In article ,
says...
}Trouble is that it's often associated with other things - like a poorly
}maintained vehicle and (at least round here) a completly crap attitude
}to other road users.

Then it's stupid to worry about driving without insurance. Address the
real concerns directly instead.

Tackling no insurance is a lot easier - and probably cheaper. I'm not
sure why you have such an aversion to it. Do you also prefer tax evaders
to be allowed to get away with it? Do you think putting more litter bins
out will stop people throwing rubbish on the floor?

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In article ,
Skipweasel wrote:
}In article ,
says...
} }Trouble is that it's often associated with other things - like a poorly
} }maintained vehicle and (at least round here) a completly crap attitude
} }to other road users.
}
} Then it's stupid to worry about driving without insurance. Address the
} real concerns directly instead.
}
}Tackling no insurance is a lot easier - and probably cheaper. I'm not
}sure why you have such an aversion to it.

Because driving without insurance cannot by itself harm anyone except
the insurance companies.

"Charles Bryant" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Skipweasel wrote:
}In article ,
says...
} }Trouble is that it's often associated with other things - like a
poorly
} }maintained vehicle and (at least round here) a completly crap attitude
} }to other road users.
}
} Then it's stupid to worry about driving without insurance. Address the
} real concerns directly instead.
}
}Tackling no insurance is a lot easier - and probably cheaper. I'm not
}sure why you have such an aversion to it.

Because driving without insurance cannot by itself harm anyone except
the insurance companies.

All drivers (can) make mistakes.
If you aren't insured you can still be sued and have to pay.
There aren't many who can afford a seven figure sum so the claimant may well
be left on NHS waiting lists for treatment and living on income support for
the rest of their lives.
If you don't want to insure your own goods then buy RTA only.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Because driving without insurance cannot by itself harm anyone except
the insurance companies.

All drivers (can) make mistakes. If you aren't insured you can still be
sued and have to pay. There aren't many who can afford a seven figure
sum so the claimant may well be left on NHS waiting lists for treatment
and living on income support for the rest of their lives. If you don't
want to insure your own goods then buy RTA only.

You might recover personal injury compensation from a non insured driver -
but not any other. And there's not much point in suing someone who hasn't
any money. And even if you win, the courts don't enforce the award.

--
*The modem is the message *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
You might recover personal injury compensation from a non insured
driver - but not any other. And there's not much point in suing
someone who hasn't any money. And even if you win, the courts don't
enforce the award.

So driving without insurance risks harming the other party in the event
of an accident - who could be entirely innocent.

People who drive without insurance should be slung in the chokey.

Just confiscate their vehicle if it is proved to be deliberate. And the
next one they buy. And the next. Much cheaper than locking them up.

--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:13:08 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

So driving without insurance risks harming the other party in the event
of an accident - who could be entirely innocent.

Same as any non-driving accident.

People who drive without insurance should be slung in the chokey.

Thus completely destroying their ability to pay compensation to the
injured party. You haven't thought it through logically have you?

--
Cynic

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
You might recover personal injury compensation from a non insured
driver - but not any other. And there's not much point in suing
someone who hasn't any money. And even if you win, the courts don't
enforce the award.

So driving without insurance risks harming the other party in the event
of an accident - who could be entirely innocent.

People who drive without insurance should be slung in the chokey.

Just confiscate their vehicle if it is proved to be deliberate. And the
next one they buy. And the next. Much cheaper than locking them up.


Mostly they don't buy them. Or not for very much. A no tax no MOT good
runner is as little as 50 quid these days.

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:13:08 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

So driving without insurance risks harming the other party in the event
of an accident - who could be entirely innocent.

Same as any non-driving accident.

Not many of which, when happening to or caused by the mythical man on
the Clapham omnibus, can result in significant numbers of people injured
in such away as to require 24-hour a day care for life. For instance,
how many people can you kill/injure at a time by riding a pushbike? Or a
horse? Or by dropping a slate from a roof? In a car, I have the ability
to kill or injure dozens in one incident. If I were driving a lorry, it
could, potentially, be hundreds.

People who drive without insurance should be slung in the chokey.

Thus completely destroying their ability to pay compensation to the
injured party. You haven't thought it through logically have you?

(1) Taking them out of circulation *before* they have an accident
completely removes any need for them to pay compensation. That's how I
read the proposal, anyway. The Powers That Be already tend towards
putting uninsured drivers in the pokey after they've had an accident,
though not necessarily *just* for not being insured.

(2) "Pour encourager les autres" Taking uninsured drivers out of
circulation just for being uninsured would make most people think twice
about it. Though obvously some will not give the proverbial
ess-aitch-one-tee, and will enjoy the break at our expense.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:13:08 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

So driving without insurance risks harming the other party in the
event of an accident - who could be entirely innocent.

Same as any non-driving accident.

Not many of which, when happening to or caused by the mythical man on
the Clapham omnibus, can result in significant numbers of people injured
in such away as to require 24-hour a day care for life. For instance,
how many people can you kill/injure at a time by riding a pushbike? Or a
horse? Or by dropping a slate from a roof? In a car, I have the ability
to kill or injure dozens in one incident. If I were driving a lorry, it
could, potentially, be hundreds.

People who drive without insurance should be slung in the chokey.

Thus completely destroying their ability to pay compensation to the
injured party. You haven't thought it through logically have you?

(1) Taking them out of circulation *before* they have an accident
completely removes any need for them to pay compensation. That's how I
read the proposal, anyway. The Powers That Be already tend towards
putting uninsured drivers in the pokey after they've had an accident,
though not necessarily *just* for not being insured.

(2) "Pour encourager les autres" Taking uninsured drivers out of
circulation just for being uninsured would make most people think twice
about it. Though obvously some will not give the proverbial
ess-aitch-one-tee, and will enjoy the break at our expense.

The whole things has become a vicious circle: the more uninsured drivers
there are, the more the premiums go up, and the more the temptation is
there not to insure. Because MOT and car tax is also expensive, and the
tax depends on insurance and MOT, ipso facto there is no incentive to
license either, and without that no incentive to get an MOT.

In short the cost benefit is between paying about £500 quid to legalise
a motah, or paying nothing and taking the risk. Since a very decent car
can be obtained without paperwork for less than £200, or stolen for
nothing, people who simply fail to register at and insure can be up to
£7-800* a year in pocket AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT CAUGHT.

If they are involved in an accident, with luck, just walk away. The car
is probably not traceable to the perp anyway.

I used to know people to whom such practice is the norm. The car breaks
down. Leave it, call a mate on a mobile phone, get picked up, another
mate knows of a car..no tax or MOT, give him a bull**** address for his
forms, drive off in car, run till it breaks down, repeat ad infinitum.

Drive carefully and not at night where police are likely to be on the
lookout. Ge way with it.



*since they wont service such a car either.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The whole things has become a vicious circle: the more uninsured drivers
there are, the more the premiums go up, and the more the temptation is
there not to insure. Because MOT and car tax is also expensive, and the
tax depends on insurance and MOT, ipso facto there is no incentive to
license either, and without that no incentive to get an MOT.

In short the cost benefit is between paying about £500 quid to legalise
a motah, or paying nothing and taking the risk. Since a very decent car
can be obtained without paperwork for less than £200, or stolen for
nothing, people who simply fail to register at and insure can be up to
£7-800* a year in pocket AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT CAUGHT.

If they are involved in an accident, with luck, just walk away. The car
is probably not traceable to the perp anyway.

I used to know people to whom such practice is the norm. The car breaks
down. Leave it, call a mate on a mobile phone, get picked up, another
mate knows of a car..no tax or MOT, give him a bull**** address for his
forms, drive off in car, run till it breaks down, repeat ad infinitum.

Drive carefully and not at night where police are likely to be on the
lookout. Ge way with it.

Also, inceasingly, stay away from motorways and town centres, where they
have ANPR cameras turned on and connected direct to DVLA. They might not
have your right address, but enough pictures and failed tickets could
trigger an alert to stop the vehicle next time it's seen by a patrol.

And the 100% guaranteed method to make sure that *all* drivers are
insured, no matter what they're driving?

Add a percentage to the cost of fuel, and set up an insurance scheme of
last resort, paid for by the extra fuel cost. Can't be dodged, and it's
vaguely proportional to the risk, as thirsty vehicles, which tend to be
more dangerous to others per mile, use more fuel per mile. Unless you
steal the fuel, there's no way to dodge paying the premium. Except that
if you steal the fuel, the premium's already been paid, unless you steal
it from the refinery. It'd only take a decent actuary a few minutes to
work out the figures.

Too easy? It works (Not terribly well, due to other administrative
problems, but it works) in South Africa, and as long as I've got a valid
licence, I can borrow any car there and *know* I'm insured to drive it.
Heck, personal injury to others is covered even if I steal the car,
though the government would no doubt find a way to make me pay if I were
caught.

You can buy optional insurance in addition to the basic, governent
stuff, and most people with decent cars and all those in a commercial
setting do.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The whole things has become a vicious circle: the more uninsured
drivers there are, the more the premiums go up, and the more the
temptation is there not to insure. Because MOT and car tax is also
expensive, and the tax depends on insurance and MOT, ipso facto there
is no incentive to license either, and without that no incentive to
get an MOT.

In short the cost benefit is between paying about £500 quid to
legalise a motah, or paying nothing and taking the risk. Since a very
decent car can be obtained without paperwork for less than £200, or
stolen for nothing, people who simply fail to register at and insure
can be up to £7-800* a year in pocket AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT CAUGHT.

If they are involved in an accident, with luck, just walk away. The
car is probably not traceable to the perp anyway.

I used to know people to whom such practice is the norm. The car
breaks down. Leave it, call a mate on a mobile phone, get picked up,
another mate knows of a car..no tax or MOT, give him a bull****
address for his forms, drive off in car, run till it breaks down,
repeat ad infinitum.

Drive carefully and not at night where police are likely to be on the
lookout. Ge way with it.

Also, inceasingly, stay away from motorways and town centres, where they
have ANPR cameras turned on and connected direct to DVLA. They might not
have your right address, but enough pictures and failed tickets could
trigger an alert to stop the vehicle next time it's seen by a patrol.

And the 100% guaranteed method to make sure that *all* drivers are
insured, no matter what they're driving?

Add a percentage to the cost of fuel, and set up an insurance scheme of
last resort, paid for by the extra fuel cost. Can't be dodged, and it's
vaguely proportional to the risk, as thirsty vehicles, which tend to be
more dangerous to others per mile, use more fuel per mile. Unless you
steal the fuel, there's no way to dodge paying the premium. Except that
if you steal the fuel, the premium's already been paid, unless you steal
it from the refinery. It'd only take a decent actuary a few minutes to
work out the figures.

Too easy? It works (Not terribly well, due to other administrative
problems, but it works) in South Africa, and as long as I've got a valid
licence, I can borrow any car there and *know* I'm insured to drive it.
Heck, personal injury to others is covered even if I steal the car,
though the government would no doubt find a way to make me pay if I were
caught.


Indeed. And as this country is more and more resembling south africa,
its probably a good place to copy.

(if you map township, to e.g. Hackney and homeland, to e.g. Scotland).

You can buy optional insurance in addition to the basic, governent
stuff, and most people with decent cars and all those in a commercial
setting do.


Exactly. In the old days you hard third party, or third party fire and
theft, and that was cheap. If you bent the car, you paid to get it fixeds.

Nowadays its expensive, because people know that if they back into you
at a filling station, and claim you drove into them, and they have got
whiplash and cant work, the courts will award them ten times the write
off value of the car they drive into you with.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:25:18 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

So driving without insurance risks harming the other party in the event
of an accident - who could be entirely innocent.

Same as any non-driving accident.

Not many of which, when happening to or caused by the mythical man on
the Clapham omnibus, can result in significant numbers of people injured
in such away as to require 24-hour a day care for life. For instance,
how many people can you kill/injure at a time by riding a pushbike? Or a
horse? Or by dropping a slate from a roof? In a car, I have the ability
to kill or injure dozens in one incident. If I were driving a lorry, it
could, potentially, be hundreds.

Being careless with a match can cause just as many injuries and deaths
as well as huge costs in property damage as just one example. Driving
is simply a very common activity that has a fairly high probability of
causing a lot of damage and injury, but it is far from being the only
activity where a small mistake can cause a great deal of harm.

Insurance is not legally required for boats or aeroplanes. The former
doesn't even have an age restriction or need a licence to legally
operate (drive).

--
Cynic

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mostly they don't buy them. Or not for very much. A no tax no MOT good
runner is as little as 50 quid these days.

I doubt it since scrap value is very much higher than that. But just
confiscate the car no matter what it's worth. Do this often enough and
they'll get the message.

BTW, it's not always old bangers which have no insurance. Often a
youngster's pride and joy which he can't afford to insure.

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
Too easy? It works (Not terribly well, due to other administrative
problems, but it works) in South Africa, and as long as I've got a valid
licence, I can borrow any car there and *know* I'm insured to drive it.
Heck, personal injury to others is covered even if I steal the car,
though the government would no doubt find a way to make me pay if I were
caught.

New Zealand have something similar. However, the maximum payout is very
small so you'll still be liable.

--
*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 31/03/2011 14:25, John Williamson wrote:
Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:13:08 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

So driving without insurance risks harming the other party in the
event of an accident - who could be entirely innocent.

Same as any non-driving accident.

Not many of which, when happening to or caused by the mythical man on
the Clapham omnibus, can result in significant numbers of people injured
in such away as to require 24-hour a day care for life. For instance,
how many people can you kill/injure at a time by riding a pushbike? Or a
horse? Or by dropping a slate from a roof? In a car, I have the ability
to kill or injure dozens in one incident. If I were driving a lorry, it
could, potentially, be hundreds.

People who drive without insurance should be slung in the chokey.

Thus completely destroying their ability to pay compensation to the
injured party. You haven't thought it through logically have you?

(1) Taking them out of circulation *before* they have an accident
completely removes any need for them to pay compensation. That's how I
read the proposal, anyway. The Powers That Be already tend towards
putting uninsured drivers in the pokey after they've had an accident,
though not necessarily *just* for not being insured.

(2) "Pour encourager les autres" Taking uninsured drivers out of
circulation just for being uninsured would make most people think twice
about it. Though obvously some will not give the proverbial
ess-aitch-one-tee, and will enjoy the break at our expense.

Son is a police officer in the Manchester force and holds the record for
the number of uninsured cars he has had scrapped and crushed.

Dave

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
}"Charles Bryant" wrote in message
...
} In article ,
} Skipweasel wrote:
} }Tackling no insurance is a lot easier - and probably cheaper. I'm not
} }sure why you have such an aversion to it.
}
} Because driving without insurance cannot by itself harm anyone except
} the insurance companies.
}
}All drivers (can) make mistakes.
}If you aren't insured you can still be sued and have to pay.

Only if you crash and are held to be at fault. Lack of insurance *by
itself* cannot harm anyone.

}If you don't want to insure your own goods then buy RTA only.

I suggest you look at the price of it - in particular the price in
comparison to comprehensive for the same driver.

"Charles Bryant" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
}"Charles Bryant" wrote in message
...
} In article ,
} Skipweasel wrote:
} }Tackling no insurance is a lot easier - and probably cheaper. I'm not
} }sure why you have such an aversion to it.
}
} Because driving without insurance cannot by itself harm anyone except
} the insurance companies.
}
}All drivers (can) make mistakes.
}If you aren't insured you can still be sued and have to pay.

Only if you crash and are held to be at fault. Lack of insurance *by
itself* cannot harm anyone.

It is harming me as I have to pay more for my insurance (even though I have
only ever had a claim for a stolen radio in more than a million miles).


}If you don't want to insure your own goods then buy RTA only.

I suggest you look at the price of it - in particular the price in
comparison to comprehensive for the same driver.

That depends on how bad a driver you are (or are thought to be) and how
stupid the car is.

In article ,
says...
}If you don't want to insure your own goods then buy RTA only.

I suggest you look at the price of it - in particular the price in
comparison to comprehensive for the same driver.

That depends on how bad a driver you are (or are thought to be) and how
stupid the car is.


Strangely, it doesn't seem to work like that.

I've not made a claim for over twenty years, but RTA wasn't
significantly cheaper last time round - only £50 or so in it.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

"Charles Bryant" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
}"Charles Bryant" wrote in message
...
} Because driving without insurance cannot by itself harm anyone except
} the insurance companies.

And all their law abiding customers who have to pay extra to cover uninsured
drivers. You might as well say "overtaking on blind bends" cannot by itself
harm anyone, ****.

Mike

Skipweasel wrote:
In article ,
says...
}If you don't want to insure your own goods then buy RTA only.

I suggest you look at the price of it - in particular the price in
comparison to comprehensive for the same driver.
That depends on how bad a driver you are (or are thought to be) and how
stupid the car is.


Strangely, it doesn't seem to work like that.

I've not made a claim for over twenty years, but RTA wasn't
significantly cheaper last time round - only £50 or so in it.

Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive was
cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were through
the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Skipweasel wrote:
In article ,
says...
}If you don't want to insure your own goods then buy RTA only.

I suggest you look at the price of it - in particular the price in
comparison to comprehensive for the same driver.
That depends on how bad a driver you are (or are thought to be) and how
stupid the car is.

Strangely, it doesn't seem to work like that.

I've not made a claim for over twenty years, but RTA wasn't significantly
cheaper last time round - only £50 or so in it.

Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive was
cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were through the
same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Different insurers.
There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA, they think people that want
RTA are a poor risk.
They are probably right.


Insurance is odd any way..
I got a quote for the wife and I forgot to put me on as a driver, it was
£580.
When I added me it came down to £280, the wife is still the main driver and
its still in her name.
I told her she owes me half the savings. 8-)

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive
was cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were
through the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Different insurers. There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA, they
think people that want RTA are a poor risk.

RTA is not the same as TPF&T.

--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive
was cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were
through the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Different insurers. There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA, they
think people that want RTA are a poor risk.

RTA is not the same as TPF&T.

I don't see anyone saying they are.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive
was cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were
through the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Different insurers. There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA,
they think people that want RTA are a poor risk.

RTA is not the same as TPF&T.

I don't see anyone saying they are.

Then what did you mean?

--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:46:47 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive
was cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were
through the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Different insurers. There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA, they
think people that want RTA are a poor risk.

RTA is not the same as TPF&T.

It's not even the same as TP.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive
was cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were
through the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Different insurers. There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA,
they think people that want RTA are a poor risk.

RTA is not the same as TPF&T.

I don't see anyone saying they are.

Then what did you mean?

What I said.
I could have said TPF&T but then I would have been talking about something
else about which I don't have any recent experience.
I would imagine what I said about RTA applies to TPF&T but unless I look I
can't be sure.

dennis@home wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully
comprehensive was cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and
both quotes were through the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Different insurers. There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA,
they think people that want RTA are a poor risk.

RTA is not the same as TPF&T.

I don't see anyone saying they are.

Then what did you mean?

What I said.



I could have said TPF&T but then I would have been talking about
something else about which I don't have any recent experience.

Well it has never stopped you before has it?

--
Adam

On Apr 4, 1:34*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in ...

In article ,
* dennis@home wrote:
Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive
was cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were
through the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Different insurers. There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA, they
think people that want RTA are a poor risk.

RTA is not the same as TPF&T.

I don't see anyone saying they are.

You used the term "RTA" in answer to a post about "TPF&T". It
certainly looks like you think they are the same thing.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 1:34 pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
...

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive
was cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were
through the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Different insurers. There are a lot of insurers that don't do RTA,
they
think people that want RTA are a poor risk.

RTA is not the same as TPF&T.

I don't see anyone saying they are.

You used the term "RTA" in answer to a post about "TPF&T". It
certainly looks like you think they are the same thing.

The poster that posted TPF&T replied to mine about RTA, however I don't
think he thought they were the same.
They are related posts, not answers to specific questions.

Just to be clear..

RTA is the bare minimum you can drive a car with.. it covers personal injury
to others and not much else.
TP covers damage to others properties as well
TPF&T adds theft of vehicle and fire
Comprehensive adds others but they do vary.


MBQ

dennis@home wrote:


The poster that posted TPF&T replied to mine about RTA, however I don't
think he thought they were the same.
They are related posts, not answers to specific questions.

Yup. No confusion intended, and I know they're not the same thing. In
fact, as you say, RTA isn't even the same as Third Party only, which
used to be the cheapest cover when I was a teenager with a clapped out
old banger that cost me a week's wages when I bought it.

Just to be clear..

RTA is the bare minimum you can drive a car with.. it covers personal
injury to others and not much else.
TP covers damage to others properties as well
TPF&T adds theft of vehicle and fire
Comprehensive adds others but they do vary.

Yup. And my original proposal for insurance as a part of the fuel cost
would be for a slightly improved version of the current RTA cover.

Cars and most goods can be replaced easily, if not necessarily cheaply.
People may need 24/7 care for life.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , John Williamson
writes
dennis@home wrote:

The poster that posted TPF&T replied to mine about RTA, however I
don't think he thought they were the same.
They are related posts, not answers to specific questions.

Yup. No confusion intended, and I know they're not the same thing. In
fact, as you say, RTA isn't even the same as Third Party only, which
used to be the cheapest cover when I was a teenager with a clapped out
old banger that cost me a week's wages when I bought it.

Just to be clear..
RTA is the bare minimum you can drive a car with.. it covers
personal injury to others and not much else.
TP covers damage to others properties as well
TPF&T adds theft of vehicle and fire
Comprehensive adds others but they do vary.

Yup. And my original proposal for insurance as a part of the fuel cost
would be for a slightly improved version of the current RTA cover.

Cars and most goods can be replaced easily, if not necessarily cheaply.
People may need 24/7 care for life.

www.direct.gov.uk/taxdisc has a map giving a police estimate of
uninsured vehicles. Metropolitan London is over 10% and some of the
Northern conurbations are similar.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
John Williamson writes:
Skipweasel wrote:
In article ,
says...
}If you don't want to insure your own goods then buy RTA only.

I suggest you look at the price of it - in particular the price in
comparison to comprehensive for the same driver.
That depends on how bad a driver you are (or are thought to be) and how
stupid the car is.


Strangely, it doesn't seem to work like that.

I've not made a claim for over twenty years, but RTA wasn't
significantly cheaper last time round - only £50 or so in it.

Last time I insured a car from scratch, in 2008, fully comprehensive was
cheaper than third party, fire and theft, and both quotes were through
the same broker on the same phone call.

How does *that* make sense?

Speaking to a motor insurance assessor (in the pub) over the weekend.
People who try to reduce their motor insurance cost by reducing the
risk covered actually turn out to be a significantly higher risk.
It can work out cheaper, but mostly it doesn't. Now that 3rd party
liability claims massively swamp all other costs (such as theft, fire,
etc) due to claims management companies, most of the cost of your cover
is for the legal minimum part of the cover anyway, which wasn't the case
~20 years ago when TP,F,T and TP insurance really were cheaper.

He thinks premiums are going to rocket over next few years, unless
claims management companies are somehow outlawed.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

He thinks premiums are going to rocket over next few years, unless
claims management companies are somehow outlawed.


And so they should be. We were pestered to distraction when a car drove
in front of me at a roundabout but no one was the slightest bit hurt. My
wife is still getting text messages, some 16 months later, saying she
could be entitled to a few thousand pounds. It's a bloody disgrace !

Andy Cap gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

And so they should be. We were pestered to distraction when a car drove
in front of me at a roundabout but no one was the slightest bit hurt. My
wife is still getting text messages, some 16 months later, saying she
could be entitled to a few thousand pounds. It's a bloody disgrace !

You do realise they're just totally random, don't you?

Adrian wrote:

You do realise they're just totally random, don't you?

No I hadn't thought about that, because her no. is so little used, that
only she and Orange know it exists, but I guess you're right ! :-{

Andy Cap gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

You do realise they're just totally random, don't you?

No I hadn't thought about that, because her no. is so little used, that
only she and Orange know it exists

"random".

The spammers just shove their stuff out to any and all validly-formatted
number. Since there's no delivery failures on SMS, if somebody's stupid
enough to reply "STOP", then they're instantly added to the "We've got a
live one here..." list and deluged to kingdom come.

In article ,
Adrian writes:
Andy Cap gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

And so they should be. We were pestered to distraction when a car drove
in front of me at a roundabout but no one was the slightest bit hurt. My
wife is still getting text messages, some 16 months later, saying she
could be entitled to a few thousand pounds. It's a bloody disgrace !

You do realise they're just totally random, don't you?

They aren't totally random.

Various people who become aware of an accident (such as the insurers,
accident repair company, etc) can sell that information. Actually, this
information is so valuable to the claims management companies that the
accident repair companies now make more money from selling that information
than they do from repairing the damage.

This has generated a secondary effect of people selling bogus crash details
to get their hands on some of this cash too. That's probably what's happened
if you are suddenly getting several calls about a crash. Some may be random,
but many are simply just made up to rip-off money from the rich claims
management companies.

It's all a thoroughly bent industry, including the insurance companies now.

It's all paid for by your rapidly increasing motor insurance premiums.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

(Andrew Gabriel) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

And so they should be. We were pestered to distraction when a car
drove in front of me at a roundabout but no one was the slightest bit
hurt. My wife is still getting text messages, some 16 months later,
saying she could be entitled to a few thousand pounds. It's a bloody
disgrace !

You do realise they're just totally random, don't you?

They aren't totally random.

Various people who become aware of an accident (such as the insurers,
accident repair company, etc) can sell that information. Actually, this
information is so valuable to the claims management companies that the
accident repair companies now make more money from selling that
information than they do from repairing the damage.

This has generated a secondary effect of people selling bogus crash
details to get their hands on some of this cash too. That's probably
what's happened if you are suddenly getting several calls about a crash.
Some may be random, but many are simply just made up to rip-off money
from the rich claims management companies.

It's all a thoroughly bent industry, including the insurance companies
now.

It's all paid for by your rapidly increasing motor insurance premiums.

So how do you explain them being received by SWMBO, who has never made a
car insurance claim in her life?

Adrian wrote:
(Andrew Gabriel) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

And so they should be. We were pestered to distraction when a car
drove in front of me at a roundabout but no one was the slightest bit
hurt. My wife is still getting text messages, some 16 months later,
saying she could be entitled to a few thousand pounds. It's a bloody
disgrace !

You do realise they're just totally random, don't you?

They aren't totally random.

Various people who become aware of an accident (such as the insurers,
accident repair company, etc) can sell that information. Actually, this
information is so valuable to the claims management companies that the
accident repair companies now make more money from selling that
information than they do from repairing the damage.

This has generated a secondary effect of people selling bogus crash
details to get their hands on some of this cash too. That's probably
what's happened if you are suddenly getting several calls about a crash.
Some may be random, but many are simply just made up to rip-off money
from the rich claims management companies.

It's all a thoroughly bent industry, including the insurance companies
now.

It's all paid for by your rapidly increasing motor insurance premiums.

So how do you explain them being received by SWMBO, who has never made a
car insurance claim in her life?

If it's calls and texts you're on about, then a lot of them are random,
or explainable by single digit errors.

I get a lot of texts about certain types of service on a cellphone
number I very rarely use, and only give to a few people. It's a number
on 3, if that's of any interest.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On May 5, 8:44*pm, Adrian wrote:
(Andrew Gabriel) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:



And so they should be. We were pestered to distraction when a car
drove in front of me at a roundabout but no one was the slightest bit
hurt. My wife is still getting text messages, some 16 months later,
saying she could be entitled to a few thousand pounds. It's a bloody
disgrace !
You do realise they're just totally random, don't you?
They aren't totally random.

Various people who become aware of an accident (such as the insurers,
accident repair company, etc) can sell that information. Actually, this
information is so valuable to the claims management companies that the
accident repair companies now make more money from selling that
information than they do from repairing the damage.

This has generated a secondary effect of people selling bogus crash
details to get their hands on some of this cash too. That's probably
what's happened if you are suddenly getting several calls about a crash..
Some may be random, but many are simply just made up to rip-off money
from the rich claims management companies.

It's all a thoroughly bent industry, including the insurance companies
now.

It's all paid for by your rapidly increasing motor insurance premiums.

So how do you explain them being received by SWMBO, who has never made a
car insurance claim in her life?

Try "people selling bogus crash details".

MBQ