John Barnes - One rule for them, another for us?

Energize · 30 Oct 2008 at 18:59

Muffin` said:
You can drive without insurance, but you have to deposit a considerable sum to the Treasury, you can't rely on good will with things like this.

You don't need to rely on good will, the government can force people to pay.

Muffin` · 30 Oct 2008 at 19:00

Yes, yes it can, OR they could pay insurance. Which one do you think is best value for money?

Energize · 30 Oct 2008 at 19:02

If you are a sensible driver then the former because no claims will come against you. In other countries they manage without insurance.

Nitefly · 30 Oct 2008 at 19:02

Energize said:
You don't need to rely on good will, the government can force people to pay.

Actually it comes out of the government funding organisation set up to deal with such things, IIRC.

HangTime · 30 Oct 2008 at 21:23

Energize said:
If you are a millionaire then you can afford any claims that may come your way

Not everyone on £4k/week is a millionaire. If you caused a lot of damage (to both property and people), lost your license and thus your job, you might struggle to pay for everything.

Energize · 30 Oct 2008 at 21:29

HangTime said:
Not everyone on £4k/week is a millionaire. If you caused a lot of damage (to both property and people), lost your license and thus your job, you might struggle to pay for everything.

No but this guy was. There is a limit as to the maximum claim, so as long as the person has the capability to pay these then he should be allowed to drive (in fact it's better for insurance companies not to be involved as that would drive up costs for everyone else), I believe some states in the US like Wisconsin allow this.

[TW]Fox · 30 Oct 2008 at 21:31

Energize said:
No but this guy was. There is a limit as to the maximum claim, so as long as the person has the capability to pay these then he should be allowed to drive (in fact it's better for insurance companies not to be involved as that would drive up costs for everyone else), I believe some states in the US like Wisconsin allow this.

The UK allows this also - provided you deposit the sum of £500,000 with the treasury.

Energize · 30 Oct 2008 at 21:35

[TW]Fox;12803097 said:
The UK allows this also - provided you deposit the sum of £500,000 with the treasury.

That's the problem though, a £500k desposit losing tons of interest whereas other places only require proof of ability to pay. The deposit would cost more in interest than insurance would.

[TW]Fox · 30 Oct 2008 at 21:35

Energize said:
That's the problem though, a £500k desposit losing tons of interest whereas other places only require proof of ability to pay.

It's not worth the risk doing it any other way. Our system works fine.

Jez · 30 Oct 2008 at 22:09

Energize said:
It was a stupid law anyway, people who earn £4k a week hardly need insurance.

I'm sorry but this just is not true.

My father for example earns in considerable excess of £4000/week, yet there is absolutely no way he would want to be involved, or have the burden of paying millions of pounds off for killing part of a family, and leaving one remaining member needing 24/7 care for the rest of their life.

Insurance is needed for everyone, i would even question that £.5m deposit rule with the treasury, that seems far far too low.

-|ScottFree|- · 30 Oct 2008 at 22:12

Whats the Skank Newspaper remark about?... what does the Daily Mail do that is so bad??

Jez · 30 Oct 2008 at 22:21

-|ScottFree|- said:
Whats the Skank Newspaper remark about?... what does the Daily Mail do that is so bad??

Comes up with silly headlines like the above repeatedly?