Another insurance whinge

[Mandat]

Moonhawk said:

I'd love to see the statistics that back that up.

Look at the OP. He has been hit up the rear on two separate occasions.

Rather backs up the statistical probability, doesn't it?

[covboy]

Mandat said:

Moonhawk said:

I'd love to see the statistics that back that up.

Look at the OP. He has been hit up the rear on two separate occasions.

Rather backs up the statistical probability, doesn't it?

That's a pretty broad sample ?

There must have been thousands of times he's been parked and not hit !

[Mandat]

Moonhawk said:

timbo999 said:

ummmm - maybe defensive driving is not dropping out of gear and putting the hand brake on until you're certain no one is going to shunt you up the rear...? Just saying..

You are just being ridiculous now.

There doesn't appear to be anything ridiculous about Timbo's statement, just common sense really.

When driving I am always cautious of what is happening behind me, and where approriate I will leave a space in front, and will be prepared to move forwards if I feel that there is a risk of being rear ended. Obviously I can't say that I will never be rear ended but by being aware and driving defensiely, I will have a better chance of mitigating being driven into as opposed to other dirvers who don't give much thought to their surroundings or how they can help themselves from becoming a party in another driver's accident.

[Mandat]

covboy said:

Mandat said:

Moonhawk said:

I'd love to see the statistics that back that up.

Look at the OP. He has been hit up the rear on two separate occasions.

Rather backs up the statistical probability, doesn't it?

That's a pretty broad sample ?

There must have been thousands of times he's been parked and not hit !

The point is that the OP has been unfortunate enough to be involved in 2 separate rear end collisions, therefore it proves that such separate events can and do occur.

I know that in the OP's isolated case this is statistically meaningless, however the insurance industry will have all sorts of stats and info to show that being rear ended once or more will have a bearing on future potential risks and claims, and therefore adjust the premiums accordingly.

[surveyor]

I saw a classic maneuver a few years ago which made me realise the relevance of defensive driving in this scenario

Dual carriageway at traffic lights two lanes.

longer queue at lane 1, short queue that I would normally take lane 2. However car in Lane 2 had reversing lights on.

I chose lane 1 just in case. Woman in newish Golf drove to within 2 feet of reversing lights. In a claim it would not be her fault. In reality she put herself in danger. Insurance Companies will no doubt have statistics that link into this and their premium.

[anonymous-user]

WTF is wrong with PH nowadays? Everyone is so keen to be the first to stick the boot in, or be patronising etc. No need for Scarble's holier-than-thou patronisation earlier. No need for this crap about "he's been hit twice so that proves my incredibly smart-arse theory".

[Moonhawk]

surveyor said:

I saw a classic maneuver a few years ago which made me realise the relevance of defensive driving in this scenario

Dual carriageway at traffic lights two lanes.

longer queue at lane 1, short queue that I would normally take lane 2. However car in Lane 2 had reversing lights on.

I chose lane 1 just in case. Woman in newish Golf drove to within 2 feet of reversing lights. In a claim it would not be her fault. In reality she put herself in danger. Insurance Companies will no doubt have statistics that link into this and their premium.

To be fair - that is rather a different scenario. The danger was clearly visible up ahead and you had plenty of time to make a defensive decision. It's exactly the same reason you leave a gap when behind a vehicle on a steep hill - the potential for them to roll backwards.

This is in no way the same as spotting a car in your rear view mirror a split second before it barrels into the back of you.

[scarble]

plasticpig said:

I have a declared claim on my insurance where my car was hit whilst stationary. I was not in the car at the time as it was parked in the works car park. I am still penalized for this claim. Presumably because I am more likely to be hit whilst the car is parked and I am not in the car. How will defensive driving help me avoid this again?

As I said, there are cases where clearly one party literally could not have done anything, unfortunately insurance companies don't differentiate in this case, it's just a simple have you had a crash in x years yes/no? and that is not entirely fair, but there is some rational reasoning behind it. I'm sure there's also rational reasoning behind people on a car/driving enthusiasts forum eager to discredit the notion of defensive driving

OpulentBob said:

WTF is wrong with PH nowadays? Everyone is so keen to be the first to stick the boot in, or be patronising etc. No need for Scarble's holier-than-thou patronisation earlier. No need for this crap about "he's been hit twice so that proves my incredibly smart-arse theory".

I'm really not trying to take a dig at the Op, I'm not trying to imply anyone is somehow inferior and I'm sorry that it came across that way, I was simply trying to explain why insurance is the way it is. I didn't mean to suggest that the Op or anyone else could have avoided any accidents they've been involved in, I am well aware that without intimate knowledge of the incidents, which I do not have, could I possibly be in a position to comment on specific events.
WTF is wrong with PH nowadays, tripping over eachother to take offence?

Edited by scarble on Thursday 30th October 15:36

[surveyor]

Moonhawk said:

surveyor said:

I saw a classic maneuver a few years ago which made me realise the relevance of defensive driving in this scenario

Dual carriageway at traffic lights two lanes.

longer queue at lane 1, short queue that I would normally take lane 2. However car in Lane 2 had reversing lights on.

I chose lane 1 just in case. Woman in newish Golf drove to within 2 feet of reversing lights. In a claim it would not be her fault. In reality she put herself in danger. Insurance Companies will no doubt have statistics that link into this and their premium.

To be fair - that is rather a different scenario. The danger was clearly visible up ahead and you had plenty of time to make a defensive decision. It's exactly the same reason you leave a gap when behind a vehicle on a steep hill - the potential for them to roll backwards.

This is in no way the same as spotting a car in your rear view mirror a split second before it barrels into the back of you.

But no doubt the insurance companies have some idea of how many of these could be avoided even if not an 'at fault' and use these to work out what %'s to use. It's an imperfect method in an imperfect world.

[Moonhawk]

Mandat said:

When driving I am always cautious of what is happening behind me, and where approriate I will leave a space in front, and will be prepared to move forwards if I feel that there is a risk of being rear ended.

Moving forwards wouldn't help in the scenario that was posted in the link. Even leaving a cars length or more between you and the car in front isn't going to mitigate the collision from another vehicle driving into you at anything other than a snails pace (especially if they haven't seen you) - all you do is delay the collision by a split second.

The only scenario it could possibly help is where they are already braking and just need that extra few ft - how many rear end collisions fit that category.

The only way you could possibly avoid the collision is to somehow exit the queue to get out of their way. Which is going to be nigh on impossible in the vast majority of cases unless you have an empty lane or hard shoulder to your left or right.

[General Fluff]

I get the stats argument and actually I agree with it. Even if your car is hit whilst in a car park at work then in the wider scheme of things it shows you park somewhere with a history of cars being hit.

It's the scale of the difference in premium that annoyed me as I will end up paying for the damage.

And if you're really interested, one of the incidents was in a car wash with my engine switched off. The next customer forgot he was in an automatic and went on a rally cross through the car wash and into the back of me. I admit I wasn't thinking defensively as I was mesmerized by the spinning brushes.

The other was in traffic on the M25, it went from jogging pace to walking pace and I had time to look behind and see the guy was gazing out of his side window. However, statistically speaking I was in traffic on the M25 where this is a risk and I am therefore more likely to be in that situation again than somebody else.

[scarble]

General, I take my hat off to you.
Being reasonable, on the internet!

I hope you didn't take any offence, I did not at all mean to suggest that you deserved the increase, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the practice, just trying to explain the rational.

But.. as you saw the guy wasn't looking you could've honked to get his attention
<-- flameproof coat

[surveyor]

General Fluff said:

I get the stats argument and actually I agree with it. Even if your car is hit whilst in a car park at work then in the wider scheme of things it shows you park somewhere with a history of cars being hit.

It's the scale of the difference in premium that annoyed me as I will end up paying for the damage.

And if you're really interested, one of the incidents was in a car wash with my engine switched off. The next customer forgot he was in an automatic and went on a rally cross through the car wash and into the back of me. I admit I wasn't thinking defensively as I was mesmerized by the spinning brushes.

The other was in traffic on the M25, it went from jogging pace to walking pace and I had time to look behind and see the guy was gazing out of his side window. However, statistically speaking I was in traffic on the M25 where this is a risk and I am therefore more likely to be in that situation again than somebody else.

Dangerous places car washes

I was trying to attract the attention of the garage owner once to his car wash. He was an ignorant prat, ignored me and just demanded his money. Fair enough I thought. He'd sent his car through the machine driven by his lad, who had driven outside the guide rail and the machine was repeatedly ramming his car. He perhaps should not have ignored me after all.

[irocfan]

singlecoil said:

scarble said:

Moonhawk said:

I'd love to see the statistics that back that up.

I was run into by a car whist stationary in a queue of traffic. How exactly would 'defensive driving' have helped in my situation?

http://www.roaddriver.co.uk/safety-tips/what-is-defensive-driving/

HTH

According to that, the idea is to leave 1 and 1/2 length gap to the car in front, and pull out when you see the car coming from the rear. Too bad if that takes you into a free-flowing line of opposing traffic!

thanks for pulling that gem out SC, wonderful stuff there - if everyone left 1 1/2 cars lengths in London the city would grind to a halt PDQ.

