BEWARE Increased premium after NO FAULT accident

lisyloo

No worries, I should have quoted Mikeys post.
I honestly think people would have a different view if they had a seperate subsidy on their bill for "unlucky" motorists.
It has to be paid for somewhere and if individuals don't pick up the tab for their own claims history then we all will.
I wonder how many of those that disagree with my views would be happy to pay more to pick up the tab?
I suspect Mikey would as he's at least consistent with his views, but I doubt whether everyone would have the same view if they have to personally pick up the tab.

But that has just given me a brilliant idea.
Those who think it's unfair and want to spread the costs and would voluntarily like to help susibdise those being unfairly penalised, can simply do so by voluntarily contributing to a fund which is distributed to those unfairly penalised.
That way they can actually help build the fairer world they want voluntarily.
There is nothing to stop you guys doing exactly as you want on a voluntary basis.

The only problem is, that I doubt many of you really do want to stump up for it in reality.

real1314

mikey72 wrote: »

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.

This scenario applies equally to both Driver A and to Driver B.
My scenario does not.

Hence, Driver A is less likely to be involved in AN accident.

I can't see where I suggested that Driver A is IMMUNE from accidents. :cool:

Oh, and Driver A was watching his rear view mirror. As Driver B approached, he checked the traffic ahead and deciding that entering the island was not an option, he slipped the car to the rightmost point of the lane, which left room for Driver B to slip past and stop whilst avoiding Driver A. Although Driver B is not so good at noticing vehicles to one side, he's ok at vehicles directly in front and was able to make the manoevre.

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

No worries, I should have quoted Mikeys post.
I honestly think people would have a different view if they had a seperate subsidy on their bill for "unlucky" motorists.
It has to be paid for somewhere and if individuals don't pick up the tab for their own claims history then we all will.
I wonder how many of those that disagree with my views would be happy to pay more to pick up the tab?
I suspect Mikey would as he's at least consistent with his views, but I doubt whether everyone would have the same view if they have to personally pick up the tab.

But that has just given me a brilliant idea.
Those who think it's unfair and want to spread the costs and would voluntarily like to help susibdise those being unfairly penalised, can simply do so by voluntarily contributing to a fund which is distributed to those unfairly penalised.
That way they can actually help build the fairer world they want voluntarily.
There is nothing to stop you guys doing exactly as you want on a voluntary basis.

The only problem is, that I doubt many of you really do want to stump up for it in reality.

I agree you should pick up some of the tab for your own fault claims, that's the point of insurance.
But you are right, I think there comes a point when the "risk" assessment goes over the top, and insurers miss the whole point that each person should pay a little into the pot, then the pot is used to pay those that claim.
But if it isn't your fault, you shouldn't be penalised personally, that's the point of having the pot, everyone puts a little more in.
As to the voluntary contribution, that would only work with a different pot to those that don't contribute.

mikey72

real1314 wrote: »

This scenario applies equally to both Driver A and to Driver B.
My scenario does not.

Hence, Driver A is less likely to be involved in AN accident.

I can't see where I suggested that Driver A is IMMUNE from accidents. :cool:

Oh, and Driver A was watching his rear view mirror. As Driver B approached, he checked the traffic ahead and deciding that entering the island was not an option, he slipped the car to the rightmost point of the lane, which left room for Driver B to slip past and stop whilst avoiding Driver A. Although Driver B is not so good at noticing vehicles to one side, he's ok at vehicles directly in front and was able to make the manoevre.

But driver A was in the middle lane of the three, and now he's sideswiped the car next to him as well, and pushed that one onto the island, and caused a multiple pile up.
So you're right really.
Driver A was even worse than driver B in the end, so he did deserve an increase in premium after all.
Especially after the fire engine crashed into the ambulance when it arrived, and the ambulance was shunted into the police cars.
And as for the bus full of nuns and orphans......

vaio

I was wondering when the children would make an appearance, nuns and orphans is a nice touch

lisyloo

As to the voluntary contribution, that would only work with a different pot to those that don't contribute.

I agree.
But those of you who are morally outraged, could put money into a pot to redress the balance and make the world a fairer place couldn't you???
If you were really that bothered, you could do something about it voluntarily.

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

I agree.
But those of you who are morally outraged, could put money into a pot to redress the balance and make the world a fairer place couldn't you???
If you were really that bothered, you could.

I prefer another pot for those who believe they are a worse risk if someone hits them, and they should share it with the ones that alwys quote the uninsured drivers pushing up the premiums, and should only be used by the insurers that always make a loss, and insure the young drivers having 10 times the claims, and then they can them pay whatever the insurer demands as happily as they want to.

lisyloo

I prefer another pot for those who believe they are a worse risk if someone hits them

I'm sure you would prefer another system :-)

But going back to the specific issue this thread was discussing (hikes for non-fault claims).
Do you agree that theorectically at least, those of you who do not like the system could if you so wished do something yourselves to actively change it.
I understand there would be practical issues i.e. admin of the fund etc. but I would like an answer to that direct question.

Spiderham

Also on this, it seems to be that the cheaper car insurance providers are the ones more likely to charge extra for a non-fault accident. I wonder if the two are related?

I have also thought that maybe at least part of the premium should be determined purely by a random number generator then lucky people will get a reduced premium and the unlucky will pay more. Please don't ask me if I'm being serious or not because I'm becoming less and less sure myself.

mikey72

Spiderham wrote: »

............I have also thought that maybe at least part of the premium should be determined purely by a random number generator then lucky people will get a reduced premium and the unlucky will pay more. Please don't ask me if I'm being serious or not because I'm becoming less and less sure myself.

They're called comparison sites.