The weirdness of car insurance

Inspired by a news.bbc piece on the decade since the introduction of no-win, no-fees rules to civil claims courts, it struck me how many of the comments left mention uninsured drivers. Which got me thinking: why is it the law in this country that you have to insure your own vehicle for the damage caused to the other vehicle in the case of an accident? Surely it'd be fairer if people were forced to insure their own vehicles, as in that case someone driving with no insurance would only be putting themselves at financial risk, not anyone else?

Any sharp legal minds out there care to help me out on this one?

Edit: this probably should have gone in the Miscellaneous section. Oh well.

Now THAT is a plan. Only drawback is petrol prices. Do they do hybrid tanks, d'you reckon?

Jaie Miller said:

I dont know who told these advertisers that my life is in ruins, I'm insecure and afraid, lonley, confused about life, my thoughts worthless and self hate increasing....I don't know who told them. I don't know.

Click to expand...

Sounds like someone needs a

gabriel said:

surely it's because the thing taken into account when you're paying for insurance is how likely you are to have an accident... imagine how hard it'd be to work out how much you should pay based on the likelihood that someone else might crash into you

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand this. There's more than one way to have an accident - a driver can crash into another driver without it being their (the first driver's) fault, e.g. if the other party pulled out of a drive or side street without looking.

So does it boil down to the fact that an accident that damages your car might be another driver's fault?