Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It is properly a mix of the two things, that said it does seem strange to increase the rate since the other guy would have to pay.



If you drive defensively (if you've ever been a motorcyclist you'll know what I mean) then you can avoid accidents which nonetheless would not of been your fault. Thus, any accident is an _indicator_ (but not a perfect one) that you may not be the best of drivers.

An example might be the very common rear-end shunt at a roundabout (or "circle" in South Africa, not sure if you have 'em in the US) - an experienced driver will [usually] pull away confidently without hesitating. A less experienced driver can misjudge more often and set off only to suddenly stop, leaving the car behind to crash into them. Strictly road-lore says the rear driver should have observed better, they are liable as they crashed into a [near] stationary vehicle - but the foremost driver is hardly without blame. Yes, the rear vehicles insurance pays out for all damage; but the insurer of the front vehicle would be right in judging them a greater insurance _risk_.

It doesn't always work (some good drivers will just get unlucky and be hit by cars they can't avoid) but that's a rough version of a rationale.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: