paddy Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 The obvious answer seems to be yes here. It probably sounds a stupid question. But in places like New Zealand it's not. You're obviously still responsible legally for any damage you cause, it's just a case of whether you're insured for it. The thinking behind it is to drive prices down. When it's compulsory prices get ridiculous and young drivers can be forced to pay thousands. But would it work in thus country? Probably not as well as in NZ but you never know. I think I'm in the "it should stay as it is" category at the moment but I can certainly see the other side of the argument with insurance being so expensive. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 i had never thought of it not being compulsory. i say yes, otherwise people will crash, then say they can't afford to pay the person they crashed into. insurance companies take the piss though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Not sure people in this country are honest enough to be without insurance. So many people drive without insurance these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Insurance prices are **** extortionate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 i say yes, otherwise people will crash, then say they can't afford to pay the person they crashed into. Then it goes to court and they have to pay though. They don't just get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 2, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted February 2, 2011 Yes it should, but it should be cheaper...somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
largelugs Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 You crash and leave the other person in a wheel chair. Your fault. Can't afford compensation, oh well, they'll have to live with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 i say yes, otherwise people will crash, then say they can't afford to pay the person they crashed into. Then it goes to court and they have to pay though. They don't just get away with it. the court says that because they are on benefits, they can pay it at 50p a week for the next 324 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 You crash and leave the other person in a wheel chair. Your fault. Can't afford compensation, oh well, they'll have to live with it! That's what happens at the moment though unfortunately if they drive uninsured and crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturdaygig Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 You crash and leave the other person in a wheel chair. Your fault. Can't afford compensation, oh well, they'll have to live with it! That's what happens at the moment though unfortunately if they drive uninsured and crash. No it ain't. At the moment you can claim against uninsured losses fund which is paid for by all the insurance companies - ie spread amongst those who do pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Thoughts? You completely missed the point of the Australian system. They have forgone their right to sue each other for losses caused as a result of another driver commiting the tort of "Negligence". They have a system of non fault compensation, which is state funded, so essentially taxes, rather than premiums fund the system. So you are spreading the burden of paying for care, future losses, ect through taxation on people who dont drive, cant drive, rather than limiting it to those who directly cause the losses, ie motorists. The reason why insurance is so expensive in the UK is that our system is adversarial, and there are no "set" limits for compo, only guidelines which solicitors and to an extent, courts, are always keen to see exceeded. They also have much loss of a compensation culture there. Here, it really is noticible that certain segments of the population, such as the asian community, or people from certain postcodes (generally poorer ones) are so suceptible to "whiplash" these days. honestly, I have dealt with 2 claims today where the damage is trivial scratches or very modest dents to a single panel on the rear near sides, where the taxi drivers of a certain origin have suffered terrible whiplash which will last for a year, so alone have paid out probably 20k in *very* dubious claims. However, courts are self funding in the uk. The govt does not provide enough money to keep them open, and so solicitors are now "good customers" of courts. So "good customers" get looked after. A handful of firms issue the majority of court proceedings, and usually out of Birkenhead or Liverpool County Court. Its long been known how essentialy "dishonest" these courts are. Judges will over ride expert testimony from qualified motor engineers about "whiplash" caused by trivial knocks, if enginees feel its unlikely, and the judge finds the claimant in his own personal opinion to be truthful. It is virtually impossible to plead someone cannot have been hurt in accidents - all the bent GP's who get instructed by solicitors ensure every claimant leaves with a report giving a good, lengthy prognosis, to ensure solicitors get their legal costs (claims need to settle over 1k to ensure costs are recovered by solicitors, and so surprise, experts always find injuries last long enough for this - despite medical opinion suggesting this sort of injury ought to be the exception not the rule) So GP's are generally "dishonest" as their status as qualified experts mean they are largely beyond critisicm, solicitors tend to send hundreds of claimants to these GP's everyyear, meaning the GP is reliant on the volume of work - typically a whiplash GP "expert" will be doing 8 reports