On 15 Jan 2006 01:54:05 -0800, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

Having a discussion in work on Friday a country was mentioned where the
basic third-party mandatory insurance for road vehicles was provided by
the state. We then went on to suggest the idea of having this here,
with the charge for insurance being on the price of petrol, thus making
it impossible to drive without insurance.

It wouldn't do anything about cyclists, of course[1], but it would make
*that* system much more workable.

Doesn't Australia do this?

The insurance companies would fight it tooth-and-nail of course. And
the chattering classes would object to subsidising high-risk drivers.
Though I suspect the economies from the simplicity of the system would
more than compensate.

Laurence Payne wrote:

Doesn't Australia do this?

I think that was the country, yes. Might have been NZ, as another
poster suggested.

The insurance companies would fight it tooth-and-nail of course. And
the chattering classes would object to subsidising high-risk drivers.
Though I suspect the economies from the simplicity of the system would
more than compensate.

Indeed. No complexity, no uninsured drivers, no issues. The only
thing that'd need to be actively tracked, were it on the price of
petrol, would be the MOT.

The insurance companies could, of course, still compete over the
provision of fully comprehensive insurance over and above the basic,
which I suspect most people would still choose to take to protect their
investment. I certainly would.

Neil