I see your point there. Had a buddy once who hit a deer on a foggy morning—totaled his car, and the insurance treated it like just another random comprehensive claim. Didn't really reflect how careful he usually was behind the wheel. You're right, having animal incidents separate could give insurers clearer data to work with. I'm not totally convinced it'll lead to lower premiums, but it definitely feels like it'd make risk assessments fairer and maybe even boost driver awareness in wildlife-heavy areas...
"Didn't really reflect how careful he usually was behind the wheel."
Yeah, that's the frustrating part right there. Insurance companies lumping everything together makes it feel like careful drivers are getting penalized for stuff that's totally out of their control. I commute daily through some pretty rural stretches, and animal encounters are just a matter of when, not if. Had a close call with a deer last month—thankfully missed it, but man, it shook me up good.
I'm still skeptical that separating animal incidents would actually lower premiums (insurance companies always seem to find a reason not to), but you're onto something about better risk assessment and awareness. If nothing else, clearer data might at least push local authorities to put up more signs or warnings in wildlife-heavy areas. Worth a shot, anyway...
If nothing else, clearer data might at least push local authorities to put up more signs or warnings in wildlife-heavy areas.
I get your point about clearer data possibly nudging local authorities toward better signage, but honestly, I'm not sure more signs would make a huge difference. Around here, we've got plenty of wildlife warnings posted, yet animal collisions still happen regularly. Drivers tend to tune out signs after a while anyway. Maybe investing in roadside reflectors or fencing in high-risk areas would be more effective? Just thinking aloud...though I agree insurance companies could definitely do better at distinguishing between genuine risk and plain bad luck.
I hear you on the signage thing. A few years back, I was driving my Audi up near Tahoe—middle of the night, pitch black, and yeah, plenty of those yellow wildlife signs everywhere. Didn't stop a deer from bolting right in front of me. Luckily, I managed to brake in time, but it was way too close for comfort. After that scare, I started looking into those roadside reflectors you mentioned. Turns out some areas have had decent success with them, especially combined with fencing in really high-risk spots. Signs are easy to ignore after you've seen them a hundred times, but physical barriers or reflectors seem harder to tune out. Honestly, I'd rather see my insurance premiums go toward something practical like that than just paying out claims after the fact.
Totally get where you're coming from on this. A few quick thoughts from my side:
- Signs are helpful reminders, sure, but they're passive measures. Like you said, after a while, they just blend into the scenery.
- Physical barriers and reflectors are definitely more proactive. I've seen some data showing they significantly reduce wildlife collisions in certain areas—especially when combined with fencing.
- From an insurance perspective, investing in prevention is always smarter (and cheaper) than dealing with claims afterward. Claims drive up everyone's premiums, not just the unlucky driver involved.
- Glad you managed to avoid that deer collision...those can be nasty and expensive. I've handled claims where even minor deer hits ended up costing thousands in repairs.
Anyway, good on you for looking into practical solutions rather than just relying on luck or signage alone. It's always better to be proactive about risk management—keeps everyone safer and saves money in the long run.
