But there's now one less meteorite up above
further proving aracers point, that you don't understand statistics 😉
I wasn't going to be so rude (my comment was non-specific), simply suggest that now there are only 9,999,999 meteorites up there.
I have this irrational idea that statistics may not be absolutely reliable when dealing with infrequent random events.
Insurance is full of unfairness. If you live in a town where lots of other people make fraudulent claims you pay more
I remember someone telling me that a 1.6 Cortina was faster than a 1.6 Capri. But the capri cost more to insure because 1.6 capri drivers as a group crash more often than 1.6 Cortina drivers
I think in this case the insurers argument is that if they look at the group of people that have had no claims in the last 5 years and the group of people with 1 no fault claim in the last five years. The group with 1 claim is more likely to make another claim. It matters not to them why you claimed before. It could be more frequent use of poorly designed car parks. It could be that the area has more idiot drivers or it could be that your lumped in with fraudulent claims. Or as said above it shows a greater willingness to claim rather sort things out in other ways. All they know is that your in the group more likely to claim again
I think there was a thread on pistonheads where someone was trying to recoup their increased insurance costs from the other party after a non-fault accident but I can't remember if it got anywhere.
The fact remains that if you are involved in an accident (even if it wasn't your fault) statistically you are more likely to be involved in another.
I've been privy to the raw data from one of the biggest UK insurers and there is no denying this.
It's a shitter, but that's how it is.
Do insurance companies have to prove the stats show after a car park claim you're more likely to crash? They are the ones taking the gamble on you, couldn't they just decide "my mate dave said people who get hit in car parks are a bazillion times more likely to write off their car in the next 12months and that's good enough for me". No need to justify anything, if you don't like their reasoning go elsewhere.
I'd heard ins coms penalise "unlucky" drivers too, multiple none fault claims in different circumstances (so no identifiable contributing factor) and your premiums will rocket. How true dunno.
Our car was hit in a car park last year, renewal (after calling for a better price - [b]always[/b] do this) was cheapest yet, but we are fairly new drivers so probably still getting a hefty discount for each year of experience driving.
Its mandatory thus they can charge what ever they want and give any reason they want.
Chunts.
And yet no insurer has made money on motor insurance for some years, blame fraudsters, accident management companies etc.
I'd heard ins coms penalise "unlucky" drivers too, multiple none fault claims in different circumstances (so no identifiable contributing factor) and your premiums will rocket. How true dunno.
Correct, no such thing as luck in statistics!
So, you were quite happy to take the "no claims discount/bonus" (or whatever you call it) but are now kvetching because there has been a claim on your policy, your fault or not, and are no longer entitled ?
Perhaps you should have paid the extra for "protected no claims" where the insurance companies take more money off you in order to preserve your "discount". Or in other words, pay them more so you don't have to pay them more.
It's a massive gouge - but if companies start claiming off each other for increasing each others customers premiums they will be rubbing their hands together with glee, and increasing premiums further.
They will just insure the risk against each other.
Or perhaps offering a scheme called "protected no claims discount premium increase bonus" whereby you pay them more now to avoid paying them more later in the event that there is a claim and the other insurance company claims against your policy for the increased premiums, and you have to pay them more.
It's all a farce, and when I rule the world car insurance will no longer be compulsory, so they won't get away with this crap anymore.
I wasn't going to be so rude (my comment was non-specific), simply suggest that now there are only 9,999,999 meteorites up there.
Is that a fact?
How many bicycles are there in Beijing?
The fact remains that if you are involved in an accident (even if it wasn't your fault) statistically you are more likely to be involved in another.
PROOF - folk keep saying this no one has produced any evidence to prove it.
Technically they were not involved in a crash a parked car was hit - you cannot just claim this increases the risk you need to prove it.
And yet no insurer has made money on motor insurance for some years, blame fraudsters, accident management companies etc
Last time we did this what this actually means is they do actually profit from it but it was because they invested the premium money. They are not running at loss or they would stop trading and they are not a charity giving away money to plucky motorists. Its misleading to say in totality they do not profit from the business hence you were careful with yout phrasing.
Last time you argued this still meant they did not make money from the insurance
As for the meteorite example Gamblers fallacy - past events do not predict future events and I assume we can consider this to be a random /chance event.
Anyway theoretically discussing hypothetical stats without the stats is quite possibly the most pointless thing we will ever do
Its ride o clock.
Hels i agree . Go nz on there ass . That said wouldnt have liked to have had an accident out there :/
Also you do realise protected no claims doesnt mean your policy wont rise.
It means the discount off your new higher policy remains the same as it was pre crash. So price will still go up just not as much
PROOF - folk keep saying this no one has produced any evidence to prove it.
Technically they were not involved in a crash a parked car was hit - you cannot just claim this increases the risk you need to prove it.
That's the thing, insurance companies don't need to prove anything.
You tell them your details, and they calculate a price and offer it to you in order to get your business.
If you don't like the price you can go elsewhere.
(And if they don't like your details they can quote a high price to help you decide to do just that)
Lots of "random" events happen, and the only way insurance companies can assess that risk is to look at past events.
Gamblers fallacy or not, have you got a better way for them predict future events ?
Glory and riches await if you do 😉
PROOF - folk keep saying this no one has produced any evidence to prove it.
Technically they were not involved in a crash a parked car was hit - you cannot just claim this increases the risk you need to prove it.
That's what's so great about internet arguments. A little hint - neither you or anyone else on this thread is an insurance actuary - why would anyone have 'proof'? We are just a bunch a pub bores that know next to nothing arguing the toss. If proof is so important to you - where is your 'PROOF' to the contrary?
I do believe that the insurers are to blame for all their own problems. Yonks ago they introduced 'knock for knock', which then confused better and worse drivers in their statistics. Then they persistently increased prices on renewal and offered cheaper deals to new business, so lost their market of stable, long-term custom because they'd all moved on. I'd been with the same Co for over ten years, just cancelled and moved on one renewal day. And they'd offer a cheaper deal to someone they'd never seen before.
Do they still deny handing on your details to the ambulance chasers?
neither you or anyone else on this thread is an insurance actuary
Although I worked at CGU/Norwich Union/AVIVA between 2000 and 2005 and worked with the actuarial tables that generate the quotes.
A little hint - neither you or anyone else on this thread is an insurance actuary
Thanks Sherlock
If proof is so important to you - where is your 'PROOF' to the contrary?
Folk mentioned what the statistics proved I asked to see the stats/prood no one produced them. Why are you having a go at me for asking to see them rather than the folk who told us what they proved despite not having seen them
I am really not sure why you think my approach is the unwise one here tbh
Everyone knows if you claim something you need to provide the proof so again I am not sure why you have chosen to target my approach for the criticism.
Its not really that odd to ask for the data and proof is it when someone makes a claim..
Hoisted up by my own petard...yah bastard [ meant in jest but well played]
If the choice is concede or read that I will concede 😉
I will give it a go and thanks [ sort of]
Folk mentioned what the statistics proved I asked to see the stats/prood no one produced them. Why are you having a go at me for asking to see them rather than the folk who told us what they proved despite not having seen them
I am really not sure why you think my approach is the unwise one here tbh
I'm not really having a go at you, just pointing out that in a typical internet discussion manner you are elevating it beyond what it is - a discussion between clueless ejiots (and Nealglover!). Have a careful look at what I typed earlier...
[b]If they have a statistic[/b] that says those that have previously claimed for being hit are X% more likely to be hit again, that's all the evidence they really need to change your risk factor
I know my place...."if they have a statistic". Not I have a statistic; not that definitely such a statistic exists; but [b]if[/b]. That's the level of conversation here - supposition about a system most of us are barely qualified to speculate about. Nothing will change as a result of the discussion, the status quo will remain unaltered. Folk who start demanding proof on internet arguments between clueless nobodies (I include myself very much in this) like we are world experts just always make me giggle (especially when they type it in capitals to make it more important) 😉
So, you were quite happy to take the "no claims discount/bonus" (or whatever you call it) but are now kvetching because there has been a claim on your policy, your fault or not, and are no longer entitled ?
He hasn't claimed on his insurance has he
Perhaps you should have paid the extra for "protected no claims" where the insurance companies take more money off you in order to preserve your "discount". Or in other words, pay them more so you don't have to pay them more.
He hasn't said that he lost his no claims discount. He has higher premium. So i think insuring your no claims discount doesn't help in this case
I assume if you insure your no claims discount that doesn't stop them increasing your premium as you made a claim
If the choice is concede or read that I will concede
I wouldn't expect anyone to read it to be honest, it's as dry as sand on toast with extra dust 🙂
It was meant purely to demonstrate that there is actually method behind the madness, and not just "robbing bastards" plucking figures out of the air to rip everyone off.
And I would say that in general, if an actuary says something is riskier than something else, they can be trusted to know better than anyone who spends time arguing about shiz on a bike forum like what we do 
He hasn't claimed on his insurance has he
True, my NCB is not affected and my insurance company are not even involved - dealing with the third parties insurance.
Just to clarify my risk of having an accident (fault or no fault) didn't suddenly increase on Sunday after this muppet smashed into my car, my risk of another incident is exactly the same, but what it has done is reveal that statistically (in the insurance companies eyes) my risk is slightly higher. ( and this higher risk was present before the accident)
This is because it has put me into the category of people who had suffered a no fault accident and within this category will be a higher proportion of fraudsters who set up no fault accidents, people who genuinely can't park, park in risky areas, go to retails parks every day, dither when pulling away from roundabouts etc. etc., hence the higher premiums. Of course on an individual basis there will be people within this group that are very high risk and people who are no higher risk or even lower risk than average but the [b]average[/b] risk will be higher across the thousands of people in this category.
For the sake of a 5 minute email I will try and claim a few hundred quid for the increase in premiums I will suffer, I'm not sure i will be successful but I do hold a few cards up my sleeve so we will see.
Just trying to return to the original point...
The problem is one of indemnity, which seeks to put the claimant back in the same financial position after a loss as they were before the loss occurred.
There is some case law back in the mists of time relating to the recovery of increased premiums, and basically it was held that it wasn't possible at law. Can't remember the reference but I'm sure it's out there.
Then there is the fact that the next 5 years' premium change probably can't be stated in advance - so how much would be claimed? How would a claim ever end?
Finally, there is the possibility that the financial loss (the premium increase) is just that - a pure financial loss. This would probably be considered to be too remote from the original claim for damage to the car. What I mean by that might be best explained with an example:
If you crashed your car into the toll booths on the Severn Bridge, destroying the booths and closing the bridge, your car insurance would pay for the losses of the third party. So it would rebuild the toll booths, and would pay for the lost income of the bridge operator while this was going on.
However, it could not pay for the extra mileage/time/etc costs of all the motorists who had their journey affected or who had to make diversions around. This financial loss is considered too remote. Extrapolate that further and things like missed job interviews caused by the bridge being closed, and therefore missed £x millions of lost earnings also cannot be claimed at law.
Not saying it can't happen - just that the legal precedence is a bit shonky.
Anyway, back to the enjoyable squabbling over supermarket carp arks... 😀
[quote=mudmuncher ]Just to clarify my risk of having an accident (fault or no fault) didn't suddenly increase on Sunday after this muppet smashed into my car, my risk of another incident is exactly the same, but what it has done is reveal that statistically (in the insurance companies eyes) my risk is slightly higher. ( and this higher risk was present before the accident)...
Spot on yet again - I'm fairly sure this is the first thread like this I've seen on here where the OP actually understands the issue and it's just the bandwagon jumpers who're getting irate about something they don't understand.
For the sake of a 5 minute email I will try and claim a few hundred quid for the increase in premiums I will suffer, I'm not sure i will be successful but I do hold a few cards up my sleeve so we will see.
I genuinely wish you luck with that, but for reasons I explained above you will need a lot of it 🙂
Spot on yet again
Thank you sir!
I genuinely wish you luck with that, but for reasons I explained above you will need a lot of it
I'm under no illusion it is likely they will pay for this, however I do have a few things up my sleeve I can bring into play to try and persuade them.
As a footnote: an acquaintance who works in motor insurance once told us: "If you have a small shunt or scrape on no-claim incident, DO NOT tell your insurer. Fix it for cash and carry on because they will put you down as an 'accident magnet'. I didn't tell you that, by the way."
"..... I didn't tell you that, by the way."
Your acquaintance has a flair for the dramatic
It's not some big insurance industry secret that he shouldn't be telling you, that's just how it works.
(See above for details 😉 )
"...Fix it for cash"
Because they monitor your credit cards for body shop payments, be careful out there
it could well be just to cover any admin processing work by your company as a result of the incident and dealing with the other insurance company. ie claim not your fault equals a few phones calls and a form and any additional dispute resolution etc by your company and not based on driver risk at all but on the risk of time spent with the potential time spent being charged as an increased premium for a period.
