The most dangerous cars in Ireland

Going Forward

Theres a danger that we are being numbed by the never ending publication of sometimes quite interesting and sometimes quite confusing statistics such as the percantage of young males etc, the age of cars involved in accidents, how many drivers were over the limit etc etc.

Surely the stats should now be able to show what car you are most likely to have a fatal accident in?




"Lies, damned lies, and statistics..."

Doyler92

It's not really the car that's the problem, it's the driver.

Voodoomelon

Can't remember when/where I heard it, but a 50 something woman in a red Micra is the most dangerous person on the road.

Micra = evil.

number10a

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Can't remember when/where I heard it, but a 50 something woman in a red Micra is the most dangerous person on the road.

Micra = evil.

I'd believe it. And she probably has the lowest insurance in the country.

Going Forward

Doyler92 wrote: »

It's not really the car that's the problem, it's the driver.

I agree.

And for the same reason I cant see the point of having a mandatory court appearance for not having a valid NCT cert.

If the car is such a factor surely the statistics should be published.

For example, in the 17-24 male driver age group do you suspect that

Honda Civics or Toyota Avensis's are involved in more accidents?

We know the answer already in this case. But statistically if all accident detilas were published it would make for intersting reading.

Failing actually naming car brands, how about categorizing them and drivers age group, say 2 door hatchback, saloon, jeep, van etc.

keithclancy

Going Forward wrote: »

I agree.

And for the same reason I cant see the point of having a mandatory court appearance for not having a valid NCT cert.

If you can't be arsed turning up for a mandatory vehicle test ... ??

Its not rocket science ffs ..

Daegerty

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Can't remember when/where I heard it, but a 50 something woman in a red Micra is the most dangerous person on the road.

Micra = evil.

Particularly if the micra in question is an automatic.

ottostreet

Going Forward wrote: »

I agree.

And for the same reason I cant see the point of having a mandatory court appearance for not having a valid NCT cert.

If the car is such a factor surely the statistics should be published.

For example, in the 17-24 male driver age group do you suspect that

Honda Civics or Toyota Avensis's are involved in more accidents?

We know the answer already in this case. But statistically if all accident detilas were published it would make for intersting reading.

Failing actually naming car brands, how about categorizing them and drivers age group, say 2 door hatchback, saloon, jeep, van etc.

Do we?

partyatmygaff

Going Forward wrote: »

For example, in the 17-24 male driver age group do you suspect that

Honda Civics or Toyota Avensis's are involved in more accidents?

I'd say that far more 17-24 olds buy Civics rather than Toyota Avensis'. Hence more Civics involved in accidents when and if they occur.

Pique

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Micra = evil.

Those things are like 'roaches....they'll survive a nuclear holocaust !

Fey!

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Can't remember when/where I heard it, but a 50 something woman in a red Micra is the most dangerous person on the road.

Micra = evil.

number10a wrote: »

I'd believe it. And she probably has the lowest insurance in the country.

And the biggest foglights!!!

(awaiting the barring birch from kbannon for daring to mention the F word!! )

pajo1981

I'm sure insurance companies have analysed this kind o data to death and are charging accordingly i.e. according to risk.

robtri

Going Forward wrote: »

I agree.

And for the same reason I cant see the point of having a mandatory court appearance for not having a valid NCT cert.

If the car is such a factor surely the statistics should be published.

For example, in the 17-24 male driver age group do you suspect that

Honda Civics or Toyota Avensis's are involved in more accidents?

We know the answer already in this case. But statistically if all accident detilas were published it would make for intersting reading.

Failing actually naming car brands, how about categorizing them and drivers age group, say 2 door hatchback, saloon, jeep, van etc.

besides making interesting reading, what would the actual point be???

based on your example above, are you saying that a Honda civic is a more dangerous car than a toyaota avensis??

barone

ya dont need a nct for a motorbike,and they would be far more dangerous imo,
granted,mainly to the bike driver,not always tho.

keithclancy

robtri wrote: »

besides making interesting reading, what would the actual point be???

based on your example above, are you saying that a Honda civic is a more dangerous car than a toyaota avensis??

