Safe Speed Forums

We have discussed this before ..

Should we include a third party insurance levy in fuel on the basis that we all have to tank up?

Well - I pay a fortune for fully comp on my cars.. and most of us want an expensive purchase insured anyway.

Third party means you pay your own repairs - but the insurer pays compo and repairs to the chap you hit - if you were to blame for the collision.

So - for a lot of us - would arguably mean paying twice and paying for others as well.

But there is another potential problem .... and it was a chance remark I overheard in the hospital canteen...





This sounds a recipe for disaster to me - and could perhaps make standards worse...if all adopted this attitude.





So - a new charge of stealing insurance, petrol and car, and not driving without insurance?

hmmm?

But let's just have a think about the existing insurance scheme.

1. If we cause accident - we get hammered in loadings.

2. If we get done for speeding - we get hammered in loadings

3. Any offence has to be declared for 5 years (and 11 for the very serious)

This then serves as part of the disciplinary for us then.

The problem lies in the high basic costs and the punitive expense for young drivers - why not insuring and receiving low fine tempts them.

One received £130 per tonight's paper for driving without insurance, no licence and whilst high on drugs...

Perhaps - we should make the penalty punitive and reward drivers more if they take pro-active steps to improve their driving - by reflecting this in the premiums.

Besides - tanking up is dear enough anyway and knowing this government - it will not go where it should do.. and be yet another punitive tax ...

I am sure this will be a hot potato as some like the idea and others shudder ...

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

I'm all for an insurance levy in fuel, but I agree that some thought needs to be given to the details.



Yes, and I think that for this reason any cover bought in the price of the fuel should be 3rd party only. The point would be to prevent loss, to reduce inconvenience and to compensate for injury for anyone a currently uninsured driver hits. It should not cover the damage to an at-fault driver's own vehicle or his own injuries. To do so might, as you say, remove an incentive to drive carefully. As a side point I'd expect it to make the levy that much higher and also be fought tooth and nail by the insurance industry. They might not be too happy losing 3rd party cover business as it is.



Trickier. Would the 3rd party cover best be invalidated because of the theft? If so then it's no different to being hit by an uninsured driver now. Or perhaps it might still be valid, but it's hard to see how insurance can be stolen as such. Misused perhaps? Misappropriated? Maybe the answer is to tinker with the sentencing guidelines for car theft and simply add 3-12 months or something depending on how much fuel was in the car.



Very good point. It's hardly going to be practical for one driver with a poor record to pay more for his fuel than another with a good record. Effectively the good drivers will have to subsidise the bad ones, and will probably be paying more for fully comp insurance on top of the levy. Admittedly that does kind of stick in the throat a bit, but the question is whether or not that's a price we should be willing to pay to eliminate the problem of uninsured drivers. I feel it's worth it. Put it like this - if a teenage driver in an old nail runs into the back of you at a red light, wouldn't you be happier knowing that he's insured even if you had to help him pay for it in a small way?

As you said, the reason we have the numbers of uninsured drivers that we do is because of the costs for young drivers. Part of this problem must surely be that they're not all insured, which will raise costs to the insurance company in the event of claims, which forces them to raise prices and so on. I think we're into the vicious circle point already and it's past time it should be broken.



It hadn't occurred to me that Gordon or one of his successors might abuse it and, er, move the money to somewhere else. (Reminds me of Father Ted - "The money was just resting in my account..." ) Yeah, it would have to be treated slightly differently from other taxation and ringfenced. Even then it's not beyond the skill of governments to buy on our behalf £1 worth of service/product for the bargain price of £1.50, and I'm sure they could manage it with car insurance to if they put their minds to it. I thought to kick off with the way round that would be to put it out to tender so existing insurance companies would still provide the cover. But that might end up with the CEOs becoming Lord Quote Me Happy or Lord That's More Than Lucky. Not sure at the moment how we could be assured that a levy was reasonably priced and not liable to get half inched to pay for another dome or something.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Don't forget to consider the 'system' savings.

- no police needed to police uninsured vehicles
- no need for a database of insured vehicles
- no need for court time for uninsured drivers
- ANPR can concentrate more on serious offences
- no need to check insurance cover for VED renewal (No need for VED either, but that's another story).
- no need for MIB backup
- no need for anyone to worry about uninsured drivers or design solutions

And I don't see why insurance companies should lose out. We could maintain stability if the government purchased insurance from the lowest bidder in blocks based on registration number. (Bringing another system saving - many fewer policies to sell.)

I say: let's kiss goodbye to uninsured driving...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'm absolutely against levying insurance charges on fuel for the simple reason that not all fuel sold at road service stations is used for road transport. Were such a levy to be adopted, boat owners, aviators, off-road competitors, even lawn-mower man would be paying for something they couldn't use.

IMO, much fairer would be to include insurance with VED - which is something that I've long advocated. However, I do understand that the deplorable state of the DVLA database, the number of improperly registered and unregistered vehicles, and those who fraudulently declare SORN would result in some vehicles remaining uninsures. Even so, that number would be less than we have now.

_________________
Will

I have huge sympathies with that concern - but those groups are already paying motor fuel duty - and they shouldn't be. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think we need to be able to obtain supplies of (perhaps) 'red petrol' for such uses, and red petrol wouldn't carry motor fuel duty or insurance premium.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

True, but how much fuel is "not all"? Boat owners I know buy marine diesel off a fuel pontoon, so why mess about with buying more expensive fuel from a filling station and have the aggro of transferring from container to boat? The only boat owners affected would be those with outboards, jet skis or trailer boats, in which case it's going to be pretty obvious to the attendants at the filling station that the fuel is not destined for road use. No reason not to apply a lower rate then, although I type this in the absence of ex-HMCG Mrs Gatsobait who would say that small boats and jet skis have caused collisions and injuries on the water and could do with being insured. Especially jet skis.

Okay, so what about aviators. Well, I don't know any to ask, but I'm guessing that most aircraft are going to be filled at airports. Pretty much the same situation with the boats really. Microlight fliers are really the only ones likely to be affected, and it should be fairly straightforward to deal with such a small number.

Off road competitors are a bit harder. I'd say that if it's a road legal vehicle, sorry you have to pay even if you're not going to use it on the road. Harsh? Perhaps, but it applies already with VED doesn't it? For non road going vehicles, again, the numbers could be low enough to allow a lower rate, and it could be argued that insurance is a good idea. Do specialist off road events not need any public liability insurance or something? If so why couldn't that be reduced accordingly to make up for the insurance in the fuel?

Lawn mowers are the toughest of the lot, though round here your lawn will be dead by summer 'cos of the hosepipe ban so you might as well stick the mower on Ebay. But assuming you are allowed to keep the lawn alive, and assuming that you rather use a motor mower, could the fuel not be sold elsewhere? I remember a friend of my dad had a model plane and he bought fuel in what looked like a jumbo sized lighter fuel cannister from the model shop (or somewhere, but certainly not the local petrol station). Why not allow places like B&Q that sell motor mowers to sell the fuel in cans? Large enough to give a fair amount of merry mowing but small enough to make it an unattractive and laborious way of getting cheap fuel into your car's tank.

But even if none of that happens and those various groups have to subsidise the insurance of others, as habitually safe drivers would also do, the question still stands - isn't it worth it to society to get rid of uninsured drivers once and for all?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

What about going Dutch und Belgian.

Get rid of number plate "snottiness" as well Ist an odd British thing... ist something I never understand....

You register car ...you have same number plate ... but ist a bit of digit/motif change.. und this ist what tell whether licenced, insured or taxed. (if hire /lease driver will had to supply documents und pay in the hire fee anyway)

ist easy enough to have chip to identify in plate

No number plate - car ist not insured nor "road funded" ... ist simple - nicht?

Und it keep tanking up costs down.. as the levy ist bound to increase to excess...

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I really against the idea. I don't want 17 year old flying around in clapped out ex-performance cars because they are now legal. I've never made an insurance claim so would resent having to pay for someone elses poor driving, or allowing a high risk driver to get behing the wheel of a high powered vehicle.

Instead we should get tougher with some proper deterents for uninsured driving rather then pathetic fines. Just because putting 3rd party insurance on fuel is easy, it doesn't make it right.

I hope that smiley means you are joking about chipping number plates. The fascist tendencies of the current UK Government need no spurring on.

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

I think it's too late.

DfT says we have 2 million uninsured drivers. As far as I can tell the Police have NEVER managed to prosecute more than 150,000 in a year. Just imagine the resources required to prosecute 2 million in a year - and then imagine what we have at the end of the year - at least 1.5 million of them are back in replacement throw-away vehicles...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

But of course ..

