Someone drove into me and now it puts £300 on my policy

jackyann

I have been a driver for 40 years; I am a safe & careful driver, but not a good, naturally intuitive one. I have been interested to note the number of accidents I have been involved in that are not my fault (about 12) compared to my partner, who drives much faster (2). This did affect our insurance premiums for some time, and it seemed deeply unfair to me. However, the insurance companies go only on statistics, with no social interpretation (other than the gender divide, which they were legally obliged to do).
And I have considered giving up my car - I don't enjoy driving - but have only ever lived briefly in cities and didn't get on well at all; so I stay where there isn't much public transport, grit my teeth and keep driving - as safely & carefully as I can!

olly300

jackyann wrote: »

I have been a driver for 40 years; I am a safe & careful driver, but not a good, naturally intuitive one. I have been interested to note the number of accidents I have been involved in that are not my fault (about 12) compared to my partner, who drives much faster (2). This did affect our insurance premiums for some time, and it seemed deeply unfair to me. However, the insurance companies go only on statistics, with no social interpretation (other than the gender divide, which they were legally obliged to do).

Driving slowly and adhering to the speed limit doesn't mean you are a safe and careful driver. This is because if you drive too slowly you frustrate drivers behind you, which brings out the worst in people.

Nearly everyday I see people getting frustrated because they can't see the HGV 10 cars in front of them, or the wobbly cyclist going at 2mph up a hill.

jackyann wrote: »

And I have considered giving up my car - I don't enjoy driving - but have only ever lived briefly in cities and didn't get on well at all; so I stay where there isn't much public transport, grit my teeth and keep driving - as safely & carefully as I can!

I presume you have friends and family all over the place? If so then unless you plan on taking a lot of taxis you will find that even living in UK cities you will need a car sometimes.

Parking_Trouble

real1314 wrote: »

A: Because the cost of claims against motor insurance policies has rocketed upwards.
This is contrary to the view you probably wish was true - that it's due to increasing profits in the motor insurance sector - but the unavoidable truth is that claims costs are increasing exponentially, and have been doing so for some years.

Factors -
Limited repairability of vehicles ; you used to be able to just replace a bumper for a small rear end shunt but more advanced crumple zones / pedestrian buffers etc can result in far more significant repair costs.

Car Hire charges; 3rd Party Claims ; Personal injury claims ; Use of solicitors ; No win-No fee lawyers.


Incidentally, getting back to the OP's point:-

Driver A - 60 mph ; good stopping distance ahead, good view of what's behind; inside lane of motorway approaching a junction where traffic joins the motorway. Another driver comes down the slip road, doesn't look properly as Driver A is in the blind spot ; Joining driver collides with Driver A. Complete no-fault to Driver A.

Driver B - 60 mph ; good stopping distance ahead, good view of what's behind; inside lane of motorway approaching a junction where traffic joins the motorway. Another driver comes down the slip road, doesn't look properly as Driver B is in the blind spot ; But Driver B has noticed the junction already and had checked what was in the middle lane. As there was nothing, they hadn't taken any prior preventative action and having spotted the joining driver, they move across to the middle lane, avoiding a no-fault.
Had the middle lane been busy, they would have increased their alertness to joining traffic and accelerated / slown down to avoid sitting in the joining driver's blind spot.

Driver B has demonstrated a greater degree of road awareness.

Good drivers can not only avoid causing accidents but also avoid being involved in accidents that are not their fault. Therefore the statistically a non-fault can indicate a greater risk.:cool:

I have nothing against insurers making a modest profit.

I have an issue with the other reasons, other than cost of repairs.

Car repairs have always been expensive.

In my case a £1500 car (£2k rear bumper repair) is written off but the TP claims amount to £25k for the reasons you mention above.

Allowing a claimant to hire a 5 year old car for 72 days to replace his 10 year banger is not on. The insurer should pay the £1500 or go buy him a replacement car. I would have gladly written the cheque out myself but left it all in the capable hands of the insurers claims dept.

Uncontested PI claims and associated "Legal" and medical fees of over £15k.

Plain bonkers IMO. It needs government intervention and either legislation or self governance for the insurers to become more efficient. It about protecting consumers.

Parking_Trouble

Quote:
Originally Posted by raskazz
Once again, please provide some evidence to support this fact-free nonsense.


As Mikey said

I don't think that's a line you could ever use seriously anymore.


And this is why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parking Trouble
I am new to this game but looks to me as though FOS is about complaints not regulation. Although it clearly lays down some guidelines and rulings which keep insurers on their toes it only comes into play when a consumer files a complaint.

WRONG! The FOS will give out advice to insurers who wish to clarify certain points of interpretation and so on. It publishes case studies which are often referred to by insurers in order to avoid future complaints arising.


You got a little overexcited about this one but clearly don't know what regulation means in terms of rules and compliance and penalties for non-compliance.

Dishing out advice, providing clarity and publishing case studies is not regulation.

If you don't understand regulation versus advice then I'm afraid any shred of credibility you may have had has evaporated.

There is nothing of substance or fact in what you actually say. Your intransigence shows what a narrowed minded WUM you are.

lisyloo

So if I don't like any, either you have to admit your advice is impractical, and mere rhetoric to support a system under which compulsory purchase can't be avoided, regardless of the customers view on the t&c's, or you advocate breaking the law to stand by what you post.

Let me make it 100% clear.
I do not support driving uninsured in fact it's morally abhorrent to me.

You need to choose from the many choices available to you they are not infinite, you cannot dictate the terms.
This is no different to choosing or baked beans at the supermarket.
You pick the most most suitable can of baked beans - low sugar, cheapest etc. depending on your criteria.

I don't accept that in this case there aren't any car insurers that fit the criteria as there are cars insurers that don't load for non-fault claims and there is absolutely tons of choice.
But ultimately I agree that as a consumer you do not get to dictate just as you don't get to dictate the exact contents of a tin of beans.

All of us have to follow the laws of the UK if we want to live here.

lisyloo

What are the blockers to consumer happiness?

Businesses are primarily run for shareholders not for consumers.
Perhaps you don't like capitalism.
I think it has it's faults but I haven't seen a better system overall yet.

lisyloo

The popular mantra of those who have never had to depend on public transport outside the city, and view it as something the subclass who can't afford to drive can use everyday, at any time.

I disagree. I have survived without it and don't live in a city.
I can afford to drive everyday.
I consider it a quality of life issue. It is far nicer to cycle with the swans, herons & kigfishers than it is to fight your way through traffic.
So, no I don't agree with your stereotype there. Some people choose it as a better way of life.
I find it amusing that those sat in a traffic jam think they are somehow superior when they are often fatter, less fit and lazy (oops, there goes another stereotype) and complaining about their insurance.

lisyloo

I have been involved in that are not my fault (about 12) compared to my partner, who drives much faster (2).

Hi jackyann - I would seriously suggest joining an advanced driving group (IAM and rospa are two examples).
They will work with people to examine the correct position, speed, gear etc. to be in at all times to cope with both the seen and unseen hazards to make your driving better than it is already.
I suspect that you would find yourself a more confident and faster driver and statistically less likely to have an accident (and this IS recognised by insurers).
The actual training sessions they provide on a volunteer basis is usually free although there are costs in terms of books, group membership and taking an advanced test.

lisyloo

If so then unless you plan on taking a lot of taxis you will find that even living in UK cities you will need a car sometimes.

I've been without a car many times before - and used a combination of walking, cycling, trains, buses (I'm not talking tour de france either).
I agree that on occassions you might need a taxi or hire car, but you can get an awful lot of taxis for the cost of running a car.
If you add up parking fees, petrol, MOT, servicing, repairs, insurance, recovery policy, tax, depreciation, fuel, then that covers a LOT of taxis.
I agree it depends on where you live.
If you decide to live in the stix where there's one bus a week then that is a choice.
Personally that's something I'd weigh up before I moved and I would understand both the upsides and downsides and not spend the rest of my life moaning about it.

To some people it's not just about money, it can be about health, "me" time, lifestyle etc.
When I'm cycling along the canal, getting some fresh air with the swans and wildlife I find it really peaceful and that enhaces my quality of life and well-being as opposed to being stuck in traffic jams and accidents.

mikey72

mikey72 wrote: »

"Or to use public transport"

The popular mantra of those who have never had to depend on public transport outside the city, and view it as something the subclass who can't afford to drive can use everyday, at any time.

I'm sure you would support a massive investment in infra structure to bring an underground transport system out to rural areas across britain, accompanied by buses to all villages every ten minutes?

lisyloo wrote: »

I disagree. I have survived without it and don't live in a city.
I can afford to drive everyday.
I consider it a quality of life issue. It is far nicer to cycle with the swans, herons & kigfishers than it is to fight your way through traffic.
So, no I don't agree with your stereotype there. Some people choose it as a better way of life.
I find it amusing that those sat in a traffic jam think they are somehow superior when they are often fatter, less fit and lazy (oops, there goes another stereotype) and complaining about their insurance.

"I can afford to drive everyday."

So, it's very easy for you to imagine anyone who can't afford a car has the opportunity to "cycle with the swans, herons & kigfishers " to work every day, and then do the shopping in the evening.
Reality isn't quite so daydreamy when you actually can't afford to drive on those trips and then you'll realise instead of nipping out in the car, you actually can't do the shopping, unless you also somehow envisage your entourage of disneylike characters flying next to you, all happily carrying your bags of tesco shopping home.