Ford C-Max Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have just read that the average cost of comprehensive insurance is now over £700 per year, whilst the number of drivers in urban areas of Britain without insurance cover of any kind is almost two in ten, or nearing a staggering 20%
.

I was wondering whether a viable solution to this problem, which will only worsen in years ahead, would be to add the cost of car insurance to the price of fuel in order that everyone who drives is automatically insured. I cannot think of a single government anywhere who has considered such a proposal, so I guess there must be something very wrong with it, although I am hard-pressed to think of why such a scheme could not work.

On the face of it, my insurance [£150 per year] @ 5000 miles per year = 3p per mile, whereas an 'average' driver [say £500 insurance @ 12,000 miles per year] = 4p per mile. So, if your average car does, say, 30 mpg, the additional cost per gallon would be approximately £1.20 per gallon. Therefore, the 12,000 mile per year driver [= 400 gallons] would pay a premium of £480 over the year, i.e., the same as the cost of the existing insurance.

The advantages of such a scheme would be that anyone who buys fuel would be automatically insured, no-one need take out individual insurance or pay for it up-front, and no more daft and pointless ads of the television
. It is also a very 'green' proposal, as it encourages frugal driving. The only disadvantaged group, presumably, would be those who do a very high mileage, but pay low insurance premiums.

As I have said, I feel sure that there is a gaping hole of illogical nonsence
somewhere in this notion, so I await enlightenment from the ether.



Edited by: romseyraver
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
It is illogical as the insurance industry works on a risk basis. The fuel consumption of your vehicle has no correlation to the risk of you having an accident.

Why should someone who has over 20 years behind the wheel without an accident pay the same amount as someone who has been driving a year written off 7 cars and got 2 speeding tickets?

Insurance premiums are high yes but that's because the standard of driving is so poor. If standards were raised, greater license restrictions put in place and the ability to have bad drivers reported/retested then you'ld see incidents sharply decrease and the roads made into a safer place. I also have a motorbike and you are limited to less powerful models upon passing your test. Why not implement something similar with cars?

Would you like to guess how much I was quoted to drive a C-Max having just passed my test at 17?

\/


\/


\/


£5500 and that was with my mother on the policy as well. The prices went up to over £13k and it was only a 1.6TDCi in a good area with no penalty points. Even now having been driving for nearly 2 years and completed an advanced driving course (IAM)I was quoted £3500 from Ford Insure when I purchased my 1.8 2 weeks ago. We've since been able to get it down to £1500 but it's still up there!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,765 Posts
The amount of fuel you use does have a correlation with insurance risk.Consider
The more powerful your vehicle the more fuel you use
The faster you drive the morefuel you use - involvement in accident more likely at higher speed
The more you drive in congestion the more fuel you use - congestion puts up the risk of involvement in accident (only minor in most cases however)
The more you drive the more fuel you use - Whatever an individuals risk of being involved in an accident the more you are on the roads the more chance you have of being involved in an incident requiring an insurance claim even if you didn't cause it

The cost of unisured drivers is about £30 to each of our premiums not o mention the supposed checking of insurance with ANPR by the police. You'll find that a lot of the time now speeding points without disqulification)are ignored for premium calculations because tey expect everyone to have them

You might get a better response if you went for an alternative to VED as an increase in fuel duty because there should be almost no way of avoiding paying it without stealing fuel

The main problems would be with trunking freight where you are getting perhaps 6-8 MPG and doing around 100,000 km per year
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
You'll find that a lot of the time now speeding points without disqulification)are ignored for premium calculations because tey expect everyone to have them
That would seem to be the case.
I'm paying less for insurance now with 9 points on my licence than I did 2 years ago with a clean licence!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
If everyone drove the same vehicle then yes that might work out, but you can have people who have just passed their test with 1.0-1.2L cars that statistically are the highest risk compared to someone who has been driving accident free30years and drives a hummer.
The risk is predominately tied to the driverrather than the vehicle. That's why to insure a vehicle the next group up is only £30 on top of your premium but to have a single years no claims bonus it shaves off nearly 30%.



Why should someone llike myself who has invested time and money in taking advanced driving qualifications not get a reduction in insurance premiums as I'm statisically less likely to crash?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,765 Posts
If you are on a road for three times as long as an inexperienced driver but they are twice as likely to have an insurance claim then you would be more likely to claim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
They were saying on my local radio this morning that BRAKE (the road safety charity) are suggesting that new drivers should....

a) - Not be allowed to drive on the motorway
b) - Not be allowed to drive late at night
c) - Clock up a minimum number of hours as a learner before they are allowed to take a test.

None of those to me seem to be great suggestions as you wouldn't want someone to not be allowed to drive on the motorway/night for a certain length of time, then suddenly be allowed and be over-awed by it and make mistakes. As for the minimum number of hours, as a lot of people learn with family to keep costs down, no idea how they would monitor this.

Not directly related to the insurance question, but surely if test standards were higher then as a result insurance could come down (wishful thinking I know!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
Also driving late at night it brilliant as it gives you a change to get use to roads without traffic. When I was learning to ride my bike I would go out at 2-3am in the morning and it would be so quiet you could concentrate on getting your technique right and stop/starting without the pressure of traffic behind you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Yup, I thought my idea was all too good to be true
.

However, I still think that the kernel of the idea of a national insurance for cars holds good. It is easy to account for minorities. For example, new or high risk drivers might be asked to purchase additional insurance as we all have to now for, say, their first five years of driving or for a period after an accident. HGV drivers could easily have their own arrangements with the tax man, etc.

The point is that the vast majority of drivers fall into broadly the same general category, whether we drive a cheap or an expensive car, or drive high mileages or low. Generally insurance costs fall somewhere in the middle of extremes, and the additional cost on petrol would be about the same as purchasing an individual policy. The advantages for this huge middle group, paying a general insurance every time they purchase petrol [instead of every single person buying individual insurance each year], seems to me to be self-evident.

The problem is that, currently, 20% of drivers are uninsured and on the road right now, and this percentage will only get worse. Surely it is better for these people to have some form of insurance, rather then none? Of course we all resent paying for these irresponsible idiots, but we are, in fact, already paying for them, big time. At least, when purchasing fuel, they would be making some contribution to the common wheal [or is it wheel]
.








Edited by: romseyraver
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,765 Posts
If Road Traffic Law were PROPERLY enforced and the penalties were a SIGNIFICANT deterrant then the threat of being caught and properly punished would make everything a lot easier

(Shouting intended)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
The problem with current legislation is that it assumes a person will follow the law. If you get caught with no insurance you lose your license. Well if a person if driving with no insurance then why would losing their license make a difference to them.

You'ld be better off having TPO insurance included with petrol costs at like only 1p extra per litreand then have the option to pay extra for FC insurance with extras like courtesy cars. Abit like the NHS you have the standard care there but if you want anything extra you pay for it. That would protect us law abiding citizensfrom uninsured drivers, includes the idea that if you do more to better yourself you get rewarded and doesn't put the price up by a considerable amount.

It would however mean creating a Government owned insurance group which would cause a very big shakeup of the insurance industry I'd imagine......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I don't think the government would need get involved, and it certainly wouldn't be necessary to nationalise the scheme. Insurance companies could administer it. Just bung'em the money and tell'em to get on with it.

But you're right. It will never happen because far too much money being made fleecing your average driver year in year out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,765 Posts
They could add an amount for VED to the figure as well and then both items could be taken of the check list for those over pressed people in battenburgs.
It could then be administered from swansea as they wouldn't have anything else to do as they wouldn't have to send out tax reminders or several others things

Once you got this far of course there would then be no need for all this pay as your drive sattelite technology because it would all be happening anyway and it wouldn't need anymore technology to collect the tax because it allready works perfectly allready

By the way the sun here east of Birmingham is being obscured by a whole number of large pink things that I can't quite identify at the moment..... hmmm!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
You wouldn't choose. Who cares, so long as you get insured. There would be a huge pot of money that would be distributed to insurance companies. How it is distributed between them is up to them. Not rocket science, I would have thought. I get my insurance and petrol through Sainbury's, but I haven't a clue who actually insures me and my car and I know that the petrol comes from all over the place. Sainsbury's broker for all of them, so it's not as if this kind of distribution isn't being done already.
Edited by: romseyraver
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,402 Posts
I`ve seen those pink things too!!!
Might just be a local thing but they could well spread to the rest of the country with the breeze we have here at the moment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
If you have a massive pot of money and a massive group of people wanting insurance you have to have have some form of independant body to distribute funds. It would be logical, that since this is an idea that affects every citizen and tourist of this country, the government bethat body.

Yes there are brokers but there are still multiple brokers offering you insurance and it's your decision to go withwho you want - you're talking about removing that freedom to choose.


You came up with a practical idea and I'm merely offering some constructive critism thatyou seem to be taking rather personally. If you want to have a discussion about implementing a new system you can't say things along the lines of "Who cares, so long as you get insured" the idea is that YOU care andYOU come up with a solution. The solution I suggested seems alot fairer and a good compromise but I still maintain my earlier point that you're merely dealing with the symptoms and not addressing the cause - bad driving standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Oh dear, what with Ponting and Katich scoring centuries and super-users et al having a laugh, I'm not having a good day
! Or am I
.

Sorry if I sounded personal, Gepard, didn't mean to. Yes, I agree absolutely that there would have to be some sort of 'national insurance' scheme, a sort of national body to include all of the insurance companies, but not necessarily administered by the government. Since everyone would be paying the same amount for insurance, it should be relatively easy to administer. Yes, it would take away a freedom to choose, but, as you say, it would have to be a 'basic' insurance, with add-ons being purchased as usual on an individual basis, not at the pump but on a yearly basis, as per usual.

The point I was trying to make was simply that, just as no-one cares where the gas comes from for central heating, the same might apply to car insurance. One would just get it with the petrol. Every driver would be effectively insured by every insurance company all of the time. Granted it won't do anything about bad or immature driving [I never claimed that it would, that is a separate issue] but at least it would make uninsured driving impossible, which was the original and only aim of the proposal.

Don't know about pink elephants, but it feels like the vultures are circling round here
.










Edited by: romseyraver
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top