Should car insurance be made optional.

[Bald Rick]

Yes, especially council tax and train tickets. These should all be set at a fixed rate by the Government to be the same nationally to eliminate postcode lottery.

How can train tickets be the same price everywhere?

For the price of pint, not really. Different pubs can have a different price of pint.

I was very careful not to specify what liquid. Beer, Wine, Milk, Petrol, Water - should each of those be the same everywhere?

 

[Zamracene749]

As for the personal injury claims, as soon as the accident happened I had four different claims management companies contact me about my accident on that date. They'd obviously had my details sold to them by someone in the chain. I had a long conversation with one of them to tell them the car hit me and cut my head off; they didn't appreciate the humour, funnily enough.

That has genuinely made me spit out my beer laughing! Brilliant

 

[JGurney]

, or because the roads are more dangerous (the Government's fault).

... or the local drivers' fault.

 

[signed]

How can train tickets be the same price everywhere?

Fixed £x per km/mi, as some other European countries do on regionals. But of course that's wholly unrealistic

 

[Alfonso]

Insurance is one of the few things we buy expecting not to have to use it but thankfully we had it when we need it. The most expensive claims tend to be those when a relatively young person ends up with life changing injuries and requires expensive care for the rest of their lives...these claims can be far more expensive than ones that result in death or smash up supercars. In New Zealand, apart from insurance being included in car tax, there's a no-fault health and social care system so the state- and therefore everyone - pays the cost of this care. In Britain even though we have the NHS and DWP, costs caused by a car accident can be reclaimed from the person who caused the accident because they are insured.

 

[Meerkat]

Yes, the same job should earn the same everywhere in the whole country.

Despite the cost of living varying massively across the country?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Dec 2024 ==

As for the personal injury claims, as soon as the accident happened I had four different claims management companies contact me about my accident on that date. They'd obviously had my details sold to them by someone in the chain.

I had the following chasing me wanting to deal with my claim - the RAC (who recovered the car), Enterprise (with whom my insurance company had arranged a courtesy car) and the other party's insurance company! The latter didnt seem to understand why I laughed at the idea of my claim being handled by the company that would end up paying for it all!

 

[whoosh]

I think what is really being asked isn't, "Should car insurance be optional?" but rather, "Why do we have to keep giving increasing amounts of money to these money grabbing crooks?"

There seems to be an increasing number of 50/50 settlements, which then load BOTH customers premiums when they come to renewal as there is either 'fault' or 'non-fault' when it comes to your claims history, and a 50/50 has to go as a fault.
Ker-ching! for all the insurance companies as they can load more customer's policies.

Even a 70/20 goes as a 'fault' whether you are the 70 or the 20.

 

[RailWonderer]

I think what is really being asked isn't, "Should car insurance be optional?" but rather, "Why do we have to keep giving increasing amounts of money to these money grabbing crooks?"

There seems to be an increasing number of 50/50 settlements, which then load BOTH customers premiums when they come to renewal as there is either 'fault' or 'non-fault' when it comes to your claims history, and a 50/50 has to go as a fault.
Ker-ching! for all the insurance companies as they can load more customer's policies.

Even a 70/20 goes as a 'fault' whether you are the 70 or the 20.

The car insurance industry is competitive, so if quotes are going up across all providers, then it's something to do with the increasing value of claims being made post-pandemic. Then again, they can charge more because they know you need it, and they have shareholders and investors who want to keep seeing more and more profits or they take their money out and the company sinks. It's exploitative capitalism, much like health providers in the US, except they spend a fortune on lawyers to deny as many claims as possible.

 

[dcbwhaley]

We know that insurance repair costs have been forced up by all of the safety crap features mandated for current vehicles, but two measures that might help insurance costs are addressing the ease of keyless theft, and adding some means of assessing car driving standards during the 53 years that nobody currently bothers with.

Bus tickets are the same everywhere. £2 whether it is a single stop or a 40 mile journey.
Why can't the railways do the same with a flat £20 fare

 

[RailWonderer]

Bus tickets are the same everywhere. £2 whether it is a single stop or a 40 mile journey.
Why can't the railways do the same with a flat £20 fare

The railways have infrastructure to maintain - rails, signalling, points, overhead wiring, bridges, stations, the list goes on and on. Bus operators have just the staff and buses - Highways England takes care of the roads. You could charge a median fare (I'll guess it's £40) but it would kill most short journeys that wouldn't be in the railway's interest at all.

 

[JGurney]

Bus tickets are the same everywhere. £2 whether it is a single stop or a 40 mile journey.
Why can't the railways do the same with a flat £20 fare

There is no national flat bus fare of £2. That is the upper limit for fares on those services which are in the scheme (some are not and have higher fares). Operators can set lower fares for short journeys, and in London the flat fare is £1.75.

A flat fare of £20 on the railways would put off a lot of those who now make short journeys costing a lot less than that e.g. suburban journeys and short interurban ones like Middlesbrough to Darlington (£6.30) or Andover to Basingstoke (£7.20).

 

[SuspectUsual]

Highways England takes care of the road

Only the motorways and the trunk roads. The rest are done by local authorities

 

[Bald Rick]

You could charge a median fare (I'll guess it's £40) but it would kill most short journeys that wouldn't be in the railway's interest at all.

Presume you meant an average (mean) fare, whcih would be around £6.

The average (median) fare will be rather less than that, I’d guess around £3.50, as there are a lot of passengers who pay relatively little for their fares. For example AIUI the average fare on London Overground is somewhat south of £2.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Not once have i ever had any accident or incident or had to make a claim on my insurance for any reason.

I find this incredibly difficult to believe given your evident ability to cause a complete car crash of a thread on this forum.

 

[Egg Centric]

Yes, the same job should earn the same everywhere in the whole country.

Housing?

 

[dcbwhaley]

There is no national flat bus fare of £2. That is the upper limit for fares on those services which are in the scheme (some are not and have higher fares). Operators can set lower fares for short journeys, and in London the flat fare is £1.75.

A flat fare of £20 on the railways would put off a lot of those who now make short journeys costing a lot less than that e.g. suburban journeys and short interurban ones like Middlesbrough to Darlington (£6.30) or Andover to Basingstoke (£7.20).

Then have an upper limit of £40 and set lower fares for short journeys

 

[Indigo Soup]

Car insurance is optional. You don't have to pay it if you don't drive.

It's perfectly reasonable to point out that the cost of insurance has become very high. This is largely because the cost of repairing vehicles has become much higher in recent years as they've become more complex, the repair industry has struggled with recruiting, and spare parts supply chains have taken a kicking. I doubt that the ever-increasing number, size, and weight of vehicles on the road has done anything to reduce the number of claims being made, either.

I understand that it used to be the case that the UK insurance market was highly competitive, and that one of the signs that this was the case was that insurers could pitch premiums at a level where they actually lost money on the business of underwriting claims. They made sufficient returns by investing the premiums on the financial markets to cover the losses, plus profit. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but it would be interesting to know if this is still the case.

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

This provision was removed in 2019 by the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019.

postcode lottery

'Postcode lotteries' don't exist. You live and/or work in a certain place, you get a package of taxes and benefits that correspond to that place. My council tax might be higher or lower than yours. I might get a higher or lower level of services from my local authority. That's a consequence of where I chose to live, where you chose to live, and the differing policies of the authorities which we have elected in our respective areas.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Yes, the same job should earn the same everywhere in the whole country.

How will that work when the cost of living is different depending on where you live in the country? For example, salaries in London are higher to reflect the higher cost of living there. Then you factor in overtime/out of hours enhancements etc which isn't always voluntary

 

[SuspectUsual]

Yes, the same job should earn the same everywhere in the whole country.

Have you considered relocating to North Korea?

 

[stadler]

Yes, the same job should earn the same everywhere in the whole country.

I do think that companies should be forced to pay the same for everyone in the same role. A company should not be allowed to pay people a different salary just because they work in a different part of the country. Everyone who works for the same company under the same role should receive the same salary.

But i would be completely against having to pay everyone in the same role the same salary even in different companies. Doing this would mean that the government would set salaries. I think salaries should be a matter for the individual company and not the government and each company should set their own salaries.

I think what is really being asked isn't, "Should car insurance be optional?" but rather, "Why do we have to keep giving increasing amounts of money to these money grabbing crooks?"

There seems to be an increasing number of 50/50 settlements, which then load BOTH customers premiums when they come to renewal as there is either 'fault' or 'non-fault' when it comes to your claims history, and a 50/50 has to go as a fault.
Ker-ching! for all the insurance companies as they can load more customer's policies.

Even a 70/20 goes as a 'fault' whether you are the 70 or the 20.

Well yes that is one way to put it. I do have a huge problem with these insurance companies that make massive profits. They just exist to make money and really could not care less about their customers. Look at how hard they try to deny claims and how much they overcharge people for car insurance. The fact that we are forced to give these insurance companies money if we wish to drive a car is something i have an issue with.

I really wish we would come up with another way besides insurance. I understand why car insurance is made mandatory but there has to be a better solution. Whether that is the New Hampshire method or the New Zealand method or a completely new method. But the current insurance system is awful. I wish our government would look in to some alternative.

Then have an upper limit of £40 and set lower fares for short journeys

That is something that i think could work well. That would prevent those extortionate intercity fares that TOCs charge. I would maybe £40.00 maximum Single fare and £60.00 maximum Return fare. Then of course shorter journeys would be much cheaper. This is going off topic but i do think something like this could work and may even encourage more people to use trains and as such the TOCs would make more money.

Car insurance is optional. You don't have to pay it if you don't drive.

It's perfectly reasonable to point out that the cost of insurance has become very high. This is largely because the cost of repairing vehicles has become much higher in recent years as they've become more complex, the repair industry has struggled with recruiting, and spare parts supply chains have taken a kicking. I doubt that the ever-increasing number, size, and weight of vehicles on the road has done anything to reduce the number of claims being made, either.

I understand that it used to be the case that the UK insurance market was highly competitive, and that one of the signs that this was the case was that insurers could pitch premiums at a level where they actually lost money on the business of underwriting claims. They made sufficient returns by investing the premiums on the financial markets to cover the losses, plus profit. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but it would be interesting to know if this is still the case.

This provision was removed in 2019 by the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019.

'Postcode lotteries' don't exist. You live and/or work in a certain place, you get a package of taxes and benefits that correspond to that place. My council tax might be higher or lower than yours. I might get a higher or lower level of services from my local authority. That's a consequence of where I chose to live, where you chose to live, and the differing policies of the authorities which we have elected in our respective areas.

I would not really call that optional. That is like saying council tax is optional because you can choose to be homeless. Or train fares are optional because you can choose to walk. Being optional would mean that car drivers could choose whether or not they wanted to purchase car insurance (just like you can with home insurance or travel insurance or pet insurance etc) and give car drivers the choice.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I do think that companies should be forced to pay the same for everyone in the same role. A company should not be allowed to pay people a different salary just because they work in a different part of the country

Three points:

1 - the cost of living - as others have already said - varies massively across the country. For a national company to pay the same for every person in a given role means either underpaying significantly in some areas and overpaying in others - how is that fair?

2 - how would you define "same role"? There are lots of roles with quite generic job titles but which vary in detail - will they all have to have slightly different job titles?

3 - what is the value of experience, or being closer to a career progression than someone else?

 

[Stewart2887]

My employer does not pay London weighting salaries. Yes, we have an office in Paddington, and some people want to work there. If you don't want the expense, you can do the same job in Oxfordshire, Manchester or other UK cities. Or across the world (maybe). Maybe we as a nation should encourage working in regional offices?

 

[MCR247]

I find this incredibly difficult to believe given your evident ability to cause a complete car crash of a thread on this forum.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I would not really call that optional. That is like saying council tax is optional because you can choose to be homeless. Or train fares are optional because you can choose to walk. Being optional would mean that car drivers could choose whether or not they wanted to purchase car insurance (just like you can with home insurance or travel insurance or pet insurance etc) and give car drivers the choice.

Of course it's optional. You can choose to walk, or cycle, or take the bus, or take the train, or even hire a helicopter instead if you so choose. Just as you don't have to pay your mortgage, but can instead rent, live in hotels, or couch-surf. Council Tax is a spurious comparison because it is, well, a tax.

And in all of those other modes, the financial risk of something going wrong is priced into it. Even the helicopter. A small helicopter isn't actually that more expensive than a large luxury car. The additional costs are to do with the consequences should the ground stop repelling it, and the efforts to prevent that outcome.

If you want to propose that the option to lodge a bond with the Advocate General should be reintroduced, I wouldn't find that unreasonable. That bond ought to be valued at something like £1.2 million today; AFAIK the old bond of £500,000 matched the minimum value of third party cover required when it was introduced.

 

[mpthomson]

Of course it's optional. You can choose to walk, or cycle, or take the bus, or take the train, or even hire a helicopter instead if you so choose. Just as you don't have to pay your mortgage, but can instead rent, live in hotels, or couch-surf. Council Tax is a spurious comparison because it is, well, a tax.

