in insurance costs and cover availability:

• We're putting your insurance up because your car emits too much CO2. If you don't like it - tough.
• We no longer cover the under 25s on high performance cars. If you don't like it - tough.
• We are going to load speeding convictions with a 200% increase in premium. If you don't like it - tough.
• We are going to treat speeding drivers as at fault in all accidents. If you don't like it - tough.

You would have to deal with the public sector. If you got bad service - which, on track record, you would - you would have no option to go elsewhere. Don't like the approved repairer, or the speed or quality of service - tough - we've got your money, now fk off.

We are putting up your premium because too many other people are having accidents. If you don't like it - tough.

[dictys]

I like the idea we have here in dubai, where the car is insured not the driver.

Here for example, you insure the car, any resident over 25 can drive it.

When it goes for its MOT certificate each year, you have to show the insurance for the vehicle, pay the test fee, road tax, pay any fines and it all passes you get issued a certificate for that year. A sticker goes on your number plate telling everyone when it is taxed etc to next year.

If a car is spotted by the plod without a sticker or with a sticker but unregistered, the car is impounded and whoever the car is registered to is fined.

Insurance is normally around 7% to 10% of the car value and the other yearly charges come to about £100 all in.

petrol is around 17p/l which also keeps the costs down.