Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Mandatory motor insurance,should it be scrapped.

What changes should be made?

  • Scrap mandatory insurance.

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Keep mandatory insurance.

    Votes: 27 75.0%
  • Restrict,regulate or even nationalise it.

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Ban cars lol.

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • Total voters
    36
Using 12,000 miles per year, 30mpg and £200 per year for insurance would add about 10p per litre on the fuel.

And the rest. As the levy on fuel would not discriminate between high risk and lower risk drivers you'd be looking at a far higher average premium than £200 per year. Not to mention the overall increase in premiums due to inefficiency.
 
Covering third-party insurance through a levy on fuel is not a particularly good idea IMO. Primarily because lower-risk drivers would be heavily subsidising higher-risk drivers.

There will always be winners and losers. Drivers of higher powered / inefficient cars will pay more that those who own a smaller / more efficient car. People who drive faster / inefficiently will pay more as well.

If you own an all electric vehicle you pay nothing at all. :eek:
 
There will always be winners and losers. Drivers of higher powered / inefficient cars will pay more that those who own a smaller / more efficient car. People who drive faster / inefficiently will pay more as well.

If you own an all electric vehicle you pay nothing at all. :eek:

There may always be winners and losers but I cannot find one good reason why a 50 year-old with an unblemished motoring history in his Nissan Micra should pay the same rate as a 17 year-old hothead who has wrapped his modded Saxo round a tree a few times.
 
That's a fair increase!!!

Would that include commercial vehicles, as well? If it did, that would also increase the cost of food, etc.

That's a very good point actually. Commercial vehicle premiums are much higher than private car rates, so individuals would also be subsidising firms under any scheme which added the cost of compulsory third party cover to fuel.
 
That's a fair increase!!!

Would that include commercial vehicles, as well? If it did, that would also increase the cost of food, etc.

In most businesses if you buy in bulk you get a discount. You could apply this to diesel when you fill a trucks tank as you wouldn't be able to put that much fuel in a diesel car.
 
There may always be winners and losers but I cannot find one good reason why a 50 year-old with an unblemished motoring history in his Nissan Micra should pay the same rate as a 17 year-old hothead who has wrapped his modded Saxo round a tree a few times.

How many miles per year does this 50 year old do?

My grandad in his last years only drove a couple of miles per week to the shops. Should he pay the same in insurance and road tax as someone who's doing 10,000's of miles per year?

Your 17 yo boy racer is likely to have more disposable income due to probably still living at home and out driving / racing his car around every night therefore using lots more fuel than the 50 yo and therfore paying more in added fuel tax. :p
 
How many miles per year does this 50 year old do?

My grandad in his last years only drove a couple of miles per week to the shops. Should he pay the same in insurance and road tax as someone who's doing 10,000's of miles per year?

Your 17 yo boy racer is likely to have more disposable income due to probably still living at home and out driving / racing his car around every night therefore using lots more fuel than the 50 yo and therfore paying more in added fuel tax. :p

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

As your grandad's mileage is very low his motor insurance premium will be accordingly lower than someone who has a high mileage as insurers use mileage as a rating factor, so at the moment he won't pay the same in insurance as someone who's doing 10,000's of miles per year. However, he would start paying the same rate per mile as much riskier drivers under a scheme where the costs of third-party insurance are added at the pump.

Secondly, the 17-year old in the previous scenario might do more miles per year, but even if he did four times the mileage as the 50 year-old, the premium which he paid through a levy on tax would not cover the risk associated with him - which would be at a conservative estimate around 10 times the risk of the 50 year-old. So less risky drivers would still be subsidising him.
 
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

As your grandad's mileage is very low his motor insurance premium will be accordingly lower than someone who has a high mileage as insurers use mileage as a rating factor, so at the moment he won't pay the same in insurance as someone who's doing 10,000's of miles per year. However, he would start paying the same rate per mile as much riskier drivers under a scheme where the costs of third-party insurance are added at the pump.

Insurance doesn't fall proportionately to mileage driven. So if my grandad filled in an insurance application and put down 150 miles as his annual mileage then working on the 12,000 miles £200 insurance listed above my grandads premium for 3rd party only should be £2.50 a year. If you can get insurance as cheap as that then your doing well. :D

Meanwhile with 10p per litre added to fuel it would only cost my grandad £2.25 extra per year in fuel saving him around £200 per year in insurance and road tax.
 
And the rest. As the levy on fuel would not discriminate between high risk and lower risk drivers you'd be looking at a far higher average premium than £200 per year. Not to mention the overall increase in premiums due to inefficiency.

Not to sound overly flippant or anything, but fuck the low risk drivers. You can lower your insurance payment by driving carefully or less and as another added benefit I only just thought of - seeing as its government backed the premium can be collected through fuel tax 12 months later, meaning one year of "Buy Now, Pay Later" insurance for current drivers.
 
Back
Top Bottom