Should car insurance be made optional.

[Ediswan]

Somewhere in NZ there is a forum where people are wondering why anybody would want to complicate vehicle insurance with 'named drivers', charged according to opaque rules. They do have graduated licences to curb the behaviour of newly qualified young drivers. Maybe it partly depends on where you sit between captialism and socialism.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

It could be optional for you. But having no insurance would be totally irresponsible. Plus, what would you say to the police if they pulled you over and discovered you didn't have insurance? What do you think the police would do?

Think also if you happened to be driving without insurance and hit me in my car with my family on the motorway - and one of us died? Could you live with that on your conscience?

 

[stuu]

Should we scrap compulsory car insurance and make it optional? I would be interested to know what others think of this? I was just reading the other recent thread on the forum about the cost of having a car and this is definitely one of the major costs. Making car insurance optional could save people a lot of money and help make having a car cheaper.

I will get told off if I say what I really think of this idea.

The insurance, as has been, repeatedly stated, is for the risk of the damage you do to other peoples' property. Even crashing into a newish Focus or something of that nature means you owe them £20k or something. Who pays for that loss?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would it actually be more expensive.

Also it would be a lot fairer if the third party insurance was included as part of the road tax as everyone would pay the same amount.

For you, yes, very much more expensive.

You have said yourself you have been driving for 40 years without a claim. You are therefore an insurer’s dream, and the third party element of your car insurance will be just about as low as it can get. However if everyone was to pay the same, you would then pay the average of everyone’s third party element of insurance, including 17 year olds learning to drive, 21 year old lads in Audi A3s with flappy paddle gear boxes and girls to impress, middle aged taxi drivers who learnt to drive in the Balkans, people with the spatial awareness of a bull in a china shop, 90 year old pensioners with poor eyesight who forget their right from left, all Nissan Juke owners*, and every other cliched bad driver I can’t be bothered to list. All of whom will have very high third party elements to their insurance - possibly 5 times or more higher than yours.

Put more simply, if everyone pays the same, you as a good driver will be paying substantially more than now for the accidents of all the bad drivers.

I don’t see how it can be fair that good drivers are penalised by having to pay for the incompetence / incapability of bad drivers.

*yes, I know that’s unfair. I’m sure there are some owners of Nissan Jukes who are good drivers. I have yet to see one though, and have been looking for a long time. To be fair, it might be the car - I accidentally rented one once and it turned me into a gibbering wreck.

(Disclaimer, three of my friends run insurance companies).

 

[The exile]

I personally never purchase any type of insurance unless it is legally required. Lots of other types of insurance are optional. Home insurance is optional. Pet insurance is optional. Life insurance is optional. Travel insurance is optional except for some countries that require it. Lots of people (myself included) never purchase these optional insurances and just pay out of their own pocket on the rare occassion that anything were to happen.

I am in my sixties now and i have been driving since i was about eighteen and have therefore been paying for car insurance for over fourty years that i have never had to use. I have never once had to use my insurance. Not once have I do not see why driving should be treated differently to so many other things that could cause accidents.

As others have said - it’s your legal liability that you’re required to have cover for - in the same way that employers and voluntary organisations are required to have it. More importantly (?) you “know” that other people’s legal liability to you is covered - they’re not just going to be able to declare bankruptcy and leave you high and dry (which given the national level of personal savings would be an almost dead cert in a serious accident) There are jurisdictions where it is strongly advised to have personal liability insurance whether you’re a driver or not. I know several people who were very glad they had it!

 

[SuspectUsual]

Another point - being responsible for your own insurance is a massive deterrent from driving like a d*ck. If everyone pays the same, where is the incentive to be a good driver?

 

[zero]

you “know” that other people’s legal liability to you is covered - they’re not just going to be able to declare bankruptcy and leave you high and dry

Unless they're uninsured?

Another point - being responsible for your own insurance is a massive deterrent from driving like a d*ck. If everyone pays the same, where is the incentive to be a good driver?

But people still drive badly?
I don't care how much other people are paying. The incentive to drive well is that I don't want to get injured or lose the use of my car until it's repaired/replaced, and I don't want to go through the stress/hassle of a claim.

