Whitebridges Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 On 06/03/2014 at 07:32, David BASC said: The risk of compulsory insurance is that it could easily lead to compulsory testing, not neceserily driven by parliament but by insurers. Do we want to put more barriers in the way of newcomers to our sport? BASC believes in the voluntary approach to training , but there is no excuse for anyone who goes shooting not to be insured. Regardless of which organisation or organisations you choose to support the cost is tiny when put in context of how much we spend on our own shooting. I do not think there will ever be one single organisation, there will always be the demand and need for specialism I suspect, but that will not and does not prevent organisations working together, there is much more inter organisations cooperation now than ever as far as I can see. David I don't understand why insurers would want to test people proposing for insurance should insurance for shooting become mandatory. I might be missing something? Can you expand a bit more perhaps? I'd also like to know how the different shooting organisations are getting it all together. They are all competitors. You are plying your wares against one another surely. Can you back up what you are saying? Or can Richard Ali enlighten us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfection Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 On 06/03/2014 at 21:05, Whitebridges said: I don't understand why insurers would want to test people proposing for insurance should insurance for shooting become mandatory. Because they could claim that without correct training there is an increased risk of you having an accident and therefore membership/insurance premium would be significantly higher to cover this risk. Despite being a member of BASC im not in favour of compulsory insurance.If we went this route, the like of BASC,CA etc would be able to increase membership costs because they know shooters would be obliged to join one of the organisations.It should always remain voluntary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 On 07/03/2014 at 06:34, Imperfection said: Because they could claim that without correct training there is an increased risk of you having an accident and therefore membership/insurance premium would be significantly higher to cover this risk. Despite being a member of BASC im not in favour of compulsory insurance.If we went this route, the like of BASC,CA etc would be able to increase membership costs because they know shooters would be obliged to join one of the organisations.It should always remain voluntary. I don't accept that, there are plenty of separate insurers anyway, and if it became compulsory you can guarantee insurers would spring up out of the woodwork to grab the extra business and premiums would almost certainly go down, and the likes of the BASC would lose members as many seem only interested in the insurance. BUT, I am not in favour of compulsory insurance anyway, and that isn't what this thread was about either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Yes we do compete for memberships but as you well know many people are member of more than one organisation. But to answer the point about how are organisations working together, let me give you three examples: BASC, CA, NGO et al worked together to promote the lead shot compliance campaign in 2013 BASC and the NGO are working together on a project to give a load of 14-16 years olds a gamekeeping experience BASC and GWCT are working together on a project called 'Shooting for the future' a 2 day course on shoot management and shooting skills There will be, I am sure, loads of other opportunities to work together for a common objective. On the insurance / cost of premium point, please remember the price of an insurance premium is not driven simply by the number of policies in play, its driven mainly by the level of risk plus cost of claims. Just to throw some rough statistics at this, the level of risk is about 1/2500 i.e. on average 1 shooter in 2500 will have an accident resulting in a claim in any one year, and the average cost of claims is around £10,000, but its creeping up. So, for sake of argument, every shooter in the UK got insured over the next twelve months, the per capita cost of insurance would not alter, as the risk is the same and the potential costs are the same. Insurers may look to reduce their exposure by putting excesses or exclusions on the policy, this will also drive the premium down of course, but means the insured person has to pay part of the claim or may find certain activities are not covered at all compared to a policy that costs a few extra quid. So a viable alternative to reduce exposure without cutting cover or adding excess is to go down the training / testing path - its a risk it may or may not happen if compulsory insurance came in, but its a risk. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 On 07/03/2014 at 07:41, David BASC said: ......................................... So, for sake of argument, every shooter in the UK got insured over the next twelve months, the per capita cost of insurance would not alter, as the risk is the same and the potential costs are the same. ........................................... David I pay less for my house insurance, contents insurance, car insurance, holiday insurance, Club Shooting Insurance, etc., etc., now, in cash terms and real terms than I did many years ago. My House and Contents insurance actually costs me LESS in ££££££ now than it did, simply for my House insurance alone, when I moved in here around 10 years ago, that is a massive saving in real terms. It isn't anything to do with the risk, it is to do with volume/competition! ATB! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Combining 2 policies reduces the total cost because you only pay one administration free rather than 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 On 07/03/2014 at 09:37, David BASC said: Combining 2 policies reduces the total cost because you only pay one administration free rather than 2 £330 Property Insurance alone 2004. £192 Property AND Contents Insurance 2013 Seems they charged a lot for administration fee! Whichever way you like it I'll have 10p with you Shooting insurance would come down in price if it became mandatory for ALL shooters. Just the same I hope we never get to find out. ATB! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 I hope you are right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 On 05/03/2014 at 20:46, Whitebridges said: As things stand I believe the shooting fraternity are on the back foot. There is no doubt that a stronger membership will put us on the front foot. The first line reflects our long established default position. I firmly believe that for the second line to be valid, "stronger" should be complemented by, 'forceful' and for the organisations to then reflect that attitude before, as the OP link points out, it's too late. Having shot for several years in Germany, the legislation there (and in other European countries) for me is not a problem but I'm happy to accept that I'm probably in a very small minority. (This refers to pre NTS days which is an entirely different matter in relation to the topic in hand.) Sooner or later it is quite likely, unless we are able to extract ourselves from the European political mess in which we find ourselves, that legislation will find its way across 'la manche'. This in itself does not concern me, but what does is the inevitable additions which some bright spark will take the opportunity to tack on to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.