In many countries (including some in EU), the car is insured covering anyone driving it.
But in UK, we insure a driver driving particular car(s).
What was the rational behind this logic?
PS: I think in NZL, 3rd party insurance is included in fuel price. That may be another good thing (yes, it will raise fuel price but reduce insurance - of course, some will gain and some will lose out).
Last edited by: movilogo on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 11:49
|
In the countries that do this, all their cars are bashed and scraped? They don't appear to repair cosmetic damage. Maybe i'm being short sighted, don't know enough about it but just a thought i've had.
I'm not sure we could afford to do something like this, it'd be unlikely to be fully self supporting.
Plus i like the idea of pricing repeat offenders off the road that comes with the current model. Although i'm not keen on pricing unproven drivers (young males) off the road, even though they can be dolts once behind the wheel, i'd rather we give each a fair chance and what they do with that chance is their affair.
I'd probably make it easier to be taken off the road right enough. If you can't share tarmac, you can catch the bus.
|
|
the problem is Skoda, rising premiums doesn't price them off the road. They just drive with no insurance and take the risk because the fines are lower than a years insurance!
|
|
You've identified the solution there already though :-)
|
If i were much younger, I would think having 3rd party insurance in the price of fuel was a fantistic idea.
However in reality, I honestly think there would be absolute carnage on the roads as young lads charge about in the monster gas guzzlers that are incredibly cheap because nobody else wants them.
|
|
I don't fancy paying extra to subsidise people with appalling driving records.
|
>> In many countries (including some in EU), the car is insured covering anyone driving it.
>> But in UK, we insure a driver driving particular car(s).
>> What was the rational behind this logic?
Because the capability of drivers differs.
|
>> Because the capability of drivers differs.
>>
Can that be true?
|
|
The financial risk to the insurer is dependent on (amongst other things) a combination of the driver and the car. In that respect, my insurer's rules have changed. Until a year or so ago my insurer (for an addition to the premium) allowed any driver, but it now only allows the policy holder and named drivers. Prior to tnat I had "any driver" for as long as I can remember.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Tue 29 Mar 11 at 14:25
|
We in Sweden have the car insured, not the driver. The only proviso on my insurance documents is that young drivers pay a higher excess. I'm not sure how they know who the main driver is though. The good things is, you can borrow anyones car, and vice versa without even thinking about it.
The other difference is when you ask someone to take you to the airport, they expect to use your car, not theirs.
|
|
In Italy it is also the car that is insured. It is eye wateringly expensive though. We have a fairly old Mercedes A class there, worth about 5000 euro. The cost to insure per year is around 1000euro third party!!
|
Way back in the 90s it was cheaper to insure my Polo 'any driver' instead of tpft. I did live in Liverpool at the time.
I dont think such policies are available anymore.
|
Insuring car instead of driver - Skoda