Moonhawk said:

Mandat said:

The only way you could possibly avoid the collision is to somehow exit the queue to get out of their way. Which is going to be nigh on impossible in the vast majority of cases unless you have an empty lane or hard shoulder to your left or right.

what would happen in the above scenario if the rear-ender (as opposed I guess to the endee) hits the side of your vehicle and states "they blocked off my 'escape route', if they hadn't done that there'd have been no collision"?

[Mandat]

Moonhawk said:

Mandat said:

When driving I am always cautious of what is happening behind me, and where approriate I will leave a space in front, and will be prepared to move forwards if I feel that there is a risk of being rear ended.

Moving forwards wouldn't help in the scenario that was posted in the link. Even leaving a cars length or more between you and the car in front isn't going to mitigate the collision from another vehicle driving into you at anything other than a snails pace (especially if they haven't seen you) - all you do is delay the collision by a split second.

The only scenario it could possibly help is where they are already braking and just need that extra few ft - how many rear end collisions fit that category.

The only way you could possibly avoid the collision is to somehow exit the queue to get out of their way. Which is going to be nigh on impossible in the vast majority of cases unless you have an empty lane or hard shoulder to your left or right.

I can't comment on the scenario in the link as I haven't read it.

I did say that I can't guarantee never being rear ended but I can mitigate the risks by being aware of what is happening around me and being in a position to take some avoiding action (even if it still results in being caught uo in someone's accident), rather than being unaware and doing nothing.

The point is that driving defensively can help to reduce the risk of being involved in an accident. A point that you dismissed, hence my response on this thread.

[SMB]

I was rear ended twice in 2 years, i got the 'statistically you will make another claim' which was rubbish but I can see I was lumped in with all those others that are accidents waiting to happen. On both occasions all the blame was placed on the other driver.

Many years ago I invested in defensive driving course, and continue to practice those techniques, but in both occasions I don't think there is anything I could have done to stop the accident. Like those listed I was stationary for both, I had left space in front as an escape route, I was watching behind as much as possible, I had the brake lights on , yet on both occasions someone else just drove into me, it happens.

The first a van just failed to stop, i could have pulled further forward into my safety space but then I would have been pushed into the car in front, so at some point I had to accept whilst in traffic there was just no where else to go.

the second, i had escape space as i waited to join a roundabout, there was heavy traffic coming round, and I switched from side to rear watching, but in the instant i watched the traffic come round the roundabout, the woman behind drove into me. ( and before anyone comments , i was not being over cautious , hadn't started to move, but i had no desire to pull out infront of the 40 tonne truck that was heading for me at 30mph, just 20 feet from me on the roundabout at the time), Scarily she hadn't seen the lorry and thought I would go!

Bottom line is despite everything you do, there will always be a muppet out there that can just drive into you. Statistics as ever don't always tell the story but make a good excuse to load premiums.

[singlecoil]

scarble said:

I'm sure there's also rational reasoning behind people on a car/driving enthusiasts forum eager to discredit the notion of defensive driving

Why the rolleyes? The example you gave was pathetically easy to discredit. No-one is discrediting the notion in general, but your specific was nonsense.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

plasticpig said:

I have a declared claim on my insurance where my car was hit whilst stationary. I was not in the car at the time as it was parked in the works car park. I am still penalized for this claim. Presumably because I am more likely to be hit whilst the car is parked and I am not in the car. How will defensive driving help me avoid this again?

Supposing you were hit twice, or 3 times, or 6 times in the same car park. At what point would you agree that the insurance company are right to say "this guy's work car park is a high risk place, and therefore he deserves to pay more?"

If you agree that there is a point at which a higher premium becomes justifiable, then you've accepted the principle is right, the only argument is at what point it should kick in.

[timbo999]

Moonhawk said:

timbo999 said:

ummmm - maybe defensive driving is not dropping out of gear and putting the hand brake on until you're certain no one is going to shunt you up the rear...? Just saying..

You are just being ridiculous now.

Maybe... but then I've never been shunted up the rear in 41 years of driving...

[LucreLout]

Mandat said:

Look at the OP. He has been hit up the rear on two separate occasions.

Rather backs up the statistical probability, doesn't it?

Happened to me twice, ten years apart... And I am an advanced driver, was driving defensively, and paying appropriate attention.
I'm pretty sure it'll fit in some matrices at the insurers and that they'll rate on it. Seems ok to me....