car insurance - driver accident or driver incompetence

[KaoriFan]

have thought about this the last few days, having seen many idiots on the road and off it.

 

when someone claims on the insurance i feel their should be a distinction between accident and incompetence to see if a claim is allowed to proceed.

 

we pay so much for car insurance, and cover all the 'idiots' that are incompetent as well as the one's who have genuine cases.

 

in my mind, a claim for an accident, is fine, but one for an incompetent person should be denied.

 

accidents are things we don't have much control over, tyres blowing at speed, someone hitting us, etc etc.

 

incompetence should cover things drivers are responsible for.

example, over the last few years here, we had people reverse onto the railway line through Sainsbury's car park. i also remember somewhere in the country someone driving the car into the swimming pool.

both of those are negligence/incompetence and should not be covered by insurance, if they need repairs pay for it themselves.

 

the whole insurance process is unfair to safe/competent drivers. why should they pay more to cover other's stupidity

 

ah well, rant over

[xksupra]

good idea, but how long would it take to prove you had a genuine accident and were not incompetent?

 

I could imagine every insurer using it to slow down every claim. The tyre blowing at high speed for example, What if the insurer claimed you couldnt have had the tyres at the correct psi and therefore were incompetent.

 

but i do like the general idea