# Drink Drivers to lose insurance cover?



## Brendan Burgess (4 Jan 2002)

In last Sunday's Times, Fiona McGoran reported that insurance companies plan to exclude drink drivers from their books and to sue their clients who were involved in drink driving accidents to recover the costs. 

I think it is a good idea. It should bring down the costs of insurance for those who don't drink and drive and should discourage drink driving. 

Eddie Hobbs of the Consumers Association accused the insurance company of trying to increase profits, saying that there was not a shred of evidence to suggest that the tough new measures would reduce carnage on our roads.

I will certainly think again before having that third pint if it means that I could be bankrupted as a result of an accident. 

But why restrict it to drink driving?  Why not apply it to people involved in accidents as a result of speeding or other dangerous driving? 

Anything which encourages responsible driving is a good idea. 

Brendan


----------



## rainyday (4 Jan 2002)

I too think it's a good idea - I see no good reason why a portion of my insurance premium should be required to fund accidents caused by drunk drivers. 

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>*Quote:*<hr>  will certainly think again before having that third pint if it means that I could be bankrupted as a result of an accident. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

Given the current limit (80 mg alcohol), you'd really want to think before you have the first or definitely the second pint!

Regards - RainyDay


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2002)

I always thought I was below the limit on 2 pints. I am obviously not up to date. 

I was stopped by a routine patrol and I told the Garda I had two pints, which was true, and he said go on ?

Brendan


----------



## rainyday (5 Jan 2002)

From what I remember reading in the papers at the time the limit dropped from 100mg to 80mg, it's not really a simple limit of x pints. It depends on your personal metabolism, amount of food in your bloodstream, how quickly/slowly you've been drinking etc.

Cheers RainyDay


----------



## flash (5 Jan 2002)

*don't agree*

banning drunk drivers from insurance would mean that many would take to the roads without insurance which would be disasterous for all !

what about senior citizens(a memory test) ban them
attractive females(a distraction) ban them
foriegners (may forget side of the road) ban them
young men(loud music in cars - can't hear warning signs, wearing dark glasses in cars with tinted glass - can;t see traffic signals - )ban them
people on medication - ban them for life
people who had their drink spiked - ban them for life

There must be an end to a ban - whatever the court decides 10-20-life.
I do not like insurance companies having the power banning anyone for life as they are in a business that is compulsory through legislation

Leave it to the courts which represent the people


----------



## Tommy (5 Jan 2002)

*Re: don't agree either*

A logical consequence of such a move would be that, in the case of a drunk driver causing serious injury to a third party or their property (i.e. car), the insurance company would be able to wash their hands of the matter and leave the injured party to slug it out in the courts with the drunk driver in the hope of eventually getting their rightful compensation.

I don't think this would be a nice scenario for an innocent party to be in.

On a wider point, an observation - has anyone explained why  the rates of road accidents and fatalities seem not to have declined much in the past decade despite the fact that nowadays a lot less people are driving with drink taken, compared to say a decade ago?


----------



## endowed (6 Jan 2002)

*Speed*

Hi Tommy,

Regarding your last observation above, <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->*   speed *<!--EZCODE BOLD END--> on the roads, IMHO, is one of the main reasons why the rate of road accidents and fatalities don’t seem to have declined. Every day while driving, you see people going too fast for comfort and for what reason?

People take far too many chances on the roads like overtaking on bends, etc., and, generally, showing little courtesy to other drivers and pedestrians.

I don’t condone drinking and driving in any way but speed is the real culprit when it comes to fatalities on our roads, unfortunately.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Jan 2002)

*Re: Speed*

Hi Tommy

In every scenario, the innocent victim will be protected.

If I am properly insured but drunk when I injure a third party, the insurance company will pay up, but they will have the right to recover the costs from me. I think that this is fair enough.

If I am not insured when I personally injure a third party, the Motor Insurers Bureau pays up and I doubt if they bother going after the uninsured driver. Those of us who insure our cars pay about an extra 10% ( I think?) to cover those who are not insured

Brendan


----------



## Wings Of Chicken 1 (6 Jan 2002)

*Motor Insurers Bureau*

Brendan,

Too broad to say <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* ....the innocent victim will be protected*<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.

Your second scenario doesn't apply if you (God forbid) were driving pissed as a newt and:-

(a) took a short-cut home across a field and hit & injured someone also taking the short-cut. MIB only interested in motor accident on the "highway"
(b) crashed into a property, and caused substantial damage (say a Petrol Station). MIB only pays up to a limited amount for property damage. Haven't got the figures to hand, I'm afraid.
(c) crashed into a property of whatever size, and drove off (including, say, cars in supermarket car parks). MIB is only interested in "untraced drivers" in respect of "personal injury".

Dealing with MIB is no joke either. Nice people, but unlike an insurance company, MIB gains no marketing advantage in trying to help with 'borderline' issues, or paying claims quickly.

Wings


----------

