Hmmmm, how can it be that an incident in which I have no active part, which I really do not want to be part of and where I am doing everything right be a reflection on my likelihood of doing something where I am even remotely culpable in the future?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I know this is your profession, I just can't follow the logic of the risk assessment.
|
|
Many years ago a friend of my parents was rear ended 5 times in 2 years. I remember thinking as a 17 year old new driver at the time that he must have been doing something wrong for it to happen so often.
|
|
|
Two reasons;
It might be indicative of the fact that you drive in a hazardous area, you have a particularly sleepy style, That you wind people up so much that they are reckless to get past, that you drive a lot at pub-kicking out time, that there is something in your behaviour that frustrates other drivers etc. etc. [do note I am NOT saying that any of these apply].
But nonetheless if one saw a risk where there were 4 non-fault accidents in a 12 month period one would have to feel that there were either something untoward or something unlikely, either of which were costing money and were statisitically likely to continue doing so.
Don't forget, the insurer does not care how good, bad, responsible, slow, fast, anything else you are. They care only how likely you are to cost them money. And for them, non-fault accidents frequently do that just as well as fault accidents.
|
|
|
It could for example indicate that...
every journey you make has to be via a certain roundabout at the end of a dual carriageway. You have a statically higher chance of being rear ended at such a location.
----------------------------------------
TourVanMan < yes its RF reborn >
|
|
|
Hmmmm, how can it be that an incident in which I have no active part, which I really do not want to be part of and where I am doing everything right be a reflection on my likelihood of doing something where I am even remotely culpable in the future?
I think that by focusing on culpability, you may be missing the point.
As far as I understand it, the insurance company's interest is in the likelihood of having to pay out on your policy, and that is closely related to your ability to stay out of trouble.
Staying out of trouble may involve defensive driving, or being careful about where you park, or whatever.
|
Why then does membership of IAM for example carry so little weight when that teaches you to recognise risks and take appropriate action?
Staying out of trouble I'd suggest is too vague a term to be meaningful. What you consider a dodgy area to park may differ from my opinion and if (as was the case with me) you are positioned on the road entirely correctly and behaving appropriately to the conditions, then it's hard to know what else you can do to be defensive at any given point. A Police driver with every qualification going could not have prevented Mr Dopy from hitting me.
|
But you were there. You may be traveling "there" again. Mr Dopty was "there". There is a fairly good chance Mr Dopy will be "there" again next week. So might you.
----------------------------------------
TourVanMan < yes its RF reborn >
|
|
What is the probability of the same two drivers being involved in an incident for a second time?
|
What is the probability of the same two drivers being involved in an incident for a second time
>>
why not complain and ask your insurance company's chief to give you the answers?
|
|
|
|
Staying out of trouble I'd suggest is too vague a term to be meaningful. What you consider a dodgy area to park may differ from my opinion and if (as was the case with me) you are positioned on the road entirely correctly and behaving appropriately to the conditions, then it's hard to know what else you can do to be defensive at any given point.
How you say out of trouble is not as relevant as whether you stay out of trouble.
I don't think that insurers are all that interested in any of the "how" points you make, however valid they are. Maybe you are very careful but just unlucky, in which case you are likely to cost them more in payouts.
|
|
Unlucky? What do you think actuaries do for a living?
|
My mum was on her way to work 3 weeks ago, and a car ran into the back of her Micra while she waited to pull out left at a T-junction.
Last week she was doing the same journey in a courtesy car while hers was being repaired, and another car ran into the back of the her, at the same junction!
I'm not implying anything. But what are the chances of that happening?! She's vowed never to drive that way to work again.
|
|
|
Unlucky? What do you think actuaries do for a living?
They calculate risk, using all sorts of statistical information about claims experience, classifying drivers in zillions of different ways.
But that information is only a starting point -- the actuary's work cannot precisely predict what will happen with each individual.
That's why the insurers will want to look at the actual claims history of that individual, to see if they need to revise the assumptions they haved made on the basis of the actuarial information.
Take two fictitious drivers, living next door to each other. Same age, education, work in the same place etc, same cautious and conservative driving style. But driver A pays a daly visit to her mum in the next town, taking a really narrow windy road where there is heavy traffic and a lot of wild overtaking, whereas B avoids that route.
A is probably going to be involved in more accidents than B, none of which will be her fault, and on which she has never had to make a claim. But in any such accident she may have to make a claim because t'other driver ain't insured, doesn't stop or whatever.
The actuaries won't predict that for insurer, but the accident record will.
|
I can only imagine you're irritated by the matter hence refusing to understand it.
However, lets say that my normal chance of having an accident is 50/100 - from there it would work something like this...
Normal Person ..........50pts
Sports car.......... +10 pts = 60pts
2 speeding tickets ..........+10pts = 70pts
IAM.......... -20pts = 60pts
Centre of London..........+30pts = 90pts
2 previous non-fault claims.........+5pts = 95pts
etc. etc. etc.
Where points are awarded/deducted when statistically they are material to the risk. Understanding what issues are material to the risk, how great is that effect, and how likely it is to occur is what actuaries do.
You can have 2 non-fault claims because you're unlucky or because you're an inconsiderate driver. The reality is that in either case you are more likely to hae a third, then someone else is to have a first.
|
>>hence refusing to understand it<<
Er, you may be confusing me with someone else here who "has issues" with the insurance industry.
Let's leave it and when I'm next asked on renewal if I'm "a lucky or unlucky person" I promise I'll come back and apologise to No Wheels for what probably seemed like a rather terse reply.
|
For once I was not being difficult - I meant that you were aggrieved that you should suffer through something which was not your fault and this was colouring your perception.
I meant no offence.
|
You'd have to try a whole lot harder to offend me!
Yes it does brass me off that even if you're the most attentive, skilful driver that a couple of things that you have no influence over and which you'd never want to happen to you anyway can end up costing you money and to a degree some personal pride that a complete stranger who cannot ever know the true circumstances can mark you down as being higher risk than someone who hasn't had these random events happen to them.
The irritation is compounded by the fact that even if I made the effort to provide evidence that I am skilful and attentive by say doing the IAM counts for little or nothing from these masters of risk.
Hold the front page - the insurers have got us stitched up!
|
|
Nsar, you may have seen my posting on insurance - a tree fell on my car and wrote it off. According to the police my driving prevented two fatalities. I have been trying to get new insurance for the new car and found it was loaded against me. Two companies have not done this: £280, full comp + legal for X-trail SVE from the company advertised by the self-promoter film man and £550 for a micra for self and 18 year old son from major supermarket. This is down from £1,200 for the Xtrail and £1,500 for micra - both attributed to my accident -from many different companies/agents.
|
If everybody checked their renewal premium against other insurers every year and always moved to the cheaper supplier then prices would go down.
If everybody checked their policy cover at renewal with other insurers every year and always moved to the better quality supplier than coverage quality would increase.
Sadly every year people remain with inferior suppliers of more expensive products wihtout understanding their policy, the coverage, customer service or economy - well done, the insurance industry depends upon you.
|
If your premium rises because of a no fault incident, surely the other party should be liable? I thought this would be covered by the additional premium paid for Motor Legal Protection. You are going to be charged more, hence it is a loss.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
I promise I'll come back and apologise to No Wheels for what probably seemed like a rather terse reply.
Very thoughtful of you, but really no need -- I could see what you meant, and didn't take any terseness personally.
|
As far as your insurer is concerned being rear-ended could indicate that you are in the habit of braking hard if you are being tailgated. This habit could make you a high risk, particularly if an "incident" happened more than once. So the incident needs to be recorded for the purposes of monitoring the pattern of your incidents.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
|
you are positioned on the road entirely correctly andbehaving appropriately to the conditions, then it's hard to know what else you can do to be defensive at any given point.
I've been rear ended twice, both times while sitting at a red light.
First time I guessed it was going to happen, and managed to get handbrake off, into gear and attempted to move forwards to give the goon more space to stop. I was still hit.
After that incident I went through a period of leaving much space between me and the car infront when stopped in traffic, and formed the habit to watch the rear view mirror.
I fell out of that habit, and was then hit again. I'm back to concentrating behind me when stopped.
|
"What is the probability of the same two drivers being involved in an incident for a second time?"
Quite high. I was run into by a woman on the way to work. Very low speed, no damage to my car. A week later, after she had had her car fixed, she nearly did it again at exactly the same place.
After the first time, she told me "My husband will be cross - I am always doing this".
|
To L'escargot, you illustrate the point rather well in that you assume something that was not actually the case. I was stationary, indicating to turn right across very busy, very slow moving traffic so I was doing the most sensible thing - concentrating on a gap opening up to get me out of this vulnerable position.
To Cliff, just because it has nearly but not actually happened to you does not make the probability any higher. Perhaps a statistician may wander by and tell us what the real probability of the same two drivers colliding twice actually is but I'd guess a lot of zeroes are involved when you think how many millions of people there are on the roads and how many billions of locations a car can be at any one time.
|
To L'escargot, you illustrate the point rather well in that you assume something that was not actually the case.
I said could. I didn't assume anything. I was merely coming up with possible circumstances in which it would benefit your/my insurer to record the incident and monitor your/my future record. In a lot of cases your/my insurer would have to take your/my word as to what actually happened.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
