Someone crashed into my car :(
- Thread starter Amos91
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 7,567
- Location
- Southport
Are they?When my old car was written off, the hire car costs were detailed elsewhere to the cost to repair the vehicle (which outweighed the value of the car massively anyway), they weren't bundled in with it. By that logic, a lot of cars are written off purely because the insurance companies drag their feet, incurring higher hire car costs.
Yerp. Confirmed by the assessor that did my ZS and one of the claims guys at Direct Line when I had my induction there.
On another note, I don't see how people can't understand that having a claim, even if non-fault, does make you more likely to have another crash in future.
Insurance is all based on statistics, and as such you are more of a risk.
Even though the OP was sleeping and reckons that means it was in no way their fault, some people will park in stupid places / miles away from the kerb, meaning they're more likely to have the same thing happen again.
I've had a non-fault claim and noted an increase of around £60. I'm happy to pay it, because I know my chances of having another crash are higher than those of a no-claim driver.
Surely by that logic, (let's use the example that someone parked opposite the end of a road, a T-junction, a car over-ran the exit, hitting the car parked) the person who's car was hit would "learn the lesson" of not parking opposite a junction again, therefore making them less of a risk?
I can't understand the correlation between someone else hitting your car and it being more likely to happen again? Rules of probability would state that it's (most likely) a random event, so the chance of it happening again are just the same, therefore the same risk as before. A non-fault claim is not affected by the age, driving experience or type of car owned by the driver, so how are they more of a risk, unless insurance companies are basing the risk factor on "bad luck", which is an unquantifiable measure, therefore they're unable to assign a statistic to it?
Obviously if the claim is a fault claim, then the statistics would state that you're more likely to have an accident in future, due to less apparent skill behind the wheel, albeit observation skills or ability to drive in adverse conditions.
Last edited:
Dont open that can of worms again - this always ends up people who can see the obvious logic trying to explain it to the people who think they know better. There's never any telling some people
Could you explain the logic to me please? Not wanting a massive discussion, just interested as to what I may have missed
Could you explain the logic to me please? Not wanting a massive discussion, just interested as to what I may have missed
I can see it from both sides of the fence in some respects.
Personally in my instance, having lived at my house for 15 years no one has ever crashed near by property. Only now in the recent snow which was probably the least severe day of it all. Therefore to me the risk is very minimal.
However, lets say a driver regularly brakes heavily and is rear ended. Though this technically isn't his fault, there is a greater chance that this could happen again.
Surely the driver behind should therefore have the increased premium first and foremost, as it shows that they habitually don't allow reasonable distance from the car in front? The claim would go in favour of the driver in front, despite how hard they apply the brakes? For all the insurers know, they may have had to brake for an event in front of them, cat running across the road etc?
Could you explain the logic to me please? Not wanting a massive discussion, just interested as to what I may have missed
Its simple - statistics show that someone who has made a third party claim is more likely to make another.
The logic behind it is irellevant - insurance isnt based on someone sitting behind a desk saying "ooh, they park in a garage, I'll knock 50 quid off because thats a safer place to park" - it's purely statistical analysis
If stats showed that you were LESS likely to make a claim having made a third party claim, then premiums would go the other way.
There is no point trying to apply reasoning to it - some factors are entirely understandable, others arent and are purely statistical
I don't see how a trend can be applied from a handful of instances, but oh well - handy way of making money I suppose!
That's what insurance companies claim anyhow. As the people that regularly hand over quite large sums of money, we are not privy to this information.
There may be overwhelming evidence that an accident in which you are completely blameless, and couldn't possibly have foreseen will suddenly turn you into Mr Unlucky, and random members of the public will then regularly damage your car.
Or there may be some evidence in a small number of cases, where the non-fault party did actually contribute in some small way to the outcome, location of parking etc. Everyone must then be tarred with the same brush, obviously.
Or there may be no evidence at all, and it's a complete BS.
The thing is, accurate statistical analysis is in the interest of the insurance companies. If someone is a risk, they need to know about it. If they are a lower risk, they can offer a more comepetitive price and win more business. There's simply no need for "conspiracy theories"
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 7,567
- Location
- Southport
You can argue the points all day, but the data suggests there is a strong link between non-fault claims and the chance of a claim happening again.
For example:
- Drivers prone to slamming on the anchors will have non-fault claims, and are likely to keep doing it
- People who slam on for animals jumping out aren't likely to stop doing it
- People parking in daft places will continue to do so
etc etc.
It's all in the stats, there is a link. I had a nice introduction into the world of car insurance for a couple of days, opened my eyes into the whole industry. Non-fault claim drivers are a much larger risk - I'm surprised they only load premiums by a few quid.
As much as you seem to love calling me wrong on everything, I'm afraid the numbers don't lie.
You are wrong
I personally don't see how the statistics can be made up - I was shunted whilst stationary in traffic on the motorway. Yes the conditions were poor (heavy rain in this instance), but I did everything in my power to try to be seen. My insurance premiums are now loaded because of this.
If drivers are more prone to making errors such as slamming on the brakes at the slightest instance, then yes perhaps their insurance premiums should be adjusted to suit.
But a statistic can't be produced from a single incident, as is the case with myself. If it happens more than once under similar circumstances then yes, I agree, even the non-fault driver should be appropriately penalised. However it's not fair to charge those of us who have only had a single non-fault claim extra for insurance because of "statistics" that aren't applicable in this case.
It's purely a case of the insurance companies using statistics (That may show that non-fault claims do tend to "inspire" more to happen with the same driver, I'm not disputing this fact) to tar the rest of us with the same brush.
Statistics arent about a single incident! Thats the whole point!
The statistics arent about YOU, they are about everyone. People who have non fault claims are more likely to make another claim, end of story.
Stop trying to find reasons for the statistics or apply your own definition of "fairness" to it. The whole point of insurance is tarring you with the same brush based on your statistical profile - if you can think of a better way then go and do it, you'll end up a very rich man, rather than rant about it on the internet
The statistics arent about YOU, they are about everyone. People who have non fault claims are more likely to make another claim, end of story.
Stop trying to find reasons for the statistics or apply your own definition of "fairness" to it. The whole point of insurance is tarring you with the same brush based on your statistical profile - if you can think of a better way then go and do it, you'll end up a very rich man, rather than rant about it on the internet
I understand statistics thanks very much!
So you're saying that you don't mind your premium being loaded because of an accident that wasn't your fault (in the case of the OP, someone piling into his car while he was asleep, because "statistics don't lie"?
Edit: The point I was (possibly badly) trying to make was that in the case of non-fault claims, they should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket loading. There's not a chance in hell that you're likely to claim again if you weren't even in your car in the first place - please do try to find a statistic that states otherwise.
Last edited:
