Who would you charge the highest insurance rates?

Person B i would charge the highest

Not B. 6 speeding tickets vs. 2 accidents. Hmmm. Speed kills, maybe just not yet. Person A.

Over what period of time?.....Person C

Ooops! NOT Person C

Person A, should be charged the highest

difficult. A or C would most likely be my choices and i might put C slightly ahead because of the accidents but A is reckless. i was A and now i understand how reckless it is.

> Not B. 6 speeding tickets vs. 2 accidents. Hmmm. Speed kills, maybe
> just not yet. Person A.

i had the same dilemma.......

I'm having trouble deciding between B and C. My inclination is that even though B's accidents weren't their fault, there's got to be something about how they drive that makes accidents happen to them. Carelessness, bad awareness, something. But C could be the worse driver. It's hard to say. I guess I'll go with C.

Person C has accidents that are their fault, so I'd say person c.

Dunno. Definitely not person B.

Probably person C, because sometimes speed limits are stoopid.

I'll yack up the prices really high on all of them, and buy some new shoes. Hahhahhahaah!

I'd go with Person B. It doesn't have to be your fault, but some people just seem to invite trouble.

Obviously person C. That person is the one costing the insurance company money. The others don't.

I wonder if there's a right answer?

Would Person A still hold a valid driver's license using this model? I'm assuming, in real life, s/he would be charged the highest rates. Fault is difficult to determine: the driving laws in Hong Kong, with regards to fault, are very different from those in the US. Not sure where this is based. In a completely fair world, Person C would be charged the most. Statistically (and insurance tends to be based on statistics), I'm not sure which person who cost the insurance company the most in the long run. I also wonder if there is something weird about the way Person B drives. Does s/he drive too slow which causes other drivers to get frustrated and then make reckless moves which result in accidents? And Person A might have just been lucky with their speeding. I would like to know how fast Person A was going when s/he was ticketed.

probably not....... they must have stats on # of tickets = ? number of accidents and number of accidents = ? # of repeat accidents.

Person A, because the fact they are inclined to speeding means that if/when they do have an accident, the car is more likely to be seriously damaged than the minor bumps and scratches the other drivers accumulate.

Person C is the only one who would have cost us money, therefore they would pay the highest premiums.

Person A because I hate it when people speed and get caught. Six times is too many times.

all of them get highest rate. i want my company to make money don't I.

Well?

> Well?

I would charge the one with the 4 accidents.

Sorry, but I just think its the drivers responsibility (up to a point) to dodge traffic accidents even if other people cause them. That's just part of driving. If someone doesn't avoid them, then I figure they're a bad driver and that sooner or later they will cause one as well. I know it sounds like blaming the victim, but thats just what I think. I wonder if my opinion coincides with others (my theory is guys closer to my age are more likely to agree than others).

As for speeding tickets, (as I've said before-- many times) I don't have a lot of faith in the government (think Jeremy the highway patrol dude) figuring what constitutes safe driving. It doesn't help that certain jurisdictions ticket more because they're more cash strapped, so its not a fair comparison anyway. I figure that traffic accidents are the best indicator of someone's driving ability.

I wondered if you created the scenerio yourself, or if this was something that you were aware of how an insurance company would look at it.

I completely agree that one major thing about driving is being aware of what all the other morons are doing. I definitely considered it when I chose my answer. I decided I really need more information. What if all 4 of those accidents were really no fault of their own?

So since I don't really have enough info, I chose the person with 2 confirmed, at-fault accidents.

I would reason that "on average" two accidents that "aren't your fault" is about equivalent to one accident that "is your fault". So its kinda close between the 4 accidents not at fault and 2 accidents being at fault. Remember that legally speaking on average theres one person at fault and one isn't. But realistically, avoiding accidents is the whole point, not just being at fault, so its kinda a toss up.

I still think that 4 accidents is worse than 2, even if both of them were your fault.

I would charge them all the same? Having accidents to me, make better drivers. They are now experienced enough in the defensive driving mode. Accidents which are not at fault...hard to believe. Most go two ways, but I am aware that having accidents, again, make better drivers. I could be way off base here, but that is how I htink.
Speeding tickets and no accidents would be my first choice. That is not learning how to drive defesively and is an accident waiting to happen.
So...person A.