And in all of those other modes, the financial risk of something going wrong is priced into it. Even the helicopter. A small helicopter isn't actually that more expensive than a large luxury car. The additional costs are to do with the consequences should the ground stop repelling it, and the efforts to prevent that outcome.

If you want to propose that the option to lodge a bond with the Advocate General should be reintroduced, I wouldn't find that unreasonable. That bond ought to be valued at something like £1.2 million today; AFAIK the old bond of £500,000 matched the minimum value of third party cover required when it was introduced.

It was stopped for new entrants because the Government consultation into it found that most of the organisations that paid into it didn’t have the ready capital to pay a large personal injury claim. Even if the bond was £1.2mn that wouldn’t change.

 

[Blackpool boy]

I find this incredibly difficult to believe given your evident ability to cause a complete car crash of a thread on this forum.

Its the most bonkers thing i have read for quite someitme

 

[Tetragon213]

Iirc after Great Heck, Gary Hart's insurers (Fortis) and their re-insurers Munich Re ended up paying out something on the order of £50 million when all was said and done; a total Hart could never have repaid on his own.

In light of that, I don't think making car insurance optional would be a good idea, due to the poor sod on the other side.

 

[SHD]

Absolutely not, because you could do a million quid's worth of damage to a train (wasn't that the world's highest motor insurance claim ever?) and not have the means to pay for it.

You can choose not to take insurance covering your risks by taking third party only. It should not be optional to cover the risks you pose to other people.

Don't know whether it was the world's highest claim, but it certainly was France's most onerous - in March 1976, a young lad was watching a football match with his bunch, had a few drinks too many, and on his way home with his ancient Traction avant, managed to skid and stall it on the Paris-Strasbourg main line tracks near the Marne-Rhine canal in the vicinity of Bar-le-Duc. Minutes after, a westbound freight train (there was a significant freight traffic then...) collided with the wrecked car. The locomotive derailed, destroyed the canal bridge and plunged into the canal. Several freight cars followed.

Fortunately, the train driver and his aide were unscathed.
But the locomotive (a brand new BB15000) was crushed into oblivion, as well as 20 freight cars, and obviously the merchandise - ironically, beer from the Kronenbourg brewery.

All in all, considering the loco and rolling stock write-off, the complex salvaging operation, the reconstruction works, the revenue loss to the railways, and even a complaint from the local fishing society, the damages reached 30 million francs, approx. £3m of that time.

The lad was insured with MAIF, the mutual insurance association of schoolteachers, and MAIF subscribers had to pay a "Bar-le-Duc" premium surcharge...

I am myself a MAIF subscriber and they're the best insurer one can deal with. They are a a mutual/co-op insurer rather than a purely commercial company, and it shows.

 

[Tetragon213]

Don't know whether it was the world's highest claim, but it certainly was France's most onerous - in March 1976, a young lad was watching a football match with his bunch, had a few drinks too many, and on his way home with his ancient Traction avant, managed to skid and stall it on the Paris-Strasbourg main line tracks near the Marne-Rhine canal in the vicinity of Bar-le-Duc. Minutes after, a westbound freight train (there was a significant freight traffic then...) collided with the wrecked car. The locomotive derailed, destroyed the canal bridge and plunged into the canal. Several freight cars followed.

Fortunately, the train driver and his aide were unscathed.
But the locomotive (a brand new BB15000) was crushed into oblivion, as well as 20 freight cars, and obviously the merchandise - ironically, beer from the Kronenbourg brewery.

All in all, considering the loco and rolling stock write-off, the complex salvaging operation, the reconstruction works, the revenue loss to the railways, and even a complaint from the local fishing society, the damages reached 30 million francs, approx. £3m of that time.

The lad was insured with MAIF, the mutual insurance association of schoolteachers, and MAIF subscribers had to pay a "Bar-le-Duc" premium surcharge...

I am myself a MAIF subscriber and they're the best insurer one can deal with. They are a a mutual/co-op insurer rather than a purely commercial company, and it shows.

I think the Selby/Great Heck disaster might have unfortunately beaten this one.

That time, it was 2 trains, multiple deaths, and a ton of damage to the OLE. The final figure was about £50 million iirc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the Selby/Great Heck disaster might have unfortunately beaten this one.

That time, it was 2 trains, multiple deaths, and a ton of damage to the OLE. The final figure was about £50 million iirc.

Great Heck caused quite a few insurance companies to cap the third party payout to the legal minimum, if I recall - many insurers had an unlimited liability before.