Dysfunctional insurance market strikes again (older used cars in the firing line)

Eric Cartman · 23-07-2015 10:57pm

mikeym wrote: »

And will Labour/Fine Gael care about the lower income families and young people.

They dont give two Sheds about the poor :mad:

Insurance companies are getting away with murder in this joke of a country.

they 21 billion quid a year care about the poor.

all Ill say is, if its between an e38 and a dacia dustpan hitting a wall at 50mph i think id rather all the leather and german engineering cushion my stop.

Pov06 · 23-07-2015 11:07pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

they 21 billion quid a year care about the poor.

all Ill say is, if its between an e38 and a dacia dustpan hitting a wall at 50mph i think id rather all the leather and german engineering cushion my stop.

The truth is insurance companies would prefer that you crashed in a Dacia because you would do less damage to the third party.

Imagine if you could drive a Tesco bag on wheels!

galwaytt · 23-07-2015 11:15pm

To Elland Back wrote: »

It's not legislation, it is 2 private businesses deciding what they want (or don't want) to sell to the public

In which case, as their licence to write cover here does not allow for discrimination (on the basis of age...sic), then the Govt should pull their licence for this market completely, and let them fupp off back to the UK/Germany/wherever.

the Govt needs to get off the fence on this: 250,000 uninsurable motorists due to corporate greed means unless they want another PMPA fiasco it's high time they stood up for the people of this country - mind you, the Gov'ts record of doing this is even more appalling.......

Old diesel · 23-07-2015 11:16pm

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I don't know if we have a "nice cup of tea and toe the line" forum, but this is a forum for motoring enthusiasts, many of whom have very well looked after cars that fall foul of the recent trends in the insurance market.

Tis a wonder anyone could get insured in 1998 or 1988. Imagine, in 1998 the very best and newest cars on the road were apparently deathtraps. I mean if it's a safety features thing, I guess people in the last century must have been paying at least half their take home pay on car insurance and it has come down in relative figures as safety improved?

No? Really? I'm shocked.

It's a wonder the human race survived 20th century automobiles at all.

Bear in mind as well SC - the balls of scrap people were driving around in pre NCTs. But yet - no problem insuring cars.

I think the insurance companies have a difficulty/issue but the problem is - its too hard for them to properly iron the issue through risk assessing all varieties of older cars and owners - so its easier for them to just decline the business.

The bald tyres and dodgy claims are poor reasons because....

1) Talk of bald tyres suggest - that the insurers aren't fully aware of what and who exactly they are insuring. if they did know - theyd realise that there are older cars out there that a) not only are very well maintained but b) are on the road driving well today PRECISELY because they are well maintained.

2) if people are getting up to dodgy dealings - deal with THOSE - deny THEM insurance - they shouldn't get insurance at all - and get them through the courts. Why do honest drivers need to be turned down for insurance because of OTHER peoples dodgy antics.

Nate--IRL-- · 23-07-2015 11:18pm

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Aside from that...

At this stage I'm wondering should I don the tinfoil hat... I've never seen media focus like this on some of the daft and cynical rubbish from insurance companies.

Insurance companies are big spenders with the media. Certain things don't get discussed.

Even worse, they get spokesmen for the industry slots on the main evening news, to peddle what ever bull**** reason for hikes, unquestioned by the gormless reporter.

No Tin Foil Hat required, they are quite effective at buying PR, they can afford to be.

Nate

galwaytt · 23-07-2015 11:21pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Are you a trained actuary with full access to claim data from a large scale insurance company? I'm not, so I'm not questioning their figures.

I'm not, and that's EXACTLY why I DO question their figures. We all know there are factors in caluclation of premia that are completely outside of risk calculation: time of year you go shopping for cover, for instance - where's the 'risk analysis' in that ??

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Damm their actual figures. How dare they try to make money in the open market.

In this case somebody in the market will either clean up(because the others were wrong on their figures) or they will find themselves with a high proportion of claims and will lose money heavily.

The former is open to question, the latter is hopefully a case of them biting the hand that feeds them.

ToxicPaddy · 23-07-2015 11:53pm

My car is 2001, so next year it's hitting the magic 15 yo mark. I pay €500 a year fully comp, road tax of €620, if I'm forced to pay a huge amount more for car insurance then I'll sell the car and that's that. No more insurance money from me.

I probably do 5k miles a year in my car, zero penalty points, 15 years of clean driving. I live in the city centre so walk everywhere including to work. The car gets used going for a spin at the weekends or down the country maybe once a month.

There is no way I can justify paying for a newer car that will sit there while I make payments for it and it not being used.

I'm getting so sick of this country and its rocketing costs, once I'm finished my night classes, I'm packing up and leaving. It's just gone beyond a joke at this stage.

I understand some companies have been but hard by claims etc but sure penalising a whole raft of people who have older cars simply because they can't afford newer cars is unacceptable

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly · 23-07-2015 11:53pm

In a way though it doesn't matter.

If I buy a 15 year old car for €650 and pay a high premium it's still markedly cheaper than buying a 5 year old car for €6500 and paying a couple of hundred less in insurance yearly.

Cookie_Monster · 24-07-2015 12:20am

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Whats the problem?

the problem is you have no choice in getting insurance or not so the very limited number of companies in the industry can operate a handy little cartel between then safe in the knowledge they have a reasonably fixed customer base that they are free to gouge at will. You need a car in Ireland to get around outside the 3 or 4 major cities, PT doesn't work.

What you have to pay in Ireland to tax and insure your car is scandalous and for no good reason other than lazy legislators unwilling to deal with the problems.

to put it in perspective I drive a 2005 Legacy, 3L petrol. 83 euro for a years tax and 230e fully comp insurance for me and my wife.
It would easily be ten times than in Ireland, if not more - if I could even manage to get a quote on such a car. How can anyone argue in favour of it being anything other than a total ripoff

Liam McPoyle · 24-07-2015 1:47am

galwaytt wrote: »

In which case, as their licence to write cover here does not allow for discrimination (on the basis of age...sic), then the Govt should pull their licence for this market completely, and let them fupp off back to the UK/Germany/wherever.

the Govt needs to get off the fence on this: 250,000 uninsurable motorists due to corporate greed means unless they want another PMPA fiasco it's high time they stood up for the people of this country - mind you, the Gov'ts record of doing this is even more appalling.......

You do know that PMPA's collapse and the subsequent introduction of the insurance levy was because of insolvency ie they didn't have enough money to cover their claims, right?

By the two companies taking corrective measures now against unprofitable business they (the companies) are taking measures to avoid such a scenario happening again.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, claims are on the rise, road deaths are on the rise, payments into the millions of euro territory for life impacting, catastrophic injuries are on the rise.

The data shows that a disproportionate number of the above involve older cars.

It is simply not feasible to look at every single person as an individual, the time and cost involved would be massive so the fairest (sic) thing insurers can do is to look at what broad sub section of their book of business is costing the most money and stop writing that class of business.

Cookie_Monster · 24-07-2015 2:53am

Business Cat wrote: »

It is simply not feasible to look at every single person as an individual, the time and cost involved would be massive so the fairest (sic) thing insurers can do is to look at what broad sub section of their book of business is costing the most money and stop writing that class of business.

maybe it wasn't before but computing power now a days makes it entirely feasible to have far more variable active for every single person / location / vehicle in a database and refine quotes way further. It just isn't in their interest to do this and lower quotes.

Liam McPoyle · 24-07-2015 5:58am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

maybe it wasn't before but computing power now a days makes it entirely feasible to have far more variable active for every single person / location / vehicle in a database and refine quotes way further. It just isn't in their interest to do this and lower quotes.

Ok.

So how is this data verified?

A huge amount of motor policies are bought online so the buyer enters the information.

Take 500 online purchased policies, how long do you reckon it would take for a given company to go through every single one of those policies to verify all the data is correct, to verify NCT, NCB, licence, claims experience etc?

I worked in a call centre for a couple of years for an insurance company, the average call handling time for giving a quote only, and going through the underwriting process FULLY, during that call, was around 8 to 10 minutes.

Since then, legislation has come in about advising the caller that calls are recorded and giving them their statutory rights.

That adds another minute or so to the call bringing it up to nearer 10 minutes per call or thereabouts.

So, 10 minutes x 500 policies = approx 83 hours / 37.5 hours working week = 2.5 staff members required to verify just 500 policies sold.

Extrapolate that to only 2000 policies sold online a week, around 10 staff required for that, never mind the people that will only ring in to get a quote, or have a question about their policy, or want to do a temporary or permanent substitution, request a claims experience letter, or a letter of named driving experience, or register a claim, or renew their policy or add a driver or ring to query their renewal premiums.

You see what I'm saying?

The hard truth is that alot (the majority) of people know absolutely nothing about how an insurance company actually works, until they grasp that then threads like this will replicate ad nauseam.

Odyssey 2005 · 24-07-2015 6:08am

A lot of this is due to no enforcement. I was stopped at a checkpoint last week by a Guard that looked like he'd slept for a week in his uniform,he garnered 0 respect. Can't remember the time before that I even saw a checkpoint. The boy racers have carte blanch to do whatever they want anytime they want and hence the road deaths and accidents. They know there is no chance of being caught whilst acting the bollix.
I heard about this rule re car age coming about 2 months ago and quickly sold a car I had only bought 3 days beforehand. Sinfull as it was a good little runaround for a you lad to start off in..
As I'm sure has been said already "why the NCT". Insurance is a legal requirement,as is the NCT but yet one doesn't recognise and accept the bona fides of the other.

To Elland Back · 24-07-2015 7:54am

A fraudster will ensure he has a roadworthy, NCT'd car when he decides to stage an accident. That way, he avoids contributory negligence. This is not about claiming for the car, it's about claiming personal injuries for himself and all his passengers. The car he uses is the tool of his despicable trade and the less he spends on it, the more net profit. Therefore, the older car is preferred

hattoncracker · 24-07-2015 8:07am

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Just to also point out The cars that are 15 years older now are safer than they have ever been, so why are the insurance companies only coming up with these stupid polices now.

Also the majority of call outs would be from people needing a tyre change which also effects newer cars. I am glad this has come to light and most people have a problem with it as it may mean some action is taken to set the insurance companies straight.

A lot of new cars get breakdown for free for 3 years or so when they buy a new car. So they either don't use or dont have breakdown service.

Special Circumstances · 24-07-2015 8:11am

To Elland Back wrote: »

A fraudster will ensure he has a roadworthy, NCT'd car when he decides to stage an accident. That way, he avoids contributory negligence. This is not about claiming for the car, it's about claiming personal injuries for himself and all his passengers. The car he uses is the tool of his despicable trade and the less he spends on it, the more net profit. Therefore, the older car is preferred

True.

But they'll just buy 13/14 yr old cars now instead. They will hardly say "that was a nice earner for a while, time to go legit now".

All the other dangerous drivers who were in driving cars whose condition was responsible for a miniscule amount of accidents will now just get slightly newer cars and cause the same amounts of accidents (statistically/probability) due to driver error.

So in a few years only 10yr old cars can be insured?

Am I missing some actuarial masterstroke here? The bad/fraudulent drivers aren't going to disappear even if every 14/15 year old or older car was crushed tomorrow morning?

To Elland Back · 24-07-2015 8:37am

You're right, but Insurers can only try and do what they can to reduce the risk of fraud. By 2 companies taking this approach, they are hoping the people who are causing the problem will go to their competitors. Then those insurers will follow suit and we go again

macplaxton · 24-07-2015 9:06am

The problem isn't any one company bringing in a 15 year cut-off. It's two major players in the market only just being highlighted in the media on the same day.

So when did Aviva start this policy? When did Allianz exactly start theirs? Why are the pair getting the spotlight on the same day?

I've been insured with No Nonsense since 2012/13. Back then they had a 15 year cut-off. Others had a cut-off as low as 10 years for new business and at the other end was 20 years. (When I lived in the UK it was a bit older at 20-30)

As said in the title, the market doesn't work as their isn't any competition (as already said it's effectively a cosy cartel). What would be interesting to see is what the respective companies cut-off ages are in GB.

Cookie_Monster · 24-07-2015 9:15am

Business Cat wrote: »

You see what I'm saying?

Fair enough but I still don't think that's really good enough. If there was real competition in Ireland prices would suddenly fall quick enough despite everything you mention... (and we have seen this happening from time to time)

Business Cat wrote: »

The hard truth is that alot (the majority) of people know absolutely nothing about how an insurance company actually works,.

because companies make it as difficult as possible to understand how or why it works / doesn't. Until insurance companies are openly honest about how they grade and asses risk and are able to challenged openly in the real world it won't change.

Compare again what I pay in NZ to Ireland (both 1st world, similarly developed nations, both heavy on laws and bureaucracy, both similar populations and wealth levels) but insurance rates in Ireland are 10-20 times higher. Yet NZ has an older national fleet, much higher accident rates and more deaths. how can ireland be considered so much riskier on stats alone?

Simple truth is it isn't, its just lazy laws and lazy enforcement that allows insurance companies to massively overcharge, same way it allows ridiculous payouts.

Chris_Heilong · 24-07-2015 9:30am

Business Cat wrote: »

You do know that PMPA's collapse and the subsequent introduction of the insurance levy was because of insolvency ie they didn't have enough money to cover their claims, right?

By the two companies taking corrective measures now against unprofitable business they (the companies) are taking measures to avoid such a scenario happening again.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, claims are on the rise, road deaths are on the rise, payments into the millions of euro territory for life impacting, catastrophic injuries are on the rise.

The data shows that a disproportionate number of the above involve older cars.

It is simply not feasible to look at every single person as an individual, the time and cost involved would be massive so the fairest (sic) thing insurers can do is to look at what broad sub section of their book of business is costing the most money and stop writing that class of business.

But that is what insurance companies do, thats why everyone's quote is different.

If they cant handle the Irish market here then maybe its time they pack up and close shop.

Special Circumstances · 24-07-2015 9:36am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because companies make it as difficult as possible to understand how or why it works / doesn't. Until insurance companies are openly honest about how they grade and asses risk and are able to challenged openly in the real world it won't change.

Tis a wonder ye aren't all dead already in NZ, all them turbo subarus, saints preserve us all, 2.5 pertol turbo? Death machines, every one of them.

Imagine a world where the insurance grouping of tdi Citroen C5 was transparent and relatively consistent, and easily compared to other cars.. rather than being classed as "high performance" (LOL!) as found by a poster on here recently.

Imagine if all the major players in the Irish market were also players in the UK market? Imagine if the cars sold in the Irish market were similar as makes no difference to the cars sold here?

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/insurance/car-insurance-groups/

Does anyone think the UK insurance groups transfer to Ireland? Citroen C5 VTR -Group 23, with 50 being highest risk, is "high performance" LOLz...

Special Circumstances · 24-07-2015 9:51am

Mazda 626 1998, ABS as standard, airbags, good brakes - group 21 out of 50 in the UK.
Uninsurable MAIMING MACHINE on Irish roads, according to big players in both markets...

_Puma_ · 24-07-2015 9:58am

Absolute Scum behaviour being shown again by the car Insurance Cartel in this country. I've had a feeling that this is being happening gradually in any case as I've being getting more and more outrageous quotes recently, even with my NCB increasing.

Car is mechanically in tip top condition, recommended interval oil change with good oil(Its a PD Diesel so needs it) , Garage Inspection and service every year before NCT. All the perishables like the Timing belt received their service on recommended mileage and have not once failed a NCT. Diesel and still getting over 50MPG with Motorway driving. Complete service history to back this up right up to the first owner. Keep her in excellent condition inside and out and paintwork looks better than some new cars I've see out there. I've no doubt the engine will keep going again for what's on the clock already as long as she is looked after.

It is a 02 but would be an absolute crime if it would have to be scrapped in 2 years time cause the Insurance cartel here decides it is uninsurable.

Special Circumstances · 24-07-2015 10:05am

_Puma_ wrote: »

Car is mechanically in tip top condition, recommended interval oil change with good oil(Its a PD Diesel so needs it)..... Diesel and still getting over 50MPG with Motorway driving.

Ya hooligan, somewhere between insurance group 14 and :eek: 27. Sheer madness. Get off our roads and drive the exact same way you always do in a newer car because ...

kuro2k · 24-07-2015 10:11am

Both companies should be boycotted by people for all insurance business

_Puma_ · 24-07-2015 10:18am

Really infuriating because I've gone out of my way to keep my car in good condition mechanically and take pride in it. Have a really good relationship with my mechanic and he would always comment on how well it is kept and runs anytime I have it into him. I've seen some awful ****wits in this country and how they treat older cars but for the Car Industry Cartel to penalise people like this has a rotten air about it. I've no doubt if a little digging was done into this a few uncomfortable relationships might be exposed between the Insurance Industry,Car dealer lobbiest and Revenue.

Mehapoy · 24-07-2015 10:19am

_Puma_ wrote: »

Absolute Scum behaviour being shown again by the car Insurance Cartel in this country. I've had a feeling that this is being happening gradually in any case as I've being getting more and more outrageous quotes recently, even with my NCB increasing.

Car is mechanically in tip top condition, recommended interval oil change with good oil(Its a PD Diesel so needs it) , Garage Inspection and service every year before NCT. All the perishables like the Timing belt received their service on recommended mileage and have not once failed a NCT. Diesel and still getting over 50MPG with Motorway driving. Complete service history to back this up right up to the first owner. Keep her in excellent condition inside and out and paintwork looks better than some new cars I've see out there. I've no doubt the engine will keep going again for what's on the clock already as long as she is looked after.

It is a 02 but would be an absolute crime if it would have to be scrapped in 2 years time cause the Insurance cartel here decides it is uninsurable.

The thread title is absolutely spot on, it is a dysfunctional market here, what, if anything, can the government do about it?
I mean we must have one of the highest motor tax rates in the western world, added to that our insurance must be the highest as well, getting insurance here is a trauma compared to Australia, what's it like in New Zealand, which is comparable to here population wise at least?
Can they allow UK operators in? I can't believe Insurance in the UK is that much more expensive than here?

Special Circumstances · 24-07-2015 10:26am

Mehapoy wrote: »

Can they allow UK operators in? I can't believe Insurance in the UK is that much more expensive than here?

[VOICE OF THE CARTEL]Ah but you have completely different cars here, smaller average engine size but extremely unpredictable and ferocious. This is due to a annual car testing system which is more strict and better regulated than the MOT carried out in your local garage. Toe the line. Pay up.[/VOICE OF THE CARTEL]

_Puma_ · 24-07-2015 10:59am

Well Aviva and Allianz have both got a complaint from me that I will be boycotting them over this. Was listening on the radio there during the week and they wouldn't even come on air to stand over their decision.

kuro2k · 24-07-2015 11:27am

_Puma_ wrote: »

Well Aviva and Allianz have both got a complaint from me that I will be boycotting them over this. Was listening on the radio there during the week and they wouldn't even come on air to stand over their decision.

+ 1

I currently use Aviva for house and health insurance, I will be taking my business elsewhere. Mass boycott is the only thing they will take notice of

UnknownSpecies · 24-07-2015 11:52am

What's stopping every insurer in the country making the same move? And what's to stop them doing the same again except next time limiting it to 5 years?

Eventually every driver of a car 10 years or older is stuck with their current insurer, with no choice but to pay the extra premium or buy a new car. I'm genuinely wondering if there is anything in place to stop insurers doing this? Or are they really free to do what they want with us?

I know insurance companies need to make money and that of course their premiums are based on statistics (the lack transparency is crazy though), but allowing companies to operate like this for a service we're required to use seems very unfair. Is insurance fraud so massively worse in Ireland compared to the UK, to justify the massive difference in premiums?

A car isn't a luxury for most of the country, it's necessary to live and work. The government should really be making steps to insure that driving in this country is affordable to some degree. It's not realistic to expect first time drivers to take out finance on a 2015 car, just because the insurance companies want to bone them.

Driving an interesting car will soon be impossible in this country. If the stupidly high tax wasn't enough to put someone off, these premiums certainly will.

Nody · 24-07-2015 12:13pm

dorgasm wrote: »

I know insurance companies need to make money and that of course their premiums are based on statistics (the lack transparency is crazy though), but allowing companies to operate like this for a service we're required to use seems very unfair. Is insurance fraud so massively worse in Ireland compared to the UK, to justify the massive difference in premiums?

Compare average UK's whiplash payout to Irish starting levels page 15 and keeping in mind the average car injury reward was €21,215. Basically claims in Ireland are way out of proportion between comp. culture ("my neck suddenly hurts" ) and the judges throwing money at everyone and awarding the cost against the company ("because they can afford it"). Well guess what; all the other motorists get to pick up that cost because at the end of the day a company is not going to magically have a money growing tree to cover such costs...

UnknownSpecies · 24-07-2015 12:48pm

Nody wrote: »

:oCompare average UK's whiplash payout to Irish starting levels page 15 and keeping in mind the average car injury reward was €21,215. Basically claims in Ireland are way out of proportion between comp. culture ("my neck suddenly hurts" ) and the judges throwing money at everyone and awarding the cost against the company ("because they can afford it"). Well guess what; all the other motorists get to pick up that cost because at the end of the day a company is not going to magically have a money growing tree to cover such costs...

I'm not even sure if I'm surprised to see that from Ireland...

Now all we need is the correlation between those types of claims and 10+ year old cars.

To Elland Back · 24-07-2015 1:36pm

Mehapoy wrote: »

Can they allow UK operators in? I can't believe Insurance in the UK is that much more expensive than here?

There are hardly any 'Irish' insurers in Ireland. Any UK or European Insurers who want to be here already operate here. They amend their rates and acceptance terms to reflect the prevailing circumstances. I don't know, but I'd say Aviva & Allianz don't have this 15 year exclusion elsewhere, as it mightn't be a claims issue in other countries for them

To Elland Back · 24-07-2015 1:39pm

_Puma_ wrote: »

Well Aviva and Allianz have both got a complaint from me that I will be boycotting them over this. Was listening on the radio there during the week and they wouldn't even come on air to stand over their decision.

If, for your circumstances, either of those insurers come in €200+ better than the next company, would you boycott them?

UnknownSpecies · 24-07-2015 1:41pm

To Elland Back wrote: »

If, for your circumstances, either of those insurers come in €200+ better than the next company, would you boycott them?

I don't think a boycott is the best move either. The other insurers are going to be equally disloyal and will probably bring in the same 10 year policy before long. Vote with your wallet. Take the cheapest you can.

Special Circumstances · 24-07-2015 2:02pm

dorgasm wrote: »

I don't think a boycott is the best move either. The other insurers are going to be equally disloyal and will probably bring in the same 10 year policy before long. Vote with your wallet. Take the cheapest you can.

The only option I think.

There are 3 outcomes that I can see:
-The state intervenes and enforces some guidelines for insurers for cash strapped people to get minimum mandatory insurance on cars they can afford. Even if there are some extra hoops to jump through to weed out scum. Everyone pays a little more.
-The state does nothing useful/enforceable, and continues weak human enforcement of traffic and insurance laws and a crap ANPR database. Number of uninsured drivers rises.
-State places no conditions on Insurers, but makes sure that everyone pays up through increased enforcement. Insurers add more stringent conditions every year on what we can or cannot drive. Cost of insurance continues to rise "shur them 5 year old cars are death traps, look at the figures!"

Toyotafanboi · 24-07-2015 2:05pm

Special Circumstances wrote: »

The only option I think.

There are 3 outcomes that I can see:
-The state intervenes and enforces some guidelines for insurers for cash strapped people to get minimum mandatory insurance on cars they can afford. Even if there are some extra hoops to jump through to weed out scum. Everyone pays a little more.
-The state does nothing useful/enforceable, and continues weak human enforcement of traffic and insurance laws and a crap ANPR database. Number of uninsured drivers rises.
-State places no conditions on Insurers, but makes sure that everyone pays up through increased enforcement. Insurers add more stringent conditions every year on what we can or cannot drive. Cost of insurance continues to rise "shur them 5 year old cars are death traps, look at the figures!"

so in every scenario the motorist looses.

Special Circumstances · 24-07-2015 2:19pm

I think we will all pay more no matter what. Especially if the claims system continues to be relatively generous to genuine cases, dubious cases and lawyers etc.
I don't think the ban on older cars will make the problems go away, just make it extremely difficult for enthusiasts to have a well kept car whic happens to fall between the stools of "new car daily policy" and "classic policy".

galwaytt · 24-07-2015 4:12pm

Special Circumstances wrote: »

The only option I think.

There are 3 outcomes that I can see:
A -The state intervenes and enforces some guidelines for insurers for cash strapped people to get minimum mandatory insurance on cars they can afford. Even if there are some extra hoops to jump through to weed out scum. Everyone pays a little more.
B-The state does nothing useful/enforceable, and continues weak human enforcement of traffic and insurance laws and a crap ANPR database. Number of uninsured drivers rises.
C-State places no conditions on Insurers, but makes sure that everyone pays up through increased enforcement. Insurers add more stringent conditions every year on what we can or cannot drive. Cost of insurance continues to rise "shur them 5 year old cars are death traps, look at the figures!"

A - not going to happen, implies a level of common sense.
B - most likely to happen, happened before (1980's) - claims through MIB and courts go through roof, premia for remainder skyrocket, everyone loses.
C - not going to happen. No resources to do it, and no political capital out of it.

Special Circumstances · 24-07-2015 4:26pm

Yeah, B is most likely unless DOB owns an insurance company and suggests the State should round the plebs up and get them to turn out their pockets. Unfortunately I think the "Insurers add more stringent conditions every year on what we can or cannot drive. Cost of insurance continues to rise "shur them 5 year old cars are death traps, look at the figures!"" result also plays out for B.

waxon-waxoff · 25-07-2015 11:05am

Im guessing this new rule is partly due to the types of drivers that own older cars. By that i mean people buying their first car, learners, car to be used by family members for local a run around, people with no money. If you have a cheap car you are not going to be too worried about it and it may be driven in a way that reflects it.

Unfortunately the age rule is a crude weapon and discriminates against enthusiasts who drive an older car by choice, not out of necessity.

Special Circumstances · 25-07-2015 11:21am

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

Im guessing this new rule is partly due to the types of drivers that own older cars. By that i mean people buying their first car, learners, car to be used by family members for local a run around, people with no money. If you have a cheap car you are not going to be too worried about it and it may be driven in a way that reflects it.

Unfortunately the age rule is a crude weapon and discriminates against enthusiasts who drive an older car by choice, not out of necessity.

I think the people who deliberately damage other people's cars or who have no regard for their own and by consequence damage others are not going to give up a life of being a dick if they get a 12year old car rather than a 15 year old car.

Likewise, bad drivers and inexperienced drivers are not going to disappear due to this. Driving is a necessity for many parts of the country, there are no feasible alternatives.

As I've said already, the slight increase in outlay is not going to deter fraudsters.

So in a few years time, the mathematical genii will be astounded to realise that the amount of crashes and claims have remained pretty much constant, but the crashy crashy virus has infected newer cars.

Statistics will indicate this transfer of the crashy crashy virus could be linked to greek crisis. All suzuki jimnys will be banned as they are popular rentals on greek islands.

Toyotafanboi · 25-07-2015 11:27am

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

Im guessing this new rule is partly due to the types of drivers that own older cars. By that i mean people buying their first car, learners, car to be used by family members for local a run around, people with no money. If you have a cheap car you are not going to be too worried about it and it may be driven in a way that reflects it.

Unfortunately the age rule is a crude weapon and discriminates against enthusiasts who drive an older car by choice, not out of necessity.

Lets discriminate against the young and the poor like?

I would argue somewhat the opposite, whatever about a learner who probably will make mistakes; an older person who is "poor" i would imagine would be much more careful with their car as they couldn't afford a replacement if something were to happen to their current one so they need to take some degree of care with the current car to make it last. Someone "wealthy" enough to scrape their way into a new dacia duster imo is the person to least likely give a ****. Maybe that's a view through rise tinted glasses, but certainly a consideration.

Pov06 · 25-07-2015 4:10pm

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

By that i mean people buying their first car, learners, car to be used by family members for local a run around, people with no money.

Not everyone is dumb enough to get loans for 2 cars in their family though.

I'd much rather drive an old car than spend years trying to pay off the loan on my car which could itself be destroyed before I even pay the loan off.

Toyotafanboi · 25-07-2015 4:44pm

Well, for anyone looking for a real world idea of this 15 year old rule situation, or the "insurance is going up" situation. Was just pricing around for my sister online there now. She is up for renewal in August.

18
1 years NCD
2000 Yaris 1.0

Only pricing around for 3rd party fire and theft. I don't know if naming companies is ok, so i won't, for now. I quoted everybody on the first page of google.
Starting from the top;

€8427
€6299
€4261
€3989
€3880
€3676
€2952

and 3 wouldn't quote. i don't know if we are "poor", but an average price of €4783 or just shy of €15 per day seems a bit steep. i genuinely wonder will she give up her driving career based on this. i know she can't afford a newer car and the yaris is in decent nick anyway.

last year @ 17 years of age on a learner permit she got a policy for €1250 ffs.

GvidoR · 25-07-2015 5:07pm

@Toyotafanboi

You can try coverinaclick?
I'm in a similar boat (20, 2 years NCB, 1.2 Punto) and everyone is quoting €2000 and above - or refusing in the case of Aviva, Allianz and FBD.

My renewal with them is €1112.60, don't know if it's because I've been with them for 2 years but it's the price I've got anyway.

dr.fuzzenstein · 25-07-2015 7:36pm

The problem is, after they get rid of the older cars, people will still have accidents. So they will have to find other causes for those accidents. What color causes it, is petrol to blame, what type of socks was the driver wearing and maybe ban driving on a Tuesday.
This is all of course completely idiotic and brain dead, but this is Ireland, so what else is new.
Maybe they find in the end it was all the fault of a certain air freshener, get rid of that, no more accidents on Irish roads!
Well, its easier than driver training and enforcing the rules of the road. How about this? Almost all cars that crashed had 4 wheels. Simply don't insure 4 wheeled cars and all is sorted!
Where do I get a job as a risk assessor for an insurance company? I can do that crap too!

What they really should stop is stupid €20k payouts to twats that say "oh my neck hurts a bit"
And now I have surpassed any risk analyst for an Irish insurance company. Where did those guys go to Clown College?

Pov06 · 25-07-2015 7:41pm

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

Well, for anyone looking for a real world idea of this 15 year old rule situation, or the "insurance is going up" situation. Was just pricing around for my sister online there now. She is up for renewal in August.

18
1 years NCD
2000 Yaris 1.0

Only pricing around for 3rd party fire and theft. I don't know if naming companies is ok, so i won't, for now. I quoted everybody on the first page of google.
Starting from the top;

€8427
€6299
€4261
€3989
€3880
€3676
€2952

and 3 wouldn't quote. i don't know if we are "poor", but an average price of €4783 or just shy of €15 per day seems a bit steep. i genuinely wonder will she give up her driving career based on this. i know she can't afford a newer car and the yaris is in decent nick anyway.

last year @ 17 years of age on a learner permit she got a policy for €1250 ffs.

1999 Yaris 1.0
Will be 20 years old (male)
Will have 1 year NCB (I hope)

I did some test online quotes and the lowest was €2,400

Last year at 19, 0 NCB I paid €1,300.

Toyotafanboi · 25-07-2015 7:42pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

How about this? Almost all cars that crashed had 4 wheels. Simply don't insure 4 wheeled cars and all is sorted!

i think you're onto something there!

Dysfunctional insurance market strikes again (older used cars in the firing line)

Comments