 

[skyhigh]

I personally never purchase any type of insurance unless it is legally required. Lots of other types of insurance are optional. Home insurance is optional. Pet insurance is optional. Life insurance is optional. Travel insurance is optional except for some countries that require it. Lots of people (myself included) never purchase these optional insurances and just pay out of their own pocket on the rare occassion that anything were to happen.

Maybe it's just me, but for many people that seems hugely irresponsible.

Sure, the likelihood is low but it's possible there's a freak accident and your home is hit by a bolt of lightning and destroyed along with your car and all your possessions. By the time you've paid to make the site safe and for temporary accommodation, you've already paid a large amount with still nowhere to live. Even in a detached house an explosion caused by a gas leak could destroy your property along with your neighbours causing you potentially a million pound bill.

Not to mention that most mortgage providers include a term that you will have relevant cover for the period of the mortgage.

 

[The exile]

Unless they're uninsured?

Hence the inverted commas. At that point they’re committing an offence, which potentially gives you further recourse (if it’s known who they are - if it’s not it’s irrelevant anyway)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==

Unless they're uninsured?


But people still drive badly?
I don't care how much other people are paying. The incentive to drive well is that I don't want to get injured or lose the use of my car until it's repaired/replaced, and I don't want to go through the stress/hassle of a claim.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the point behind the compulsory element of motor insurance is to ensure the money’s there if you injure someone else, not if you injure yourself. AFAIK the only compulsory element is third party.

 

[SuspectUsual]

But people still drive badly?
I don't care how much other people are paying. The incentive to drive well is that I don't want to get injured or lose the use of my car until it's repaired/replaced, and I don't want to go through the stress/hassle of a claim

Exactly! The amount YOU pay is dictated by the outcome of how YOU drive. In a centralised everyone pays the same system that just isn’t the case. If some people don’t follow that simple logic, that’s their problem.

 

[zero]

Another point - being responsible for your own insurance is a massive deterrent from driving like a d*ck. If everyone pays the same, where is the incentive to be a good driver?

This is the point I was responding to.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the point behind the compulsory element of motor insurance is to ensure the money’s there if you injure someone else, not if you injure yourself. AFAIK the only compulsory element is third party.

Not sure how this is relevant to what I said.

Exactly! The amount YOU pay is dictated by the outcome of how YOU drive. In a centralised everyone pays the same system that just isn’t the case. If some people don’t follow that simple logic, that’s their problem.

That's not what you said before. You said "where is the incentive to be a good driver"?

I get your point that if I drive badly and get caught or cause an accident my premium will go up.

Fear of my premium going up is not what makes me try to be a good driver. Even if everyone pays the same, I will still drive carefully.

 

[SuspectUsual]

That's not what you said before. You said "where is the incentive to be a good driver"?

It's exactly what I said. When I said "where is the incentive to be a good driver?" I was referring to the NZ style system where people aren't responsible for their own insurance

 

[jp4712]

I’ve seen some really daft ideas promoted on this forum, but I think this one beats all of them.

 

[dcbwhaley]

In most cases, car insurance is not to cover you, it's to cover the other party you injure/damage, and that can cost a significant amount of money, especially if you have to pay for rescue services... (in the US mostly).

I believe that if you can post a bond for a large sum of money, thus proving you could meet damages oyt of you own pocket, you are not obliged to have insurance cover.

And operators of large fleets of vehicles are allowed to cover themselves.

What annoys me about insurance is the way that so many people think it absolves them from responsibility. If someone damages my car or my person it is their responsibility to reimburse me not the insurers

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==

In that case then maybe that is what we ought to look in to doing here. Including the third party insurance as part of the road tax sounds a far better option. I would even be happier paying a higher road tax if it meant that i did not need to purchase car insurance.

I think that insurance should be compulsory but at a flat rate for all drivers.
Take the previous year's total payout, add something for inflation then divide that sum by the number of drivers and add a fair profit and admin costs. and that is the premium

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==

Sure, the likelihood is low but it's possible there's a freak accident and your home is hit by a bolt of lightning and destroyed along with your car and all your possessions. By the time you've paid to make the site safe and for temporary accommodation, you've already paid a large amount with still nowhere to live. Even in a detached house an explosion caused by a gas leak could destroy your property along with your neighbours causing you potentially a million pound bill.

