David Taylor  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>>RTA insurance covers the risks from negligence while using a vehicle. 
>>>If someone could drive more than one car at the same time then the
>>>total risk would be increased and this increased risk for the same
>>>premium would indeed be abusive.

>> So you don't see any increase in risk if the insured drives four
>> different cars?

> Uhm, no.  They can only have one accident at a time, after all.

True. But four cars could be stolen, driven into or catch fire.

"Anthony R. Gold"  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>>> So you don't see any increase in risk if the insured drives four
>>>> different cars?

>>> Uhm, no.  They can only have one accident at a time, after all.

>> True. But four cars could be stolen, driven into or catch fire.

> Although that may be true it is also irrelevant to this particular point
> as not one of those risks is underwritten by the RTA s.143 compulsory
> third party liability insurance that we are discussing.

They may well do.

If the car driven into is pushed into another vehicle, the driver of that 
third vehicle would claim from the one pushed into his.

If the burning vehicle damages another vehicle, the driver of that 
vehicle would claim from the burning one.

If the stolen vehicle hits another vehicle, the damage to that would form 
a part of the theft claim.