| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 79519 | 2007-05-22 12:52:00 | compulsory 3rd party insurance | motorbyclist (188) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 552129 | 2007-05-22 22:15:00 | They will have to get through puberty before it sinks in that they are not really cool and that they don't get more sex because of it . :stare: I reckon they should be made to drive cars with training wheels, see how cool they look then . Crushing the offending cars sounds good too, but I'd make the owner press the button :annoyed: |
Shortcircuit (1666) | ||
| 552130 | 2007-05-22 22:17:00 | Forget compulsory insurance ... Second boy-racing related offence (loss of traction in a public place, racing, ...) crush the car Simple A possible modification :- First offence - crush the car. Second offence - crush the occupied car. Third offence - unlikely to occur. Unfortunately a more likely outcome is - nothing. (At great expense.) |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 552131 | 2007-05-22 22:22:00 | I would also like to see the 3rd party insurance, to protect the innocent person when their car is hit by one of these idiots . How does that protect anyone? If you have insurance yourself, then who cares if they do or not? Your insurance company pays for repairs and chases the party at fault whether they have insurance or not . |
pctek (84) | ||
| 552132 | 2007-05-22 23:08:00 | How does that protect anyone? If you have insurance yourself, then who cares if they do or not? Your insurance company pays for repairs and chases the party at fault whether they have insurance or not. but if you only have 3rd party yourself |
plod (107) | ||
| 552133 | 2007-05-22 23:15:00 | The engine size limitation wouldn't work because its so easy to mod your home grown Honda civic, and drive like a moron in it. I can't see the downside to 3rd party insurance. It means that everyone has insurance, and sure is a cost to those who don't have it now, but not to the rest of us. It also means more money for the insurance companies, as not all the teen drivers will crash their cars, they must make a profit from it. Afterall they pay NOW if an uninsured car hits an insured one. If a 3rd party car wrecks itself, then they still don't pay. But if the insurance companies can become the gatekeepers covering only people with a good track record and unmodified cars, then thats more morons off the road. Those who drive without insurance get the book thrown at them. If parents can't control their kids, then the insurance companies might do it. |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 552134 | 2007-05-22 23:38:00 | How does that protect anyone? If you have insurance yourself, then who cares if they do or not? Your insurance company pays for repairs and chases the party at fault whether they have insurance or not. And you pay for the excess..... |
somebody (208) | ||
| 552135 | 2007-05-22 23:43:00 | As I see it the answer lies with the Insurance industry, not that I am necessarily FOR compulsory anything. However if 3rd Party Insurance was made mandatory, to avoid the problem suggested by FoxyMX, make the premium calculation based on the amount of modification that has been done to the car (body AND/OR engine) and the age of the applicant. I believe this occurs in the UK - anyone with a vehicle that has been modified in any way is faced with huge premiums before they can register it for the road. I agree with many of the other comments re: punishment. Hit them where it hurts - crush the car. |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 552136 | 2007-05-23 00:07:00 | Forgot a part: If a party in the accident, responsible or not, is found to NOT have insurance, they are not allowed recompense for damages to their property or themselves in medical claims . So . . have an accident with a drunk who is definitely at fault and if you don't have insurance, you will not be paid for the damages to you vehicle by your insurance company . You may not even claim injury to your person and/or loss of wages, limbs or life for your survivors benefit . You may not sue for damages and you cannot receive disability payments for your injuries either . The same denial or rights to subrogation apply to all injured persons if you are not wearing a seatbelt at the time too . In other words, you're SOL . That kinda narrows down the field . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 552137 | 2007-05-23 00:13:00 | If parents can't control their kids, I get really sick of people saying this . Sure, there are a lot of parents who couldn't care less what their offspring get up to but there are also plenty who do but are helpless when it comes to "controlling" their children's activities . There is a big difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old youth . How the heck are parents supposed to "control" a teenage boy of 18 or 19 who is just as big or bigger than themselves and who has no intention of listening to whatever his parent/s say? It's hard enough, in fact almost bordering impossible keeping the 16-year-olds on the straight and narrow - it is impossible with a youth two years older if they are hell bent on doing what they want . And are parents still responsible for the 18 and 19-year-olds who have left home and therefore independent? I don't think so . :groan: |
FoxyMX (5) | ||
| 552138 | 2007-05-23 00:16:00 | Hi Joe. We run a different set of rules, particularly relating to injury, loss of wages, etc. It can be a difficult for people from overseas to grasp. | Scouse (83) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||