Should we have compulsory 3rd party insurance for dogs?

[-]

Mina_U290@reddit

Yes it's really easy and cheap to get. Just join Dogs Trust as a member and you get it for £25 a year for all your dogs, at all times, and covers dogs exempted under the DDA. It's a no brainer.

Reply

[-]

TheRealTRexUK@reddit

digs trust are closed to new members and no renewals.

Reply

[-]

Just to add that it could policed in the exact same way that microchips are. No one checks those until something goes wrong. If no chip, which would usually only be looked at if the dog goes missing and ends up seized by the council, owners when traced are given a deadline to get one. If they don't get one then they are prosecuted. Could be exactly the same with insurance. Of course if your dog innocently causes an accident, with no insurance, the owner would have to pay out themselves.

Reply

[-]

AtebYngNghymraeg@reddit

And what if an uninsured dog causes a problem before going to a vet and it being established they're not insured? What if the insurance lapses, they bite someone, and the next vet appointment isn't for a few months? I don't think this is as practical to police as you think.

Reply

[-]

Mina_U290@reddit

Not really sure what you mean about the vet. Vets won't enforce this or get involved, they're vets. As with microchips, it won't be policed at all, except if the dog is reported after an incident, or seized for some reason, and the owner traced. I'm still in favour though.

Reply

[-]

AtebYngNghymraeg@reddit

I got the impression from what you were saying that the lack of insurance would be flagged during vet visits, but clearly I've misunderstood that. Still can't see the point. Good owners will have another expense, bad owners won't bother to buy insurance. It's completely unenforceable, just like the old dog licence, which is exactly why it was scrapped.

Reply

[-]

Mina_U290@reddit

Well it's just opinions if we're in favour or not.

Reply

[-]

JudgmentAny1192@reddit

I read an article by a Man Who's old faithful, loving dog suddenly savaged a toddlers face. The dog was put down and The Man began researching. Dogs can react to certain high pitched tones that are associated with injured prey, Toddlers make those sounds, Their faces are the same height and if too close can be instantly mauled. If You Google it You will see daily Child victims all the world and any breed can kill. This is beyond words yet People don't realise, plus Google lost limbs sepsis dog saliva and You will be horrified.

Reply

[-]

ActivityUpset6404@reddit

What is with Brits weird penchant for authoritarian nannyism. Yearly deaths by dogs barely scrape out of single digits every year. 10 people last year. Out of a country do 68 million. More people die falling in the shower. Honestly it’s like you feel like you’re not progressing as a society unless you’re legislating every shred of joy and fun out of existence.

Reply

[-]

Valuable-Wallaby-167@reddit

Gonna put it out there that most people on this thread think it's a bad idea, so I'm not sure why you got the idea that this is some sort of broad British phenomenon rather than the idea of one person.

Reply

[-]

ActivityUpset6404@reddit

It’s a general observation about the British tendency to heavily regulate personal choice & recreation in the guise of public safety. It’s like the British political class’ first instincts when reacting to new tends, is to heavily, restrict regulate them, or the classic “bAn.” Especially when the media stirs up overblown concern. Where cultures like the French, or the Spanish, or the Americans would tend to treat government intervention in day to day life with suspicion or at the very least; resentment for being treated like children - the British seem to either cheer it on or just shrug it off.

Reply

[-]

cuppachuppa@reddit

Compulsory child insurance would be better. The other day I was in a queue and a mother watched as her toddler came up to my dog (who I'm confident is not a threat) and start jabbing at her face. I pulled my dog back and the toddler followed. If something had happened, it would have been my fault I guess...

Reply

[-]

vctrmldrw@reddit

No it wouldn't have been, because you had your dog under control.

Reply

[-]

Spottyjamie@reddit

That didnt happen though… No parent is thick enough to allow their toddler to poke another dog

Reply

[-]

DeanyyBoyy93@reddit

r/nothinghappens

Reply

[-]

gouplesblog@reddit

They really are though.

Reply

[-]

CurvePuzzleheaded361@reddit

Believe me they are! Happens allll the time!

Reply

[-]

freckledotter@reddit

Really? Pretty sure most people are thick

Reply

[-]

TunnocksTemplar@reddit

I don't think you spend enough time with the general public if you believe that mate

Reply

[-]

DrHenryWu@reddit

Poor parenting but children>dogs, sorry

Reply

[-]

Prior-Comfortable-98@reddit

Dear God, no. Most dogs are relatively well-behaved, and another tax on top of all the others won't be the most popular idea.

Reply

[-]

marktuk@reddit

I'd rather find a way to stop dog attacks from dangerous dogs, rather than insure against them.

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

It would presumably help to reduce dangerous dog ownership since they’d be the most costly ones to insure.

Reply

[-]

marktuk@reddit

People will find a way to pay for it if they really want it. Or just get the dog insured, after all, who is going to actively enforce it? It's not like cars where they can use ANPR.

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

Well yeah some people would still own dangerous dogs, but probably fewer. I’d assume enforcement would most happen when there was an incident, but it would have the impact of meaning that not only was the victim financial compensated, but also the owners would have to have appropriate insurance in place for future.

Reply

[-]

marktuk@reddit

The victim could sue regardless of insurance, that can happen today. If you genuinely want to stop dangerous dog attacks, a better solution is licencing. Repeat offenders serve prison sentences i.e. actually make it a deterrent. Mandatory dog insurance is just the same as saying cyclists should "pay road tax and insurance". It's not solving a problem, it's just making people who don't like dogs/cyclists feel better because someone else is being put out of pocket.

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

You can sue, but they might not have any money to go after. Licensing would be another option, but lacks the benefit of providing compensation to victims. I’d argue it is solving a problem in a round about way, it’s not banning potentially dangerous dogs, which is both unpopular and borderline impossible, but it would provide a financial disincentive to have one while also helping to protect the public in a manner if your dog does cause an incident.

Reply

[-]

marktuk@reddit

Financial disincentives do not work, people will go on to debt for the things they want, many people literally don't care. It's also not protecting anyone, it's accepting people will be attacked and saying "oh well here's some money to make you feel better". I think most people would prefer not to be attacked in the first place. To take the argument to a silly extreme, should we have mandatory knife crime insurance?

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

We use financial disincentives for all sorts of stuff. It’s not protecting physically no, that would be as I say, next to impossible unless you banned any dog above chihuahua size. It is protecting people financially and we do generally accept money as a recompense when we can’t reverse the actual event. Thats a point I guess, but to take it to the other extreme of silly, should we abolish car insurance? I wouldn’t want to get hit by a car either. Assuming you’re happy with car insurance existing, then presumably we both agree that’s some things present a level of hazard for which it’s appropriate to insure against, and that boundary sits somewhere between knives and cars.

Reply

[-]

marktuk@reddit

We have strict licensing and laws for driving though. Car insurance is there to protect drivers against the risk of loss to themselves, not as a disincentive to bad driving. Driving convictions don't actually impact insurance costs as much as you'd think. It's certainly an interesting idea you've become fixated on. How would you feel if we had mandatory drinking insurance? I.e you can only buy alcohol if you've got insurance to cover any health issues or damage you do while drunk? Mandatory insurance to attend gigs and other public events for if there's a terrorist attack? Mandatory insurance if your cholesterol level is over a healthy amount?

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

For car insurance it’s kind of both to cover yourself and others I guess. Well yes, you could make an argument of varying strengths for requiring insurance for almost anything. In purely the case of dogs though, I just think it’s an idea worth considering since they do have the potential to cause damage, in some cases significantly so, and given they’re also sentient beings, can never be completely under the control of their owner.

Reply

[-]

HellPigeon1912@reddit

I think it would be an extra expense for good dog owners, and the people who own dangerous dogs just wouldn't get the insurance.

Reply

[-]

Regular-Ad1814@reddit

All dog owners think they are good, that is part of the problem.

Reply

[-]

netzure@reddit

Good dog owners already have insurance which happens to already include third party cover.

Reply

[-]

Beer-Milkshakes@reddit

Another rule for the rule followers.

Reply

[-]

DrHenryWu@reddit

Anarcho tyranny

Reply

[-]

Zak_Rahman@reddit

I think dog licenses are a better idea. Responsible or experienced dog owners would have little or no problems with it. Newbie or ignorant dog owners might get some insight about how difficult it is to properly train a dog before getting into it. Idiots aren't going to follow any law or regulation you make. But once you have an official licensing system, you can drop the hammer on infractions. This can therefore apply to both single owners and people that run puppy mills and even people who buy from puppy mills. I think this goes a long way in improving aggregate dog owner behaviour and also protects dogs from shit owners. I do, however, think this is a separate issue from dangerous dogs. There also needs to be a crackdown on dog culture and the whole "all dogs are angels" crowd. It's this vapid subculture that really has increased attacks.

Reply

[-]

Zak_Rahman@reddit

I think dog licenses are a better idea. Responsible or experienced dog owners would have little or no problems with it. Newbie or ignorant dog owners might get some insight about how difficult it is to properly train a dog before getting into it. Idiots aren't going to follow any law or regulation you make. But once you have an official licensing system, you can drop the hammer on infractions. This can therefore apply to both single owners and people that run puppy mills and even people who buy from puppy mills. I think this goes a long way in improving aggregate dog owner behaviour and also protects dogs from shit owners. I do, however, think this is a separate issue from dangerous dogs. There also needs to be a crackdown on dog culture and the whole "all dogs are angels" crowd. It's this vapid subculture that really has increased attacks.

Reply

[-]

Obvious-Water569@reddit

If the police had the resources it would be a great idea, just like having a license for a dog. Unfortunately it would just be ignored and there would be no consequences.

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

It would be ignored until there was an issue. If an uninsured dog ended up biting someone or another dog to the severity it needed a trip to A&E/a vet, it would end up with the owner then being fined not only for the attack but also for having an uninsured dog. We could treat it much as we do when an uninsured driver has a car accident.

Reply

[-]

AtebYngNghymraeg@reddit

So besides fining the uninsured owner, what's the point in the insurance? People will assume their dog isn't the problem and not get insured. Then they have an incident and get fined. So what? Other than responsible people having yet another expense, you're achieving nothing. This is a terrible idea.

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

Because if your insured dog causes damage in some way, you can then claim for it against the insurer rather than having to go via court, which might be a waste of time anyway if the owners have no money. It also has the benefit of encouraging sensible dog ownership since people who have riskier dogs or records of previous dog attacks will be made to feel that when they pay their premium. For the uninsured ones, as I say it would work like cars. If your dog is involved in an incident, you would not only be fined but also have to get insurance in order to avoid further prosecution or potentially, the loss of your pet.

Reply

[-]

AtebYngNghymraeg@reddit

As most dogs don't cause problems, their lack of insurance would go unnoticed. Bad owners won't care, and if there's an incident they'll just scarper, knowing that there's no real way of identifying them or their dog. Unless you're also going to enforce doggy dashcams and doggy number plates? Awful, unmanageable, and unenforceable idea.

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

You’d probably just use microchips instead of dash cams. But couldn’t you use exactly this argument against car insurance? Most of us agree that’s a good idea. There will always be some people who flout the rules, but we generally try to make it as difficult as we can for those who do.

Reply

[-]

Chargerado@reddit

Never mind insurance there should be dog licenses. No licence and you lose your pet.

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

It would effectively be the same thing no? Except with insurance any potential victim has a much easier route to compensation.

Reply

[-]

Chargerado@reddit

Well, I don’t see the point in lining the pockets of the insurance companies more. To be fair many people have pet insurance anyway. Compulsory dog licensing will help local authorities generate income and fines as well as stopping dog ownership by people who can’t afford to look after them.

Reply

[-]

Addy-Freeze-BangBang@reddit

Who is gonna police it.

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

Same way cars are I’d guess. Any incident involving the dog would involve a quick insurance check. You could also add it into vet visits.

Reply

[-]

JustUseDuckTape@reddit

>add it into vet visits Sadly this sort of thing is terrible for the welfare of dogs, people would just avoid going to the vet if they're behind on their pet liability insurance.

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

Yeah I suppose that would be a concern, but then if someone couldn’t afford the insurance, they’re probably also going to struggle to properly look after a dog.

Reply

[-]

klmarchant23@reddit

And the only ones who suffer then are the dogs. And that’s not fair.

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit (OP)

You could argue that if doggie’s owners can’t afford basic insurance, the dog is likely already suffering.

Reply

[-]

jillcrosslandpiano@reddit

If there is an incident, the dog already is likely taken away- so there is no real incentive for bad owners to get insurance. Bad owners also never visit the vet.

Reply

[-]

Warm-Marsupial8912@reddit

wish the dogs were taken away, that's half the problem. Pretty much every dog that kills a person was already known to authorities because it had attacked on multiple occasions.

Reply

[-]

Humble-Variety-2593@reddit

Am I gonna need to get a license plate for my dogs butt?

Reply

[-]

Wibblywobblywalk@reddit

I think that would look kind of cool!

Reply

[-]

SaltyName8341@reddit

You could get one of those LEDs that you wave on the tail

Reply

[-]

AnonymousTimewaster@reddit

Another way for the insurance industry to cream more off innocent people? No thanks.

Reply

[-]

Breaking-Dad-@reddit

Yes. We had a licence and we could ask for insurance. The problem lies with how you police it and what are the consequences? Do we start scanning dogs and taking them away? What do we do with those dogs? So, as much as my kneejerk answer is yes, I have no idea how this works in practicality

Reply

[-]

Warm-Marsupial8912@reddit

which was why the dog licence was swapped. No way of enforcing

Reply

[-]

Warm-Marsupial8912@reddit

If you have pet insurance that is included, some home insurance might too. If you only want/can afford 3rd party cover you can get it through The Dogs Trust for about £12 a year. Trouble is, look at the owners of the dogs who seriously injure or kill and question whether they are the sort of person who'd take it out... We can't even enforce that the small number of bully owners keep to the rules of the exemptions, snd the licence they had to pay barely covered the cost of the scheme.

Reply

[-]

Mr-Incy@reddit

It would just be a way to financially penalise responsible dog owners, the ones who don't care enough about their dog to train it properly and prevent aggression aren't going to care enough to pay for insurance for it.

Reply

[-]

Mountain_Strategy342@reddit

We have a policy that is included in our Dog's Trust membership. Think it is about £20 a year. Charity gets much needed funds, we have an insurance policy just in case. Seems like a win win.

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

Bring back Dog Licences And yes insurance mandatory for dogs and cyclists. Bring in Cycle Licences God I am old off to get some slippers and a brew!

Reply

[-]

D1789@reddit

I think it’d be punishing responsible dog owners with an additional financial burden, whilst irresponsible dog owners will probably chance it and won’t even bother to get insurance.

Reply

[-]

Opening_Succotash_95@reddit

Don't really see the point, just another way of insurance companies making money out of folk for nothing.

Reply

[-]

jillcrosslandpiano@reddit

I do not think it would help with renting, as landlords who refuse pets basically don't want the hassle. Insurance claims take a long time to settle, for example. As for biting, I dunno really, the problem is that the dogs that would be a problem would not be insured, even if it were mandatory to do so.

Reply

Reply to Post

68 Comments