BEWARE Increased premium after NO FAULT accident

lisyloo

by far the easiest way though is to press the remote and see which car lights up, it doesn't matter where you park then.

If I were a thief I wouldn't want to spend time walking round the streets making myself visible and increasing the time at the scene of the crime.

n which case anyone that parks near someone that has an accident should be loaded, as the risk will always be there

That's quite logical, I agree.
You already do get loaded for the theorectical risk (job, mileage, location, age). The actual claims experience is in addition to that.

it won't increase or deacrease if you've been hit already

Insurers claim it will. They say that if you claim you are statstically more likely to claim in future.
I don't have evidence to either confirm or deny that but I doubt they have all simply made it up across the industry.
If you believe that then you are entitled to your opinion.

As to parking on the road being a greater risk, it can't be, as we've already said that's cheaper than parking on the drive.

You are mixing up a few things here.
For theft purposes being on the road is safer than being assocaited with a property that may contain the keys.
From the point of view of being hit by another motorist you are generally at more risk on the road than off it.
I don't know which is more significant (theft or accident).

you only get loaded at renewal, the insurer doesn't increase you premium mid term for a non fault claim. (yet)

Ok, so you don't need to switch until renewal when in most cases you'd be shopping around and switching anyway to find the best quote for your circs.

starrystarry

lisyloo wrote: »

Why don't you try a search on this forum as there are people who've posted on here that it's actually happened to.
Whether the thieves broke in with the intention of stealing the car in the first place or just came across the keys opprtunistically I don't know, but it definitely does happen and has been becoming increasingly common.
Some keys are even placed within reach of a letterbox.

I know it happens, it's happened to friends of mine. My point was that you said cars kept in a garage were at higher risk of this because the thief would know which house to get the keys from. This doesn't make any sense to me. A thief will target a particular car because they've either spotted it parked up, or because they've spotted it out and about then followed the owner home.

If they've spotted it parked up then the highest risk is cars parked on a driveway (because it's obvious which house they belong to), followed by cars parked on the road (because the thief could make a good guess which house they belong to), followed by cars parked in garages (because the thief wouldn't have spotted it in the first place).

If they've spotted it out and about then followed the owner home, it'll make no difference whether it's in a garage or on a driveway or parked on the road outside, they'll know which house it belongs to.

mikey72

starrystarry wrote: »

I know it happens, it's happened to friends of mine. My point was that you said cars kept in a garage were at higher risk of this because the thief would know which house to get the keys from. This doesn't make any sense to me. A thief will target a particular car because they've either spotted it parked up, or because they've spotted it out and about then followed the owner home.

If they've spotted it parked up then the highest risk is cars parked on a driveway (because it's obvious which house they belong to), followed by cars parked on the road (because the thief could make a good guess which house they belong to), followed by cars parked in garages (because the thief wouldn't have spotted it in the first place).

If they've spotted it out and about then followed the owner home, it'll make no difference whether it's in a garage or on a driveway or parked on the road outside, they'll know which house it belongs to.

I think 99% of all car owners park outside their own house.
Any car around here on the road is in front of their own house, and the drive is full.
Actually, the garage has to be the safest, as it's blocked in by the one on the drive, and that's blocked in by the one on the road normally.
Even I'd hear them moving all the cars around if they pinched all my keys to get the one out of the garage eventually.

real1314

Driver A.
Remains alert at all times. e.g when passing another vehicle on the motorway they reduce the time spent in the other drivers blind spot to a minimum, never haning off the rear wing of the other car. They also watch other vehicles movements and take action to avoid accidents.

Driver B.
Does none of the above. When the car they are passing changes lanes straight into their vehicle, they didn't see it happening and didn't therefore take action to avoid it.
It's a non-fault accident - the other person was to blame, but Driver A is inherently a safer driver.

:cool:

mikey72

Then driver A pulls onto the slip road and stops at the island as he sees traffic on the island. Driver B pulls onto the slip road and runs into the back of him. Driver A sees it in his mirror, but doesn't have any way to avoid it.
Driver A is now an inherently unsafe driver, and should have his premium loaded to penalise his carelessness, as now he is more likely to have a fault claim.

lisyloo

Then driver A pulls onto the slip road and stops at the island as he sees traffic on the island. Driver B pulls onto the slip road and runs into the back of him. Driver A sees it in his mirror, but doesn't have any way to avoid it.
Driver A is now an inherently unsafe driver, and should have his premium loaded to penalise his carelessness, as now he is more likely to have a fault claim.

You can always come up with exceptions to the rule.
There will certainly be cases where someone who has had a claim is doing nothing at all inherently risky or careless.
But the general situation is that if you have claimed you are more likely to claim in future.

I can certainly say that since we have stopped driving at all in snow/ice and got on the train instead we have had fewer claims.
That behaviour is both reflected in our claims record and means we are less likely to claim in future.
Now they could do the theorecticals and ask "Do you drive at all in snow/ice?" but instead they go on claims experience.
Not always fair in individual cases I agree.

BTW - If you leave a gap between yourself and the car in front you MAY be able to avoid a rear end so it's not impossible.
Harder in a car, but on a bike I pretty much always have an escape route even if it goes off road. I'd rather fall off on the grass that get hit by tons of metal.
It's harder to find gaps for cars on the road, but not impossible to have escape plans even if they mean driving off road.

mikey72

You can always argue the insurer is right, the rest of us will see driver A shouldn't be penalised, but they will be.
I've never seen any statistics that show you're more likely to have a fault accident, if someone hits you previously.
I'd be interested in what you have seen, as you always state it as an apparent fact you have proof of, I have only seen it as hearsay.
If you're a careful driver, you don't suddenly get worse. As you say, you wouldn't suddenly stop your forward planning if you got hit by someone else.

Spiderham

Similarly if you have a fault accident it doesn't make you a worse driver. You're the same as you were before the fault accident...

lisyloo

You can always argue the insurer is right

I do not always do that.
Many times I encourage people to complain, go to the FOS etc.
I don't believe my views are one-sided and I think that would be unfair to say as I could point to many posts in the last few days that I have encouraged complaints against insurers.
A very recent exmaple being the appauling sales tactics of legal expenses insurance.

I'd be interested in what you have seen, as you always state it as an apparent fact you have proof of

Please re-read post #40.
I was at pains to make it VERY clear that these are my own personal views on the logic/morality and I don't set insurers policy of have any proof of their claims.
Neither do I believe the entire industry is simply "making it all up".
If you have any proof that they are wrong, I too would be delighted to see your evidence.
Otherwise it simply remains our opinions and does not affect the reality of pricing.

Similarly if you have a fault accident it doesn't make you a worse driver.

I would agree that risk does not change the instant you have an accident.
However I think it's wrong to say we should ignore all claims history.
Would all of you seriously want to subsidise really high risk drivers with you own money? Seriously? No, I don't think so.
Claims history is a valuable addition to assesing the risk.

Spiderham

lisyloo wrote: »

I would agree that risk does not change the instant you have an accident.
However I think it's wrong to say we should ignore all claims history.
Would all of you seriously want to subsidise really high risk drivers with you own money? Seriously? No, I don't think so.
Claims history is a valuable addition to assesing the risk.

Lisy, I was playing devil's advocate with my post, pretty much trying to make the point you've expanded on her. Agree with what you say, the tone of voice I meant to say it in doesn't come across well on forums unfortunately.