For the insurance company they load Civics because they are in more accidents (apparently) hence the risk is higher for them

From the individuals perspective the cars insurance loading doesnt have any relation to the insurers risk assessment as they base that off statistics.

vectra

keithclancy wrote: »

For the insurance company they load Civics because they are in more accidents (apparently) hence the risk is higher for them

What insurance coppany is going to stand up in court against a Hinda Barrister and tell him that the Civic is more dangerous than a Corolla ?

Not One i would say as they would have some proving..i could see honda owning every insurance company in the world :pac:

Gophur

vectra wrote: »

What insurance coppany is going to stand up in court against a Hinda Barrister and tell him that the Civic is more dangerous than a Corolla ?

........

Nobody said that, but one can see that there are a higher proportion of Civics involved in Insurance claims due to the typical person that drives them.

Insurance is all about risk categorisation. The ridiculous statement about the most dangerous stereotype having the low insurance shows how out of touch some people are.

If you belong to a higher risk category, due to your age, sex, occupation, or the car you drive, you will pay more (though the sex clause is going to be/is outlawed).

That is always the case for insurance. It applies to House Insurance, Health Insurance, travel insurance too.

leeroybrown

vectra wrote: »

What insurance coppany is going to stand up in court against a Hinda Barrister and tell him that the Civic is more dangerous than a Corolla ?

They're not saying that. They'll stand up and say that their actuarial data shows that across all policies they hold a Honda Civic is N% more likely to be found at fault in a accident involving a claim above €X than a Toyota Corolla. The court will then find that the insurance company are within their legal rights to load one vehicle more than another. They're allowed to actuarially load groups.

keithclancy

vectra wrote: »

What insurance coppany is going to stand up in court against a Hinda Barrister and tell him that the Civic is more dangerous than a Corolla ?

Not One i would say as they would have some proving..i could see honda owning every insurance company in the world :pac:

"well judge 100 civics and 10 corollas were involved in accidents of month x"

Our risk for payout is therefore 10 times more likely on a civic than a corolla.

Tea 1000

All this would serve is to cause the sale and reputation of a Honda Civic to fall through the floor. Pointless. These plebs will crash whatever they get their hands on, the type of car doesn't matter.
The thread title "most dangerous car in Ireland" is an example of the sensationalism that would be the only outcome.
No good could come of it, that's why it's not done.
Letting us know exactly how many people were stoned or pissed when they crashed would however further drive home the social unacceptability of driving under the influence.

Gophur

keithclancy wrote: »

"well judge 100 civics and 10 corollas were involved in accidents of month x"

Our risk for payout is therefore 10 times more likely on a corolla than a civic.

Not quite. (It depends on the total number of each model there is, on the road)

If 10 out of 10,000 Corollas were involved in accidents, and 10 out of 5,000 Civics were involved in accidents, then the Honda would be twice as likely to be involved in an accident.

Gophur

Tea 1000 wrote: »

All this would serve is to cause the sale and reputation of a Honda Civic to fall through the floor. Pointless........

What do you mean?
This has been the case for almost 10 years now and the Civic is still a much sought after car.

Young lads out for a good time, looking for a car with a bit of street-cred and a bit of fun, do not buy Corollas.

Tea 1000

Gophur wrote: »

What do you mean?
This has been the case for almost 10 years now and the Civic is still a much sought after car.

Young lads out for a good time, looking for a car with a bit of street-cred and a bit of fun, do not buy Corollas.

How is that Honda's fault?

keithclancy

Gophur wrote: »

Not quite. (It depends on the total number of each model there is, on the road)

If 10 out of 10,000 Corollas were involved in accidents, and 10 out of 5,000 Civics were involved in accidents, then the Honda would be twice as likely to be involved in an accident.

As an insurer you calculate your risk, i.e. the vehicles you have insured, not the vehicles that are on the road in general.

leeroybrown

keithclancy wrote: »

As an insurer you calculate your risk, i.e. the vehicles you have insured, not the vehicles that are on the road in general.

There's also a shared claim information database called 'Insurance Link' in operation. It'll allow insurers to access claim information that isn't on their own books so they do have two sources of real world information.

vectra

Gophur wrote: »

Nobody said that, but one can see that there are a higher proportion of Civics involved in Insurance claims due to the typical person that drives them.

Insurance is all about risk categorisation. The ridiculous statement about the most dangerous stereotype having the low insurance shows how out of touch some people are.

Heading say "Most dangerous car in Ireland"

Yes. I agree Insurance is risk categorisation.

But that is still the driver and not the car type.

leeroybrown wrote: »

They're not saying that. They'll stand up and say that their actuarial data shows that across all policies they hold a Honda Civic is N% more likely to be found at fault in a accident involving a claim above €X than a Toyota Corolla. The court will then find that the insurance company are within their legal rights to load one vehicle more than another. They're allowed to actuarially load groups.

So you are saying Had the driver being driving a Toyota Corolla and not a Honda Civic this accident would not have happened?

Then that is pointing the finger squarely at the Civic

keithclancy wrote: »

"well judge 100 civics and 10 corollas were involved in accidents of month x"

Our risk for payout is therefore 10 times more likely on a civic than a corolla.

Entirely depends on the amount of civic's/corolla's being driven by that age groups.

Del2005

barone wrote: »

ya dont need a nct for a motorbike,and they would be far more dangerous imo,
granted,mainly to the bike driver,not always tho.

While biking is more dangerous in the vast majority of cases it's other vehicles that cause the bike to crash, due to driver inattention, not the biker or the condition of the bike

keithclancy

vectra wrote: »

Entirely depends on the amount of civic's/corolla's being driven by that age groups.

Well if you want to get into it:
Age Group
Claims free years
Area where car is used
Owner occupation
Modifications
Garaged/Not Garaged.

My point is that an insurers risk assessment is only related to claims and not to how dangerous/not dangerous the car is.

A Civic is high risk, not becuase its more or less dangerous, its because there are more claims.

vectra

keithclancy wrote: »

Well if you want to get into it:
Age Group
Claims free years
Area where car is used
Owner occupation
Modifications
Garaged/Not Garaged.

My point is that an insurers risk assessment is only related to claims and not to how dangerous/not dangerous the car is.

A Civic is high risk, not becuase its more or less dangerous, its because there are more claims.

I fully understand risk assessment, I have been paying insurance with the past 36 years. ( and never had a claim)

BUT
My point is that it has nothing to do with the car..It is the driver has the crash...Not the car..
It is immaterial of what he/she drives..
Nobody can say "It was the civic's fault"

Twin-go

Going Forward wrote: »

Theres a danger that we are being numbed by the never ending publication of sometimes quite interesting and sometimes quite confusing statistics such as the percantage of young males etc, the age of cars involved in accidents, how many drivers were over the limit etc etc.

Surely the stats should now be able to show what car you are most likely to have a fatal accident in?




"Lies, damned lies, and statistics..."

EURO NCAP says the Rover 100:cool:

http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Faq/25bdd769-b28e-45ef-88f6-f540a702821e/best-and-worst-results.aspx

keithclancy

vectra wrote: »

I fully understand risk assessment, I have been paying insurance with the past 36 years. ( and never had a claim)

BUT
My point is that it has nothing to do with the car..It is the driver has the crash...Not the car..
It is immaterial of what he/she drives..
Nobody can say "It was the civic's fault"

I never said it was more dangerous,

I'm assuming your talking about a hypothetical court case that someone brings against and insurance company for charging more because they own a civic.

Or perhaps your talking about an Insurance company turning up as some sort of psychic witness for a court case involving two cars in a collision :pac:

Going Forward

keithclancy wrote: »

If you can't be arsed turning up for a mandatory vehicle test ... ??

Its not rocket science ffs ..

Point accepted, I was referring to but didnt say when compared to getting 1 penalty point for driving on the wrong side of the road or going around a roundabout the wrong way.

The offence seem to weighted wrongly, thats all.

keithclancy

Going Forward wrote: »

Point accepted, I was referring to but didnt say when compared to getting 1 penalty point for driving on the wrong side of the road or going around a roundabout the wrong way.

The offence seem to weighted wrongly, thats all.

Well it does kinda

I mean there are more people doing it, so they won't get the message until theres a heavy consequence

Driving on the wrong side of the road is a fairly rare occurence in comparison i'd think.

