"Should I use insurance in an accident?" 3 grades down x 3 years break-even
Should I use insurance in an accident 🚗
You must have thought about it once 🤔
The total premium increase for the three-year cumulative period in the case of a third-grade accident is 120,000 yen per year and 220,000 yen on a 20th-grade no-accident basis, while the average repair cost per case of objective compensation payment is 300,000 yen (2022, Non-Life Insurance Premium Rate Calculation Organization).
If it's a simple comparison, it's about 80,000 yen better to use insurance 💰
However, the weight of the burden that "about 220,000 yen will be additionally generated in three years" should also be included in the judgment material.
The year after the third grade down accident, from 20 grade no accident to 17 grade accident.
The discount rate drops from -63% to -38%, and if there are no accidents, it will be restored by one grade every year, and finally return to the original 20th grade in the fourth year 🌱
This is where loss aversion bias comes into play (Tversky & Kahneman 1991, cited 6,600 +).
Behavioral economics has shown that there are a certain number of people who psychologically overestimate future losses due to grading down and choose to pay for themselves.
On the other hand, in the empirical study of "excessive enrollment of home insurance" (Sydnor 2010, cited 363), there is also a tendency to use excessive insurance for small risks.
Knowing which side you are on is the first step to being convinced and choosing ✨
The repair cost itself is also soaring 📈 the payment of objective compensation is 267,000 yen in 2018 → 3004,000 yen in 2022 (+ 12.5%) per case. LED headlamps, sensors for automatic braking, insulated glass. The evolution of cars has created "expensive and difficult cars to fix."
The decision you make is the right decision for you 🌷
There will come a moment when being able to decide without hesitation after knowing the numbers will be useful 😌
─ ─
[Source]
Tversky, A. (1991), Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (4), 1039-1061.
Sydnor, J. (2010) Insuring Modest Risks, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2 (4), 177 199.
・ Non-Life Insurance Premium Rate Calculation Organization "Overview of 2025 Auto Insurance"
・ Non-Life Insurance Premium Rate Calculation Organization "Notice of Auto Insurance Reference Net Rate Revision" (June 2024)
・ Non-life insurance rate calculation mechanism "Automobile insurance reference net rate" coefficient table
[Term supplement]
Non-Fleet Class: Auto Insurance Premium Increase System for Classes 1 to 20
Accident Factor: 3 grade down A factor with a low discount rate applied for three years from the year following the accident
Objective liability insurance: Insurance that compensates for damages in the event of destroying another person's property
Choosing a car # car _ life I want to connect with car lovers Studying money.
私自身も過去に交通事故で保険利用を迷った経験があります。特に3等級ダウンによる保険料の増加を知ったとき、将来の負担を重く感じて自腹で修理する選択を考えました。しかし、実際の支払い総額を冷静に計算してみると、修理費用が増加した保険料を大きく上回るケースもあることに気づきました。 心理学でいう「損失回避バイアス」は、私のように将来の損失を過大に感じてしまい、短期的な負担を避けたくなる傾向を説明してくれます。一方で、小さなリスクに対して過剰に保険を使用する人もいて、自分のリスクに対する感情やスタンスを理解することが大切だと感じました。 また、近年の自動車の部品コスト上昇は保険利用の判断を難しくさせています。LEDヘッドランプやセンサーなど高額部品の修理費増加により、軽微な事故でも修理費が以前より高くなっているからです。私の友人は小さな事故でも保険を使わないと結果的に高額な修理費を自腹で払うことになり損をしてしまいました。 ですので、3年間の保険料増加と修理費用のバランスを計算しつつ、自身の心理的な傾向も理解したうえで判断することが最善だと思います。例えば、修理費が約22万円以上の場合は保険を使う方が経済的には有利ですが、損失回避の気持ちが強い方は短期的な自腹負担を選ぶことも一つの合理的選択です。 最後に、自分の選択が「自分にとっての正解」と納得できることが、一番重要だと感じました。保険内容や等級の仕組みを知り、数字で判断する準備をしておくことで、もしもの時に迷わず決断できるようになります。皆さんもこの記事を参考に、自分に合った保険の使い方を考えてみてください。