Hurray for database on bad drivers

[Greatbirdlegend]

 

i apologize if this has been posted before.

 

---

 

 

Hurray for database on bad drivers

 

By Christopher Tan

 

A FEW months ago, a colleague lost control of his car and almost ended up in a ditch. He was trying to avoid a taxi that had swerved suddenly into his path to pick up a fare.

 

My colleague's insurer has since paid for the repairs, and did not cut his no-claims discount, largely because there were witnesses who corroborated his account of the potentially fatal incident.

 

However, my colleague is adamant that the taxi's insurer should provide full compensation, and he is pursuing this through a lawyer.

 

Every so often, I would receive mail from readers who have had minor accidents, which end up with the other party filing exaggerated claims. I can feel the frustration in their words.

 

So, it is comforting to learn that the General Insurance Association (GIA) is setting up a high-tech database to keep track of bad drivers.

 

These include drivers who meet with accidents frequently, drivers who have made inflated or fraudulent claims in the past, and drivers who refuse to cooperate with accident investigations.

 

The database, which should be up in about a year's time, is expected to work like the credit bureau which banks and other financial institutions tap into when checking the creditworthiness of a potential client.

 

Insurers in the United States, Britain and other parts of Europe have such systems in place to help them manage their exposure to risk.

 

It will also help to keep premium costs down for the majority of good and honest drivers. Bad and dishonest drivers can expect their premiums to soar and, in the worst-case scenario, even find themselves uninsurable.

 

This stance may seem a tad draconian to some, but it is the right approach.

 

Decent drivers have had to bear the cost burden of folks with a poor regard for safety - and a low degree of integrity to match - for too long. The database will allow insurers to take targeted action against these parties.

 

Together with the demerit point system the Traffic Police have in place, it will hopefully bring about better driving and roads that are safer for all.

 

It would be a bonus if it could also put a lid on exaggerated claims - maybe $5,000 for a slightly scratched bumper, or $50,000 for a medically unsubstantiated whiplash injury.

 

Hopefully, the GIA will be transparent in the way it decides who makes it to the roll of dishonour. And whether the information in the database differentiates between motorists who are habitually getting into accidents, and those who have suffered a stroke of bad luck (for example, 20 years of a clean record prior to two accidents in the past year).

OUT NOW: This month's issue of Torque magazine is out on news-stands.

 

On average, drivers here get into an accident once every five years. So, if you're involved in more than one crash in five years, will you be blacklisted automatically? Will every accident you meet with haunt you? Or only those in which you have been found to be more than 50 per cent at fault?

 

Methinks honest drivers need not worry too much. The GIA's top priority, after all, is to weed out the fraudsters.

 

On my part, I have decided to install a video surveillance system in my car. It will not only provide irrefutable evidence that will come in handy the next time I need to make an insurance claim, but it is also a supplementary security device for the home (as the vehicle is parked in my porch).

 

myp@sph.com.sg

[Tom_kkh]

i don think with such system, the decent drivers will enjoy lower rates... just another excuse for insurers to impose and justify a much higher rates to bad drivers.

[Greatbirdlegend]

  On 9/2/2011 at 2:23 AM, Tom_kkh said:

i don think with such system, the decent drivers will enjoy lower rates... just another excuse for insurers to impose and justify a much higher rates to bad drivers.

 

i think you are right.

since when do we ever get cheaper anything.

[Shull]

  On 9/2/2011 at 2:28 AM, Greatbirdlegend said:

i think you are right.

since when do we ever get cheaper anything.

 

price is relative.. it will be cheaper than high-risk drivers..

[Maxus-MIFA9]

Insurance companies can do whatever they want but installing a cam recorder in the car is the best to catch those who want to cheat with fiticious claims ......

[Greatbirdlegend]

  On 9/2/2011 at 2:37 AM, Picnic06 said:

Insurance companies can do whatever they want but installing a cam recorder in the car is the best to catch those who want to cheat with fiticious claims ......

 

I know this has been discussed to death on other threads but any quick recommendation or summary on which system is value for money?

I was thinking about this from last week when an idiot was inches from blind-siding me because he was on the phone.

[PSP415]

This is gd news. At least it acts as a deterent to those fraudsters in e making. Whether premiums will be lowered, hopefully it will nt keep increasing every year due to inflated/fraudulent claims.

 

As with all systems, it will only be as effective as there is constant policing done, otherwise, a white elephant of outdated or erroneous data.

 

 

Cheers

[Kaixing]

I really hope such a move will lower the insurance premiums of good drivers and not classify them under the type of car one is driving.

[Csnewbie]

Govt's fault!

 

Govt should lift compulsory insurance coverage.

 

then all will vie for business and give lower rates.

 

currently its a taking advantage of situations by various parties. :angry:

 

another case of Govt negligence and misguided policy.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Csnewbie

[Takumi21]

how to qualify to enlist to the black listed?

 

how to get out of e black listed?

[Darryn]

  On 9/2/2011 at 3:02 AM, Csnewbie said:

Govt's fault!

 

Govt should lift compulsory insurance coverage.

 

then all will vie for business and give lower rates.

 

currently its a taking advantage of situations by various parties. :angry:

 

another case of Govt negligence and misguided policy.

 

No WAY!!

 

Compulsory insurance is a GOOD thing. Most countries have it. Those that don't, have some pretty vocal advocates to start it.

 

If no compulsory insurance can you imagine some poly student bang your backside while driving an 8 year old G plate - he no marney to pay then how?

 

[Csnewbie]

  On 9/2/2011 at 3:14 AM, Darryn said:

No WAY!!

 

Compulsory insurance is a GOOD thing. Most countries have it. Those that don't, have some pretty vocal advocates to start it.

 

If no compulsory insurance can you imagine some poly student bang your backside while driving an 8 year old G plate - he no marney to pay then how?

bang then claim privately lor.

 

if no accident no need pay anything.

 

its fair to somebody like me who's never involve in any own fault accident for past 10+ years.

[Csnewbie]

just a suggestion.

 

tweak it to workable before dismissing it.

 

can put laws to allow private claim.

 

anyway insurance doesnt cover everything.

 

i came over somebody paid with own money n went bankrupt,even w insurance.

[Bighappyjer]

  On 9/2/2011 at 3:18 AM, Csnewbie said:

bang then claim privately lor.

 

if no accident no need pay anything.

 

its fair to somebody like me who's never involve in any own fault accident for past 10+ years.

 

Har?? Claim privately lor? Claim from God or gahment if both drivers are not insured??

 

edit: Ah, saw your following post. So you want to initiate litigation over a $500 bumper.. You've never had to go through that process before, right? It's not as simple as you would think, my friend.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Bighappyjer

[Darryn]

  On 9/2/2011 at 3:18 AM, Csnewbie said:

bang then claim privately lor.

 

if no accident no need pay anything.

 

its fair to somebody like me who's never involve in any own fault accident for past 10+ years.

 

No it's more UNFAIR to someone like you.

 

Compulsory insurance means that all those people that hit you, they have insurance - so you don't have to claim own insurance.

 

The option is that if the OTHER driver no insurance, then your insurance company pays first, and then chases the other party. Compulsory insurance stops this.

 

The people that (mostly) don't like compulsory insurance are the high risk drivers - this sort of person would rather not have insurance and take their chances then pay the high high rates they are charged.

 

For example a 22 yr old driving a REX - I have seen figures quoted of $7 or $8k - this sort of driver would forgo insurance if they could (at least some) and "take their chances" that if they have an accident it would cost less than the insurance premium would have.

[Csnewbie]

  On 9/2/2011 at 3:31 AM, Bighappyjer said:

Har?? Claim privately lor? Claim from God or gahment if both drivers are not insured??

you really dont understand how our current insurance sys works

 

i alrdy said ppl can claim when insurance doesnt cover under current sys.

 

get more info....get a life.

[Darryn]

  On 9/2/2011 at 3:31 AM, Bighappyjer said:

Har?? Claim privately lor? Claim from God or gahment if both drivers are not insured??

 

edit: Ah, saw your following post. So you want to initiate litigation over a $500 bumper.. You've never had to go through that process before, right? It's not as simple as you would think, my friend.

 

I would say it's not so much about "winning" the case, the claim, being judged to be in the right - the issue is more one of "ability to pay" of the other party.

 

 

If the other person has no marney (eg a poly student) then being right doesn't mean much - because you can't collect anyway.

 

In the US there is a term for it...it's called "Judgement Proof" Which basically means that any victory you win will be hollow, because you ain't gonna get no marney.

[Csnewbie]

the point is insurance doesnt cover everything...

 

eg:speeding,drink-driving,driving without a licence.

 

yes r no?