Malcolm Corbett is wrong to suggest that the moral approach to protect the public is to insure the vehicle and not the driver (Letters, 18 August): in fact this is likely to lead to more deaths on the road.
Professor Greenaway examined this option in his report to the government on uninsured driving in the UK (August 2004).
He concluded that a change to such a system would "almost certainly put more road users at risk of being involved in road traffic accidents and increase the vulnerability of young drivers in particular".
He also concluded that there was no evidence that such a change would reduce the level of uninsured driving, though he noted that it was likely to lead to higher premiums.
The same conclusions apply to the idea of incorporating third party cover into road tax or fuel duty. The insurance industry is working closely with the government and police to create a new system for enforcing insurance relying on new technology and new police powers, and placing the industry's motor insurance database at the heart of the system.
As a result of an ABI campaign, the government has given the police the powers to seize and destroy vehicles being driven uninsured - an excellent deterrent to potential offenders.
We are now calling for the government to create a new offence of 'keeping a vehicle without insurance' so the police do not even have to capture someone driving to prosecute them for lack of insurance.
Windscreen discs were considered and rightly rejected by Greenaway, who noted that the vehicle excise duty evasion rate was no lower than that of insurance until the enforcement focus moved from discs to the IT-based regime now proposed for insurance.
The UK has a highly competitive motor insurance market and consumers can choose whether to be able to drive other cars as part of their policy or not, by shopping around different insurers and brokers and then making an informed decision.
Justin Jacobs
Head of liability, motor and risk pricing ABI
