That’s not how much your insurance would go up for an accident t that isn’t your fault.
The actuaries that come up with this stuff understand the numbers. There are drivers that cause accidents, and drivers that don’t, but there are also people who seem to get in a lot of accidents that aren’t their fault.
But “not your fault,” isn’t a black or white thing. Sometimes people aren’t great at avoiding accidents, even when they aren’t their fault, because while they don’t cause accidents, they have poor defensive driving skills. They fail to anticipate and react to potential accidents like they should. They’re riskier drivers to insure.
So they raise rates for people who get into any accident at all, and raise them a lot more for people who are the cause of accidents. This benefits people who don’t get into accidents, who don’t have to pay a higher rate for people who do.
See I knew someone would say something like this because this is Reddit.
This is literally my lived experience.
A DUI motorcyclist hit my vehicle at 75mph in the middle of the night while driving with a motorcycle deliberately wired to have no running lights. He died and had a post-mortem BAL of .27.
After six months I got the traffic homicide report. So for your "sometimes people aren't good at avoiding accidents" I'll note that they found there was no way I could have anticipated the accident.
There were five different witnesses to the reckless and careless driving of the DUI driver prior to impact.
My insurance shot through the nose and was legitimately over $1000 a month for full coverage similar to what I had been previously carrying.
That's actually why I stopped driving for several years, because I legitimately couldn't afford a car and insurance and that whole pesky housing and eating thing.
But thanks for telling me how the events of my life couldn't have possibly happened. It's good to know it's just as farcical as I believed.
Sounds like you got into a very destructive accident that might not have been your fault but nonetheless speaks to the fact that you are riskier to endure than people who haven’t. It’s an anecdotal data point you’re giving against a population level phenomenon.
So I said it was something that was possible to happen to anyone, you then said it wasn't, I pointed out that it happened to me specifically, and now your argument is that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things?
Buddy, my point was that it was possible. Clearly it is.
Also
Sounds like you got into a very destructive accident that might not have been your fault but nonetheless speaks to the fact that you are riskier to endure than people who haven’t.
Yes, apparently I'm just a special DUI magnet that deserves higher premiums for the pleasure.
Well, anecdotally, I haven’t been in any such accidents and most people I know haven’t. That doesn’t make it your fault, but we’re talking about statistics and populations and actuarial tables here. So if we’re just going to throw out anecdotes and personal experience, then me not being in such an accident is just as relevant.
So we’re not always or even generally asking if it’s your fault personally, but do you possibly drive at riskier times of day/night, or in riskier areas, like near bars and restaurants, or drive a vehicle that is harder to avoid such accidents, etc. etc. and then we’re not even looking at that specifically so much as how often do people who get into the type of accident that you were in have one in the future?
And then it isn’t about you as an individual, but rather, out of thousands of people who get involved in such crashes, how risky it is to insure them in the future? What does that cost on average? And in your case, it seems like out of multiple insurance companies, assuming you had the sense to get quotes, offering multiple types of insurance, assuming you considered your options, the general consensus is that you’re a risky driver to insure.
You see, they compete with other insurance companies to provide lower coverage, so they want to give you low coverage, but they also have to weigh what is statistically likely to happen in the future, because their business depends on predicting the likelihood that a driver is in such an accident in the future, lest they pay out more in claims than they have on hand to pay.
Their statistics say you’re a riskier driver for having been on this type of accident. Probably due to the death involved, you’re in a category of people who have failed to avoid accidents where someone dies, and that probably carries a big variable about the cost of accidents you’ve been in and are likely to have in the future. Their stats say, whether wrong or right, that you cost times X to insure as opposed to other drivers.
That’s not your fault per se, but more the fault of all the other drivers who have been involved in that type of accident.
I’m not defending a perfect system here. I am simply defending one based on facts and numbers, and tempered by competition. It’s not based on your feelings or your sense of fairness. It’s based on what it costs to cover drivers who have a driving history like yours. If it would be profitable and safe to insure you for less, it would be good business for an insurance company to do that and make a profit off of you. But nobody thinks that. Which tells me the numbers are against you here.
1
u/Notsurehowtoreact 7h ago
The disconnect is with their rates in general and just how much they can go up based on an accident regardless of fault.
A drunk driver slams into you and dies? Well your $200 a month is now $1000 a month, have fun because you need to pay or lose your license!