h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As far as I understand car insurance, if someone drives into my car and damages it their insurance pays for the repairs. If they have no insurance my insurance pays for it. Except I have to pay the first £250 excess, and then my premiums go up because I've made a claim. So I'm out of pocket because the other person didn't take out the compulsory insurance. Perhaps having their car scrapped is a harsh punishment, but if my car's written off, will the insurance company pay me enough to get a decent replacement? From what I've heard, that's unlilkely, so I could feasibly be left unable to afford a new car. Would it be fair if I just stole one?

As someone's already pointed out, driving is a privilege, not a right. Not being able to afford insurance doesn't give them the right to break the law, in exactly the same way that not being able to afford a loaf of bread doesn't give them the right to rob the baker.

Deb

I think I know a lot more about life in the UK than you. I also have lived in both city, town and country in my life as well as living in Scotland, England and Wales in my time.
Very few people *need* a car in the UK outside of those whose work involves driving a lot (professionally I mean, not just to get from work and back).

Laws are always enforced at the discretion of the police
If there are no problems with reckless driving somewhere, the police aren't going to be going around looking to enforce it are they.

You appear to believe that poor people are OK to break the laws or not as they choose so who am I to argue?
If a child is hit by an uninsured driver and maimed I'm sure their mother will be comorted by the news that the driver could not afford their insurance that month.
Is it OK then to abandon the responsibility of the fact that she will now have to pay for all the cost of brining up a disabled kid off their own back rather than having the compensation that would have come from an insurance claim?
Even careful drivers can have accidents - being poor is no excuse. If you can't afford a car and all the associated costs then you shouldn't have one.
We all have to live in a society that's why it has rules so there isn't mayhem, just because you seem to think you should be expempt doesn't make it so.
Having no license, road tax, insurance or MOT is a crime punishable by the laws the land as they have stipulated. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Your attitude stinks frankly.

>>
You appear to believe that poor people are OK to break the laws or not as they choose so who am I to argue?
<<

No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that poor need to be protected from draconian laws that are intended to protect the property rights of the wealthy.


>>I think I know a lot more about life in the UK than you. I also have lived in both city, town and country in my life as well as living in Scotland, England and Wales in my time.
Very few people *need* a car in the UK outside of those whose work involves driving a lot (professionally I mean, not just to get from work and back).
<<

Yes, I'm sure you do know alot more about living in the UK than I do. I just don't think you know about the experiences of all Brits .

Can other people comment on this? Is everywhere in the UK served with a safe, adequate, 24hour, affordable public transport system? (with the exception of Arran ).


>>
If there are no problems with reckless driving somewhere, the police aren't going to be going around looking to enforce it are they.
<<

Again, this seems naive. Police use all sorts of reasons to harass poor people, odd looking people, and non-whites. Those classes of people routinely get stopped by the police way more than white people, and routinely get things checked about themselves and their cars.


>>
If a child is hit by an uninsured driver and maimed I'm sure their mother will be comorted by the news that the driver could not afford their insurance that month.
<<

Have I misunderstood what is being talked about here? I thought the insurance in question was for the car if there was an accident or theft. But does it include payment to people who get hit by cars?

There's a few points there, I'll stick to two.

3rd Party insurance is compulsory. It is not for yourself, but for anyone or anything you hit. If you hit a wall for example, your insurance company will pay for the damage. If you have no insurance, the householder either has to claim on their own insurance (and be penalised) or pay for it themelves. In larger claims, where someone has been left disabled by an uninsured driver for example, a combination of State Aid and monies from a combine pool rom the insurance companies is available.

<>

Absolutely not. Even on the mainland in reasonably sized towns, there may be no trains and the bus services are erratic if they exist at all. Only in major cities does public transport even start to be effective and that is only because there is sufficient profit available.

Oops, got struck by an attack of the blicky's there

<>
combined pool from the insurance

>>Perhaps having their car scrapped is a harsh punishment, but if my car's written off, will the insurance company pay me enough to get a decent replacement? <<

There is no perhaps about it. For some people losing a car could have very serious implications.

I'm not saying that having no insurance is good or right. I'm saying that I understand some of the reasons for not having insurance. And that a law that removes someone's car is way OTT for the offence and will disproportionately affect poor people who are the people that can least afford insurance OR having their car taken from them.


