Government over reaction again, this time attack dog owners

[Nitefly]

I'm starting to get concerned about you, you seem to have suddenly leapt towards a belief that the government needs to control every aspect of people's lives, and that all government interference is beneficial no matter how over-zealous and draconian it is. You seem to be taking the irrational 'preventing one incident is worth punishing millions' insanity that pervades authoritarian governments worldwide, while ignoring the fact that it won't actually address the problem issues.

What changed Nitefly?

Well, I appreciate your concern

I don't think that the Government needs to control every aspect of our lives. From the article, there is however a problem in that 5,200 people are year are hospitalised from dog attacks. That is not insignificant. Will an insurance policy stop those attacks? No. It will however promote the second best alternative of compensating those who fall victim to the attacks.

It really isn't so dissimilar to car insurance, and I would be very surprised if the same level of mandatory insurance would apply to every breed of dog in the same way that we pay different insurance on different cars at different ages.

If we wanted to achieve the first best alternative, we can either ban dog or dangerous dogs completely, or ensure compulsory training for all dogs. I think you will agree that the former is disproportional to the problem and the latter more burdensome than the proposed solution. Accordingly, providing the insurance fees are not excessive, then I see not problem with the policy.

 

[Dolph]

Clear civil liability is as useless as the paper it is written on when dealing with impecunious individuals, hence the need for compulsory insurance.

No, just the need for better enforcement of civil judgements. Not that you'll get that from Labour, they won't tackle one of their core voting groups when it comes to refusal to take responsibility.

 

[Rich_L]

How do you enforce a civil judgment against an impecunious individual?

Put them in the mines till their debt is paid? Re-introduce slavery for debtors?

The whole reason we have mandatory third-party car insurance is because the vast majority of individuals have nowhere near the means to pay for the substantial damages caused by their actions, and without funds such as the MIB, people who were injured through no fault of their own would have no redress from impecunious individuals.

Perhaps it doesn't accord with your lofty principles of freedom from interference - but principles aren't much solace to people who are left without any form of redress through the actions of an uninsured and impecunious individual, and as such a practical solution which actually works is clearly a more preferable course of action.

 

[The IPB]

Clear civil liability is as useless as the paper it is written on when dealing with impecunious individuals, hence the need for compulsory insurance.

Which the skanks won't pay same as they don't pay car insurance, what is it that you don't understand about this?

In an ideal world where if your insurance wasn't paid you would get shot in the face this might work, but policing this compulsory dog insurance would be a joke.

 

[Nitefly]

Which the skanks won't pay same as they don't pay car insurance, what is it that you don't understand about this?

The money you pay for car insurance partially compensates victims who are hit by uninsured drivers (IIRC).

 

[Dolph]

Well, I appreciate your concern

I don't think that the Government needs to control every aspect of our lives. From the article, there is however a problem in that 5,200 people are year are hospitalised from dog attacks. That is not insignificant. Will an insurance policy stop those attacks? No. It will however promote the second best alternative of compensating those who fall victim to the attacks.

How many dogs are in the UK?

http://www.pfma.org.uk/index.php?option=com_easyfaq&task=view&id=17&itemid=99999999

8million?

5000 attacks?

0.0625% (assuming that each attack is by a unique dog, actual result will be less).

You seriously think that is a significant problem?

It really isn't so dissimilar to car insurance, and I would be very surprised if the same level of mandatory insurance would apply to every breed of dog in the same way that we pay different insurance on different cars at different ages.

See above.

If we wanted to achieve the first best alternative, we can either ban dog or dangerous dogs completely, or ensure compulsory training for all dogs. I think you will agree that the former is disproportional to the problem and the latter more burdensome than the proposed solution. Accordingly, providing the insurance fees are not excessive, then I see not problem with the policy.

If we wanted to resolve the issue properly, then we need to actually target the cause of the problem. The sort of person who keeps a dog that attacks is not the sort of person with a good respect for the law, so why do you think that changing the law will help?

 

[Delvis]

Which the skanks won't pay same as they don't pay car insurance, what is it that you don't understand about this?

In an ideal world where if your insurance wasn't paid you would get shot in the face this might work, but policing this compulsory dog insurance would be a joke.

Same way as car insurance doesn't work for the ones that don't pay it...Car gets caught, impounded, taken away, guy gets ban on license for 5 months...Person goes out and buys a piece of trash car and drives that anyway...Repeat

 

[The IPB]

So what you are saying is, the people who's dogs don't attack anyone should pay insurance to cover those that don't.

That's fair.

 

[Rich_L]

Guess what, the people who insure their cars cover those who don't.

Fair or not, I imagine you'd appreciate the compensation from the MIB if an uninsured driver put you in hospital.

 

[Dolph]

How do you enforce a civil judgment against an impecunious individual?

Put them in the mines till their debt is paid? Re-introduce slavery for debtors?

Hold them in contempt of court and give them the appropriate punishment? Which may include imprisonment. I don't see the problem with that, there has to be some method of enforcing responsibility for the consequences of actions.

The whole reason we have mandatory third-party car insurance is because the vast majority of individuals have nowhere near the means to pay for the substantial damages caused by their actions, and without funds such as the MIB, people who were injured through no fault of their own would have no redress from impecunious individuals.

Which is fine, but the statistics are massively different...

Perhaps it doesn't accord with your lofty principles of freedom from interference - but principles aren't much solace to people who are left without any form of redress through the actions of an uninsured and impecunious individual, and as such a practical solution which actually works is clearly a more preferable course of action.

I'm fully aware of that, but compulsory insurance doesn't solve that, prevention of shirking of responsibility does.

 

[Rich_L]

Hold them in contempt of court and give them the appropriate punishment? Which may include imprisonment. I don't see the problem with that, there has to be some method of enforcing responsibility for the consequences of actions.

None of which provides any funds whatsoever for the injured party.

 

[Dolph]

Guess what, the people who insure their cars cover those who don't.

Fair or not, I imagine you'd appreciate the compensation from the MIB if an uninsured driver put you in hospital.

Another example of rampant stupidity. The MIB fund should exist of course, but they should then reclaim the costs from the individual concerned, not from the innocent and law abiding. If they can't afford it, then they should lose other liberties as a result of their actions.

When driving without insurance is currently punished with a fine that is substantially less than the insurance cost, you just encourage a culture of irresponsibility.

 

[Dolph]

None of which provides any funds whatsoever for the injured party.

Then add in a compensation fund, but you can't keep letting people shirk their responsibilities on the basis they can't afford the consequences of their choices.

 

[Delvis]

When driving without insurance is currently punished with a fine that is substantially less than the insurance cost, you just encourage a culture of irresponsibility.

That does make me laugh

 

[The IPB]

I don't mind paying car insurance, I may get crashed into or crash into someone else I cannot guarantee I will not. Insurance is their to cover me.

My dog won't attack anyone, he is never off his lead and is not aggressive regardless.

He has been attacked twice by dogs off the lead in the street. Id rather see owners forced to keep dogs on leads, and maybe dog walking parks where they can only be let off or something.

 

[InvaderGIR]

That does make me laugh

Why? It's a lot of people's take on it. Why should they pay insurance when it'll cost them a small amount if they are stopped.

 

[Ziggy]

Dolph: You are the man.

 

[Nitefly]

How many dogs are in the UK?

http://www.pfma.org.uk/index.php?option=com_easyfaq&task=view&id=17&itemid=99999999

8million?

5000 attacks?

0.0625% (assuming that each attack is by a unique dog, actual result will be less).

You seriously think that is a significant problem?

I don't think that's a very good way to use statistics.

According to this, 61 people per 100,000 are involved in road accidents.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=6062

Thats ~0.00061. Do you think that's a serious problem?

If we wanted to resolve the issue properly, then we need to actually target the cause of the problem. The sort of person who keeps a dog that attacks is not the sort of person with a good respect for the law, so why do you think that changing the law will help?

As I said before, it will help achieve the objective of compensating those attacked. If deterrence is not a primary objective that it does not render a policy useless.

 

[Gimpymoo]

And the Winners are..... The Insurance companies.. Mmmm.. I wonder who is pushing for this.

 

[Rich_L]

Then add in a compensation fund, but you can't keep letting people shirk their responsibilities on the basis they can't afford the consequences of their choices.

Do you think a compensation fund would exist without it being made mandatory?

Where is the business case for paying out to people injured by drivers who do not contribute? I'll answer for you - there is absolutely none whatsoever.

It is exactly the same as the trade-off demanded by the health insurance industry in the US at present - they will only cover the 'uninsurable' people if they obtain the trade-off that purchasing health insurance becomes mandatory.

Is it 'fair'? Is it 'pure free market' - maybe not - but it is an acknowledgment of the reality of the situation and creating a practical solution to the problem.