Gophur

Tea 1000 wrote: »

How is that Honda's fault?

I don't know. Are you going to tell me?

(Who's blaming Honda, by the way?)

leeroybrown

vectra wrote: »

So you are saying Had the driver being driving a Toyota Corolla and not a Honda Civic this accident would not have happened?

Then that is pointing the finger squarely at the Civic

I think I need to clarify. In the context of the thread I think the term "most dangerous cars in Ireland" is a little sensationalist. I'd completely agree that personally, I'm no more likely to have an accident in a Civic than a Corolla BUT I'd also say that there is very little way for an insurance company to actuarially define this one likelihood. Instead I know that they can actuarially describe me the average Civic driver with my other insurance risks as being more likely to have an accident than the similar average Corolla driver and will load me accordingly. It's entirely the likelihood of a claim that will need to be paid out.

robtri

keithclancy wrote: »

For the insurance company they load Civics because they are in more accidents (apparently) hence the risk is higher for them

thats not true, you cant even prove they are in more accidents that any other model...

i just rang my insurance company and asked about transfering insurance to a civic or an avensis, pretneded to be buying a new car...
the avensis would be more expnsive, just slightly but a bit more

civic 1.4 and an avensis 1.6 both petrol... so they dont seem to load based on car...

Tea 1000

Gophur wrote: »

I don't know. Are you going to tell me?

(Who's blaming Honda, by the way?)

That's my point. The 80% of the non-car people in this country would. They'd say to anyone they knew "you're buying a Civic? A CIVIC? My goodness... you're going to get killed, those things are lethal, didn't you see the statistics in the paper? They're the most dangerous car in Ireland..."
Whatever the statistics, whatever the risk, singling out a car only serves to damage Honda's reputation publicly, which is not fair. Let the insurance companies figure out what's the most risk.
There are some things the public are better off not knowing. It serves no purpose. Think about it... what good would it possibly do to declare a Civic as the most dangerous car in Ireland? Would it mean that all the scobes would stop buying them and therefore stop crashing, and thus the country would be safer?

mb1725

keithclancy

robtri wrote: »

thats not true, you cant even prove they are in more accidents that any other model...

i just rang my insurance company and asked about transfering insurance to a civic or an avensis, pretneded to be buying a new car...
the avensis would be more expnsive, just slightly but a bit more

civic 1.4 and an avensis 1.6 both petrol... so they dont seem to load based on car...

Eh .. Yeh I can, or more risk in relation to claims at least

http://www.4road.co.uk/insurance-group/cars/honda-civic.htm

http://www.4road.co.uk/insurance-group/cars/toyota-avensis.htm

I'm assuming you gave models etc.

On average a Honda Civic is more expensive to Insure

Are you sure you didn't ring your dad instead of your insurance company ?

robtri

keithclancy wrote: »

For the insurance company they load Civics because they are in more accidents (apparently) hence the risk is higher for them

From the individuals perspective the cars insurance loading doesnt have any relation to the insurers risk assessment as they base that off statistics.

keithclancy wrote: »

Eh .. Yeh I can

http://www.4road.co.uk/insurance-group/cars/honda-civic.htm

http://www.4road.co.uk/insurance-group/cars/toyota-avensis.htm

I'm assuming you gave models etc.

On average a Honda Civic is more expensive to Insure

Are you sure you didn't ring your dad instead of your insurance company ?

firstly those links dont show the number of accidents per model, secondly thats UK, not here.


wish my dad did run or work in an insurance company

keithclancy

robtri wrote: »

firstly those links dont show the number of accidents per model, secondly thats UK, not here.


wish my dad did run or work in an insurance company

Claims .. not accidents read the post.

Loading is based on Risk !

Are you saying that the UK is so different with Insurance groupings ?

I.E. a Civic would have less or more risk in the Republic for Quinn or Aviva in The UK vs the Republic ?

robtri

keithclancy wrote: »

Claims .. not accidents read the post.

Loading is based on Risk !

Are you saying that the UK is so different with Insurance groupings ?

