Is this fair - increase car insurance premium

Car_54

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

So if you knock me down in your car, and I'm uninjured, no accident has occurred? Therefore, you wouldn't need to stop as, according to you, no accident has happened.

I really think you should get real.

If there is no injury, there is no need to stop. No accident has occurred withing the meaning of the law.

However, it's difficut to see how you could know there is no injury without stopping. The real point is that if there is no injury then there is no requirement to provide insurance details (and possibly, by implication, no need to tell your insurer).

EdGasketTheSecond

Aretnap wrote: »

Dear Son/Darling Son

Oh OK, I thought it was a model of car!

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

The issue here is that the Telematics detected a driving incident that was outside the agreed parameters for incident free driving.

Hitting a wheelie bin could have been hitting a child who had wandered behind the car, so while it is a what-if, from an insurer's point of view we have a driver who has shown that they have had an incident hitting an object at low speed which in this case did not cause damage.

I don't think the insurers are being unreasonable - the game of telematics is about proving you can drive without incident for which they give you a discount. Have an incident, the driver has broken the deal, however trivial it may be viewed.

Remember that this could have been an incident where the driver didn't even hit something, just used heavy braking. The argument will always be that the driver got them into a situation where they needed to use heavy braking and therefore they are outside the rules for the discount. It may not feel fair but them's the rules.

AdrianC

Third page of the thread, and everybody's taking the son's word as gospel...

17yo gets contacted by black box insurer - premium's going up. And it's DEFINITELY because of gently nudging a bin that leapt out at him and he couldn't possibly avoid.

Of course it is... Without any possibility of any alternative, far more likely explanation.

It's like we've all forgotten what being 17 was like.

Mercdriver

AdrianC wrote: »

Third page of the thread, and everybody's taking the son's word as gospel...

17yo gets contacted by black box insurer - premium's going up. And it's DEFINITELY because of gently nudging a bin that leapt out at him and he couldn't possibly avoid.

Of course it is... Without any possibility of any alternative, far more likely explanation.

It's like we've all forgotten what being 17 was like.

I was assuming rightly or wrongly by what the OP has said that she witnessed the incident in question.

AdrianC

But she hasn't witnessed all of the rest of his driving, I'll bet.

shaun_from_Africa

AdrianC wrote: »

Third page of the thread, and everybody's taking the son's word as gospel...

When replying to posters on forums such as this one, whether it's a question about insurance, dodgy builders, faulty goods or friends who have borrowed money and not paid it back, advice and opinions can only be given on the information provided.
If this wasn't the case, why should anyone who asks a question on here be believed as there is just as much of a possibility of them telling lies as there is of the OP's son doing it.

AdrianC

I'm taking the OP's post at face value - they're asking the question honestly, based on their true belief of the situation. However, based on what we know of teenagers with newly-minted licences, what we know about rose-tinted glasses on parents, and based on what we know about how black boxes work and how insurers react to the information, Occam's Razor applies as much as ever.

Denial of realities helps nobody.

jimjames

BOBS wrote: »

My DS has just completed first year of driving with black box fitted.

BOBS wrote: »

do I just have to take it on the chin and pay up ?
Thanks

Not sure you do, surely DS should take it on the chin and pay up?

seatbeltnoob

Wow. the black box picks up that sort of stuff? Amazing.