Driving with no car insurance?

Scroll to see replies

Absolutely, you will be hard pressed to find people who don't think that car insurance in the UK needs reforming. Even insurance companies are pushing for reforms such as the banning of referral fees; the only reason they accept them is that if they don't then someone else will. They also want to see rules for injury claims tightened up as it is very easy for someone to put in a false injury claim and very expensive for insurers to contest it so they are forced to just roll over and pay out a huge number of fraudulent claims. Given that there is an entire industry devoted to encourage insurance fraud it shouldn't come as a surprise that premiums are high. It isn't as though insurers are making much money out of it: for every £1 they take in premiums, they pay out £1.20, car insurance is being propped up by other forms of insurance. The trouble is that too many people see car crashes as easy money, from the claimant who pretends to have whiplash to the ambulance chasers taking huge fees for very little work or the garage doing unnecessary work for inflated costs to the claims management firms who buy lists of details and cold call people to get them to claim. Until such time as we stop the merry-go-round of leeches who bleed the insurance industry dry, premiums will continue to rise.

WRT common law right to travel, it is just that. A right to travel. It doesn't give you the right to drive on the road network, it is just the right to travel throughout the country. Common law also states that your liberties are subject to respect of the rights and liberties of others, without car insurance you cannot meet the rights of compensation to other citizens if you are involved in an accident with them, so driving without insurance is a breach of common law anyway. It has been tried time and again and every time the judiciary, who are the legal experts, have ruled against it.

Reply 81

Coffinman

Yet you don't need insurance for numerous other activities and I imagine that owners of expensive cars are responsible for their own insurance in case they got bumped. By denying use of a vehicle your denying the public their right to travel and there were plenty of rights of way before we had roads. As for the example of insurance reforms they sound like industry wishes to help themselves instead of changes that would benefit the general public.

Reply 82

Chrisispringles

Original post by Coffinman

Actually, an awful lot of activities need insurance. Any sports facility has to be insured, businesses require a variety of insurances, education services are very heavily insured, emergency services are insured, the military are insured etc...

By making it illegal to drive a car without insurance you are not denying the public their right to travel. How do you think people travelled before the car was invented? The common law right to travel is simply the right to move throughout the county; it is not a right to drive a car without paying your dues, one of which is insuring yourself such that if you crash in to someone you can adequately recompense them. As I said before, driving without insurance breaches the very basis of common law as you are putting your own rights and liberties above those of the rest of society. You cannot have it both ways.

For the insurance industry, anything that benefits them will ultimately benefit the consumer because, as long as they keep posting heavy losses due to fraud and spirraling third party costs, premiums will continue to rise. They are not charities, they have staff to pay, buildings to maintain, services to provide and none of that comes free. At the moment they operate at a huge loss in the hope that someone in government will smell the coffee and start reforming insurance law to stop a dodgy industry in promoting insurance fraud from bleeding them dry. As long as they continue to be bombarded by fake whiplash claims, inflated car hire and repair costs, huge legal fees and unnecessary admin costs, drivers will continue to be pummelled in the wallet, along with every other type of insurance customer who have to pay more to subsidise a loss-leading industry.

Reply 83

Hunglikeamuuule

Everyone should have car insurance, no excuses. If they cannot afford it, don't drive. If you drive without it then I hope you get caught.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 84

jameslad

I've been driving uninsured for the past 6 years.

Reply 85

Coffinman

Original post by Hunglikeamuuule

Everyone should have car insurance, no excuses. If they cannot afford it, don't drive. If you drive without it then I hope you get caught.

If people can afford the car,maintenance and fuel then they can afford a car.
I don't see why you would support extra costs unless you think everyone is going to become a maniac behind the wheel on the basis of having no insurance.

Reply 86

Coffinman

Original post by Chrisispringles

customer who have to pay more to subsidise a loss-leading industry.

That's the only thing in your post I agree with.
I don't pay mandatory shoe insurance for walking around and the same goes for bicycles and by denying the means to travel,denies the right to travel.

one of which is insuring yourself such that if you crash in to someone you can adequately recompense them.

Then it becomes a question of just what adaquate compensation is.
If a basic car can be made very cheaply then why should I be held liable for damage to a sports car for example?

Reply 87

Chrisispringles

Original post by Coffinman

That's the only thing in your post I agree with.
I don't pay mandatory shoe insurance for walking around and the same goes for bicycles and by denying the means to travel,denies the right to travel.

So you accept that there are means of travelling without a car? Surely that means that you are not being denied the means to travel?

Then it becomes a question of just what adaquate compensation is.
If a basic car can be made very cheaply then why should I be held liable for damage to a sports car for example?

On the other hand, why should someone who has worked hard all their life and chooses to have a nice car have to suffer because you can't be bothered to pay insurance? Why are their rights worth less than yours? Anyway, repairs for cars are the cheap bit. The average whiplash payout is about £3k per passenger plus £2.5k or so in legal fees and most claims will see whiplash added on, but even then that is pretty small fry. A car is a ton and a bit of metal moving at high speeds and it is very easy for them to make a mess out of a person. It wouldn't take that much for you to put someone in quadraplegic care and, without insurance, their is no way for you to pay the 6 figure a year round the clock care bills for life. Is it fair that the family of the person hit should be left out of pocket because you were uninsured?

It isn't just third party costs, say you are hit by another car and they change their story to make it appear that you are at fault. The only way to clear your name and avoid paying for a crash that wasn't is to take it to court. The trouble is that motoring legal fees are very high and, without insurance, you will not be able to afford them so, through no fault of your own, you could be personally sued for a huge sum of money. Insurance is there to protect you as well as others.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 88

Coffinman

Original post by Chrisispringles

So you accept that there are means of travelling without a car? Surely that means that you are not being denied the means to travel?

That's like banning all transport out of the country on the basis that someone could technically swim across the channel while at the same time ignoring all the dangers and hardships and that would mean peoples right to travel is being infringed.

If someone were to buy a banana do they pay banana insurance in case they drop it on the floor leading to someone being crippled by it.
If someone chooses an expensive car then they can choose to insure it instead of denying other peoples right to travel.
Imagine how ridiculous it would be if you needed to be insured to step outside your house because everyone was swanning around in the most outrageously expensive suits.

It isn't just third party costs, say you are hit by another car and they change their story to make it appear that you are at fault. The only way to clear your name and avoid paying for a crash that wasn't is to take it to court. The trouble is that motoring legal fees are very high and, without insurance, you will not be able to afford them so, through no fault of your own, you could be personally sued for a huge sum of money. Insurance is there to protect you as well as others.

If that's true then it's yet more evidence for motoring reform.

ps,
It's not that I'm against insurance per se but over the years I've heard compelling arguments against the way it is run in this country.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 89

Chrisispringles

Original post by Coffinman

No it isn't. There are plenty of ways of travelling without a car. I live in the scottish countryside and manage with a bike and public transport. I can't afford car insurance and don't drive, but it is still perfectly easy to exercise my right to travel. The right to travel is simply the right to move throughout the country, not a right to travel the way you want to.

Coffinman

If someone were to buy a banana do they pay banana insurance in case they drop it on the floor leading to someone being crippled by it.

That's a very different scenario. If someone slips on a banana on the floor then it is their negligence that has caused them to fall, because they weren't looking where they were going. On the other hand, if you were to deliberately make someone slip in the street and leave them crippled then you would be liable for damages.

Coffinman

If someone chooses an expensive car then they can choose to insure it instead of denying other peoples right to travel.
Imagine how ridiculous it would be if you needed to be insured to step outside your house because everyone was swanning around in the most outrageously expensive suits.

They chose to drive and if they hadn't chosen to drive, they wouldn't have caused an accident. Why should someone else have to pay for their choice to drive? Anyway, it is their common law right to be compensated for their damages. Common laws are of equal importance, so you cannot selfishly put one above the others. Look at it this way: if you were to bump in to someone at a pub and spill their pint then it is up to you to replace it. It isn't the other person's fault that their pint was spilt, so why should they suffer for your negligence? Your right to travel is not being impacted because you are not being told that you are not allowed to move throughout the country, only that you need to have insurance to drive on the roads. Anyway, like I said, car repairs are the cheap bit. The expensive bit is injuries, from £3k per passenger whiplash claims all the way up to £1m+ lifetime paraplegic care. There have even been cases of £10m+ trains being written off with hundreds of injured passengers claiming for compensation and railway companies claiming for trains, damage to track, lost revenue etc... The cost of repairing or replacing an expensive car pales in to insignificance against the cost of injuries.

Coffinman

If that's true then it's yet more evidence for motoring reform.

No, it's evidence that people will lie to avoid taking responsibility. The only way to prevent it is for people to grow up and accept resonsibility for their mistakes.

Coffinman

It's not that I'm against insurance per se but over the years I've heard compelling arguments against the way it is run in this country.

I agree that there are changes that are necessary, but driving without insurance is not the way to bring them about. Making other drivers pay more to cover your liability is not fair. Approximately 15% of the cost of car insurance premiums is used to cover the cost of uninsured drivers, so everyone else suffers because others are not grown up enough to accept the responsibilities of being a road user.

Reply 90

Ryan_1993

The irony of so many people seeing driving as a god given right it is not.

Driving is a privilege.

Hard working young drivers pay an arm and a leg to do it the correct route, yet some people think its acceptable to try and get away without paying for insurance. If money is an issue, then I'm sorry to say, he should not really be driving until he can afford to do so.

Your friend could be the best driver in the world, but its if someone crashes into him and vice versa.

Insurance is insane for my generation for a niceish car. I mean I could get plenty of pretty epic cars like a late 90's BMW 7 series or Audi A8 for a couple of grand, but its getting rapped with titanic insurance bills whats the issue. Like 15 & 16 grand for something like that :O.

I have found a lot of these clapped out old bangers like the Nova, Saxo, Metro etc. are more money to insure than my current 2007 Punto in a lot of circumstances. I reckon Most people would be better off trying to buy brand new or getting a vehicle whats a only couple of years old if they want cheaper insurance. I guess insurance is so expensive on these older cars due to the abysmal 1 & 2 * N-cap ratings.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 91

username368993

Wow. Someone at my work hasn't even passed their test, is in their late 40s at least, and drives with provisional license/insurance without anyone else in the car and has been doing so for 20+ years.

Reply 92

Coffinman

Original post by Chrisispringles

I've been in the same situation and it was both dangerous and impractical.

That's a very different scenario. If someone slips on a banana on the floor then it is their negligence that has caused them to fall, because they weren't looking where they were going.

I guess it's ok to leave landmines lying about too. :P

It's not fair to infringe on peoples right to travel and 90% of car insurance premiums are down to the industry itself. Injuries can be taken care of by the NHS and DLA.

I'm curious how much you think people should be liable in general, for example a car isn't the only really expensive thing you can put in a situation where it might get broke or where you might injure someone. What about easily breakable antiques?
If an expensive statue was left in the pavement and someone bumped it over how much should they pay?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 93

Chrisispringles

Original post by Coffinman

I've been in the same situation and it was both dangerous and impractical.

That's irrelevant. You can still travel, even if it isn't as convenient as you'd like it to be.

Coffinman

I guess it's ok to leave landmines lying about too. :P

The two are a little different.

Coffinman

It's not fair to infringe on peoples right to travel and 90% of car insurance premiums are down to the industry itself. Injuries can be taken care of by the NHS and DLA.

15% covers the costs of uninsured drivers, so that's not true. The largest part of insurance premiums is to cover injury claims. Even a small car park bump is enough to claim £3k for whiplash if you can answer the questions correctly. The Large majority of accidents in the UK lead to injury claims and we have the highest percentage of accidents leading to injury claims in the world. The difference between us and the rest of the world is that people have a legal right to claim for damages without any losses and the standard of evidence required for compensation to be awarded is very low. That way, if someone says that their neck hurts, even if it doesn't, all they have to do is say what they are told to and they're a few grand better off having had to do nothing for it. The burden of proof is so low and the red tape to fight fraudulent claims so thick that insurance companies cannot fight injury claims. It is that bad that industry experts believe that more than half of all claims are fraudulent, but the cost of fighting them is so high that they just have to roll over and take the hit. Only a small amount of injury payouts are for actual losses such as time off work or care requirements, most of it is simply money for nothing to anyone who has been hit, even if it was a tiny bump.

It isn't the industry's fault, it is the fault of a seperate industry that has grown in recent years, whose sole job is to fleece as much mone out of insurers as possible and the legal framework they need to operate in. It's also the fault of people who think it is acceptable to lie in oreder to get a few easy grand.

Coffinman

I'm curious how much you think people should be liable in general, for example a car isn't the only really expensive thing you can put in a situation where it might get broke or where you might injure someone. What about easily breakable antiques?
If an expensive statue was left in the pavement and someone bumped it over how much should they pay?

Enough to have it fixed to the state it was in before they broke it. I want to see a change in law whereby you can only claim compensation for quantifiable losses such as damage to property, time off or loss of work etc... I don't think that insurance companies should have to pay through the nose for minor or made up injuries that result in no quantifiable losses requiring compensation.

Reply 94

Yawn11

I drove home without insurance when I first bought my car.

Reply 95

PataynaRolaay

I drove without insurance since i passed (15 months since lol). I was getting quotes of 18000!!!! My dad even gave me a spare key to the car to let me drive whenever i want. Its a nice sport civic. Its taxed and Mot'd so i dont worry about being pulled.

I've even given way to coppers so many times in tight streets, they smile and wave hahahaha!!

But driving uninsured makes you abit paranoid about coppers being 'around the corner' .. and that takes the fun out of driving. So i've stopped driving uninsured for a few weeks now :smile:

Oh, and im 18 male btw, and i look so young , and live in the area with most uninsured drivers in the UK according to the MIB.

Well, look on the bright side, i've saved a lot of money not getting insured :biggrin:

Reply 96

JC.

Depends what they are doing...
If it's just getting a vehicle on and off the drive to get access to another car or to move it onto the street to wash it then I'm not bothered.

If they are commuting in an uninsured vehicles then that is effectively putting my lifestyle in jeopardy if they were to hit me - that's not very impressive.
It's not like car insurance is particularly expensive if you don't rely on the internet and pick up the phone anyway.

Reply 97

Coffinman

Call centres just ask the same questions internet sites do and most of the time aren't cheaper.

You're imposing your own lifestyle onto others at their cost and putting your lifestyle at risk by not taking out your own insurance.

The insurance system also puts others at risk by penalising people who want to drive smaller vehicles.

Original post by Chrisispringles

That's irrelevant. You can still travel, even if it isn't as convenient as you'd like it to be.

To which I would point you to my comment on swimming across the English channel.

Then we would be living in a world where the privileged could impose ridiculous costs, through their own carelessness or deliberately, onto other people.

Reply 98

Chrisispringles

Original post by Coffinman

Then we would be living in a world where the privileged could impose ridiculous costs, through their own carelessness or deliberately, onto other people.

I think you misunderstand me. The main reason that insurance is expensive, and rising, is that our legal system makes it very easy to claim large sums of money for minor or non-existant injuries. The accident rate and KSI statistics remain fairly constant and have for the last 2 decades and cars are safer than they have ever been. Despite that for some reason the number of injury claims, mostly whiplash, has increased massively in the last five years or so as most minor bumps will lead to a whiplash claim because it is easy money. That, I think, needs to change to bring insurance costs down. The cost of car repairs are generally not that high in comparison to the costs involved in an injury claim, as they involve lawyers, claims management firms, doctors and a pile of paperwork. Insurers also tend to have preferred repairers who will make deals on parts and labour, making their repairs a fair bit cheaper than what you or I could get if we were to walk in to a body shop with a pranged car.

The issue is that if someone is claiming off your insurance then it is you who has caused the crash. In that case it is not unreasonable to expect the person who caused the crash to cover the losses of the person they hit, it is not right that people should be left out of pocket because of someone else's negligence. If, however, it were the other person that had caused the crash then it would be their responsibility to cover your losses.