|
Also its rare to see the maximum sentance given for such offences, a judge could hand out a 5k fine and 6 months in prison for driving without a licence, but they dont.
I agree with the principles of insurance and i agree it is (or at least originally it was) to protect the innocent. But now its reached a point where its exploited by criminals and the motorist seen as a cash cow by both the Government and the banks which own the insurance firms that it cant help feel like the innocent are being punished. Personally i think if a crash wasnt your fault you shouldnt need to worry about anything, but in a country where criminal scum gets legal aid and the innocent people have to empty their savings to get justice, thats sadly unworkable here.
What i will say is it would be interesting to see what insurance firms do if it were not compulsory. Right now they can charge what they like as their best mates (Mr Govt) will force the public to use them, they say theres 1.4m uninsured, instead of bleating, Insurance firms should be grateful its compulsory because otherwise it'd be 20million. If they were suddenly put in a position where they had to try and sell a product we dont need it would be interesting. The RAC recently did a survey on which they found around 70% of drivers would drive without insurance if it were an option. Seeing insurance companies battle to drive prices down in a desperate bid to sell us things we dont need would be nice, it would take them out of their comfort zone. And maybe if people didnt have an insurance company telling them to never admit fault and make the system easy for people to cause crashes on purpose and milk the innocent, it might force people to act more responsibly, without the 'safety net' as you will.
I dont expect it to happen but it would be interesting to see the takeup if it were not compulsory. Would people suddenly see the benefits of it and go "actually ill still insure my car"?
|
