There is no correlation between high mileage driving and accidents. This is simply a way for the insurance companies to eat more money from us. Really, those who do higher mileages are less likely to have accidents in my opinion since they have a lot more experience than Sunday drivers. Furthermore, whether you do high mileages or low mileages is irrelevent really, since a bad driver will crash one day despite their mileage.
Of course, this generalisation will make the ever rich insurance companies more money for nothing.
Unfortunately, this technique cannot be used on motorbikes can it? This is another reason why londoners will be buying even more two wheeled vehicles once this comes into action, especially now there are already three very stong reasons to own a motorcycle.
|
Sorry but there is a correlation between miles drive and expected payout for the insurance company.
This is for several reasons.
1. As we all know it is always the other idiots fault. So the more miles that you drive the more likely it is that you come across that idiot. For strange reasons this is not a straight forward linear relationship.
2. If you drive more miles on average you are more likely to be travelling at a higher speed, consequently the damage costs are likely top be higher.
3. If you drive more miles you are more likely to be driving at dawn/dusk/night/bad weather rather than in nice dry daytime when less accidients happen
4. If you drive more miles you are more likely to be driving on a strange road in a strange town and again more likely to have an accident.
The insirance company needs to manage all factors to ensure that they are competitive or they will rapidly lose business.
|
Sorry... but some of these are non-sequitors.
For example, the miles/speed thing. If I am doing 40,000 miles a year, what's to say I'm not doing them at the relevant speed limits. Whereas someone who does 5,000 per year may bomb around everywhere. I don't understand the logic here.
As for the stange road one... I don't get it. If I have a 100 mile per day commute to work, how are the roads stranger than someone who does 10 miles per day? I still drive them twice a day.
There's an argument that statistically someone who does more miles is more likely to have an accidcent simply because they spend more time on the road. But then someone who does more miles is a much more experienced driver.
|
"But then someone who does more miles is a much more experienced driver."
So a 22 year old salesman doing 50K miles a year is "much more experienced" than his 45 year old sales manager who is now largely office bound and only does 5K miles a year - but for many years was that 50K a year salesman?
Mmm run that by me again
|
Sigh.
The point I'm making here is that you can't generalise. Take two 40 year-olds. One has spent 20 years doing 10000 a year, the other has spent 20 years doing 40000. The latter is the more experienced driver, and will probably be able to cope in situations that the former couldn't. I'm not suggesting that all high-mileage drivers are safer - just that a high mileage does not necessarily mean a less-safe driver.
So a 45 year-old is more experienced than a 22 year-old. Go figure. I'm sure insurance companies are aware of that, but you've added another variable (time licence held) into the equation. Take a pair of 22 year olds, one of whom does a high mileage and the other considerably less, I'd expect the former to be a safer driver. The amount of time that the former spends on the road may even out his chances of having an accident, but it doesn't necessarily increase them.
|
Sigh. The point I'm making here is that you can't generalise.
No need to sigh.
Whatever your theories, Insurance Companies generalise! High mileage drivers are a greater risk than low mileage drivers.
|
Sorry... I sighed because you were basing your argument on the obvious exception to the rule. The argument you were proving was that a young driver is less safe than a more experienced one.
Anyway... I've just worked out the point I'm trying to make. Bear with me here. Yes, you will probably find that per year a high-mileage driver will have more accidents than a low-mileage one, simply because they're on the road more. But they also get a lot more practice at it. So the higher-mileage driver will have fewer accidents *per mile* than the lower mileage driver. So charging per mile is going to discriminate against the higher-mileage driver.
Now I'm a lowish mileage driver... I do about 10,000 per year so I'm not even fighting my own corner here. If the insurance companies can find a way of modelling this non-linear relationship then that's great. I worry that they won't.
|
|
|
|
hjx
Surely it's where you do the miles that counts.
It must be far more likely that you will have an accident being a little old lady driving your Metro around town, than the 50 k a year salesman on the motorway.
Fact is motorway driving is the safest way of travelling on the road.
Fact also - watching my 90 year old neighbour driving her 1986 Vauxhall Belmont up her driveway does not in any way shape or form back up the Norwich Unions theory.
She probably only drives 1000 miles ayear, but believe me they will all be 'exciting'!
|
|
|
|
There is no correlation between high mileage driving and accidents - those who do higher mileages are less likely to have accidents
Really? I wonder where you get that information from. Certainly Insurance Companies do not agree with you as they reduce premiums for low mileage drivers.(or increase it for high mileage drivers)
They argue there is a direct correlation as high mileage drivers spend longer on the road and are thus exposed to risk for longer periods - both from accidents that are their fault or someone elses fault.
|
I would be deeply uncomfortable about my every movement being recorded for posterity. With CCTV, numberplate recognition cameras and the like we are already closer to the 1984 scenario than we ever imagined.
And no doubt in time every crackpot nanny organisation in the country wil get legislation passed allowing it to access all such information "For the public good...the innocent have nothing to fear, etc"
No thanks, I prefer my freedom and anonimity.
|
|
Heh - the most shocking thing about 1984 is the fact that every day it gets less and less shocking.
|
OK lets just put this back in context.
Firstly I dont accept that they are non-something or others, nor do the insurance companies so tough!
Interestingly the only one that e34kid didn't object to was that it was the fault of all the other idiots on the road. I wonder if there is a connection between that response and his title ;-)
Secondly as has been pointed out already insurance companies do work out figures on average risks, and the ones mentioned are in fact risks, so tough! Hence the comments 'you are more likely' not 'you will'.
Thirdly given the general level of perfection by drivers on this board there must be some pretty diabolic ones out there that I haven't seen yet.
Finally who said that these are the only risks, I didnt!
|
Firstly I dont accept that they are non-something or others, nor do the insurance companies so tough!
A non-sequitor is an argument used to prove a point that doesn't logically follow. If all As are Bs then all Bs are As. That kind of thing. For example, your point that someone who does more miles drives faster. Can you run me through the equation for that one?
Interestingly the only one that e34kid didn't object to was that it was the fault of all the other idiots on the road. I wonder if there is a connection between that response and his title ;-)
My title? You mean E34kid. Ah - the kid bit. You're implying that I'm one of the idiots out there. With you now. Heh - I'm not actually a kid, I'm just flattering myself. No, the reason I didn't argue with that bit was that I couldn't see the point. If I do a high mileage and some idiot runs into the back of me then surely the claim is against his insurance not mine. As for whether or not I'm an idiot, let's leave that one until I run into the back of you.
And for the sake of completeness - I also didn't argue the point you made about driving at night and in bad conditions. It seemed a reasonable point. Someone who drives for a living (high-mileage) is likely to have to drive in all conditions when a recreational driver would choose not to.
Secondly as has been pointed out already insurance companies do work out figures on average risks, and the ones mentioned are in fact risks, so tough! Hence the comments 'you are more likely' not 'you will'.
You like the phrase "so tough" don't you. Anyway, back to the point. Yes, I'm aware that insurance companies generalise and I'm aware that high mileage drivers are considered more likely to have a claim. I think it's widely accepted that the majority of motoring accidents involve a car being driven and therefore if you're not driving a car you're less likely to have an accident than someone who is. So more miles = more risk. The points I was making were that it's not necessarily a linear relationship, and it's not necessarily down to the reasons you gave. Is a sales-rep doing 40,000 a year eight times more likely to have an accident than a little old lady who does 5,000 delivering meals on wheels a few times a week. Fortunately, mileage isn't the only criteria that insurance companies use to calculate quotes.
Thirdly given the general level of perfection by drivers on this board there must be some pretty diabolic ones out there that I haven't seen yet.
Do people on this board claim to be perfect? I don't. I admit there are times when I misjudge things, and make wrong decisions. You learn from them. But this board is here for people who are interested in motoring, and therefore the standard of driving is likely to be higher than the national average.
Finally who said that these are the only risks, I didnt!
Me either. I was just using the material I was given. Anyway, I was a couple of glasses of wine to the good last night, and having just arrived home from Poland I was tired and in an argumentative mood. I guess I was being idealistic rather than realistic, but I'd still be interested to hear from an insurance company who would like to stand up and claim that high-mileage drivers go faster than low-mileage ones.
|
|
|
|
>>There is no correlation between high mileage driving and accidents.
Cobblers.
|
What's the definition of high mileage?
I do about 30,000 miles per year. In 11 years I have had two accidents. In both instances I was sitting stationary at a red light when someone ran into the back of me.
I think that because of the hours and miles spent in my car I have experienced a large combination of driving over a mixed variety of roads, in different weather conditions, and in varying levels of light. I have made mistakes in those conditions which I have learned from.
Last night I drove in the worst conditions I have ever experienced. There was a combination of blinding sunlight, sheet lightning, forked lightning, torrential rain and hail. There must have been a couple of inches of water on the road. The conditions when I left home were fine. I slowed my speed down to an almost crawl, while some idiots must have been doing at least 40 mph in the second lane of the dual carriageway, tailgating each other. I doubt that miles driven by those people counted. They were just idiots.
I would say that it's not down to the miles driven, but more down to your own attitude to driving. I don't tailgate, if any one tailgates me I let them pass, and I no longer exceed the speedlimit, for economic reasons.
|
Something seems to be being missed here. The insurance is not purely based on milage....but also 'an agreed rate per mile' which implies that a low miles but risky driver (low NCB, high accident rate) might be charged many times more per mile than a low risk but high miles driver.
Regards
StarGazer
|
I think this scheme sounds very much like having a water meter fitted. It suits some people and not others.
The difference is that this proposal is akin to giving HMG access to detailed information about the frequency of your number 1's and number 2's.
No thanks.
Ed.
|
The difference is that this proposal is akin to giving HMG access to detailed information about the frequency of your number 1's and number 2's.
STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS!!! PLEASE!
|
|
|
|
pdc,
You are really proving the point some of us are making. Statistically if you drove 15,000 miles a year, only one person would have run into the back of you. Drive 5,000 miles a year and there would have only a 33.3% chance of an accident. I know that's an over-simplification but you get the drift.
"your own attitude to driving" affects the number of 'fault' accidents you have and your defensive driving might avoid some 'no fault' accidents. However as a high mileage driver you are exposed to greater risk simply by being on the road longer than a low mileage driver.
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
