Insurance group disputes BBC claim that loss of control is main factor in accidents amongst motorcyclists.......reckon our insurance will come down now then? I won't hold my breath...
FULL STORY
FULL STORY
Insurance group disputes BBC claim!
- Thread starter hlxbravo
- Start date
I didnt say it would
....simply implied that if this insurance company reckons that 81% of accidents weren't our faults alone, then the other road users potentially causing these accidents should pay the premium instead of us.
Another article on the same thing..
http://www.fastbikesmag.com/2013/03/25/insurance-firm-casts-doubt-over-bbc-claim/
http://www.fastbikesmag.com/2013/03/25/insurance-firm-casts-doubt-over-bbc-claim/
I didnt say it would
Given that this data has come from an insurance company, what makes you think this isn't already factored into insurance premiums?
Also, BBC *making things up* shocker.
Last edited:
It also depends on the customers Groupama actually takes on. If they take on very safe risks then this is what you would expect (how many young drivers do Groupama have? etc.).
It'd be like Saga saying that most car accidents are caused by other car drivers. That wouldn't make sense as all accidents are bilateral and must match up on an aggregate level.
Also important to note that from that article that BBC are talking about deaths and not accidents? Groupama looked at accidents. I wonder how many deaths they actually have on their book.
edit:
Just read more detailed information in a link posted above.
http://www.fastbikesmag.com/2013/03/25/insurance-firm-casts-doubt-over-bbc-claim/
They have 11 deaths to go on with 3 being due to loss of control. That sample is tiny.
It'd be like Saga saying that most car accidents are caused by other car drivers. That wouldn't make sense as all accidents are bilateral and must match up on an aggregate level.
Also important to note that from that article that BBC are talking about deaths and not accidents? Groupama looked at accidents. I wonder how many deaths they actually have on their book.
edit:
Just read more detailed information in a link posted above.
http://www.fastbikesmag.com/2013/03/25/insurance-firm-casts-doubt-over-bbc-claim/
They have 11 deaths to go on with 3 being due to loss of control. That sample is tiny.
Last edited:
Groupama insure me on my S2000. From the age of 24 to now at 27. Cheapest by a long margin also!
Slightly off-topic but I think it's nigh on impossible to try presume what risks any one company takes on.
Hasn't anyone else noticed the flaw in this? Generally, those who phone up and claim on insurance would need to be alive..? The BBC is claiming that its the cause of most deaths, not the most accidents. If I drove my bike into a tree and pegged it, I doubt my wife would think to claim on the insurance for the value of the bike. And with that doubt we know there are less claims than deaths, rendering the claims data irrelevant.
Not saying the BBC data is right, just that groupamas is no better.
Not saying the BBC data is right, just that groupamas is no better.
Insurance policies will normally be canceled after the death of the policyholder (by whoever is handling the deceased's estate) which will no doubt be recorded within their stats. If the accident involved other vehicles or people and it was caused by the biker then there will be third party claim.
That assumes that:
a. They haven't paid up in full
b. Groupamas research included anything other than claims (Which they didn't mention)
Also, this is specifically about lone deaths on a country road, vs other accidents killing motorcyclists, so 3rd party claims wouldn't be relevant either.
Bear in mind, I'm not trying to disprove Groupamas claims, I rather suspect that they are right. However, they chose to use the expression “proved categorically". With that many assumptions/qualifiers, they have not. They have provided very strong evidence, but not proof.
Yes, I'm aware that I'm being a picky *******, but the concept of proof is not one that should be allowed to be watered down, for any reason.
Just because 81% of accidents included another vehicle doesn't mean it was the other vehicle's driver's fault...
Is suspect a big cause of motorcycle accidents involve the sheer speed at which the bike is travelling, coupled with the small size and therefore visibility of the motorbike.
Is suspect a big cause of motorcycle accidents involve the sheer speed at which the bike is travelling, coupled with the small size and therefore visibility of the motorbike.
I'm certain that most accidents occur because other road users don't bother looking for bikes.
Could you expand on point a. please, I don't understand what you mean or why it's relevant.
Sure. If they are trying to charge a dead guy monthly payments for insurance, then the estate will call in to cancel it. However, if the rider paid annually, there would be no monthly payments to chase, so no reason for the estate to inform them of the death.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,142
- Location
- Europe
But the Police would be in contact with the insurance firm. They'd be informed that the vehicle was in an accident, and would be passed all of the details. So they'd know all about it.
Would the police actually get involved with the insurance company? They might check they were insured, but I don't see any reason for them to get in contact in a single vehicle crash.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
Bull**** Broadcasting Corporation. When are people going to wake up to the fact that they are a propaganda machine?