Now there's a surprise!

[johnr]

not quit. the mib provides for people who occur losses or personal injury as a result of uninsured drivers, it doesnt provide tpo cover for them.
if the uk moved to a govt provided tpo system, the accident rate would skyrocket amongst the young because even as it is they (specifically young men under 25 years old) make up the most accident prone group on the road statistically, and thats with them under the current system, and several studies show that the major limiting factor in vehicle choice for the young is the cost of insurance. remove that restriction and young drivers will have carte blanche to run any vehicle that they can afford, unencumbered by the cost of insuring it. meaning that if little johnny wanted to buy a 1000 quid fiesta knowing it would cost him a further 3 grand for insurance, now he has 4 grand to spend on a nice little bmw......

[iansoady]

not quit. the mib provides for people who occur losses or personal injury as a result of uninsured drivers, it doesnt provide tpo cover for them.

That's what I meant, it is effectively minimal 3rd party cover as far as the 3rd party is concerned. Of course said driver would still be uninsured......

[CrazyFrog]

meaning that if little johnny wanted to buy a 1000 quid fiesta knowing it would cost him a further 3 grand for insurance, now he has 4 grand to spend on a nice little bmw......

It's easy enough to legislate round that though isn't it, after all they do it for motorcycles, and for the same reason! Make it illegal for anyone under the age of 25 to drive a car of more than say 60bhp, in fact they should introduce tiered driving tests for differing performance levels of cars, same as for bikes imho....

[Mutt]

35 odd years back HMG of the day considered various alternative models to provide the statutory TPO/RTA cover amongst which was adding the TPO cost to the price paid for fuel at the pump. It made a lot of sense as it was pay as you go cover that (generally) related to on road miles exposure/risk with size & performance of the vehicle type (as well as driving styles) in it's usage of fuel. Considerations for VED were also brought into the modelling. Of course it never got real traction past the think tank stage most likely due to a whole raft of civil service jobs that would not have been needed even if the civil service were involved in handling claim incidents. It would probably have also increased thefts of fuel with jerry cans being a highly traded commodity.

[iansoady]

I think it's more likely to have been the petrol companies that squealed.

[Moto63]

It's easy enough to legislate round that though isn't it, after all they do it for motorcycles, and for the same reason! Make it illegal for anyone under the age of 25 to drive a car of more than say 60bhp, in fact they should introduce tiered driving tests for differing performance levels of cars, same as for bikes imho....

I couldn’t agree more Pete 👍

[Richard]

At the moment we ration access to high performance vehicles by how wealthy you are, rather than by proven driving/riding ability or even maturity.

That has begun to change for motorcycles but, if I'm wealthy enough, I can walk out of a dealership with some Italian supercar in exchange for a big enough cheque.  Somebody will insure me, given another cheque.