You do not need a chip ...the plates do show very clearly up to date legal requirement.

Seem to have worked well in these two European countries ...for longest time.


Ist a solution ... but ist really the issue of OTT premiums und some kind of carrot to inspire training could be offered here.

NU have tried out a Pay As You Go .. but again we are in the Big Brother rooms on this...



Of course - plugging the sale of throwaways und tightening things up there could be one avenue to go down as well.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Maybe, I can see where your coming from but I just don't think the situation would be improved by having a fuel levy, before you even contemplate unfairness of it. I know if I was 17 I would have got the fastest car I could afford and not being overly concerned about it's condition and despite not being anywhere near expierenced enough to handle a powerful car.

Part of the reason there are so many uninsured drivers is because both the likelyhood of being caught is so low, and even if caught the pusnishment is pityfully low that some consider it an acceptable risk. If there was a real chance of being caught and punishment was meaningful and harsh the numbers of those unisured drivers would fall. That in turn would increase further the likelyhood of being caught. There will always be a hardcore who will never do anything legitimate, but right now there are probably quite a lot who do it simply because it so much cheaper to just pay the fine. I bet they are otherwise responsible members of society.

Boat owners
The boat owners are, as you say, those who trailer their craft, or who moor where there is no fuel to be had.

Aviators
There are several thousand members of the PFA and BMAA who would be affected in addition to the foot-launch brigade. From limited exposure, I understand that Rotax engines can be harmed by fuelling with AVGAS, not that you can obtain it at your local farm strip, and so most homebuilts and microlights use MOGAS, which is road fuel on which road fuel duty is paid.

Off road competitors
You say that if it's road legal you have to pay even if you're not going to use it on the road. However, I'm not talking about road-legal vehicles; I'm, talking about pure competition vehicles like off-road specials, trials machines, and single-seat racing cars that would not pass a full MOT and might not even pass a "day-only" MOT. The only time these vehicles travel on the road is on a trailer or beaver-tail.


As Paul wrote, two wrongs don't make a right and I see no reason why non-motorists should subsidise motorists in this.

Now, if it were possible to obtain fuel for non-road use that is free of road fuel duty and the insurance levy, I would have no objection.

Equally, I would have no objection if the insurance levy replaced all third-party insurance no matter how the fuel was used. For example, boat owners would have automatic indemnity should they run over a swimmer, motorsport competitors would not need sports cover that they currently need to compete in organised events, lawn mower owners would have cover if they inadvertently mowed the neighbour's cat, and aviators could tell the CAA where to go because the levy would replace their (very expensive and recently-introduced) compulsory third-party and passenger cover. In at least two of those examples, motorists would be subsidising non-motorists (e.g. AIUI, the premium for compulsory insurance for a two-seat, flexwing microlight can be more than the value of the aircraft!), so no doubt some motorists would raise the same objections as I did, except the other way around!

_________________
Will

Me neither, but if the alternative is to have them flying around illegally in clapped out performance cars...


I could be mistaken but I think we already are. Don't we all contribute via our insuance premiums to an industry slush fund used for unisured collisions? If so then haven't we already passed this point in principle? In fact it could be argued that everyone who hasn't made a claim on their policy has been subsidising those who have.


The idea of the highest risk drivers getting behind the wheel of any vehicle, high powered or otherwise, doesn't exactly thrill me. But even less so when they don't bother getting insured because they're so likely to get away with it. I absolutely agree with you about the pathetic fines, but even if they were draconian the problem of detection remains. Large numbers are trying it, which means the odds of getting away with it are so damn good that large numbers are likely to continue.


No, and I've already said it's not ideal that good drivers would have to subsidise indifferent ones, but it's not an ideal world. If it was then the uninsured drivers would be paying their premiums, no matter how hefty, with good grace and we wouldn't even be talking about this. But as things stand I think we need to face the fact that the current system isn't working and barring some miraculous change in human nature it's not likely to get better.

Why not turn the issue on its head and ask what we want from a system of car insurance? What should be our ideal? Then we can see what should get us closest. Off the top of my head I'd want the system to:

• replace VED
• be easy to run and collect
• be such that everyone had the minimum legal cover
• cost in line with exposure, i.e. mileage
• cost in line with driving ability

Okay, that list is going to be influenced by my bias in favour of an insurance levy in fuel, which is going to be good for all but the last one. But trying to be objective is there anything there we wouldn't really want? And what else should be on there?



