no claims bonus - a shady area for me

[mandrake]

a driver that is caught driving without insurance ,should face a ban as per drink drive .drink drive is criminal and so is driving without insurance. why do people moan at high premiums for what is classed as as high risk car ,shurly if you cannot afford the cover then you cannot afford the car if you want to drive and own a high power nice motor you aught to be able to afford to run it not just repairs and fuel but the insurance aswell if you cannot afford all these things then you cannot aford to run it can you buy a cheap mondeo .just imagine god forbid. your out for a sunday run and you have an accident and for instance the bread winner is crippled for life and cannot work . you find out that the car that caused the accident, the driver is uninsured or lied thus voiding the cover, whose lifes are going to be devestated not the uninsured driver BUT YOURS you lose your livelyhood, home mabey ,your family suffer , but the criminal that caused all this walks and jumps in another car NEED I SAY MORE . ps there was nothing with the morris 1100 apart that it fell to bits the first time it got wet i had an austin 1300 gt and also the mg version many years ago

 

[Mic]

Surely the answer has be to get a sensible car not look for ways to cheat,
My first car was an Austin 1100 and about as cool as acne, but I never struggled to fill it with friends and girlfriends and it got me to where I wanted to go,
grow some b***s and get on with it.

Absolutely right.....if you cannot afford what you might like change tack.....most of us do not have many things that we might like, but do not have through lack of affordability. Life is not necessarily fair but work with it and it should get better with the years......as Peter and no doubt many others, I started with a cheap to run car (Mini 850) as did my daughters (205 and Clio) such that Third Party Fire and Theft was a calculated but reasonable risk albeit disproportionately expensive alongside the value of the car.....but that of course is not what is being insured with tft.

Mic

 

[whitenemesis]

Don't dismiss comprehensive cover. Strangely enough it sometimes works out cheaper than TPFT

 

[oldcro]

My point was that driving without insurance (and that includes being slightly economical with the truth when applying) means two parties loose, the person hit and the person driving.

Sensible people insure themselves against the latter, unless of course you have irrational rational thoughts.

 

[Frontstep]

Don't want to boast but I then got a Vanden Plas !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those little picnic tables, and real leather !!!!!

 

[d215yq]

My point was that driving without insurance (and that includes being slightly economical with the truth when applying) means two parties loose, the person hit and the person driving.

Sensible people insure themselves against the latter, unless of course you have irrational rational thoughts.

Well not really: Lets get one thing straight, insurance does not make everyone win, insurance does not reduce crashes. All insurance companies do is redistribute risk and determine who pays the cost of accidents, and for this service it syphons off a fortune in administration, advertising, legal fees and profits.

Now lets imagine a world without insurance (such as driving on the nurburgring): Firstly crashes would be reduced as people would take a lot more care knowing they would be footing the bill for any mistake caused. More importantly, all the salaries of the administrators, bankers, and finance and legal people in the insurance industry would not need to be paid for, and nor would the companies profits. Both these effects would make the average motorist much much better off, however the outcomes for each driver would be riskier and less known.

So is it rational to insure or not: this depends on numerous factors such as a persons risk aversion, circumstances and insurance premium. It's complicated further by the fact that "being economical with the truth" means you cannot be caught by the police and its only if something goes really wrong and the insurance co can prove you did it that you're in trouble - which in reality may be so unlikely to happen that it is worth it.

As for it being illegal to drive without insurance, well its also illegal to do 32mph in a 30 zone - this doesn't make it wrong or mean that people deserve to be hanged for doing it.

So in conclusion, it's easy to vilify or dismiss as stupid anyone whose told a white lie or fronted (i.e. probably 30% of drivers) and im sure makes good headlines, but in reality these people are not necessarily irrational. In fact I'd question the sanity of a young driver who has nothing to his name (and therefore nothing to lose in the worst case scenario) who is getting in debt paying thousands a year in insurance when he could get much cheaper stuff by a bit of fronting. I'd admire his honesty/morality, but honesty/morality is not a part of rational thought.

 

[Frontstep]

Thats an esoteric argument that successfully avoids reality the only way for Mr or Mrs average to have any chance of being restored as best as possible to pre accident position is by our less than perfect Insurance market.
Despite the protestations from the Insurance Industry costly litigation is mostly avoided.
If you think Insurance Companies are expensive thieves (I waver on that one)
you should try the Courts .

 

[gizze]

As for it being illegal to drive without insurance, well its also illegal to do 32mph in a 30 zone - this doesn't make it wrong or mean that people deserve to be hanged for doing it.

Girl down the road got hit by someone who mounted the pavement, she was crushed from the waist down and shattered her spine, from the age of 14 she was bed ridden, the driver was uninsured and she got nothing, not a penny.
Her mum is now her full time carer, she has left her job to do it and they scrape by at best.

Insurance is there for reasons like these, if you drive uninsured you better make sure you can cover things like the above, or live with it for the rest of your life. It is a choice, and yeah it is a moral choice more than anything else, unfortunately these days not that many people have morels.

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Girl down the road got hit by someone who mounted the pavement, she was crushed from the waist down and shattered her spine, from the age of 14 she was bed ridden, the driver was uninsured and she got nothing, not a penny.
Her mum is now her full time carer, she has left her job to do it and they scrape by at best.

Insurance is there for reasons like these, if you drive uninsured you better make sure you can cover things like the above, or live with it for the rest of your life. It is a choice, and yeah it is a moral choice more than anything else, unfortunately these days not that many people have morels.

What a disaster for the poor girl. Could the "Criminal Injuries Compensation Act" not be used? I suppose another option might be to sue the driver, but no doubt that would be "time barred" by now.

There was a similar situation IIRC when a cyclist who was riding on the kerb struck and killed someone a couple of years ago. Our laws do not seem to be at all tuned to the needs of the victim in such cases - what price their human tights? We hear plenty about the human rights of felons.

 

[Frontstep]

There is a common misconception fertilised by the Insurance industry that they constantly pay out huge amounts and act responsibly, from experience I know that this is innaccurate, but I still insure my car correctly because its the best we have.
People opting in and out of Insurance leads to some personal disasters.
I would have coded discs on cars for Insurance and M.O.T and those irritating traffic botherers would get mine and I suspect others support to enforce.
The camera npr system is good but impractical in a lot of circumstances.

 

[Alex M Grieve]

I would have coded discs on cars for Insurance and M.O.T and those irritating traffic botherers would get mine and I suspect others support to enforce. The camera npr system is good but impractical in a lot of circumstances.

Absolutely. There has to be a way of combining these things.

The law can not be purely for those who accept it and feel bound by it. These matters are not optional, and issues such as vehicle safety and the indemnification of the victims are not just matters of revenue generation.

 

[gizze]

What a disaster for the poor girl. Could the "Criminal Injuries Compensation Act" not be used? I suppose another option might be to sue the driver, but no doubt that would be "time barred" by now.

There was a similar situation IIRC when a cyclist who was riding on the kerb struck and killed someone a couple of years ago. Our laws do not seem to be at all tuned to the needs of the victim in such cases - what price their human tights? We hear plenty about the human rights of felons.

I don't know the ins and outs of it all, I just here what a terrible time they have had, dad died when she was young, single mum looking after her and then this.

 

[dieselman]

I don't know the ins and outs of it all, I just here what a terrible time they have had, dad died when she was young, single mum looking after her and then this.

Technically they can claim from the MIB and/or sue the driver, which could bankrupt the said driver for life.

 

[dieselman]

Well not really: Lets get one thing straight, insurance does not make everyone win, insurance does not reduce crashes. All insurance companies do is redistribute risk and determine who pays the cost of accidents, and for this service it syphons off a fortune in administration, advertising, legal fees and profits.

Now lets imagine a world without insurance (such as driving on the nurburgring): Firstly crashes would be reduced as people would take a lot more care knowing they would be footing the bill for any mistake caused. More importantly, all the salaries of the administrators, bankers, and finance and legal people in the insurance industry would not need to be paid for, and nor would the companies profits. Both these effects would make the average motorist much much better off, however the outcomes for each driver would be riskier and less known.

So is it rational to insure or not: this depends on numerous factors such as a persons risk aversion, circumstances and insurance premium. It's complicated further by the fact that "being economical with the truth" means you cannot be caught by the police and its only if something goes really wrong and the insurance co can prove you did it that you're in trouble - which in reality may be so unlikely to happen that it is worth it.

As for it being illegal to drive without insurance, well its also illegal to do 32mph in a 30 zone - this doesn't make it wrong or mean that people deserve to be hanged for doing it.

So in conclusion, it's easy to vilify or dismiss as stupid anyone whose told a white lie or fronted (i.e. probably 30% of drivers) and im sure makes good headlines, but in reality these people are not necessarily irrational. In fact I'd question the sanity of a young driver who has nothing to his name (and therefore nothing to lose in the worst case scenario) who is getting in debt paying thousands a year in insurance when he could get much cheaper stuff by a bit of fronting. I'd admire his honesty/morality, but honesty/morality is not a part of rational thought.

You really talk some cobblers to try to justify your own position.

The motor insurance business is a cheap method of paying claims for negligence and apparently makes no money anyway due to being competitive.

Without insurance to claim on we would all have to pursue negligent drivers through the legal system, which would be expensive, time consuming and difficult.

 

[Rory]

Technically they can claim from the MIB and/or sue the driver, which could bankrupt the said driver for life.

I'm baffled by the situation described - It's unthinkable that they're not going down the MIB route, but the claims can take many years. There are usually fairly quick interim hardship payments though.

 

[dieselman]

^ Maybe they are unaware of the MIB scheme and don't have the funds or will for a legal case.

 

[d215yq]

You really talk some cobblers to try to justify your own position.

The motor insurance business is a cheap method of paying claims for negligence and apparently makes no money anyway due to being competitive.

Without insurance to claim on we would all have to pursue negligent drivers through the legal system, which would be expensive, time consuming and difficult.

I am simply putting forward an imperfect alternative to the imperfect system we have already. Just because it is flawed does not make it less flawed than the current system!

It is a sad fact that due to the overly materialistic/illogical society we live in that the financial side of things is deemed more important than the risk we cause to others. Everyone is happy to say how sad it is that the poor little girl cannot be compensated because the driver is uninsured, but no-one asked why the accident happened in the first place, and if the driver was doing something dangerous to cause this which is the real issue here, because even if he was insured how do you compensate financially for causing such a terrible injury to someone?

I have seen on this forum numerous posts boasting of people doing well over 100+ mph and other dangerous acts that cause deaths/injuries and yet, because these people are insured at the time, i guess this is OK?! The way some people talk it's like if their loved one was killed then as long as the driver was insured and they get a pay out it's all OK?

I have never intentionally driven uninsured but just been caught out by small print (ie. ive been a named driver but then someone tells you i'm instead fronting so can't drive the car, i buy a policy that boasts "full eu cover" and yet that means only 30days). Then when you try and correct it and they want £5k for the priviledge you have to draw a line and say enoughs enough, life is too short, I'll just take me chances.

I'm not pretending to be a saint but it doesn't make me or the many others in my situation bad people or dangerous drivers. It would be much better if we all reserved hatred for, and the police spent their time prosecuting those who drive dangerously and risk other's life/health, rather than base it on arbitrary criteria such as having perfect documents.

But the reason this isn't the case is because, if we were to be so objective, we would find we have all probably done a dangerous piece of driving recently (such as wanderign attention or misjudging something, etc), yet if we can just base judgement purely on obtaining the correct documentation then we buy tax/MOT/insurance once a year and praise ourselves in ignorant bliss and blame all the terrible accidents and injuries on uninsured people, drink drivers, low lifes, etc.

 

[gizze]

^ Maybe they are unaware of the MIB scheme and don't have the funds or will for a legal case.

I think they are getting help, but they are 'getting by' in life, it has completely changed the whole families life for ever.
All I am saying is if the guy had been insured they might have received enough to make their life a little easier.

 

[muller1]

Insurance or not

I am simply putting forward an imperfect alternative to the imperfect system we have already. Just because it is flawed does not make it less flawed than the current system!

It is a sad fact that due to the overly materialistic/illogical society we live in that the financial side of things is deemed more important than the risk we cause to others. Everyone is happy to say how sad it is that the poor little girl cannot be compensated because the driver is uninsured, but no-one asked why the accident happened in the first place, and if the driver was doing something dangerous to cause this which is the real issue here, because even if he was insured how do you compensate financially for causing such a terrible injury to someone?

I have seen on this forum numerous posts boasting of people doing well over 100+ mph and other dangerous acts that cause deaths/injuries and yet, because these people are insured at the time, i guess this is OK?! The way some people talk it's like if their loved one was killed then as long as the driver was insured and they get a pay out it's all OK?

I have never intentionally driven uninsured but just been caught out by small print (ie. ive been a named driver but then someone tells you i'm instead fronting so can't drive the car, i buy a policy that boasts "full eu cover" and yet that means only 30days). Then when you try and correct it and they want £5k for the priviledge you have to draw a line and say enoughs enough, life is too short, I'll just take me chances.

I'm not pretending to be a saint but it doesn't make me or the many others in my situation bad people or dangerous drivers. It would be much better if we all reserved hatred for, and the police spent their time prosecuting those who drive dangerously and risk other's life/health, rather than base it on arbitrary criteria such as having perfect documents.

But the reason this isn't the case is because, if we were to be so objective, we would find we have all probably done a dangerous piece of driving recently (such as wanderign attention or misjudging something, etc), yet if we can just base judgement purely on obtaining the correct documentation then we buy tax/MOT/insurance once a year and praise ourselves in ignorant bliss and blame all the terrible accidents and injuries on uninsured people, drink drivers, low lifes, etc.

I cannot see your point in advocating having no insurance nor risking having the insurance voided by telling downright LIES.
The point of having insurance is to REDUCE the impact of some Wan*ker causing a catastrophic accident and the injured/murdered third party not having a claim so as to reduce the impact of the mindless moron's actions who caused the accident in the first place.
Insurance is nothing to do with safe or good driving but a means of reducing the impact caused in an accident and preventing the innocent party being made destitute due to some scum bag who thinks he is above the law.
I would make sure every un-insured driver was jailed for a minimum of 15 years and banned FOR LIFE so that they should never be able to drive EVER.
As for sueing the driver if they do not see fit to have insurance then they will have nothing worth sueing for.
Not having insurance is the worst crime a driver can commit and anyone who knows of such a person should call the police and be proud to do it, as I know I would.
People who break the law and do not have their car insured WILL also break other laws without a single thought.
I am sure you would no be over happy if some un-insured pri*k ran into your car writing it off and causing you to be confined to a wheel chair as a paraplegic, would you still say well that is life and forgive them.

Fully Insured

Mike

 

[muller1]

Insurance or not

I am simply putting forward an imperfect alternative to the imperfect system we have already. Just because it is flawed does not make it less flawed than the current system!

It is a sad fact that due to the overly materialistic/illogical society we live in that the financial side of things is deemed more important than the risk we cause to others. Everyone is happy to say how sad it is that the poor little girl cannot be compensated because the driver is uninsured, but no-one asked why the accident happened in the first place, and if the driver was doing something dangerous to cause this which is the real issue here, because even if he was insured how do you compensate financially for causing such a terrible injury to someone?

I have seen on this forum numerous posts boasting of people doing well over 100+ mph and other dangerous acts that cause deaths/injuries and yet, because these people are insured at the time, i guess this is OK?! The way some people talk it's like if their loved one was killed then as long as the driver was insured and they get a pay out it's all OK?

I have never intentionally driven uninsured but just been caught out by small print (ie. ive been a named driver but then someone tells you i'm instead fronting so can't drive the car, i buy a policy that boasts "full eu cover" and yet that means only 30days). Then when you try and correct it and they want £5k for the priviledge you have to draw a line and say enoughs enough, life is too short, I'll just take me chances.

I'm not pretending to be a saint but it doesn't make me or the many others in my situation bad people or dangerous drivers. It would be much better if we all reserved hatred for, and the police spent their time prosecuting those who drive dangerously and risk other's life/health, rather than base it on arbitrary criteria such as having perfect documents.

But the reason this isn't the case is because, if we were to be so objective, we would find we have all probably done a dangerous piece of driving recently (such as wanderign attention or misjudging something, etc), yet if we can just base judgement purely on obtaining the correct documentation then we buy tax/MOT/insurance once a year and praise ourselves in ignorant bliss and blame all the terrible accidents and injuries on uninsured people, drink drivers, low lifes, etc.

There is NO alternative imperfect or otherwise

I cannot see your point in advocating having no insurance nor risking having the insurance voided by telling downright LIES.
The point of having insurance is to REDUCE the impact of some Wan*ker causing a catastrophic accident and the injured/murdered third party not having a claim so as to reduce the impact of the mindless moron's actions who caused the accident in the first place.
Insurance is nothing to do with safe or good driving but a means of reducing the impact caused in an accident and preventing the innocent party being made destitute due to some scum bag who thinks he is above the law.
I would make sure every un-insured driver was jailed for a minimum of 15 years and banned FOR LIFE so that they should never be able to drive EVER.
As for sueing the driver if they do not see fit to have insurance then they will have nothing worth sueing for.
Not having insurance is the worst crime a driver can commit and anyone who knows of such a person should call the police and be proud to do it, as I know I would.
People who break the law and do not have their car insured WILL also break other laws without a single thought.
I am sure you would no be over happy if some un-insured pri*k ran into your car writing it off and causing you to be confined to a wheel chair as a paraplegic, would you still say well that is life and forgive them.

Fully Insured

Mike