If we want true accountability then we must adopt direct democracy along the lines practised in Switzerland. Not only are NGOs not accountable but neither are national or local politicians.
For road safety, the solution would be to have decisions made by the insurance companies. They are the one who lose money from accidents, so have a vested interest in safety, but cannot truly annoy motorists without risking a mass exodus of drivers to their rivals.
No Sir, when you have an accident your premiums increase so, in effect, it costs the insurance company nowt. Also the extra workload and staff they will need to oversee road safethy? Premiums will increase even further. Nice idea though but totally impractical as you have, regrettably, not thought your point through.
and increased premiums takes how many years, or decades, to repay the cost of the car? No, insurance is a wager, with the company as 'house'; there is a practical limit to premium increases.
The proof of the pudding is that insurance companies spend a small fortune lobbing for improvements in road safety: that money would no longer need to be spent lobbying, but would instead go towards *fixing* black spots.
There would be less workload and staff, because unneeded layer of bureaucracy is removed.
Have you really? So insurance companies will take over the work of the MoJ and that of national and local authorities? And the funding for this comes from where/who? You talk about 'black spots'; so who pays for this? How do you then charge motorists passing through who don't live in the locality of said 'black spot'? Who then oversees the insurance companies? I pose an oft asked question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Bureaucracy begats bureaucracy and it appears to expand at a rate greater than that of the human race.
I consider the motor insurance industry no more than a money grabbing clique. I was accused of having opened my drivers door in a supermarket carpark onto the door of a blue Audi and the claim apparently had a witness. I had an assessor visit me who could find no trace of this blue Audi colour on my door nor any damage to it. When I insisted this claim was rebutted (my having been told at the outset by my insurance company that the fact of a witness made it difficult for them to defend me) the witness disappeared and the claim was dropped. Yet it remained on my record and my premiums were increased. I took this to LLoyds of London who informed me that any accident (even when the insured was not guilty) quote "can and may be taken into account when insurance premiums are calculated". So for 5 years I paid an increased premium until the 5 year statutory period ended. And you want me to agree to pass road maintenance/improvement to what are no more than another bunch of legalised crooks? I don't think so.
This is excellent. When I publish Lorenzo's next essay, I'll link to it.
Future essays in the series will be very much germane to the points you raise.
If we want true accountability then we must adopt direct democracy along the lines practised in Switzerland. Not only are NGOs not accountable but neither are national or local politicians.
For road safety, the solution would be to have decisions made by the insurance companies. They are the one who lose money from accidents, so have a vested interest in safety, but cannot truly annoy motorists without risking a mass exodus of drivers to their rivals.
Insurance companies are no more accountable than politicians, so on the question of accountability I fail to see what motorists would gain.
every time you crash, you cost the insurance company money, so failure to improve road safety reduces profits for the insurance companies.
No Sir, when you have an accident your premiums increase so, in effect, it costs the insurance company nowt. Also the extra workload and staff they will need to oversee road safethy? Premiums will increase even further. Nice idea though but totally impractical as you have, regrettably, not thought your point through.
and increased premiums takes how many years, or decades, to repay the cost of the car? No, insurance is a wager, with the company as 'house'; there is a practical limit to premium increases.
The proof of the pudding is that insurance companies spend a small fortune lobbing for improvements in road safety: that money would no longer need to be spent lobbying, but would instead go towards *fixing* black spots.
There would be less workload and staff, because unneeded layer of bureaucracy is removed.
Yes, I have thought this through.
"Yes, I have thought this through."
Have you really? So insurance companies will take over the work of the MoJ and that of national and local authorities? And the funding for this comes from where/who? You talk about 'black spots'; so who pays for this? How do you then charge motorists passing through who don't live in the locality of said 'black spot'? Who then oversees the insurance companies? I pose an oft asked question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Bureaucracy begats bureaucracy and it appears to expand at a rate greater than that of the human race.
I consider the motor insurance industry no more than a money grabbing clique. I was accused of having opened my drivers door in a supermarket carpark onto the door of a blue Audi and the claim apparently had a witness. I had an assessor visit me who could find no trace of this blue Audi colour on my door nor any damage to it. When I insisted this claim was rebutted (my having been told at the outset by my insurance company that the fact of a witness made it difficult for them to defend me) the witness disappeared and the claim was dropped. Yet it remained on my record and my premiums were increased. I took this to LLoyds of London who informed me that any accident (even when the insured was not guilty) quote "can and may be taken into account when insurance premiums are calculated". So for 5 years I paid an increased premium until the 5 year statutory period ended. And you want me to agree to pass road maintenance/improvement to what are no more than another bunch of legalised crooks? I don't think so.