For me the bottom line is that I insure against losses that would exceed my ability to pay for.
So I insure my house against falling down or being blown up because that could cost more than a million pounds
But I don't insure my domestic appliances which only cost a few hundred pounds. Though it might be worth insuring a gas boiler if it ensures that you get prompt service if it fails

 

[stadler]

How can anyone think making insurance optional is a good idea?!?

Because you are not having to waste thousands and thousands of pounds over your entire life just in case a very rare accident happens. I understand there are negatives too but i find it hard to justify having to spend thousands just in case a rare accident happens. By the time i am in my eighties or nineties (and as long as i continue to have no accidents) than i would have been paying for car insurance for over sixty years (maybe even over seventy years depending on how long i keep driving) that i have never had to use. I understand why the insurance requirement exists but there has to be a better way than insurance. The current system is awful.

For you, yes, very much more expensive.

You have said yourself you have been driving for 40 years without a claim. You are therefore an insurer’s dream, and the third party element of your car insurance will be just about as low as it can get. However if everyone was to pay the same, you would then pay the average of everyone’s third party element of insurance, including 17 year olds learning to drive, 21 year old lads in Audi A3s with flappy paddle gear boxes and girls to impress, middle aged taxi drivers who learnt to drive in the Balkans, people with the spatial awareness of a bull in a china shop, 90 year old pensioners with poor eyesight who forget their right from left, all Nissan Juke owners*, and every other cliched bad driver I can’t be bothered to list. All of whom will have very high third party elements to their insurance - possibly 5 times or more higher than yours.

Put more simply, if everyone pays the same, you as a good driver will be paying substantially more than now for the accidents of all the bad drivers.

I don’t see how it can be fair that good drivers are penalised by having to pay for the incompetence / incapability of bad drivers.

*yes, I know that’s unfair. I’m sure there are some owners of Nissan Jukes who are good drivers. I have yet to see one though, and have been looking for a long time. To be fair, it might be the car - I accidentally rented one once and it turned me into a gibbering wreck.

(Disclaimer, three of my friends run insurance companies).

That is a good point. If it ended up working out more expensive for people like myself than i would not want that method. Yes i am very lucky to have never been involved in any accident and never had any insurance claims as it means my insurance price is a lot lower than many others. But regardless of the price it is still rather annoying to have to pay it. It adds up over time. It must be tens of thousands over the last fourty years.

I do still think that it is unfair to charge different prices. Many people have been involved in multiple accidents that are not their fault. It does not always mean they are a bad driver. Yet these people can still have higher insurance because of this.

Then you have younger people who are often charged extortionate amounts as they are considered a higher risk even if they have never had an accident. So when people start driving they are treated the same as people who have had lots of accidents and they get charged such high car insurance rates. I have grandchildren who are paying much much much higher amounts than me despite never having had an accident either. So for young people it is especially unfair.

Imagine if the train companies started charging different ticket prices based on if you had a history of fare evasion or not or whether they thought you were a risk of fare evading. The way that car insurance companies price the insurance is awful.

I would be interested to know how New Zealand does it. Considering that they include third party car insurance in their equivalent a road tax does that mean that everyone pays the same.

Maybe it's just me, but for many people that seems hugely irresponsible.

Sure, the likelihood is low but it's possible there's a freak accident and your home is hit by a bolt of lightning and destroyed along with your car and all your possessions. By the time you've paid to make the site safe and for temporary accommodation, you've already paid a large amount with still nowhere to live. Even in a detached house an explosion caused by a gas leak could destroy your property along with your neighbours causing you potentially a million pound bill.

Not to mention that most mortgage providers include a term that you will have relevant cover for the period of the mortgage.

I personally just consider it better to take the risk than waste money on insurance. Things like this are so rare and unlikely that i think it is not worth worrying about. Saving lots of money and taking the risk is worth it.

The chance of something happening to your house is so low that it is really not worth wasting thousands. Yes i understand that something could happen but it is so rare that it is not worth worrying about. That is like constantly worrying about being hit by lightning. I have yet to have something happen to my house (and fingers crossed that continues) so imagine the thousands and thousands of pounds i would have been wasting over the years if i had purchased home insurance. With over 99% of people that purchase home insurance, they probably never have anything major happen that requires them to use it.

