<div class="gmail_quote">On 10 May 2012 12:00, Jason Irwin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jasonirwin73@gmail.com" target="_blank">jasonirwin73@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 10/05/12 11:32, David Aldred wrote:<br>
> (The one that's obvious to me - a monthly check of insurance against<br>
> MOT/tax records, just like they do when you apply for your tax,<br>
> is still an aspect of a surveillance society - just less visible).<br>
Still a surveillance society. One answer would be to have a (small)<br>
levy on fuel cover third party insurance.<br>
Yes, this has its own issues but many benefits e.g. some risks take care<br>
of themselves; driver faster/more, you buy more fuel, you self-regulate<br>
paying a higher premium.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmm. Infrequent drivers pay for very little fuel, and are overrepresented in third party costs (as they tend to hit things due to lack of familiarity). People with the latest cars - the rich, generally - pay less (per mile) as their fuel consumption is lower - the poor are taxed more. </div>
<div><br></div><div>And how small? The third-party element is the main element of cover costs for most motorists; for new drivers it runs to thousands of pounds. You're now spreading that cost across the whole population; it's actually going to average out to quite a significant cost increase for most motorists (as the relatively low proportion of poor drivers have an enormous cost weighting). And there's no incentive to develop a no-claims discount. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Electrics? Dunno how to solve that - but I am<br>
sure you smart folks can think of something that does not require<br>
surveillance.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Electric's easy - increase the cost of every unit of electricity. Same principle (spreading the cost so that people don't avoid paying it) , and I'd have very much the same objections. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Add a levy on the fuel is an attempt to rephrase the solution to<br>
uninsured drivers what does not involved punishment as the only way of<br>
ensuring compliance. Humans (like all animals) don't like punishment<br>
and it often does not get you the response you want.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>True: but isn't there a difference between punishment and consequences? </div><div><br></div><div>Of course the problem comes when you use civilisation to mitigate consequences; then civilisation has to turn the consequences (getting repeatedly beaten up by the family and friends of those you've injured) with punishment - but it's still actually a consequence of a stupid choice; if people spread that understanding then the general level of responsibility might improve.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course, underlying this is the bigger question, of how society works without any real common basis of morality and hence any common acceptance of standards and regulation, but that's one for the secularists to explain, not me. </div>
<div><br></div><div>David</div></div>