a day at over £230 each. If you were a GP, you wouldnt jeopidise this by writing reports meaning the instructing solicitor loses out would you? Solicitors and accident mangement companies will coach claimants in what to say to the expert, in order to get a long enough prognosis, and therefore recover legal costs. We also have thanks to our courts, the second highest court awards in Europe, behind only Eire. There is plenty of evidence to show people from eastern europe are actually coming to England to stage accidents as they get 5x the amount you'd recover from an insurer in say, Poland, where volumes of whiplash claims are very much lower, as the population dont have the same "expectations" of the financial outcome of an accident. Add into this, all the companies who will provide a "like for like" non fault hire car for a few days at massive expense, if you had a non fault accident, including an outfit who advertise at Villa park (scumbags). If you take say, a crappy mini to a dealer, they refer you to an outfit who hire at say £80 a day, and the repairs always mysteriously take longer, rather than give you a little courtesey car for the duration. Now, thats fine, if you want/need easy compo and expensive temporary cars, then as long as you realise your paying for it, by using solicitors and accident management companies, thats fine. The australian system naturally puts a break on these things, as the Govt is the law maker and in a postion to control costs that private citizens sueing each other for ever larger court awards cannot. Insurance co's might take the piss, in which case, complain. But the real people taking the piss are people who claim for studd they dont need like hire, or for injuries they dont really have, but have been told that its free money, that they should claim. Its a recession out there - who couldnt do with an additional £2k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 3, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2011 I have no general problem with it. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 3, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2011 You crash and leave the other person in a wheel chair. Your fault. Can't afford compensation, oh well, they'll have to live with it! The New Hampshire model is interesting If you are in an auto accident and you are at fault, you could be liable (or legally responsible) for bodily injury or property damage caused by that accident. You could be sued and a court could order that your assets be taken to pay the liability claim. Even for an accident where you were not at fault or were only partially at fault, the costs of defending yourself against a legal action could be very high. New Hampshire motor vehicle laws don’t require you to carry auto insurance. However, if you have an “at-fault” accident and don’t have auto insurance, the New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles could require you to post a bond or cash equal to the amount of damage you caused in that accident. You also would be required to satisfy the New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility requirements. This means you must buy auto insurance with minimum coverage amounts set by the Division of Motor Vehicles. You must satisfy these requirements to continue to drive legally in New Hampshire. Insurers in New Hampshire are also generally free to set their own premiums on any basis they want to use (incl., for instance, credit record). Needless to say, if you decide to take the no insurance until after an at-fault accident route, you'll probably be **** over for the rest of your life (cases of needing to post $20k cash to renew your drivers license (in a state with no real public transport options) and spend $10k a year on insurance are not unheard of). Also, not being insured means never being able to leave the state (the neighboring states take exceptionally dim views of New Hampshire folks operating without insurance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 3, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2011 Just got my renewal quote from my company. It's £312 more than my insurance cost last year...hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 3 people have voted for compulsory fully comp!! explanations please?! :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Just got my renewal quote from my company. It's £312 more than my insurance cost last year...hmmm It's a right swindle Mr Stephenson. Especially for blokes - car insurance has gone up roughly 30% in the past 12 months! Even when you shop about - the best policy will still be more expensive than your previous one, even with a further years no claims bonus. There are plenty of articles about this on t'internet. What choice do we have but to pay it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 3, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2011 Just got my renewal quote from my company. It's £312 more than my insurance cost last year...hmmm It's a right swindle Mr Stephenson. Especially for blokes - car insurance has gone up roughly 30% in the past 12 months! Even when you shop about - the best policy will still be more expensive than your previous one, even with a further years no claims bonus. There are plenty of articles about this on t'internet. What choice do we have but to pay it? And that's if I pay it all up front as well! I could afford to do that last year, but this year with my newly acquired mortgage there's no chance! It'll probably be another couple of hundred for the pleasure of paying monthly. Plus my tax is due. Balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts