Insurance rise following a non-fault accident
Discussion
So, once you can stop thinking about an individual person and think in groups of people the analysis is fairly easy.
Think of the group of people of similar risk using the obvious risk factors - age, car sportiness, postcode/location, convictions record (=none, say), 0 fault accidents and 0 or more non-fault accidents (to get those factors out the way).
Then split it in two. Those with 0 non fault accidents, those with 1 or more.
Which group do you think has the higher risk?
To help, think of the group with 1 or more non-fault accidents. Within there, there will be people with no contributory factors ("random" non-fault accidents) and those with contributory factors (say park a lot in supermarket car parks etc).
It really doesn't take much thinking about.
Bert
PS it's the group with 1 or more non-fault accidents
Think of the group of people of similar risk using the obvious risk factors - age, car sportiness, postcode/location, convictions record (=none, say), 0 fault accidents and 0 or more non-fault accidents (to get those factors out the way).
Then split it in two. Those with 0 non fault accidents, those with 1 or more.
Which group do you think has the higher risk?
To help, think of the group with 1 or more non-fault accidents. Within there, there will be people with no contributory factors ("random" non-fault accidents) and those with contributory factors (say park a lot in supermarket car parks etc).
It really doesn't take much thinking about.
Bert
PS it's the group with 1 or more non-fault accidents
popeyewhite said:
Double blind isn't needed for calculating risk, and peer review is relevant to academic journals, not car insurance stats. I'll put it simply: Do you believe that the occurence of one entirely random event involving an individual means it's more or less likely that the same entirely random event will happen again?
Exactly.
You make the mistake of assuming all non faults are a random incident, that’s not true so your argument fails I’m afraid. Exactly.
BertBert said:
So, once you can stop thinking about an individual person and think in groups of people the analysis is fairly easy.
Think of the group of people of similar risk using the obvious risk factors ...
Then the non-fault becomes 'slightly your fault'. because you use the B573... etc etcThink of the group of people of similar risk using the obvious risk factors ...
BertBert said:
popeyewhite said:
Then the non-fault becomes 'slightly your fault'. because you use the B573... etc etc
Really it doesn't. There's no causality considered. Just risk analysis. Very very simple.Bert
popeyewhite said:
No mistake. You got there in the end. Effectively if your premium goes up on a non fault the insurer is declaring the accident partially your fault, know it or not. Another example of their underhand practices.
No they aren’t, you keep NCB, you have a full payout. Bet you don’t go crying to mummy about the unfairness when they pay out.
I would rather not pay for “you” being a rubbish driver and driving in a manner which contributes to accidents thanks. Pay for your own risk level.
Edited by matt2911 on Saturday 18th January 23:53
matt2911 said:
popeyewhite said:
No mistake. You got there in the end. Effectively if your premium goes up on a non fault the insurer is declaring the accident partially your fault, know it or not. Another example of their underhand practices.
No they aren’t, you keep NCB, you have a full payout. Bet you don’t go crying to mummy about the unfairness when they pay out.
I would rather not pay for “you” being a rubbish driver and driving in a manner which contributes to accidents thanks. Pay for your own risk level.
Edited by matt2911 on Saturday 18th January 23:53
popeyewhite said:
No mistake. You got there in the end. Effectively if your premium goes up on a non fault the insurer is declaring the accident partially your fault, know it or not. Another example of their underhand practices.
No they aren't. They are saying you now fall into a group that their statistics have shown are more likely to claim going forward. bad company said:
Yes that’s what they’re saying and some gullible people believe them.
I believe them. If there are 2 groups. Group one have never had an accident the second have had an accident - which group is the highest risk all other factors being equal? I suspect also a factor is, in most cases, even a non fault accident results in work and costs for the insurance companies. bad company said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No they aren't. They are saying you now fall into a group that their statistics have shown are more likely to claim going forward.
Yes that’s what they’re saying and some gullible people believe them.Anyone who parks in the old bit and who has been hit and had a note left, has had a non fault accident, entirely blameless. But they are at much higher risk of being hit again than I am, and next time the culprit might not leave a note, thus it'll be a "fault" claim (no one to claim against so a claim on their own policy).
Within any group of 100 people with a non fault claim, there will be more people likely to have a further claim than a group of people with no claims at all. It will include a few people who park in dodgy car parks, people who brake too harshly, people who use a notorious roundabout at the busiest time.
Anyone who cannot see that is a bit dense. IMHO.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My works car park has 2 sections. The new section is well lit and has nice wide spaces. The old section is badly lit and has much narrower spaces. Because of my hours of work, I always get a space in the new bit. Some of my colleagues with later start times always have to park in the old bit. Over the years, loads of people in the old bit have been hit by others, and sometimes the culprit owns up, and other times they don't.
Anyone who parks in the old bit and who has been hit and had a note left, has had a non fault accident, entirely blameless. But they are at much higher risk of being hit again than I am, and next time the culprit might not leave a note, thus it'll be a "fault" claim (no one to claim against so a claim on their own policy).
Within any group of 100 people with a non fault claim, there will be more people likely to have a further claim than a group of people with no claims at all. It will include a few people who park in dodgy car parks, people who brake too harshly, people who use a notorious roundabout at the busiest time.
Anyone who cannot see that is a bit dense. IMHO.
The statisticle point may be valid but it is the way in which the insurance companies have chose to decide on who to peanalise for the collisions. Anyone who parks in the old bit and who has been hit and had a note left, has had a non fault accident, entirely blameless. But they are at much higher risk of being hit again than I am, and next time the culprit might not leave a note, thus it'll be a "fault" claim (no one to claim against so a claim on their own policy).
Within any group of 100 people with a non fault claim, there will be more people likely to have a further claim than a group of people with no claims at all. It will include a few people who park in dodgy car parks, people who brake too harshly, people who use a notorious roundabout at the busiest time.
Anyone who cannot see that is a bit dense. IMHO.
As I said if everyone claimed for increased premiums from the person who was negligent in your statisticle risk argument, insurance companies would stop the scam of charging the non fault claim because the administartion would cost to much.
It's just a racket nothing else that's it. The reason it is not stopped by the authorities is because the insurance companies say" the non fault claimant can claim for increased premiums if they want" so it is difficult to prevent the scam.
kestral said:
It's just a racket nothing else that's it. The reason it is not stopped by the authorities is because the insurance companies say" the non fault claimant can claim for increased premiums if they want" so it is difficult to prevent the scam.
But that's just nonsense. because the insurance companies don't say that, because you cannot claim your future increased premiums back from the tp. You've never been able to. It isn't a valid uninsured loss. kestral said:
The statisticle point may be valid but it is the way in which the insurance companies have chose to decide on who to peanalise for the collisions.
As I said if everyone claimed for increased premiums from the person who was negligent in your statisticle risk argument, insurance companies would stop the scam of charging the non fault claim because the administartion would cost to much.
It's just a racket nothing else that's it. The reason it is not stopped by the authorities is because the insurance companies say" the non fault claimant can claim for increased premiums if they want" so it is difficult to prevent the scam.
The person who hit you didn't increase your risk, you did by being the one they hit. I get that often that is out of your control, but most risk factors are. As I said if everyone claimed for increased premiums from the person who was negligent in your statisticle risk argument, insurance companies would stop the scam of charging the non fault claim because the administartion would cost to much.
It's just a racket nothing else that's it. The reason it is not stopped by the authorities is because the insurance companies say" the non fault claimant can claim for increased premiums if they want" so it is difficult to prevent the scam.
It is the selective interpretation and use of statistical data though.
Statistically there are more white cars than any other colour car on the road.
Statistically there are therefore more white cars involved in accidents.
Insurance companies would interpret this as by buying a white car, you are a more at-risk driver.
Obviously from a real statistical analysis the above is nonsense, but that is how they seem to get to odd conclusions.
Statistically there are more white cars than any other colour car on the road.
Statistically there are therefore more white cars involved in accidents.
Insurance companies would interpret this as by buying a white car, you are a more at-risk driver.
Obviously from a real statistical analysis the above is nonsense, but that is how they seem to get to odd conclusions.
Graveworm said:
kestral said:
The statisticle point may be valid but it is the way in which the insurance companies have chose to decide on who to peanalise for the collisions.
As I said if everyone claimed for increased premiums from the person who was negligent in your statisticle risk argument, insurance companies would stop the scam of charging the non fault claim because the administartion would cost to much.
It's just a racket nothing else that's it. The reason it is not stopped by the authorities is because the insurance companies say" the non fault claimant can claim for increased premiums if they want" so it is difficult to prevent the scam.
The person who hit you didn't increase your risk, you did by being the one they hit. I get that often that is out of your control, but most risk factors are. As I said if everyone claimed for increased premiums from the person who was negligent in your statisticle risk argument, insurance companies would stop the scam of charging the non fault claim because the administartion would cost to much.
It's just a racket nothing else that's it. The reason it is not stopped by the authorities is because the insurance companies say" the non fault claimant can claim for increased premiums if they want" so it is difficult to prevent the scam.
EU_Foreigner said:
It is the selective interpretation and use of statistical data though.
Statistically there are more white cars than any other colour car on the road.
Statistically there are therefore more white cars involved in accidents.
Insurance companies would interpret this as by buying a white car, you are a more at-risk driver.
Obviously from a real statistical analysis the above is nonsense, but that is how they seem to get to odd conclusions.
No they wouldn't. You've made that up.Statistically there are more white cars than any other colour car on the road.
Statistically there are therefore more white cars involved in accidents.
Insurance companies would interpret this as by buying a white car, you are a more at-risk driver.
Obviously from a real statistical analysis the above is nonsense, but that is how they seem to get to odd conclusions.
More people aged over 30 have accidents than those aged 17-20. Because over 30 covers 30- death, and 17-20 covers just that small age group. There are many more drivers aged over 30 than 17-20. But they don't charge more for the over 30s, they charge more for 17-20. Because per head, they have a worse record.
It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that highly qualified actuaries that are employed by insurers don't understand how to interpret stats, or work out probability, and a whole load of nobodies on an internet forum are just the ones to put them right.
Get a f
king grip people. Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 20th January 14:25
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff