Did anyone read of the woman in the £96k Merc who drove into a flooded river ford, ignoring road signs that the road was unsuitable for cars?
Or how about the woman who turned left onto a railway line because the satnav told her to?
Should insurance companies refuse to pay for this sort of stupidity?
What do you think?
2007-03-18 02:03:25 · 11 answers · asked by Duffer 6 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Other - Cars & Transportation
It's because insurance companies HAVE to pay out for such stupidity that the rest of us are saddled with such exorbitant premiums ! ! !
2007-03-18 02:51:28 · answer #1 · answered by Dover Soles 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
These are stupid mistakes,surely common sense dictates that you don't ignore a sign that tells you the road is unsuitable for cars,but no,people would rather take notice of a machine than their brains.The insurance companies should not pay out on acts of stupidity!,there are some really thick people out there
2007-03-18 09:19:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Putting aside insurance and gender issues, anyone who is so daft as to ignore common sense and the evidence of their own eyes and drive into a river because the satnav directed them to is in my opinion just plain stupid. It puts the fear of God in me that such people are allowed on the road in the first place.
2007-03-19 13:33:07 · answer #3 · answered by Trixie Bordello 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hate to say this as a woman but I suppose that is why we have 'women only insurance' - the insurance companies should pay up because men cause more accidents that involve other cars at least when we do something stupid like what you mentioned we are not hurting others - just our pride!!
2007-03-18 09:12:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
People who are this stupid should not be allowed to drive their cars anymore. Their insurance does cover them, and they may not have committed a traffic offence which allows their licence to be revoked, but the insurance companies should refuse to insure these people again, thus removing them from the road.
2007-03-18 16:41:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, talk about brains in neutral! I'd like to see 'em prosecuted for, at a minimum, careless driving and, in cases like that stupid cow driving onto a railway line, dangerous driving.
Sad, isn't it, that everyone else has to suffer for those ignoramuses who shouldn't be allowed onto the road.
What's next, driving flat out into a brick wall "because the sat-nav said so"?
2007-03-18 10:26:26 · answer #6 · answered by champer 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I may be wrong but i allways thought insurance was to cover you for damages in an Accident?These were not accidents,both could have been avoided.Its like in the winter leaving your engine running to warm car up,then going back into house for something.Somebody steals your car,should you be paid?
2007-03-18 09:21:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, insurance should cover it because us humans are DUMBER than rocks. Our stupidity and non-attentive skills is what insurance is made for.
2007-03-18 09:11:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. That's what insurance is for. If insurance did not cover people doing stupid things, there would be no need for insurance.
2007-03-18 09:07:33 · answer #9 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It's because of these people that our premiums are increased!
2007-03-18 09:10:22 · answer #10 · answered by Sunday 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