It would almost be worth it to see the insurance companies grovel for business, once their participation became optional. Almost. There is evidence that flat-rating the risk leads to more accidents:
"Experience in Canada illustrates the impact of moving away from risk pricing. In four provinces the Government provides insurance and premiums that are averaged across all risks. Other provinces have market-based systems with premiums tailored to the individual risks. In the provinces where individual risk pricing is not applied, baneities are 18% higher and young male admissions to hospital 59% higher. The likeliest explanation for these differences is that the public insurance systems produce too many subsidised higher risk drivers."
Anyway, now that I'm old enough that the insurance companies have stopped crucifying me, I'm not sure I want to pay extra to subsidise higher risk drivers.
Traffic lightsLargely down to sight lines. Though the lights on the A3 at the infamous Hindhead crossing are a bit daft. The north-south A3 has right turn filter lanes both ways to turn onto...
There's also the consideration that a government run system would be subject to political interference. In the same way that some people think that our mandatory public health insurance scheme gives the government the right to dictate our lifestyle ("costs to the NHS" argument over any discussion of personal freedom and policy on smoking, alcohol, diet, etc) we might then see cover withdrawn from certain vehicles. You might need to take out additional cover to protect yourself from others if your car was worth than X, certain types of cars might be excluded from the government scheme (and thus banned), etc. It could provide a bureaucratic route to further regulate drivers outside of primary legislation.
-- Steve Walker
