On 29 Apr 2008 13:45:55 GMT, Athol <athol_SPIT_SPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Alan K. <No@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "Almost 90 cars are vandalised in NSW each week, with damage running
>> to $16 million a year, new research shows.
>
>Do they get their figures from the police re****ts, or from the insurance
>companies, or both?
The actual press release is here:
http://www.nrma.com.au/about-us/media-releases/20080429-b.shtml
The "almost 90 cars each week" comes from claims lodged with NRMA
Insurance (4500 in 2007, averaging a bit over 86.5 per week), the $16M
"has been extrapolated to provide an estimated community cost".
In other words, it's a semi-wild assed but semi-educated guess. Most
likely they assumed that the pro****tion of general car owner****p that
gets vandalised is the same as the pro****tion of their user base that
made a claim.
Though intuitively I'd suggest that the value would be higher, since
not every owner who had a slimebag do the nasty on his car will claim
on it. In some cases the excess wouldn't be worth it, in others the
owner will only have liability insurance. There's no mention in the
release of the method that they used to extrapolate, or which factors
they took into account.
Reading between THESE lines:
""We know that one in five insured car owners agree to pay a higher
than average excess, in the belief they won't need to make a claim –
but in fact minor damage such as that caused by thieves or vandals is
common and the damage may often be less than the excess they have
agreed to pay,"
, it looks to me like the general thrust of the press release was:
"Don't go for an excess because they doesn't put money in our pockets,
pay a higher premium with a lower excess! That way we all win! Well,
WE do anyway, you maybe not so much."
See also: "Insurance shysters", summoning the ghost of Toby P.
>I didn't bother re****ting the vandalism to my falcon because it would
>have been a waste of my time in re****ting it, and they would never have
>done anything about it anyway. There's not much chance of identifying
>the perpetrator(s)...
>
>The insurance companies know that a lot of vandalism simply isn't
>re****ted to the police for the same reason. They asked if it had been
>re****ted but didn't care that it hadn't been.
Yes, had it been based on police re****ts the numbers would probably
have been lower for that reason. Although, interestingly, in the
2006-2007 annual re****t of the NSW Police Force (yeah, OK, I sometimes
have weird reading habits) the only major offence category that had
been trending upwards in the preceding 24 months was stealing from a
motor vehicle. Over the preceding 5 years, the only one trending up
was malicious damage, which brings us back to where we started,
specifically...
>I'm without my car for this week...
.... with a pack of a**holes who have probably never done a decent
thing in their lives and wouldn't have been missed had they been
drowned at or even before birth.
|
