Debate about No Fault claims

Johnnytoxic

Johnnytoxic

Johnnytoxic

Permabanned
Joined
13 Nov 2006
Posts
5,798
I was having a nice debate with my dad over him being penalised for having a No Fault claim on his insurance.

I was saying I understand why insurance companies do it, as even though it wasn't your fault you can have an impact on what happens around you.

Example: Someone who constantly brakes hard and doesn't give much indication when turning into junctions is more likely to have someone who isn't concerntrating behind them run into them. Good drivers will always leave lots of space gradually slowing traffic behind them and giving ample indication.

When approaching slip roads on dual carriageways, some drivers will not move into the outer lane and will run a higher risk of someone not giving way while merging and hitting them. A good driver would move into the outer lane minimizing risk.

Not really much of an argument at the end of it :) More stubborn denial saying wasn't my fault though.
 
Last edited:
Hxc said:
Stats say people with no fault claims are more likely to claim again, hence they charge more.
Click to expand...

If i have a non fault claim it puts up my insurance premium by the exact same amount as a fault claim.

Justified? Only if you like being screwed by insurance companies.
 
Hxc said:
Stats say people with no fault claims are more likely to claim again, hence they charge more.
Click to expand...

Lol, you mean like my friend whos premiums went up because some boy racer lost it while speeding round a junction and span into his car while it was parked outside his house and he was fast asleep? riiiiight.
 
ubersonic said:
Lol, you mean like my friend whos premiums went up because some boy racer lost it while speeding round a junction and span into his car while it was parked outside his house and he was fast asleep? riiiiight.
Click to expand...


Yes, he obviously lives on a road frequented by boy racers or parks his car in such a manner that it can be hit by careless drivers.

His premium wouldn't have gone up if it had been parked in his garage now would it?

I don't know how some people can't see the correlation between no fault accidents and increased risk to insurers, reflected in increased premiums. It's not bleedin' rocket science!
 
ubersonic said:
Lol, you mean like my friend whos premiums went up because some boy racer lost it while speeding round a junction and span into his car while it was parked outside his house and he was fast asleep? riiiiight.
Click to expand...

If you believe you can create a fairer insurance system where you individually assess each case, go and do it, you'll have no end of business.

Stats show that if someone is in a non fault accident, they are more likely to be in a fault one.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Yes, he obviously lives on a road frequented by boy racers or parks his car in such a manner that it can be hit by careless drivers.

His premium wouldn't have gone up if it had been parked in his garage now would it?
Click to expand...

It was parked on his driveway, its the only accident of its like that has ever occurred in the area.


Hxc said:
Stats show that if someone is in a non fault accident, they are more likely to be in a fault one.
Click to expand...

No, stats can be interpreted to show that, you can use statistics to show pretty much anything if you twist it right.
 
ubersonic said:
No, stats can be interpreted to show that, you can use statistics to show pretty much anything if you twist it right.
Click to expand...

If 4500 people who have been in a no fault accident go on to claim again, while only 1600 claim who haven't been in a no fault accident, surely you can see it's wise for the company to charge more in order to lower their risk?
 
I agree that it can seem harsh, but if you've claimed once, you're more likely to claim again.

As has been already stated, you CAN make allowances for other drivers - for example, by being aware of who's behind you, judging how much attention they're paying (or not!), you can slow earlier for hazards, show your brake lights earlier - any number of things. Some people are obviously crying out to have someone run into the back of them, you see it every day. So yes, it does make sense that in general you're charged more for your insurance after a "non fault" claim.

Similarly, even if you're fast aslrep an someone runs into your car - it may not be your fault, but you could have taken action to prevent the accident. For example, I arrived home the other day and there was only one spot left outside my house on the road - right on the end of the parked cars already there, and I judged, in the "firing line" of anybody who misjudges how much space there is. I turned around and parked further up the road on the other side instead. The next morning, somebody had come round the corner, their caravan separated from their car, and had embedded itself in the front of the car who had taken the end spot.

So - the guy who had parked there obviously hadn't gone through the same thought process as me, is therefore more likely to park in a (perfectly legal, but still) dodgy spot in the future, and is more likely to make a similar claim.
 
I stop in road and indicate right awiating gap in traffic to turn off the current road into a new one.

Woman behind me stops.

Still waiting for gap.

Woman behind me drives into the back of my car....after having already been stopped for 20 seconds.

Statistically I am more likely to be involved in another collision......apparently. Must be that cloaking device I use ion my car on a frequent basis!

:|
 
Sin_Chase said:
I stop in road and indicate right awiating gap in traffic to turn off the current road into a new one.

Woman behind me stops.

Still waiting for gap.

Woman behind me drives into the back of my car....after having already been stopped for 20 seconds.

Statistically I am more likely to be involved in another collision......apparently. Must be that cloaking device I use ion my car on a frequent basis!

:|
Click to expand...

There may well be accidents that you could not possibly do a single thing to avoid - and that may well be one of them, but that puts you in the same boat as a very mature and careful 17 year old lad who's paying £2000 a year to insure a cheap, old and slow hatchback.

It's the same for everyone - 17 year old lads crash a lot, and people who claim once are FAR more likely to claim again (I can't remember what the stat is, but I remember thinking "woah!" when I read it). Both groups of people pay more for their insurance - that's how the system works.
 
timbob said:
So - the guy who had parked there obviously hadn't gone through the same thought process as me, is therefore more likely to park in a (perfectly legal, but still) dodgy spot in the future, and is more likely to make a similar claim.
Click to expand...

Conversely you could argue that, as he has now been on the receiving end of such an accident, he will have learned from this and now is less likely to park in such a vulnerable position, and so is therefore at less risk.

Of course that wouldn't earn the money grabbing scum any extra money would it? :mad:
 
The mouth breather not indicating when the use a round about can crash into the car who joins the roundabout without giving way to the non indicator. Its not the fault of the mouth breather who can't indicate although he did cause the crash.

So I agree with the no fault claim thing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom