Your higher rate makes a bit of sense. The worst problem is the small sample size. If everybody crashed a minimum of 100 times, then the risk estimates would be

Your higher rate makes a bit of sense. The worst problem is the small sample size. If everybody crashed a minimum of 100 times, then the risk estimates would be much better. The fact that you were hit is influenced by your risk factors. For example, maybe that is a bad intersection, and you always drive through it. Maybe it really is just the other driver being bad... but he and you happen to leave for work every day at a reliable time, making it likely that you will encounter him again. Maybe your car is hard to see. Determining "not at fault" is a fuzzy thing; perhaps a better driver would have somehow avoided the crash. The number of miles you drive is an influence on the number of crashes you get, and perhaps you drive more than is typical.