I don't see it in terms of a second wrong. To me it's no different to people without kids having to subsidise the education of other people's children or non-swimmers chipping in for the local pool through their council tax. All it comes down to is whether the benefit outwieghs the cost, both to society and the individual. However, I'm all for trying to avoid non-motorists having to subsidise motorists:

Willcove, since we agree that as far as boat owners and aviators are concerned it's only those who are currently being stuffed by fuel duty anyway that are affected, and that these are numbered in the thousands rather than millions, we ought to be able to cope with a non-road use price for these folks. It should be possible for a trailer sailor to stop off for fuel on the way to the coast and pay a lower rate when gassing up the boat/jetski/whatever. Or if you're not allowed to trailer them with fuel in it should be okay to sell some fuel at "non road" rates to go in jerry cans. It's not like many people are going to go to the trouble of buying a boat just to try to get round the insurance levy. Ditto microlights etc. Basically if the bloke in the petrol station can see a non-road whatsit on a trailer he should have a non-road rate to sell fuel for it. Or, as we've both said, the insuranc levy might provide cover for non road activities instead.

I think the lawn mowers are the most awkward since you wouldn't normally trailer one anywhere and I doubt that many cats are minced by them each year. More owner's toes probably. Still, like I said, selling 5ltr(?) cans at "non road" rates might be the solution there. I've had a quick google at b-i-i-g motor mowers and even a large one only had a 4 ltr tank.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Microlighters and PFA types don't normally trailer their aircraft. They keep them at the airfield and transport the fuel in cans. However, it should be fairly simple in principle to issue a license to buy fuel duty free for those who need it. Unfortunately, such a system would almost certainly be open to abuse because the temptation would always be there to buy (say) 60 litres of MOGAS ostensibly for your microlight and decant it into your car's tank after leaving the filling station. At the very least, there would need to be some check that your aircraft logs agreed with the fuel you'd been supplied. This would mean having auditable supply records, and I'm not sure how that would be achieved to the satisfaction of our paranoid Revenue.

Needless to say, the problem is worse for boats kept a moorings, competition vehicles, and lawn mowers because those don't have mandatory logs.

_________________
Will

Yes that is true, but the good thing is that there is a reward for good driving*, that being lower premiums. The system we have got at present takes a resonably good stab at matching risk with premium. It's not perfect, but it's not bad. If we could put the heavy fines that unisured driving should attract into the MIB fund that will help.

*Yes I appriciate that it's possible to be a bad driver but avoid accidents by luck, but generally speaking if your responsible you pay less.

By the same reasoning you could say that there is an awful lot of burglary and street crime, so why not give up the fight on those to? It could be argued that we have a long time ago but thats for another day.

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. There are too many problems and it's just too unfair in my opinion.

If most microlights are kept at airfields rather than trailered then why not club together and buy the stuff in bulk anyway? I'm not taking the p!ss, just ignorant of all things microlight . But from my position of ignorance it sounds like a lot of faffing about to get fuel from pump to plane if the thing is usually based in one place. Help me out here.

I'm less convinced about moored boats being more of a problem. I've not done much sailing but from my limted experience finding fuel was not a problem even though there wasn't any where the boat was moored. We just motor sailed to the nearest marina that had a fuel pontoon, tanked up with nice cheap diesel, paid up and effed off. No duty and no big deal. Can there be that many places where you can moor a boat and be out of range of the nearest place with fuel?

Competion vehicles I don't know much about, but again, I'd have thought that they won't do all their competitions in the same place. And since they're not road legal they must get traillered to competition venues, so why could they not be fuelled en route at a lower rate? Lawnmowers should be the easiest of all, so I think finding an equitable solution for the aviators is going to be the bigger challenge.



I don't see why the reward of lower premiums should not continue. After all, we are only talking about 3rd party cover here. Getting those currently uninsured forcibly on the insurance ladder if you like. As for the current system being not bad, I feel with c. 2 million uninsured drivers it's got a lot of improving to do before it's merely "not bad". Bloody appalling is more like it. As for huge fines being imposed for uninsured driving and paying them into the MIB, how are they going to pay huge fines when they can't pay premiums? They're just going to continue driving uninsured but now owing the court a lot of money as well. Attach earnings at source? How many times are they going to have to say "Do you want fries with that?" before the fine is paid? It'd take years for most of them. Take the opportunity away I say.


I don't see it as giving up the fight. It's taking away their ability to fight by making it near as dammit impossible to dodge paying for insurance. At a stroke they lose the fight. It's no less fair in principle than things are at the moment, and with some work could be more fair for some groups. It's no less fair than the umpteen taxes everybody pays for things they get no return on. You might be a tee total non-smoking gym rat keep fit fanatic and you're subsidising the healthcare costs of a fat, lazy couch potato with a 40 a day habit. What's the difference? If anything that's even less fair than an insurance fuel levy, but that's for real here and now.

The comparison with burglary and street crime isn't very good since they're a completely different kind of offence, and I think from some of your other remarks that maybe you and I would be in closer agreement there.


Guess so.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

But how much of the premium you pay is for the comprehensive cover of your car and how much is for the 3rd party cover? Clearly for high risk drivers it's far more of the latter and that's the bit your responsible motorists would be subsidising. Fully comp cover for me was only £20 more then FPTF cover, despite selecting a valuation of £2k.



Sorry didn't make myself clear, I meant the system of matching risk with premium is "not bad" rather the quite rightly pointed out appalling state of having 2 million uninsured drivers.



Yes that would be a problem for some, in that case then they can do some community service or something. Yes that may cost more to run then the value of the work but it's not the money I pay into the MIB that irks me, it's the fact that scroats go around uninsured. However, I neither do I want to subsidises irresponisble drivers. However I maintain that I think a good percentage of those uninsured drivers have decent jobs and a heavy fine would be a deterrant.



My gut feeling is that the current NHS system is a huge waste of money, and there must be a better way of doing it. However I've not done my homework on that subject and it would be going off topic.



I understand perfectly where your coming from and I thought your post deserved another reply since it's was very logical and well thought out. It's just I'm against the principle of it, as well as a few practical difficulties. But perhaps I'm being unrealistic, I don't know. It's certainly interesting.

A few airfields do buy bulk fuel - but they tend to be the more expensive facilities with high hangarage and landing fees. Also, where "gasoline" is available, it's normally AVGAS not MOGAS. Notwithstanding that, you need a license (which costs) to store bulk fuel. That has legal implications, which includes liabilities that most flying clubs would rather avoid. Also, most airfields operate on a shoestring budget that precludes spending the sort of money required to put in the facilities required to legally store bulk fuel. Another financial issue is that the club must first pay for the fuel (and so must be solvent enough to do that) and recover its costs over the time its members use the stuff - and many airfields would not use enough to make bulk storage a realistic proposition.

Many farm strips operate under the 28-day rule with just a few aircraft positioned there. You wouldn't get a petroleum license for such a strip. Those farm strips that have full planning permission usually have some limits imposed (such as what can be built at the site and the number of aircraft that can be positioned there). Those strips would probably be hard pushed to get the planners to agree to their keeping bulk fuel. FWIW, it surprised me just how many microlights and PFA group A aircraft operate that way. AIUI, roughly half the recreational fleet operate from farm strips!

So, for a variety of reasons, most of the fleet buy their fuel from roadside filling stations.

HTH,

_________________
Will

no, no, no

The reason you don't have a powerfull car when your 17 is, though they can be cheap is you can't get insured, if you are getting third party insurance by default, let's all have a worn out '80's hot hatch. They will just be disposable cars.

Why should the fuel retailers have to be unpayed collectors of VAT, Fuel Duty and thirdy party insurance payments?

Would this system just be for 3 rd party? How would you build up no claims?

I'm guessing that if you have no insurance it is because you are too high of a risk. Too many accidents, drink driving? So you are still going to be o the road. At least if the car you are travelling in passes an ANPR van or the cops stop you your for the high jump if you are uninsured (There is probably other business the law would like to discuss with these people anyway) It is just how high that high jump should be.

Maybe we need stiffer penalties, but can we afford to lock every one up? Or maybe there should be a different approach to serious driving offences. If you have no licience anyway, whats a few more points?

I like the personal responsibilty approach, but it's us responsible types that end up paying for it what ever happens