Safe Speed Forums

How about making the Insurance companies report every driver at fault for any accident, those drivers are then automaticly given a fine & penalty points.

The severety of the accident should not be taken into account, if someone gets hurt, then the police deal with it.

But for your every day little knock, we could have something as follows:

Accidents in a 30 mph limit = 3 points

Accident in 40 mph limit = 4 points

Accident in 50 mph limit = 5 points

And so on.

Thus those drivers that cause the most accidents would be banned pretty quick.

_________________
Steve

I wouldn't trust insurance companies to decide who was "at fault" in an accident.

They don't tend make a huge effort to either pursue or defend cases unless there is a very large ammount of money at stake and are usually quite happy to settle 50/50, keep their costs down and put up the premium of both drivers.

It would also be punishment without trial.

And unfairly biased against people who do higher mileages.

Sorry, I'm trying not to be negative but I really can't see this idea going anywhere.

No, nor me. They are bound to act out of self-interest and will inevitably leave some poor sucker high and dry.

Sorry mate, like Homer I can't see this being developed in any way.

It is not up to the Insurance company, it is up to the insured. If it cannot be resolved, then it goes to court.



We are currentley punished by cameras, on pretense that we may be about to cause an accident



Do not accept that in any form, higher mileage drivers, should be better drivers. As i spend all of my time on the road, i have NIL accidents.

_________________
Steve

Another problem with this is that in many (possibly most) cases, "fault" is not clear-cut, and some element of blame can be attributed to both parties.

Also there are accidents which may be obviously the "fault" of one party, but the other party could have done something to avoid.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I notice you say you have not had any accidents, that would suggest you have not had to rely on an insurance company to fight your case. I have and they don't. What's more when I told them I was not prepared to settle they told me I had no say. Not having the resources to take the insurance company to court I can't say how true that was but a majority of drivers will be in the same situation.



My point exactly, so why would we want to make another system along the same lines.

I think this would be a terrible idea.

Even if it didn't involve verminous insurance companies, but was (say) administered entirely by the Police, it still wouldn't be a good idea. The problem is that it actually works against the true concepts of personal responsibility.

This can be illustrated by considering yacht/dinghy racing, in which I used to compete regularly. This is administered with a very strictly defined set of right of way rules, such that if two boats ever touch there is always a clear rule to determine which one is at fault. So the rules also dictate that if two boats do touch, then at least one must take a voluntary penalty, or else there must be a protest meeting and this has to result in the disqualification of the at-fault party.

Whilst this sounds like a great system, it actually isn't very effective in terms of avoiding accidents. The problem - which I'm sure would be duplicated if a similar idea were to be applied to motoring - is that it avoiding collisions becomes secondary to avoiding being blamed for them! I've seen situations where boats have been faced with an inevitable collision, and instead of steering to minimise the impact, one or other of the parties has deliberately steered to make the impact worse, but in such a way that it also made their right of way obvious, where a lesser glancing blow would have left much more doubt and therefore more risk of a later protest going against you.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

There's other problems with this idea. I'm thinking about what would have happened if such a system had been in place when that cyclist went into the side of my car. Cyclists are not insured, but she was quite able to cause damage. As far as the insurance company was concerned it was not in fact my fault, but became a "fault accident" due to the impossible task of recovering money from the person who was really at fault. In other words, although virtually stationary I would get points for this collision. At the moment I think an entirely non-fault accident simply means the other party coughed up and fault means costs were not recoverable. And a lot of the time if it's not crystal clear both companies will call it 50:50. Okay, this sort of thing could be avoided, but to do so the whole insurance industry would have to start investigating collisions in far greater depth than they're currently prepared to. Watch your premiums go up even more if that ever happens. I know you say that unresolved cases would be decided in court, but that then shifts the problem to one of court time, and the premiums would go up anyway due to all the claims made on legal cover defending or alleging bad driving.

Another difficulty is when collisions are not reported to insurers. Personally I wouldn't bother phoning the insurance company if the likely bill is less than my excess. Regardless of who's at fault and what the offence might be in law, I would not involve my insurance company. These would obviously be minor knocks, but effectively they would go largely unpunished. I'd expect more instances of people settling in cash specifically to avoid getting the insurers in, especially if they're on a lot of points and need to avoid copping any more. There might even be more people doing a runner or leaving fake details, and we don't need any more of that.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I run a fleet of trucks


I have and they don't. What's more when I told them I was not prepared to settle they told me I had no say.

They have no right, they are bluffing to get the case settled.



We wou7ld be punishing drivers that actually cause accidents

_________________
Steve

You should of made sure you had the cyclist details, No I.D, you call the Police to establish their full details.



2 people reversing into the same space, maybe

on the Highway it is very much more clear cut



I certainley would not allow my insurance company to act without my consent, we pay them to represent us, not the other way around.



You accept a non fault accident, that will rise your premium.


I know you say that unresolved cases would be decided in court, but that then shifts the problem to one of court time,




That would be upto the other party involved, i let the Insurance deal with all parties, for the trucks.


There might even be more people doing a runner or leaving fake details, and we don't need any more of that

_________________
Steve

The only way a person could do a runner, is if they have false plates fitted, or the vehicle is not registered to them, therefore it is being used illegally anyway, and they would naturally do a runner.

_________________
Steve

Non-injury accident, so a non-problem as far as plod were concerned. Cyclist was foriegn and had no idea where she was staying or what the phone number there was. Sure that could have been BS, but I could hardly beat it out of her, could I? Got her name but might as well have not bothered for all the good that it would ever do me. I suppose I could have demanded plod attend pronto before she took herself off home, but it was so obvious that I'd be peeing into the face of a force 9 I just couldn't see the point. And as far as my insurers were concerned it was a total non-starter as well. Easier for them to pay for the damage and put it down as a fault claim.

Probably true, but that doesn't make it likely that either insurance company is more likely to get off its arse and do an investigation. If the policyholders are doing an equal amount of finger pointing I'd bet almost all insurance companies will call it 50:50, even if it's closer to 90:10. Sometimes they'll 'lose' by doing this and sometimes they'll 'win'. Since it'll pretty much even out over the long term they can save the investigation costs a lot of the time.

NB - I don't know this is actually how it's done, but I'd put money on it. I can think of no other way of explaining how my old man had a 50:50 according to his insurer when he was hit by an overtaking moped which had crossed the white lines. At the time he was stationary in queueing traffic.

Action without consent isn't the problem. It's the tendency towards inaction, or at least the path of least resistance. They won't do an investigation unless they absolutely have to. And I very much doubt that the demands of the policyholder would count as "absolutely have to". Far as mine are concerned I got my car repaired, so why should I care if it's investigated and how thoroughly? And in the Ts and Cs it is indeed a "fault accident". Should I have taken out a policy with someone else? Well, I bought their insurance because they had the best quote for the same cover, and there's probably the same thing in the small print of other policies anyway. Will I renew with them? To be brutally honest it depends on next years premium. I know it sounds like I'm upset because they screwed me, but really it's just the way they do business (and if it was me I'd do it that way as well). I don't expect them to represent me, just to insure me. That's all they did because that's all they're paid to do. If the cyclist had claimed for a non-existent injury that'd be something else of course, and I would expect them to dig into my legal cover and hire me a lawyer. In fairness they did just enough of an investigation to defend that if it happens.

All this is quite reasonable when it comes to sorting out how damage is paid for, and how injuries are compensated. But I don't think it's a suitable system for determining severity of a traffic offence and what sort of punishment should apply.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Hit and runs happen on genuine plates fitted to registered vehicles at the moment, but I was more worried about the fake details bit. I should have made it clear that I was thinking of fake plates as well as fake docs. Yes, such vehicles are being used illegally already but this would do nothing to discourage it, and might just make the problem bigger.

I'm sorry for chucking cold water at this, and doubly sorry if it sounds like I'm being at all antagonistic. But I just honestly, honestly can't see any advantage and can think of a few problems. Not insurmountable problems, perhaps, but they would need some changes to be made. My basic worry is that it's involving the private sector in the justice system, and up till now it's been a pig's ear wherever that's been tried.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

There are enough problems getting the person to admit liablity - if police are not involved. Insurance companies are only concerned in limiting the pay-outs as much as possible - as evidenced by my "cyclist's helmet" thread, my own experience after Wildy's incident with the ill driver.

I recently insured one of our cars. In the insurance brokr's office I heard chap tell the broker that he had an ongoing case. He explained that the right hand rear of his car had been damaged by a biker. He saidd he was in the inner lane of a dual carriageway approaching a roundabout and traffic was approaching from his right. The biker claims he changed lanes immediately before the impact - which cannot be so if the car was struck 100% on the right hand side. Bloke has his car outside and it was indeed dented on the extreme right rear. Woman behind the counter told him that her own son had been to court over a somilar incident and won. Outside the court - the other guy told him that "it was worth a try to get some compo!"

Then you have the little problem of those not insured at all - and such a system would encourage more dodgers.

Also... in Wildy's incident - the guy's insurance company tried to pull a fast one on us. They lost - but it took a good lawyer, our own insurance company a long time to sort out.

Thus ...not a good idea to have insurance companies in charge of such decisions - as their one interest lies in keeping pay-outs down as much as possible.

Sometimes blame can be apportioned as well. 50/50; 80/20; and so on.
You could not really penalty point on this basis.

And as for cyclists.... Krissi (bless her!) broached this on C+. All those responsible folks on there told her that they were insured ... on home insurance. (Does not pay out as much as motor insurance!) But - as in Gatsomate's case - too many are not insured at all. This goes as a "fault" to the insured - even though he is not at fault.

Thus .. cannot work... and some places even hold a motorist partially liable for any crunch with a cyclist - even if the cyclist caused the accident! (Japan and Holland were the countries named on C+ in one rant back at Kriss...)

Cannot see it working...

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

I'm afraid this is actually not true. Look at your policy documentation. Since the insurance company is the one who is accepting the risk, it is the insurance company that settles the claim with other parties. Its one of the basic principles of insurance, namely, 'subrogation'.

Once an insurance company pays out compensation it becomes the owner of the item insured. The rights the insured person had in relation to seeking compensation from a third party pass over to the insurance company.

If you feel that you are not at fault and you fear that you may be held partially liable, do not ask your insurance company to compensate you, pursue the matter with the third party insurers yourself...or better yet, hope that you have legal expenses cover on your policy and ask that the legal department be notified (which will probably be a seperate company from the insurance firm), and state that you will be pursuing the claim directly from the third party.

Not all accidents happen on public roads. Are we going to give points for accidents on private property now.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Turn the argument on its head (and this isn't my idea, it was first proposed on Pistonheads). Instead of allocating points for accidents, allocate negative points for clean driving record. No accidents and no convictions = extra merits on driving licence. Start with 12, get 3 added per years clean record. Rewards the consistent safe driver - isn't that what we need?

The scamera partnerships would even approve as putting motorists out of the game with a ban reduces their potential income!

Only just noticed this post but yes, I agree the idea has merit. Not sure about the link with accidents but it could link to the existing penalty points system with negative points for offences and positive points for proven non-accident-involved driving record, additional training etc. Thus, if a person has received 6 penalty points so is carrying 6 points, he could (say) obtain IAM membership to restore his points to 12. Points total would provide a yardstick for insurance purposes.

So do I. Only problem I can see is with the process for actually adding the points to your licence and then querying the system to establish who has what points. Having to send your licence off a periodic intervals to have them added would be a right pain, and probably wouldn't happen. SO unless those who needed to access the information could access your 'driver account' at DVLA, I can see a cluster f*%£ developing.

Are we suggesting that the positive points would simply be used as proof of a good driving record, or that they could be "traded in" against offences?

If the latter, it might be claimed that the system would encourage people to drive irresponsibly if they had a substantial positive balance.

And would there be restrictions on the offences they could be used against? Some people, for example, might rather fancy the idea of four years' accident and conviction free driving giving them one "free" drink-driving offence

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed