Robber Baron craps out...
 

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:58:08 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:06:24 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

No, your insurance premiums are high to cover all those arseholes in
London who don't have insurance and who leave a trail of damage to
other
people's vehicles in their wake!

Uninsured drivers make no difference to premiums. Actually, if
anything they can only make them lower. Think about it. If both
drivers are insured, insurance companies pay for all the damage. If
only one is insured, they probably only have to pay for the damage in
about seventy percent of cases - third-party only owners have to meet
their own uninsured losses.


See this: "He added: "Our members see the effects of uninsured driving
on their clients every day. Not only do uninsured drivers add an
estimated £30 to every motor policy premium of honest motorists, they
can also cost insured drivers thousands if they are involved in an
accident with them."
He

http://www.nu-riskservices.co.uk/new...94732856_1.htm


Yup, but that reason doesn't stack up for the reasons I've given. If
it is costing motorists thousands it isn't costing the insurance
companies thousands, so this is just another scam.

And it makes no difference what insurance company you are with, the
risks are all laid off in the underwriting markets around the world.


Yep. As is the flooding, terrorism and everything else - you see it on
the News on the telly, you pay for it later...

And that is everywhere in the world - not just here.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Robber Baron craps out...
 

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
No, your insurance premiums are high to cover all those arseholes in
London who don't have insurance and who leave a trail of damage to other
people's vehicles in their wake!

Uninsured drivers make no difference to premiums. Actually, if
anything they can only make them lower. Think about it. If both
drivers are insured, insurance companies pay for all the damage. If
only one is insured, they probably only have to pay for the damage in
about seventy percent of cases - third-party only owners have to meet
their own uninsured losses.

And it makes no difference what insurance company you are with, the
risks are all laid off in the underwriting markets around the world.

If an uninsured driver causes death or personal injury to a third party
who isn't insured - like say a pedestrian - the damages are paid by the
Motor Insurance Bureau. This is paid for by all the insurance companies -
and therefore indirectly by all those who pay premiums. And personal
injury awards are often far greater than the cost of a car.

--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *

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

Robber Baron craps out...
 

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:38:36 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
No, your insurance premiums are high to cover all those arseholes in
London who don't have insurance and who leave a trail of damage to other
people's vehicles in their wake!

Uninsured drivers make no difference to premiums. Actually, if
anything they can only make them lower. Think about it. If both
drivers are insured, insurance companies pay for all the damage. If
only one is insured, they probably only have to pay for the damage in
about seventy percent of cases - third-party only owners have to meet
their own uninsured losses.

And it makes no difference what insurance company you are with, the
risks are all laid off in the underwriting markets around the world.

If an uninsured driver causes death or personal injury to a third party
who isn't insured - like say a pedestrian - the damages are paid by the
Motor Insurance Bureau. This is paid for by all the insurance companies -
and therefore indirectly by all those who pay premiums. And personal
injury awards are often far greater than the cost of a car.

The insurance companies also pay if an insured driver does it. The
only difference an uninsured driver can make is when the insurance
companies refuse to pay out a claim on that basis. They win from
uninsured drivers.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Robber Baron craps out...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:58:08 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:06:24 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

No, your insurance premiums are high to cover all those arseholes in
London who don't have insurance and who leave a trail of damage to
other
people's vehicles in their wake!

Uninsured drivers make no difference to premiums. Actually, if
anything they can only make them lower. Think about it. If both
drivers are insured, insurance companies pay for all the damage. If
only one is insured, they probably only have to pay for the damage
in
about seventy percent of cases - third-party only owners have to
meet
their own uninsured losses.


See this: "He added: "Our members see the effects of uninsured driving
on their clients every day. Not only do uninsured drivers add an
estimated £30 to every motor policy premium of honest motorists, they
can also cost insured drivers thousands if they are involved in an
accident with them."
He

http://www.nu-riskservices.co.uk/new...94732856_1.htm


Yup, but that reason doesn't stack up for the reasons I've given. If
it is costing motorists thousands it isn't costing the insurance
companies thousands, so this is just another scam.


You may be right, but I think you're underestimating the amount of
damage done to parked vehicles, if nothing else. Even light damage most
of the way down one side of a car is a lot of money to put right. The
owner is (I can only conjecturise here) left with with little option to
make a claim on his own insurance in most cases. The likelihood of that
damage being caused by an uninsured (and un everything else, most like)
driver who doesn't have his own insurance to worry about is probably
quite high and they won't bother to have any repair work done until
they've stacked up enough damage to their own vehicle to make it utterly
unavoidable, by which time they'll probably boost another car and start
fresh....

If you take the case of someone like me - while the cost of the repairs
has been hideous, the insurers don't care as I (and lots like me) have
paid a hell of a lot more into the kitty in over the last 40 years than
we (hopefully) are ever likely to take out. Beginners are only at the
start of that equation and won't contribute much for a long time if they
make an early claim, but you should see what some of them pay by way of
premiums - £3,000 a year isn't unheard of for a 'Squid' on a pokey
bike!! But the *uninsured* are only ever outside of that equation - they
can *only* represent a 'minus element' and cause drain on the system
which others have to subsidise. No?

Me? Although I have to take the blame for my own accident (hassling the
traffic at the time and too damn close) the bloody *cause* was the lack
of white lines on the country's worst bloody roundabout and a stupid
layout that had a dozy artic drive cutting up the traffic in the centre
of the roundabout - happens all the time!

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/badjunctions/1-421.shtml

(Mostly I see it coming - this time, I didn't and the Gods suddenly
wanted paying for all the previous misbehaviour..!! :-)



And it makes no difference what insurance company you are with, the
risks are all laid off in the underwriting markets around the world.


Yep. As is the flooding, terrorism and everything else - you see it on
the News on the telly, you pay for it later...

And that is everywhere in the world - not just here.


Yep. The whole world is bound now by financial interdependence...

Robber Baron craps out...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
No, your insurance premiums are high to cover all those arseholes in
London who don't have insurance and who leave a trail of damage to
other
people's vehicles in their wake!


Bad snipping, Plowie - I wrote the above, not Don. Let's not add poor
'attribution' to OT posting here....

Robber Baron craps out...
 

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:54:39 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:58:08 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:06:24 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

No, your insurance premiums are high to cover all those arseholes in
London who don't have insurance and who leave a trail of damage to
other
people's vehicles in their wake!

Uninsured drivers make no difference to premiums. Actually, if
anything they can only make them lower. Think about it. If both
drivers are insured, insurance companies pay for all the damage. If
only one is insured, they probably only have to pay for the damage
in
about seventy percent of cases - third-party only owners have to
meet
their own uninsured losses.


See this: "He added: "Our members see the effects of uninsured driving
on their clients every day. Not only do uninsured drivers add an
estimated £30 to every motor policy premium of honest motorists, they
can also cost insured drivers thousands if they are involved in an
accident with them."
He

http://www.nu-riskservices.co.uk/new...94732856_1.htm


Yup, but that reason doesn't stack up for the reasons I've given. If
it is costing motorists thousands it isn't costing the insurance
companies thousands, so this is just another scam.


You may be right, but I think you're underestimating the amount of
damage done to parked vehicles, if nothing else. Even light damage most
of the way down one side of a car is a lot of money to put right. The
owner is (I can only conjecturise here) left with with little option to
make a claim on his own insurance in most cases. The likelihood of that
damage being caused by an uninsured (and un everything else, most like)
driver who doesn't have his own insurance to worry about is probably
quite high and they won't bother to have any repair work done until
they've stacked up enough damage to their own vehicle to make it utterly
unavoidable, by which time they'll probably boost another car and start
fresh....

Whereas if the offending driver had been insured, he would probably
have fessed up and cost the insurance companies a heap of money in a
payout...

If you take the case of someone like me - while the cost of the repairs
has been hideous, the insurers don't care as I (and lots like me) have
paid a hell of a lot more into the kitty in over the last 40 years than
we (hopefully) are ever likely to take out. Beginners are only at the
start of that equation and won't contribute much for a long time if they
make an early claim, but you should see what some of them pay by way of
premiums - £3,000 a year isn't unheard of for a 'Squid' on a pokey
bike!! But the *uninsured* are only ever outside of that equation - they
can *only* represent a 'minus element' and cause drain on the system
which others have to subsidise. No?

Me? Although I have to take the blame for my own accident (hassling the
traffic at the time and too damn close) the bloody *cause* was the lack
of white lines on the country's worst bloody roundabout and a stupid
layout that had a dozy artic drive cutting up the traffic in the centre
of the roundabout - happens all the time!

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/badjunctions/1-421.shtml

(Mostly I see it coming - this time, I didn't and the Gods suddenly
wanted paying for all the previous misbehaviour..!! :-)


I'm often struck by the disparity between the cause of something and
the trigger for the same thing. It might be said that the cause of the
huge fire in the petrol-soaked rag storage depot was a dropped
cigarette----

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Robber Baron craps out...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:54:39 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:58:08 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:06:24 -0000, "Keith G"

wrote:

No, your insurance premiums are high to cover all those arseholes
in
London who don't have insurance and who leave a trail of damage to
other
people's vehicles in their wake!

Uninsured drivers make no difference to premiums. Actually, if
anything they can only make them lower. Think about it. If both
drivers are insured, insurance companies pay for all the damage.
If
only one is insured, they probably only have to pay for the damage
in
about seventy percent of cases - third-party only owners have to
meet
their own uninsured losses.


See this: "He added: "Our members see the effects of uninsured
driving
on their clients every day. Not only do uninsured drivers add an
estimated £30 to every motor policy premium of honest motorists,
they
can also cost insured drivers thousands if they are involved in an
accident with them."
He

http://www.nu-riskservices.co.uk/new...94732856_1.htm


Yup, but that reason doesn't stack up for the reasons I've given. If
it is costing motorists thousands it isn't costing the insurance
companies thousands, so this is just another scam.


You may be right, but I think you're underestimating the amount of
damage done to parked vehicles, if nothing else. Even light damage
most
of the way down one side of a car is a lot of money to put right. The
owner is (I can only conjecturise here) left with with little option
to
make a claim on his own insurance in most cases. The likelihood of
that
damage being caused by an uninsured (and un everything else, most
like)
driver who doesn't have his own insurance to worry about is probably
quite high and they won't bother to have any repair work done until
they've stacked up enough damage to their own vehicle to make it
utterly
unavoidable, by which time they'll probably boost another car and
start
fresh....

Whereas if the offending driver had been insured, he would probably
have fessed up and cost the insurance companies a heap of money in a
payout...



There is almost certainly a degree of probability here that an insured
driver is a lot less likely to go round side-swiping parked cars without
a care in the first place....


I'm often struck by the disparity between the cause of something and
the trigger for the same thing. It might be said that the cause of the
huge fire in the petrol-soaked rag storage depot was a dropped
cigarette----


That wasn't me!

(I never done it - I wasn't even there!!)

Robber Baron craps out...
 

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 14:16:01 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

I'm often struck by the disparity between the cause of something and
the trigger for the same thing. It might be said that the cause of the
huge fire in the petrol-soaked rag storage depot was a dropped
cigarette----


That wasn't me!

(I never done it - I wasn't even there!!)



Actually, thinking about it - it might have been me, cos I'm
remembering an incident from my mis-spent youth. I'd been with a mate
respraying an old wreck in a mews not far from home. There was a lot
of cellulose thinners used, much of which ended up on rags, and
stuffed into an old dustbin. Come the end of the day we wanted rid of
the rags, so we lit them through a rust hole at the bottom of the bin.

No idea where the bin lid landed, but it certainly didn't come down in
the mews.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Robber Baron craps out...
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 14:16:01 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

I'm often struck by the disparity between the cause of something and
the trigger for the same thing. It might be said that the cause of
the
huge fire in the petrol-soaked rag storage depot was a dropped
cigarette----


That wasn't me!

(I never done it - I wasn't even there!!)



Actually, thinking about it - it might have been me, cos I'm
remembering an incident from my mis-spent youth. I'd been with a mate
respraying an old wreck in a mews not far from home. There was a lot
of cellulose thinners used, much of which ended up on rags, and
stuffed into an old dustbin. Come the end of the day we wanted rid of
the rags, so we lit them through a rust hole at the bottom of the bin.

No idea where the bin lid landed, but it certainly didn't come down in
the mews.


That's a clear case of 'bin and gone' I think...

Reminds me when I tried to ginger up my mother's Cyclemaster (the first
'wheels' I ever rode) with some Cellulose Thinners which had been in the
shed for a long time (no idea why - no need of it and no means to use
it). I know it resulted in a fireball (wasn't allowed to forget for a
good long while) but the odd thing is I have absolutely no remembered
*image* of that whatsoever!!

:-)

Robber Baron craps out...
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
No, your insurance premiums are high to cover all those arseholes in
London who don't have insurance and who leave a trail of damage to
other
people's vehicles in their wake!


Bad snipping, Plowie - I wrote the above, not Don. Let's not add poor
'attribution' to OT posting here....

Obvious by the quotation marks that it contained material from two
contributors. But then you don't understand sig separators either?

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

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