Motor insurance - a new approach?

ART6

I am sure this has been done to the death before, but I can't help wondering if the whole business of motor insurance is unfair. All drivers are required by law to be insured, but they must all be so using private sector insurance companies. Meanwhile we are also required by law to pay VAT, VRT, RSI etc etc, and all of those must be paid to state departments. So why should driver insurance be any different?

It would, I imagine, be simple enough to establish a state driver insurance system similar to VHI, where a part of the annual motor tax is insurance, but instead of there being a flat rate, there could be a rate that was clear and transparent and which varied according to the driver's age and experience. New driver, high premium, reducing over the years as experience and freedom from accidents is gained. Have a blameworthy accident and you go back to square one (and run into the back of someone by tailgating and you get crucified:D).

I suppose the only problem with this is that it would be administered by the Civil Service, and so God knows what it would cost the taxpayer.:rolleyes:

Graham_B18C

But there'd be no compitition and they could make the premiums as high as they felt like then?

eyesofvenus

Privitisation is the only way to go in little countries like this

Del2005

ART6 wrote: »

I am sure this has been done to the death before, but I can't help wondering if the whole business of motor insurance is unfair. All drivers are required by law to be insured, but they must all be so using private sector insurance companies. Meanwhile we are also required by law to pay VAT, VRT, RSI etc etc, and all of those must be paid to state departments. So why should driver insurance be any different?

It would, I imagine, be simple enough to establish a state driver insurance system similar to VHI, where a part of the annual motor tax is insurance, but instead of there being a flat rate, there could be a rate that was clear and transparent and which varied according to the driver's age and experience. New driver, high premium, reducing over the years as experience and freedom from accidents is gained. Have a blameworthy accident and you go back to square one (and run into the back of someone by tailgating and you get crucified:D).

I suppose the only problem with this is that it would be administered by the Civil Service, and so God knows what it would cost the taxpayer.:rolleyes:

Is that not how it works now, except they also take into account where you live and what you drive?

Mr Benevolent

there could be a rate that was clear and transparent and which varied according to the driver's age and experience. New driver, high premium, reducing over the years as experience and freedom from accidents is gained. Have a blameworthy accident and you go back to square one (and run into the back of someone by tailgating and you get crucified).

How is that different and the better than the system we have at the moment?

Anan1

Confab wrote: »

How is that different and the better than the system we have at the moment?

+1, it sounds like a more inefficient version of the current system to me.

Damien360

ART6 wrote: »

I am sure this has been done to the death before, but I can't help wondering if the whole business of motor insurance is unfair. All drivers are required by law to be insured, but they must all be so using private sector insurance companies. Meanwhile we are also required by law to pay VAT, VRT, RSI etc etc, and all of those must be paid to state departments. So why should driver insurance be any different?

It would, I imagine, be simple enough to establish a state driver insurance system similar to VHI, where a part of the annual motor tax is insurance, but instead of there being a flat rate, there could be a rate that was clear and transparent and which varied according to the driver's age and experience. New driver, high premium, reducing over the years as experience and freedom from accidents is gained. Have a blameworthy accident and you go back to square one (and run into the back of someone by tailgating and you get crucified:D).

I suppose the only problem with this is that it would be administered by the Civil Service, and so God knows what it would cost the taxpayer.:rolleyes:

South Africa runs a government scheme for car insurance. They accept that nobody will pay it so they add a premium (tax) to petrol and diesel. That way, when you pay for your fuel you are insured. The more you drive, the more you pay.

That would be a nice system here and very fair. But....we first need to sort out the judges handing out millions for a sore arse and a bruise. Fixed amounts for given damage, ie 3000 for a broken arm. Then the system could be run without fear of escalating costs to cover claims.

CJhaughey

The root of the problem is the fact that most other countries with low premiums have a no-fault policy.

Trampas

great it may sound but you can be certain premiums go up each year.

I know premiums are up this year but they had gone down over the last few.

When have VHI gone down?

The VHI just pay out and don't contest. My friend told them not to pay once but they just paid it cause it was easy.

The job losses would be huge.

Companies and brokers would be out of a job

P.C.

Damien360 wrote: »

South Africa runs a government scheme for car insurance. They accept that nobody will pay it so they add a premium (tax) to petrol and diesel. That way, when you pay for your fuel you are insured. The more you drive, the more you pay.

That would be a nice system here and very fair. But....we first need to sort out the judges handing out millions for a sore arse and a bruise. Fixed amounts for given damage, ie 3000 for a broken arm. Then the system could be run without fear of escalating costs to cover claims.

The South African scheme is only for third party, and it does not pay out for injuries. It does not even pay out to fix your car.
It just means that you can go to a state hospital for free if you have been in a car crash :eek:.

It is only a way to try and get some money for the hospitals.

You still need private insurance if you want to fix your car. Although it is not a legal requirment.

People with decent cars get private insurance, as they will want to get their car repaired if some uninsured driver crashes into them.

Poeple with old, cheap cars do not get insurance.

BUT, in South Africa, car insurance only covers the car - it does not cover the driver, or any injuries the driver may sustain in a crash. The government insurance covers that.

ShadowHearth

Grahamo999 wrote: »

But there'd be no compitition and they could make the premiums as high as they felt like then?

+1

Imagine if Tax would be like insurance now, and you could shop around!

high horse

Wasn't PMPA (now AXA) set up by the government?

Traumadoc

In Australia, "third party bodily" car insurance is included in your roadtax. ( rego) and is provided by a private company that tenders for the bussiness. If you want fully comprehensive insurance you can buy it from a private company, but it is not compulsory.

cyclopath2001

high horse wrote: »

Wasn't PMPA (now AXA) set up by the government?

No, it was a private company that went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the government. It was later re-privitised.

Insurance costs could be made mre reasonable for most if we could find some way of accurately linking the premium to driver behaviour.

Zube

ART6 wrote: »

It would, I imagine, be simple enough to establish a state driver insurance system similar to VHI

Much more likely to see a changeover to a healthcare system which relies on non-government insurance companies like the Netherlands than a car insurance system which relies on the public purse.