We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

BEWARE Increased premium after NO FAULT accident

178101213

Comments

  • starrystarry
    starrystarry Posts: 2,481 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    mikey72 wrote: »
    And this perfectly illustrates why you chose to work in insurance.
    You quoted a small portion of my post, decided to quote only the bits you liked, and ignored anything else, you provided a quick blase comment on it, and appeared to think it somehow proved you had a point.

    Or perhaps I chose to work in insurance because I understand risk.

    I quoted the small portion of your post that was factually incorrect. The rest was opinions/predictions that I felt no need to comment on.

    I don't think I have a point, I know I do, but I can't be bothered trying to elaborate on it because I know you won't listen.
  • mikey72
    mikey72 Posts: 14,680 Forumite
    ............I don't think I have a point.............


    I quoted the small portion of your post that was factually correct.
    I don't think you have a point either.
  • starrystarry
    starrystarry Posts: 2,481 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    mikey72 wrote: »
    I quoted the small portion of your post that was factually correct.
    I don't think you have a point either.

    I know you don't, because you don't understand risk. :wall:

    There are times when you can be quite insightful mikey, unfortunately you spoil it by doing your village idiot act the rest of the time.
  • mikey72
    mikey72 Posts: 14,680 Forumite
    I know you don't, because you don't understand risk. :wall:

    There are times when you can be quite insightful mikey, unfortunately you spoil it by doing your village idiot act the rest of the time.

    I'd best stop then, there isn't room for both of us, and you're clearly the best.
  • Spiderham
    Spiderham Posts: 327 Forumite
    This perfectly illustrates your understanding of risk, or should I say your lack of it.

    I really don't think this is a helpful addition for two reasons. Mikey disagrees with the concept of increase for non-fault claims because as a layman he can't see the link, this is understandable and your reaction is quite aggressive. Secondly, I don't really get what you mean by this. What is risk and how does one gain an adequate understanding of it?
  • starrystarry
    starrystarry Posts: 2,481 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Spiderham wrote: »
    I really don't think this is a helpful addition for two reasons. Mikey disagrees with the concept of increase for non-fault claims because as a layman he can't see the link, this is understandable and your reaction is quite aggressive. Secondly, I don't really get what you mean by this. What is risk and how does one gain an adequate understanding of it?

    Mikey's perfectly entitled to his opinions regarding the concept of premium increases for non-fault claims and if you re-read the posts you'll see that I made no comment regarding his opinions. Nor will I.

    The only bit I pulled Mikey up on was this...

    "I suppose it could make sense, if they haven't been hit yet, statistically they must be more at risk as the odds increase on them being hit eventually."

    This is factually incorrect. If I drive my car today and don't have a crash I am no more or less likely to have a crash tomorrow, or the next day (all other things being equal, e.g. how long I spend on the road, the weather conditions etc). The odds of having a crash don't increase.

    If Mikey's going to make statements of fact he has to be prepared for people to correct him if he's wrong.

    Re your last point about gaining an adequate understanding of risk, most of it is common sense. If you really think about it dispassionately that is. I don't think you need to work in the insurance industry to understand risk.
  • Spiderham
    Spiderham Posts: 327 Forumite
    Re your last point about gaining an adequate understanding of risk, most of it is common sense. If you really think about it dispassionately that is. I don't think you need to work in the insurance industry to understand risk.

    That's my point though is it common sense. A lot of things are counter intuitive and although can be explained qualitatively, I find that usually the explanation is made to fit the data rather than going in with a hypothesis and that being shown to be right.

    My point here is that this "risk" is a very vague concept and seems to me to be more nous and experience from knowing the industry than any stand-alone quality. I don't think it's common sense at all.
  • starrystarry
    starrystarry Posts: 2,481 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 25 July 2011 at 8:09PM
    Spiderham wrote: »
    That's my point though is it common sense. A lot of things are counter intuitive and although can be explained qualitatively, I find that usually the explanation is made to fit the data rather than going in with a hypothesis and that being shown to be right.

    My point here is that this "risk" is a very vague concept and seems to me to be more nous and experience from knowing the industry than any stand-alone quality. I don't think it's common sense at all.

    Granted, some of the more complicated risk scenarios may be difficult to understand but the scenario Mikey was talking about was really quite simple. That was all I commented on. I don't expect Mikey or anyone else to understand all the nuances of risk, goodness knows I don't, but he shouldn't make a statement of fact if he doesn't understand the basic concept otherwise he risks misleading people.
  • Spiderham
    Spiderham Posts: 327 Forumite
    but the scenario Mikey was talking about was really quite simple.

    But is it? I'm less than convinced.
  • mikey72
    mikey72 Posts: 14,680 Forumite
    This is factually incorrect. If I drive my car today and don't have a crash I am no more or less likely to have a crash tomorrow, or the next day (all other things being equal, e.g. how long I spend on the road, the weather conditions etc). The odds of having a crash don't increase.


    Fair comment then. So a question. What makes me more likely to have a crash tomorrow, when you assess risk for the years premium?
    Assume I've had say, 10,000 days with no incidents so far, so I have no probability of an accident, or statistically am I somewhere on the bottom of the curve?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.