Another thing that people waste money on is travel insurance. I have travelled to over 100 countries now and almost never bothered purchasing it. The only occasion i have are the few countries that require it to enter or get a visa. But with 99% of places i go i have never had travel insurance. I know people say what if you have a medical issue in somewhere like the USA, but again why worry about something that is so unlikely.

Overall i just think insurance is such a waste of money as you are paying thousands just in case an extremely unlikely event happens. I prefer to take the risk. This has worked out fine for me so far. If anything was to happen i would pay out of my own pocket. I know many will disagree and i understand why many people like having insurance, but i just find it hard to justify spending thousands of pounds for something that i have such a tiny chance of needing.

It's exactly what I said. When I said "where is the incentive to be a good driver?" I was referring to the NZ style system where people aren't responsible for their own insurance

I doubt insurance prices are going to be much of an incentive to be a good driver. I have never heard of anyone making sure they drive extra carefully so that they get cheaper car insurance. Surely the incentive to be a good driver is to not cause an accident and to not injure or kill anyone and to not damage your car. I really doubt a system where everyone pays the same would cause anyone to care less about driving well.

I believe that if you can post a bond for a large sum of money, thus proving you could meet damages oyt of you own pocket, you are not obliged to have insurance cover.

And operators of large fleets of vehicles are allowed to cover themselves.

What annoys me about insurance is the way that so many people think it absolves them from responsibility. If someone damages my car or my person it is their responsibility to reimburse me not the insurers

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==


I think that insurance should be compulsory but at a flat rate for all drivers.
Take the previous year's total payout, add something for inflation then divide that sum by the number of drivers and add a fair profit and admin costs. and that is the premium

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==


For me the bottom line is that I insure against losses that would exceed my ability to pay for.
So I insure my house against falling down or being blown up because that could cost more than a million pounds
But I don't insure my domestic appliances which only cost a few hundred pounds. Though it might be worth insuring a gas boiler if it ensures that you get prompt service if it fails

That is an interesting idea regarding making insurance a flat rate based on the previous years payout. That could be worth looking in to. That might actually work out much cheaper for everyone. I think the percentage of people with car insurance who get payouts is very small when you consider how many drivers there are on the road. The insurance companies make huge profits. So if we were to use a flat rate based on the previous years payouts divided by the number of drivers plus add inflation and admin cost and a profit, then i think that may well actually work out much cheaper for everyone, even those who pay lower rates of car insurance. That is one idea that ought to be looked in to.

 

[HSTEd]

I have some sympathy with the model in parts of Australia where compulsory third party insurance is simply provided by the state.

It might not punish "reckless" drivers as the current system puports to, but it does avoid an enormous insurance bureaucracy that must inevitably consume resources for its operation.
As the scope of Equalities Act jurisprudence continues to expand, it is unclear how long the existing system will actually be able to continue to function as it has.

It is already forbidden to have premiums depend on biological sex, and whilst many insurers have adopted proxies - the court seems likely to eventually strike down de-facto sex discrimination on that basis. Expansion to other protected categories such as age (both de jure and de facto) seems inevitable.

 

[notverydeep]

“including 17 year olds learning to drive, 21 year old lads in Audi A3s with flappy paddle gear boxes and girls to impress”

Don’t forget the gearbox thing that makes a ‘tissch’ sound changing gear (what on earth is that for) and back box modifications to make the exhaust back fire constantly at 30 mph…!

 

[SuspectUsual]

I doubt insurance prices are going to be much of an incentive to be a good driver. I have never heard of anyone making sure they drive extra carefully so that they get cheaper car insurance. Surely the incentive to be a good driver is to not cause an accident and to not injure or kill anyone and to not damage your car. I really doubt a system where everyone pays the same would cause anyone to care less about driving well

Any young driver who has been in an accident or has a friend who has been is painfully aware of the impact on premiums and from what my kids say they believe it does impact driving style

 

[bramling]

Should we scrap compulsory car insurance and make it optional? I would be interested to know what others think of this? I was just reading the other recent thread on the forum about the cost of having a car and this is definitely one of the major costs. Making car insurance optional could save people a lot of money and help make having a car cheaper.

In both New Zealand and the US state of New Hampshire car insurance is entirely optional. In these two places there is no legal requirement to have car insurance and you can drive any vehicle without it. This does not seem to have caused any issues there.

Personally i absolutely hate the whole concept of insurance. You are paying money just in case a very rare incident happens where you need to make a claim. I personally never purchase any type of insurance unless it is legally required. Lots of other types of insurance are optional. Home insurance is optional. Pet insurance is optional. Life insurance is optional. Travel insurance is optional except for some countries that require it. Lots of people (myself included) never purchase these optional insurances and just pay out of their own pocket on the rare occassion that anything were to happen.

I am in my sixties now and i have been driving since i was about eighteen and have therefore been paying for car insurance for over fourty years that i have never had to use. I have never once had to use my insurance. Not once have i ever had any accident or incident or had to make a claim on my insurance for any reason. So i have just been wasting thousands and thousands of pounds for over fourty years on compulsory car insurance that i have never had any use for. I hate to think how much i have spent over the years but it must be tens of thousands by now. I could have saved an enormous amount of money if it was optional. This always annoys me so much that i am forced to buy car insurance that i do not even want. I only use my car a few times a week (i much prefer the train and bus) but it is so annoying paying for insurance every year that i do not use or want.

I would much rather just pay out of my own money if anything happens. If i was involved in an accident or there was an issue with my car i would rather i just pay out of my own pocket. This would be much much much cheaper than paying for car insurance for decades.

I know there is the argument of what if someone causes an accident but does not have the money to pay out. But that same argument could be said for so many other things that do not involve driving and do not require mandatory insurance. I do not see why driving should be treated differently to so many other things that could cause accidents.

New Zealand and the US state of New Hampshire seem to be the only two places in the Western world where car insurance is entirely optional and not legally required (most other places where it is optional are third world countries) but it seems to work perfectly fine in these two places. As far as i can see New Zealand and US state of New Hampshire have not experienced any significant issues by making it optional. So it makes me think it could work perfectly fine here too.

I think it is something the government really ought to consider. It is at least worth looking in to to see if there is a way it could be made to work. I would be interested to hear what others think of this? Is there any chance the UK could ever make car insurance optional?

What system are you going to have in place for covering the cost of damage / injury to others? For the vast majority of people they wouldn’t even begin to be able to meet the costs of a larger accident, where costs could run into 7 figures quite easily.

If you’re proposing some kind of “universal basic insurance” to meet this need, then it’s a case of careful what you wish for, as if you’ve never made a claim in 40 years you’d likely be guaranteed to be paying more than you do now.

I do agree that it’s frustrating being in the position of subsidising others, it irritates me during ice/snow when a lot of people seem to think that having accidents is just a fact of life rather than because of their poor decision-making and judgement. But unfortunately the alternative is probably rather worse.

 

[notverydeep]

Having experienced two significant non-fault accidents, one in the UK, one elsewhere, my abiding sense is that you will almost never see them coming. The accident you saw coming is the accident you didn’t have. Driving is a task that requires constant situational awareness (human beings find that tricky to do consistently). Attitude is key, many drivers understand that third party insurance makes sense and have a, “there but for the grace of…” attitude. A driver who thinks, “it will never happen to me” might be a lucky driver, but they are a dangerous driver.

 

[stuu]

Because you are not having to waste thousands and thousands of pounds over your entire life just in case a very rare accident happens. I understand there are negatives too but i find it hard to justify having to spend thousands just in case a rare accident happens. By the time i am in my eighties or nineties (and as long as i continue to have no accidents) than i would have been paying for car insurance for over sixty years (maybe even over seventy years depending on how long i keep driving) that i have never had to use. I understand why the insurance requirement exists but there has to be a better way than insurance. The current system is awful.

You seem to be struggling with basic definition of the word "insurance". It is literally there in case something goes wrong. And yes, for lots of people it never does, although I suspect pretty much everyone has some involvement either through no fault of their own or their own actions.

How do you propose to repay the losses if you drive into say a brand new Lamborghini? Lose everything you own?

 

[66701GBRF]

Having experienced two significant non-fault accidents, one in the UK, one elsewhere, my abiding sense is that you will almost never see them coming. The accident you saw coming is the accident you didn’t have. Driving is a task that requires constant situational awareness (human beings find that tricky to do consistently). Attitude is key, many drivers understand that third party insurance makes sense and have a, “there but for the grace of…” attitude. A driver who thinks, “it will never happen to me” might be a lucky driver, but they are a dangerous driver.

Exactly this. I’ve had two accidents where I have hit an animal and both times did in the region of 5k damage. God forbid I make a mistake and plough into and write off a Bentley or cause or receive significant injury I’d never be able to cover those sorts of costs.

 

[sprunt]

This sounds like a great idea, and very simple to implement. All that drivers who don't want to have insurance need do is deposit £5 million in an escrow account, to be returned when they no longer own a car.

 

[PG]

This sounds like a great idea, and very simple to implement. All that drivers who don't want to have insurance need do is deposit £5 million in an escrow account, to be returned when they no longer own a car.

I remember looking into this in the pre-internet era and I came across a book in the library. IIRC it quoted a figure of £500,000 as the sum which required to be deposited to satisfy the law. The book dated from the seventies. No idea if that Statutory Instrument is still in force.

 

[Efini92]

The downside of this is that reckless drivers don't pay more, so we all pay more instead.

The problem is we all pay more anyway. Premiums go up every year.
I’d like to see insurance companies offering back some of the premium if no claim is made in the period of its validity.

 

[dcbwhaley]

Exactly! The amount YOU pay is dictated by the outcome of how YOU drive. In a centralised everyone pays the same system that just isn’t the case. If some people don’t follow that simple logic, that’s their problem.

But the whole point of insurance is pooling risk If you could know in advance exactly who was going to have an accident then insurance would be meaningless

 

[bramling]

The problem is we all pay more anyway. Premiums go up every year.
I’d like to see insurance companies offering back some of the premium if no claim is made in the period of its validity.

In theory they already do this with no claims discounts. Really despite moans about high premiums, I’m not sure the industry pushes enough cost onto those who persistently have at-fault claims. But if they did so a proportion of people simply wouldn’t be able to afford insurance, the result of which would likely be even more uninsured vehicles floating around.

 

[Vespa]

In parts of London it's very much optional apparently or at least the drivers thinks so until the Old Bill tells them otherwise while towing their cars away and charging them with motoring offence, for the youngest it's probably cheaper than buying a car insurance.

When that happens where it's cheaper not to have a car insurance, the business would need an industry overhaul.

 

[SuspectUsual]

But the whole point of insurance is pooling risk If you could know in advance exactly who was going to have an accident then insurance would be meaningless

Indeed - but effectively the insurance companies pool risk in multiple groups, which is why those who are perceived to be high risk will attract high premiums, even if they've not been involved in an accident.

If we create one single pool of drivers who all pay the same, inevitably those who are currently paying less because they're seen as low risk will pay more, and vice versa for those who are seen as high risk

 

[ainsworth74]

I thought I might take a look at my insurance policy as I'm a little hazy on just what coverage I'm getting as I'm about half-way through this years insurance (and to be honest I've renewed on the same terms the last couple of years so haven't actually paid close attention) so the detail has now escaped my head somewhat.

My total premium was £296.00 for comprehensive insurance for the year with 8,000 miles including business use. That actually includes a standard courtesy car, motor legal and no claims protection as optional extras, so without those I could have paid £214 for just the base comprehensive insurance. I have maxed out my no claims discount so that's giving me a 35% premium reduction as well.

So lets just focus on the £214 that represents the insurance itself without the optional extras. For that annual sum I benefit from up to £20m in third party damages, up to £5m in third party costs and up to £5,000 for myself or a passenger in the event of an injury. There's of course a few other odds and ends as well such as £500 for personal belongings or £250 for medical expenses. Now, whilst I can't quite conceive of causing an accident which involves £20m in third party damages, I personally prefer knowing that in the event tomorrow I get in my car and have a momentary lapse of attention and write off someone's swanky Aston Martin I'm not likely to be on the hook for a six figure sum and whatever costs they may claim for as a result of any injuries suffered. I don't happen to have six figures down the back of the sofa so that would be somewhat financially ruinous. Personally speaking £214 for the peace of mind seems pretty damn cheap to me.

I also find it reassuring that, far more likely than not, if someone rams into me tomorrow they'll also have insurance that will cover potentially millions in damages and costs. I might be pretty confident that I'm unlikely to cause an accident and therefore be on the hook for anything, but I'm not so confident about my fellow drivers.