I guess for a certain percentage of 'not at fault' incidents, it was still avoidable if the not at fault party had been a 'safer'/more cautious/better driver? Therefore it's indicative of being at greater risk of causing a incident in the future...
e.g. you're driving along at 30 in a 30 and have to slam on your brakes to avoid a child running across the road at the last minute and driver behind rear ends you. You're not at fault, but you could have spotted the risk sooner and adjusted your speed in advance of them becoming a hazard?
That's how they explained it to me when my premium raised slightly after reporting incidents, statistics innit. Luckily mine was nothing like 25% but that may have something to do with me not being in the car and it being parked 2 out of the 3 times!
I guess for a certain percentage of 'not at fault' incidents, it was still avoidable if the not at fault party had been a 'safer'/more cautious/better driver? Therefore it's indicative of being at greater risk of causing a incident in the future...
e.g. you're driving along at 30 in a 30 and have to slam on your brakes to avoid a child running across the road at the last minute and driver behind rear ends you. You're not at fault, but you could have spotted the risk sooner and adjusted your speed in advance of them becoming a hazard?