In this 3rd party insurance model, which is typical of world wide schemes, a driver or owner, as the 1st party, is obliged by law to enter into a contract with an insurance company, as the 2nd party.

In exchange for paying a premium the driver/owner is protected against claims from a victim, as the 3rd party.

Victims claim on the insurer as the driver/owner is "covered" by the contract, i.e., insurance policy.

The claim is always for money to redress losses arising out of injury or  death.

It is an uphill battle for the victim. He/she must prove that the driver was at fault.

How does a five year old child prove that a driver who killed his/her parents some 500kms away was at fault? How does a victim suffering accident related amnesia prove fault?

Even if the victim can prove fault he/she has the added problem of proving value of loss.

What is the value of loss involved in lost future earnings for a child, a high school drop-out, a university graduate ...?

The more serious the injuries or loss involved, the more expensive are the experts needed to prove this.

The average victim simply does not have the resources to conduct protracted dispute and expensive litigation against the driver's well resourced insurer, motivated to protect profits.

So a victim is usually either "bought off" cheaply or denied compensation.

It is for this reason that the now notorious "contingency fee" legal industry has blossomed.  Lawyers will fund the dispute and litigation and take a portion of the moneys wrested from or won from the insurer as their fees.

"Now, is the contingency fee system perfect? Clearly not. Is there any other system that has ever been proposed by the insurance industry, or our legislators or anyone else for that matter, that would do a better job to permit all people access to our court system? The answer is "NO" [link]

The above statement was undoubtedly true until now.

Since the victim is not paying his/her lawyer, he or she has little influence over the conduct of the dispute and/or litigation. This generally proceeds on the basis of attempting to get as much money as possible out of the insurer, who understandably tries to pay as little as possible.

In this way a culture of converting injury or death into as much (or as little) money as possible is organically induced.

Since money is the objective fraud is rampant. Hence the advent of the now notorious "whiplash" syndrome with persons involved in minor "bumper bashing" incidents claiming an estimated £125 million per year in the UK for supposedly  neck related permanent impairment. [Link on whiplash fraud]

In this scenario there is obvious prejudice that accrues to victims, and to insurance houses, who then increase insurance premiums to offset "losses" and to the Sate in that courts are needlessly tied up with matters involving a minefield of  fact and fiction.

Ultimately society pays a heavy price in human suffering and the State is burdened with the resultant costs which are astronomical.

"They cost low and middle income countries more than the total development aid they receive ... immediate and effect interventions are needed ..." UN Gen Assembly 2004

  In the RCVM model a driver pays a levy that is included in the price of fuel.

As there is no profit to service the cost, on average, to a motorist is a fraction of what private 3rd party cover costs.

It is also inherently equitable in that those with bigger vehicles, or who travel more, and thus are at higher risk, automatically pay more on account of more fuel used.

In return the driver, and all victims, are covered for loss resulting from injury or death caused by road crashes.

In the result no driver can be uninsured.

No driver can be under-insured as there is no risk profiling - all drivers are covered by virtue of there being fuel in the vehicle.

It follows that no victim runs the risk of being injured or killed by an uninsured driver.

This is especially true in regard to victims who are injured and killed by "hit and run"  drivers. At present such victims and their families simply have no recourse.

Justice for Victims -"We campaign to ensure road death and injury receive a proper response by the justice system and are not treated as mere unfortunate "accidents"".  Road Peace.

"The emotional consequences of these devastating collissions radiate like waves on a pond. Mothers and fathers are left wondering why they have outlived a child and lovers are separated forever with no opportunity to say goodbye".  -"When lives collide  Exhibition" -  Paul Wenham-Clarke . Green Flag

The model is proactive as regards each of the functions it has on its operational continuum -

 Its 1st functional interest is road crash and injury prevention. This it does in partnership with law enforcement, road maintenance and road safety agencies. Annual plans are consensually drawn up to target those aspects that recent history indicates have high causal effect. A "business" approach means that expenditure is treated as a "smart"  investment and a quantifiable return is expected.

 Its  2nd functional interest is a "quick response" to road crashes. It invests in and partners all other emergency services. The objective is to achieve "golden hour" medical intervention for all crash victims. Again this approach constitutes a really "smart investment as very significant costs are saved in that timeous treatment results in saved lives, earlier recovery, reduction in longer term morbidity and enhanced rehabilitation prospects.

Its 3rd functional interest is timeous medical treatment, including trauma care and rehabilitation. All serious injury is treated in terms of treatment plans consensually arrived at with the victim and/or the family.

In cases of death a funeral benefit accrues immediately.

Dependants of the deceased receive material support immediately as if the breadwinner is still alive.

The 4th functional interest the model has is to provide life-long "in-home" quality of life enhancement support for plegia and bed-ridden victims. This includes home alteration, prosthetics and training of family members as care givers.

 The value of the benefits is typically set so as to ensure that "most" victims are fully covered for medical and income loss. Obviously those in the higher socio-economic sector may typically find that there is a "balance of loss" that such public sector scheme cannot be reasonably expected to cover. For such persons, and tourists, the model may partner the private insurance sector insurance to provide "top-up" cover.

By any test the model constitutes  ... "immediate and effective interventions ..."  appealed for by the UN in 2004