In article <
[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I disagree. Part of the problem is that routine carelessness is seen as not much of a problem, and
> the casual killing of a few thousand people a year is the price we pay for the freedom to pollute
> our cities. I mean, drive our cars.
Thought experiment.
Let's presume that our roads are made the responsibility of a private company. For the sake of the
argument, we'll call it RoadTrack.
Now, RoadTrack is made responsible for road safety. Whenever someone dies on the roads, there is a
full inquiry and a huge fine on RoadTrack, and they are required to spend tens of millions on
improvements.
Now RoadTrack has a bill to pay, proportional to what deaths cost the rail industry. They'll have to
recover it from their users. Probably the fairest way to do this is through the insurance industry -
who are also presumably RoadTrack shareholders. So motor insurance has to cover these costs.
Legislation and Technology give RoadTrack and the insurers the means to enforce insurance - for
example, by making it impossible to obtain petrol without a smartcard issued by an insurer.
How much do insurance premiums have to rise to cover this?
Well, of course it depends on just where you set the costs. But if we base it on a maximum-cost Rail
industry scenario (Hatfield), we could be looking at an average motor insurance in excess of average
household income!
Look at that from the other side, and what we have is a massive subsidy to motorists, dwarfing their
entire costs - except perhaps for the drivers of seriously expensive (£100k) wankmobiles.
--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)