I.E. a Civic would have less or more risk in the Republic for Quinn or Aviva in The UK vs the Republic ?

cool, maybe i missed it can you show me on the two links you provided where it says number of claims??

yes the Uk is different

keithclancy

robtri wrote: »

cool, maybe i missed it can you show me on the two links you provided where it says number of claims??

yes the Uk is different

Insurance companies don't release that information.

Haven't you ever heard of insurance groups before ?

And yes it is the same as the UK for loading, I had bike insurance with a UK underwriter and they used UK groupings for calculations.

AFAIK it was becuase the older model (1995 I think) was one of the easiest cars to steal and was popular with young males.

Or at least thats what Hibernian told me at the time

ShadowHearth

Doyler92 wrote: »

It's not really the car that's the problem, it's the driver.

sort of yes, sort of no.

they all bitch about high performance cars and boyracers. as far as i can see all young males die in some **** boxes micras and puntos, wheres silvias, skylines and rx7s just drive away and newer get accsidents, but public Still get theyr pitchforks when some high performance cars mentioned.


i know such car like skyline is in very high risk group becouse of shady past, but i bet there were not many fatalaties in these cars in last 10 years. Insurance companies still look at it as plague.

BronsonTB

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Can't remember when/where I heard it, but a 50 something woman in a red Micra is the most dangerous person on the road.

Micra = evil.

95% agreement, About 5% of micra dirvers are ok (Have to allow for the few that do know how to drive & turn off fog lights)

Foxhole Norman

Eric Cartman

in reality these are probably (in order) the most dangerous cars in the country (number of accidents out of number in the country)

Glanzas (not many real ones in the country, and the few that are are still for the most part driven by tools who cant drive and give enthusiasts a bad name)
Starlets with Glanza Stickers & Boxy Starlets (All of these are only owned by absolute muppets who should be off the road)
Fiat Puntos (a lot of learners / women / people who know f*ck all about cars or driving in these)
1.4 Honda Civics with type r badges (most commonly found in mcdonalds carparks featuring a dole scrounger for a driver and a lad hanging out the window with a joint thinking hes a mad c*nt)
Mitsubishi Colts (another favourite of the asbo brigade but the least dangerous of the 5

shedweller

Doyler92 wrote: »

It's not really the car that's the problem, it's the driver.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'd say that far more 17-24 olds buy Civics rather than Toyota Avensis'. Hence more Civics involved in accidents when and if they occur.

Exactly. A certain type of driver drives a certain type of car.

robtri wrote: »

besides making interesting reading, what would the actual point be???

based on your example above, are you saying that a Honda civic is a more dangerous car than a toyaota avensis??

A honda civic is not more dangerous that an avensis. No more so than a gun at least. It's the idiot behind the wheel is the problem.
But, as i referred to above, a certain type of person drives a certain type of car. Insurance companies unfortunately generalise here as they cant tell what kind of person you are over the phone etc. I personally think it's not very fair but thats the way it is. Will we do something about it? LOL!!! Hardly!!

Heroditas

Fey! wrote: »

(awaiting the barring birch from kbannon for daring to mention the F word!! )

At least you didn't use the S word ..... spots!

robtri

keithclancy wrote: »

Insurance companies don't release that information.

Haven't you ever heard of insurance groups before ?

And yes it is the same as the UK for loading, I had bike insurance with a UK underwriter and they used UK groupings for calculations.

AFAIK it was becuase the older model (1995 I think) was one of the easiest cars to steal and was popular with young males.

Or at least thats what Hibernian told me at the time

i have heard of them before a lot...

so with out the claims statisics you cant say for definite one car has more accidents than the other....

likwise a 1 litre vauxhall corsa will have a lower insurance group in the uk than a 760il .... does that mean the 760il 's are crashed or has more accidents than the corsa???



its the driver who is more danergous not the car...

Eric Cartman

robtri wrote: »

i have heard of them before a lot...

so with out the claims statisics you cant say for definite one car has more accidents than the other....

likwise a 1 litre vauxhall corsa will have a lower insurance group in the uk than a 760il .... does that mean the 760il 's are crashed or has more accidents than the corsa???



its the driver who is more danergous not the car...

but youll also find that if you took the formula insurance companies calculated with youd probably find that the loading on the 760iL is lower than the corsa , its the engine size and price of the car/parts bumping up the 760