>>Perhaps having their car scrapped is a harsh punishment, but if my car's written off, will the insurance company pay me enough to get a decent replacement?<<

In NZ you only get paid for the amount your car is insured for irrespective of which company pays out. So if someone runs into me, their insurance pays, but only up to the amount I have the car insured for. I've been in this situation and it does stink because there was no way that I could have insured my car to replacement value. But I wouldn't have wanted the 17 year old who ran into me to have had his car seized if he hadn't had insurance, not least because it would mean he would be even more unable to pay me out of his own pocket.

In NZ if you are hit by an uninsured driver than you can take a claim against them that they have to pay you personally. I agree it's not ideal (if they have no money it can take a long time).

Certanily in the uk, if you (in your car, on a bike, on your feet, on a horse, whatever) or your property is damaged by a vehicle, the owner or driver's insurance is where compensation comes from.

If an unlicenced driver drove into you, you could sue them personally (assuming the information you can collect is correct) if you really pushed it, with probably no garuantee of success, but most uninsured drivers will try to settle up a small amount in cash (at best) and will tend to avoid exchanging details wherever possible. As was stated before though, your insurance would have to cover your own damages (and if you are only insured 3rd party, fire and theft, you're right up the swanee..) and without another company to claim off, it's all your money you're spending.

This is why it's the law in the UK to have adequate insurance when driving a motorised vehicle on the public roads. And why it's incredibly inconsiderate to not have it. Nobody's perfect after all!

Actually, re that last bit I wrote, I think if you have insurance then your insurance company pays for the damage and they chase up the uninsured person to the end of their days, so it's not so bad beyond losing your no claims bonus.

3rd party isn't compulsory here but I think most people have at least that. We have state money for damage to people too, and no capacity to sue.

>>
Absolutely not. Even on the mainland in reasonably sized towns, there may be no trains and the bus services are erratic if they exist at all. Only in major cities does public transport even start to be effective and that is only because there is sufficient profit available.
<< SWL

Yes, well, that was what I was assuming.

In reality, in this country at least, that doesn't happen. If the person were tracked down and proved they couldnt pay, it wouldn't be worth the effort and time put in. at best a court would tell them to pay a token amount monthly to the government as a fine to make them not do it again...

Considering most of these type of situations involve reasonably minor damage (not write offs, no fatalaties or maiming) the cost is nearly ALWAYS taken on by the victim of the situation, usually the insured and often innocent driver... and considering it can easily cost £300 or so to replace a colour coded car bumper plus more to repair any damage underneath, that's a LOT of money to stump up for someone else's 'Sorry, I'm too poor'.

I have to agree with the doing the time/doing the crime statement of earlier. People need to take more responsibility for their own actions... And people RARELY end up livng suddenly in the middle of nowhere with no transport. It happens, but usually there's some warning of the impending situation and it's up to a person to do what they can to make sure they dont end up needing to break the law.

I just had a look, and NZ is set to make 3rd party compulsory. Which I think is a good thing. I just don't want to see people's cars getting trashed for not having it.


>>And why it's incredibly inconsiderate to not have it<<

Well, the $150 - $200 for 3rd party in NZ is alot of money for some people. And if you have your own insurance then you're only out the excess, which while annoying isn't the end of the world.

Sorry, that should have been $100 - $150.


Insurance companies in NZ must be more hardnosed, because they will chase up someone who has no insurance. But then I'm thinking when it's a reasonably high amount, they're not going to chase a few hundred dollars.

But are you saying that you really think it's valid that someone should have their car scrapped so that you potentially don't have to pay say $300 to get something fixed (my excess is $400 I think)?

Robyn, just clarify for me, if you have insurance then your insurance company will pay less the excess (and later loss of the no claims bonus), right? Not you personally?

Well, 3rd party is the minimum legal requirement here, and why should a poor but managing driver (I would class myself as one of these) who does pay insurance, tax and get an MOT every year pay the best part of £300 because someone else has other things they'd rather spend their money on? I'd much rather have a few beers than pay for insurance. I'd much rather buy my own PC than buy insurance, but if I want to drive, I have to pay what I have to pay. If you're that poor, you'd ride a small moped or a bicycle, it's all a lot cheaper!

It's our culture and law here that you MUST have valid and adequate insurance. Therefore, those who dont are breaking the law, and also letting down all other drivers who DO.

3rd party covers only other people's damage, not your own, so it's certainly not for your own benefit, is it?

If someone breaks the law and the most effective way to stop them causing people who are not breaking the law great cost and inconvenience, is to remove the tool they are using to do so then yes, why not?

If you let them carry on, there's no real deterrent. If they have to shell out for another car, then it'll slow them down somewhat!

Dont get me wrong I think people with little or no money need help, but allowing them to break the law isn't the way to go about addressing huge socio-economcal issues!

er, yes. or to put it another way, it would cost me around £300 (assuming the damage cost more than my excess) plus the cost of the raised premium due to loss of no claims... Which can be as much as 25% a year... My insurance costs me around £400 a year at the moment, I'm over 25 and drive a 1.1, bog standard car in a reasonable area... It's not just a mild inconvenience if I get hit by an uninsured driver, it's a lot of money and can cause untold problems (why should I go short on food, leisure activities or anything at all for an uninsured driver to have free reign on the roads?). I certainly couldnt afford to repair my own car and would have to do without until such time as I could save up enough money.

Yes, but you haven't answered the question: do you really think having someone's car trashed is a valid punishment given that in the majority of cases the injured car is going to be covered, less excess and no claims bonus?

>> If you're that poor, you'd ride a small moped or a bicycle, it's all a lot cheaper!<<

I accept that you are on a low income, but I'm not sure if we are talking about the same kind of poor here.

I can think of some friends who live 30 minutes drive from the supermarket and all other ammenities like library, bank, places to pay bills etc. There is a very poor and intermittent but expensive bus service (it's cheaper petrol wise to drive). These are people who never had money in their bank account at the end of the week. It's not unusual for them to run out of food, not in the sense of starving, but in the sense of skipping lunch or breakfast because they need to make food last until the next payday.

Both of them are sufficiently disabled to make biking or even mopeding to town impractical or impossible.

I'm not poor like that, I feel I can afford insurance. But I cannot for the life of me think that those people deserve to have their car trashed because they want that $100 a year to use on something else like a DVD or the occasional bottle of wine. I know how incredibly hard their lives are and I don't begrudge them that at all.

Now fining them is a different matter. They can take their chances against that and decide if it's actually not better to get insurance. But losing the car would be catastrophic and completely draconian.

>>
Dont get me wrong I think people with little or no money need help, but allowing them to break the law isn't the way to go about addressing huge socio-economcal issues!
<<

OK, you know I like you Robyn, and we still have that great arrangement about Mal, but this is getting ideologically silly. Where have I said that people who break the law shouldn't be held accountable in some way?

And how many times have I said that the issue is about the punishment being disproportionate to the crime? And that it doubly disadvantages poor people who are more likely to have no insurance because of poverty not inconsideration?


>>If they have to shell out for another car, then it'll slow them down somewhat!<<

See, this is why I think we are talking about different kinds of poverty. What makes you think that someone who can't afford insurance can afford to get another car?

>>er, yes. or to put it another way, it would cost me around £300 (assuming the damage cost more than my excess) plus the cost of the raised premium due to loss of no claims... Which can be as much as 25% a year... My insurance costs me around £400 a year at the moment, I'm over 25 and drive a 1.1, bog standard car in a reasonable area... It's not just a mild inconvenience if I get hit by an uninsured driver, it's a lot of money and can cause untold problems (why should I go short on food, leisure activities or anything at all for an uninsured driver to have free reign on the roads?). I certainly couldnt afford to repair my own car and would have to do without until such time as I could save up enough money.
<<

Do you have 3rd party then? Sorry, I misunderstood that.

I wasn't meaning that that situation is merely inconvenient (I meant that the amount of money was relatively small compared to having to buy a new car, but I was thinking about people that had full insurance). I've been in that situation, where my car was written off due to someone else and I was carless for 6 months because it's very hard to buy a car when you don't have one already to go look for another. Maybe this is why I have an appreciation for what it would be like to have your car confiscated.

I'm objecting to the degree of punishment, not saying that there shouldn't be any.


Sounds like your insurance is incredibly high. I pay around $NZ400 (150 pounds) a year for full cover on a $10,000 car.

Ah, good old h2g2, we'll argue any issue to death especially if we are arguing about the wrong thing:

>>
Mr Chicken said: "Once we have picked up the car then owners have 14 days to act.

"If they do not come back to us within 14 days the car will be crushed.

"If they do come back to us, they will have to pay £200 to recover the car then they will have to tax and MOT it to make it roadworthy.
<<

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2795771.stm


So, car owners get the chance to get the car back then?