Statistics on no fault accidents

mikey72

Several insurance advocates on here always claim you should be penalised for being in a no fault accident, as you'll then have a fault accident.
But no-one can ever link to any proof.
So a simple poll, and we'll see what the result is.

SteveFromAccounts

I'm not sure what you are seeking to prove here?

vaio

Just a wild stab in the dark but I'm guessing he's looking for some evidence to prove (or disprove) the oft quoted "fact" that people who are involved in a non fault accident are more likely than average to be involved in a subsequent fault accident and thus are deserving of the higher premiums that lots of insurers apply to non fault victims

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

Several insurance advocates on here always claim you should be penalised for being in a no fault accident, as you'll then have a fault accident.
But no-one can ever link to any proof.
So a simple poll, and we'll see what the result is.

I eagerly await the results of this actuarially robust survey.

It seems that mikey has already forgotten what was pointed out in the other thread - that risk is a combination of frequency of loss and severityof loss. So a one-way poll on frequency of loss is meaningless.

Of course the sample size will lend it a huge degree of statisical significance compared to the samples of hundreds of thousands of risks used in insurer technical pricing. :rotfl:

InsideInsurance

It is not that you will subsequently be in a fault accident but that you'll more likely be in any kind of accident again. Even non-fault claims cost insurance companies money as they aren't entitled to reclaim processing costs from the third party. In most mass market insurance companies that do their own claims handling they have to employ more claims staff than they do sales and customer service.

I am not sure a straw pole on a forum is really going to have the statistical relevance compared to insurers with 25+ years of evidence with millions of customers.

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

I eagerly await the results of this actuarially robust survey.

It seems that mikey has already forgotten what was pointed out in the other thread - that risk is a combination of frequency of loss and severityof loss. So a one-way poll on frequency of loss is meaningless.

Of course the sample size will lend it a huge degree of statisical significance compared to the samples of hundreds of thousands of risks used in insurer technical pricing. :rotfl:

Statistically, you'll be right then, and maybe for once you may find some evidence to actually link to, rather than keep repeating unfounded hearsay.

_Andy_

88 miles per hour!

mikey72

InsideInsurance wrote: »

It is not that you will subsequently be in a fault accident but that you'll more likely be in any kind of accident again. Even non-fault claims cost insurance companies money as they aren't entitled to reclaim processing costs from the third party. In most mass market insurance companies that do their own claims handling they have to employ more claims staff than they do sales and customer service.

I am not sure a straw pole on a forum is really going to have the statistical relevance compared to insurers with 25+ years of evidence with millions of customers.

Now, as most insurers farm out their claim handling to third parties, for a sizeable fee, sell your details to a PI company, for a sizeable fee, and organise the courtesy car to be supplied by a credit hire company, for a sizeable fee, non fault claims are a significant source of revenue, not a cost.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

Statistically, you'll be right then, and maybe for once you may find some evidence to actually link to, rather than keep repeating unfounded hearsay.

Different insurers have different rating criteria. Providing they use legal discrimination (i.e age / driving record / post code etc), then I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.

Surely it's for each insurer to decide what their pricing stucture is?

Ultimately, it's not a monopoly. If your insurer is tooo high - perhaps because they use a rating structure which you dont agree with - why not move to another insurer?

Mikey72. I appreciate that you have a completely balanced view of insurance (i.e a chip on both shoulders), but are you are surely not advocating that the FSA/FOS/Police/Army etc step in and decide how risk should be underwritten?

Personally, I dont agree that a client should be penalised for having a non-fault accident.....However.....there are non-fault accidents and non-fault accidents. What about somebody who brakes like a nutter and who has a 'non-fault' accident when a 3rd party ploughs into the rear of them?

Problem is Mikey72, that consumerism has demanded cheaper premiums. This has been delivered. The downside is that common-sense and human judgement has been erradicated to achieve this, which means that the computer-based pricing will decide how much premium that you pay.

Be careful what you wish for.....

DM

mikey72

Dangermac wrote: »

Different insurers have different rating criteria. Providing they use legal discrimination (i.e age / driving record / post code etc), then I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.

Surely it's for each insurer to decide what their pricing stucture is?

Ultimately, it's not a monopoly. If your insurer is tooo high - perhaps because they use a rating structure which you dont agree with - why not move to another insurer?

Mikey72. I appreciate that you have a completely balanced view of insurance (i.e a chip on both shoulders), but are you are surely not advocating that the FSA/FOS/Police/Army etc step in and decide how risk should be underwritten?

Personally, I dont agree that a client should be penalised for having a non-fault accident.....However.....there are non-fault accidents and non-fault accidents. What about somebody who brakes like a nutter and who has a 'non-fault' accident when a 3rd party ploughs into the rear of them?

Problem is Mikey72, that consumerism has demanded cheaper premiums. This has been delivered. The downside is that common-sense and human judgement has been erradicated to achieve this, which means that the computer-based pricing will decide how much premium that you pay.

Be careful what you wish for.....

DM

I agree (for once for me) with what you say here.
The problem is it's a monopoly to a degree, in that it's a compulsory purchase, with no freedom to go without. As to cheaper premiums, it may well be argued that was a response to consumerism, but it's also been driven by insurers clambering all over each over to get to the top of the pile, all shouting for attention, then trying to claim they are professional trustworthy establishments rather than a howling mob. So you’ll forgive those of us that now see the image of Del Trotter with a suitcase on the street corner, rather than the image of respectable bowler hatted businessmen now.

It will be interesting to see if the OFT come to any conclusions in December and if the insurers can provide them of any proof of the “reason” for the 40% rise in premiums, and then if Jack Straws Motor Insurance Regulation Bill goes through next year.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

I agree (for once for me) with what you say here.
The problem is it's a monopoly to a degree, in that it's a compulsory purchase, with no freedom to go without. As to cheaper premiums, it may well be argued that was a response to consumerism, but it's also been driven by insurers clambering all over each over to get to the top of the pile, all shouting for attention, then trying to claim they are professional trustworthy establishments rather than a howling mob. So you’ll forgive those of us that now see the image of Del Trotter with a suitcase on the street corner, rather than the image of respectable bowler hatted businessmen now.

It will be interesting to see if the OFT come to any conclusions in December and if the insurers can provide them of any proof of the “reason” for the 40% rise in premiums, and then if Jack Straws Motor Insurance Regulation Bill goes through next year.

It's not a monopoly. The fact that it's a compulosry insurance doesnt really change anything. You have a choice. It's a competitive market. In no way could that be described as a monopoly.

The image of the insurance market has been shaped by consumerism. Insurers shouldnt have lowered theirselves to this level, but they have.

However, if the marketplace (i.e the consumers) were crying out for the return of the old-school system, and were prepared to pay whatever that cost might look like, this would have happened by now.

In reality, much as it pains me to say it, the majority of consumers see car insurance especially as a pure commodity and like the idea of the 'Del Boy' type system (as you put it)....until things go wrong....and then everyone wishes they had a good broker!!

Mikey72. I am a broker. I do little motor insurance (I am mainly a Commercial Broker), however, I do end up picking up the pieces from my commercial clients who have had their fingers well and truly burnt by call centres/on line insurers.

As I say, be careful what you wish for....

DM