Why is insurance mandatory?

af_thefragile

Why can't it be optional like health insurance?
If you buy a car, you don't insure it, you crash into someone, you pay the costs out of your pocket. If you don't wan't to do that, then you can get car insurance and protect yourself. Why can't we have this choice?

Because insurance is mandatory and everyone has to get it in order to drive a car, it just allows insurance companies to rip off drivers. Especially new drivers. Paying upwards of 2500eur just for third party insurance is ridiculous!
And if you crash, you'll be paying twice the amount of premium the next year anyway. So its not like you'll be saving lots of money by having insurance.
If it was optional the consumer could have more say when buying insurance as if the insurance company gives a ridiculously high quote, you aren't forced to buy it just to be able to drive your car.

Would you think it'ld be a good idea if insurance was optional?

MugMugs

Could you afford to compensate an innocent motorist you've turned into a paraplegic out of your "pocket"?

mickdw

Large thread on this very topic only a couple of days ago.
Its a silly question imo. Have you the funds to compensate me if you hit me, destroy my car and injure me to the extend that I could never work again?
We can all cause an accident no matter how good a driver we believe we are. Even mechanical failure could cause it

7ofBrian

Whatever about insurance, road tax should be incorporated into the price of fuel rather than engine size. Therefore those who use the most fuel / do the most mileage pay the most tax. It would allow people to have more say in what car they can buy.

challengemaster

Can you afford a €500,000 payout for healthcare, damages, etc due to a car accident?

No?

That's why insurance isn't optional. The potential cost of a claim can be so high that you just can't afford to pay it yourself, and it's certainly not fair to the third party involved to be left without settlement.

It's also not comparable to health insurance for that reason. health insurance, you're taking care of yourself, not the potential claims made by others.

af_thefragile

af_thefragile wrote: »

..........

Would you think it'ld be a good idea if insurance was optional?

Nope, fairly awful idea actually for the reason MugMugs mentioned.

banie01

Can you afford to pay the potentially millions of Euro in liabilities that can accrue from a motor accident?
Its not just damaged cars, its People, injuries, death, loss of limbs, paralysis are all fairly common occurrences in RTA's, as well as liability for Ambulance and fire brigade charges and medical bills for those affected
If paying €2500 causes you problems, imagine trying to cover the expense of anything more than a fender bender and associated whiplash claims out of your own pocket with the money you've saved by not being insured!

bizmark

Insurance is optional in south Australia they just include third party insurance in their car reg(tax) costs every year or 3/6 months so your covered if you hurt someone or a passenger but not for the price of any material damages

Reg is fairly cheap as well 140ish dollars every 3 months for a 2 liter car

CiniO

af_thefragile wrote: »

Why can't it be optional like health insurance?

Because with healt insurance you are covering yourself. What is mandatory is car third party insurance, which covers damage you cause to someone else.

If you buy a car, you don't insure it, you crash into someone, you pay the costs out of your pocket. If you don't wan't to do that, then you can get car insurance and protect yourself. Why can't we have this choice?

Because vast majority of people can't afford to pay for the claims, especially if it's a big claim.
And if you are wealthy enough to be able to pay for any possible claim, then you don't have to pay insurance.

Because insurance is mandatory and everyone has to get it in order to drive a car, it just allows insurance companies to rip off drivers. Especially new drivers. Paying upwards of 2500eur just for third party insurance is ridiculous!

No. It's not obligatory insurance which causing rip off from drivers.
It's a cartel between Irish insurers, and lack of proper insurance regulations in this country, which would make more strict rules for insurers.
In other countries in EU premium are way cheaper, and it still worth it for insurers.
In Poland at the age of 19 I was paying below 100 euro per annum on my car. In Ireland it would probably cost me about 5 grant at that time.

banie01

bizmark wrote: »

Insurance is optional in south Australia they just include third party insurance in their car reg(tax) costs every year or 3/6 months so your covered if you hurt someone or a passenger but not for the price of any material damages

Reg is fairly cheap as well 140ish dollars every 3 months for a 2 liter car

No, Insurance is not optional in South Australia!
Any higher level of insurance than the legally required minimum is optional.
And the cost of the legal minimum requirement is built in to the Reg!
Comprehensive Insurance and other higher insurance levels are optional BUT S.A still requires a legal minimum of 3rd party insurance which is what the reg provides.
The absolute minimum level of insurance for legally compliant driver's to meet the insurance requirement.

bizmark

banie01 wrote: »

No, Insurance is not optional in South Australia!
Any higher level of insurance than the legally required minimum is optional.
And the cost of the legal minimum requirement is built in to the Reg!
Comprehensive Insurance and other higher insurance levels are optional BUT S.A still requires a legal minimum of 3rd party insurance which is what the reg provides.
The absolute minimum level of insurance for legally compliant driver's to meet the insurance requirement.

Thats what i said basicly

corktina

that system at least does away with the problem of uninsured drivers, maybe we should do the same. I doubt it would happen though, too many vested interests in the Insurance Industry.

K.Flyer

af_thefragile wrote: »

Why can't it be optional like health insurance?
If you buy a car, you don't insure it, you crash into someone, you pay the costs out of your pocket.
If you don't wan't to do that, then you can get car insurance and protect yourself. Why can't we have this choice?
Would you think it'ld be a good idea if insurance was optional?

Picture this for a moment...
You have worked your ass off to save money to buy yourself a really nice car, in addition you took out a loan on it as well.
Lets just say its worth 5,000 euro with 2,500 being the loan.
Driving along minding your own business, enjoying the pleasure of being behind the wheel of your motor as you go through the junction on a clear green light.....
Then BANG CRASH WALLOP, some dumbass not paying attention has broken the red lights and smashed into the side of your pride and joy.
Your car is a write off, you have broken bones and are out of work for a year.
He has taken the option not to have insurance, because he has no money, he has no job, he rents his home, he has no assets to claim against, but it was still legal for him to drive on the road because it was not mandatory.
Because its not mandatory you have decided not to have any either.
So.. who is going to pay for your car? No-One, but you still will have to pay off the finance.
Who will pay for you medical bills? well, more than likely that will be you as well.
And as for compensation for your injuries and loss? Your On Your Own.

Does it still sound like a good idea?

Ronnie Beck

MugMugs wrote: »

Could you afford to compensate an innocent motorist you've turned into a paraplegic out of your "pocket"?

Why don't I get my money back at the end off the year if I don't crash?

Edit: Less administration fees off course

RandomAccess

MugMugs wrote: »

Could you afford to compensate an innocent motorist you've turned into a paraplegic out of your "pocket"?

Random thought>>

Interesting, if we expand on that theme then looking at the way that Doctors have medical malpractice insurance, and various tradesmen are also insured it begins to pose another question.

Since everybody has the potential to assault someone GBH style, then maybe we should all have insurance! There are a lot of cases where someone has punched a total stranger when drunk and they hit their head and are left with horrendous injuries. Perhaps its the case that we should all have insurance.. But then you would have the exact same problem where people wouldnt bother paying for it. Then what, do we clamp them and haul em to the pound.

Yes I guess!

af_thefragile

Yeah, I guess why insurance is necessary.

Its still a rip off though. You shouldn't be paying 2500eur just for a year's insurance.
Any why do you have to pay more if you buy a faster and more expensive car?
If you crash into another car at 60kmph in a Yaris or in an M3, you end up doing the same amount of damage to the other car so if you buy third party insurance why do you pay more for more expensive cars?
Also you pay more if your car is a convertible, even if its a hardtop convertible...

I guess I'm just ranting now...

K.Flyer

Ronnie Beck wrote: »

Why don't I get my money back at the end off the year if I don't crash?

Edit: Less administration fees off course

Thats like asking the bookies for your money back of you dont win anything.

CoDy1

Ronnie Beck wrote: »

Why don't I get my money back at the end off the year if I don't crash?

Edit: Less administration fees off course

If everyone who didn't claim got there money back, how would the insurers pay out claims?

'The premiums of the many pay out the claims of the few'

Ronnie Beck

CoDy1 wrote: »

If everyone who didn't claim got there money back, how would the insurers pay out claims?

'The premiums of the many pay out the claims of the few'

And the profits of the countless fat cats involved. Surely we pay enough in taxation to cover injuries to any one involved in an accident. (For the purpose of this argument I'm leaving the price of cars out of it as their value is roughly the same and morally irrelevant.)

K.Flyer wrote: »

Thats like asking the bookies for your money back of you dont win anything.

Not really, I drive my own car and if I win, i.e. don't crash, I get nothing.

randylonghorn

Ronnie Beck wrote: »

Not really, I drive my own car and if I win, i.e. don't crash, I get nothing.

Actually, you kinda do ... your premium doesn't rocket up even further next year. It's more "avoid extra punishment" rather than "reward", but ...

CianRyan

AFAIK(I'm on my phone, not checking), in Aus you get 3rd part with your rego(NCT) and if you want to cover your own car after that it's up to you.
That's an idea I do like.

phoenix0250

The insurance system in Ireland is ridiculous and over-priced to begin with.

Firstly, its silly that both you and the car have to be insured. Ie. even if your bike is insured your wife cannot drive your car or you are insured but cannot drive your friend's...this creates an unnecessary limitation of who and when drives what.

They have a great system in Australia where you pay a fee covering both motor tax and insurance (both depending on the type of vehicle). Done!... vehicle taxed and insured with anyone able to drive it (as long as they have the required licence of course) This erases age +gender discrimination and makes it fair as insurance is compulsory and no type of people are being ripped off. All for ~€250 a year. Also, as a bonus, since this insurance is provided by the government, any profits go back to the people...not greedy corporate quims.

sebastianlieken

It's optional in New Zealand

also, In the UK you can lodge a bond of £500,000 instead of having motor insurance. This bond shows that you can pay out in the even of a claim agains you. If you never claim, you withdraw the bond + interest when you dont want to drive anymore

whomitconcerns

Firstly, its silly that both you and the car have to be insured. Ie. even if your bike is insured your wife cannot drive your car or you are insured but cannot drive your friend's...this creates an unnecessary limitation of who and when drives what.

thats the point I agree with. Here in romania its the same. The car is insured, not the driver. I can drive anyone's car with their permission. Am pretty sure its the same in Germany also

TwoShedsJackson

af_thefragile wrote: »

Yeah, I guess why insurance is necessary.

Its still a rip off though. You shouldn't be paying 2500eur just for a year's insurance.
Any why do you have to pay more if you buy a faster and more expensive car?
If you crash into another car at 60kmph in a Yaris or in an M3, you end up doing the same amount of damage to the other car so if you buy third party insurance why do you pay more for more expensive cars?
Also you pay more if your car is a convertible, even if its a hardtop convertible...

I guess I'm just ranting now...

You pay more for a faster and more expensive car because it's more likely to be stolen, they're not just covering damage on your premium.

djimi

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

You pay more for a faster and more expensive car because it's more likely to be stolen, they're not just covering damage on your premium.

You also pay more for the M3 because it is worth considerably more than the Yaris; I would have thought that would be pretty obvious...

The reason a convertible costs more to insure is that they are quite liable to malicious damage.

djimi

whomitconcerns wrote: »

thats the point I agree with. Here in romania its the same. The car is insured, not the driver. I can drive anyone's car with their permission. Am pretty sure its the same in Germany also

How does this work exactly in terms of costs? Is it simply down to the car, ie a Fiesta is cheap to insure and an M5 is expensive? Seems a bit ridiculous to me to take the driver out of the equation when it comes to assessing the risk involved, considering they are the single biggest factor in the risk (after theft maybe)!

H3llR4iser

phoenix0250 wrote: »

The insurance system in Ireland is ridiculous and over-priced to begin with.

Firstly, its silly that both you and the car have to be insured. Ie. even if your bike is insured your wife cannot drive your car or you are insured but cannot drive your friend's...this creates an unnecessary limitation of who and when drives what.

That is the huge, ginormous problem: a family with one car and two teenage kids who are on learner's permits will have to pay for three named drivers (the parent who doesn't own the car and the two kids).

The ridiculous situations are countless: night out, the car owner had one too many but under the current insurance system none of his/her (sober) friends can drive; My brother's car is at the mechanic, I am on holiday for a few days but I still can't lend him mine to get to work; And on and on and on...

The policy should be on the car, full stop - anyone with a valid driving license and the car owner's permission could drive it. Of course this would cut the industry's profits significantly as they would become unable to shaft learner drivers and the likes, so it's unlikely to happen.

whomitconcerns

Well the legal basic insurance is quite cheap and doesnt really matter what type of car it is. Its basically 3rd party insurance.

The casco (comprehensive) insurance is relatively a lot more expensive and is dependant on the car, but yes an M3 is more expensive to insure. But after that anyone you allow can drive it.

It makes sense when you think about it, onus is on the owner to decide who they trust to drive their car. So your not taking the fact of the driver out of the equation, you are just putting the impetus on the owner to decide who they let drive.

djimi wrote: »

How does this work exactly in terms of costs? Is it simply down to the car, ie a Fiesta is cheap to insure and an M5 is expensive? Seems a bit ridiculous to me to take the driver out of the equation when it comes to assessing the risk involved, considering they are the single biggest factor in the risk (after theft maybe)!

Guy:Incognito

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The ridiculous situations are countless: night out, the car owner had one too many but under the current insurance system none of his/her (sober) friends can drive; My brother's car is at the mechanic, I am on holiday for a few days but I still can't lend him mine to get to work; And on and on and on...
.

I haven't had a policy that doesn't include driving other cars. Are you sure his policy doesn't cover him to drive your car? You could also get open driving on your policy and let anyone (with certain restrictions) drive your car.

whomitconcerns wrote: »

It makes sense when you think about it, onus is on the owner to decide who they trust to drive their car. So your not taking the fact of the driver out of the equation, you are just putting the impetus on the owner to decide who they let drive.

The owner isn't taking on the insurance risk though and wont be footing the bill themselves if the person they let drive causes 20k worth of damage.

djimi

H3llR4iser wrote: »

That is the huge, ginormous problem: a family with one car and two teenage kids who are on learner's permits will have to pay for three named drivers (the parent who doesn't own the car and the two kids).

The ridiculous situations are countless: night out, the car owner had one too many but under the current insurance system none of his/her (sober) friends can drive; My brother's car is at the mechanic, I am on holiday for a few days but I still can't lend him mine to get to work; And on and on and on...

The policy should be on the car, full stop - anyone with a valid driving license and the car owner's permission could drive it. Of course this would cut the industry's profits significantly as they would become unable to shaft learner drivers and the likes, so it's unlikely to happen.

But having the insurance on the car doesnt take half the risk into account. I might have a full clean license for ten years and you might have a full license for three years with 8 points and 3 claims in that time; how does it make sense that both of us pay the same amount to insure the car when on paper you are a far bigger risk than I am?

djimi

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Well the legal basic insurance is quite cheap and doesnt really matter what type of car it is. Its basically 3rd party insurance.

The casco (comprehensive) insurance is relatively a lot more expensive and is dependant on the car, but yes an M3 is more expensive to insure. But after that anyone you allow can drive it.

It makes sense when you think about it, onus is on the owner to decide who they trust to drive their car. So your not taking the fact of the driver out of the equation, you are just putting the impetus on the owner to decide who they let drive.

But is the owner not taken into account? As in, does it cost the same for a 22 year old with three years experience and two claims to insure an M3 and it would for a 50 year old with 30 years experience and no claims/convictions?

whomitconcerns

but they will...its going to cost their insurance...

If I drive someones car here and cause a crash its the owners insurance is claimed off, so if he trusted me to drive his car, hes made that decision. Of course if hes a friend of mine hes gonna want money back off me...but thats my problem...

Guy:Incognito

whomitconcerns wrote: »

but they will...its going to cost their insurance...

If I drive someones car here and cause a crash its the owners insurance is claimed off, so if he trusted me to drive his car, hes made that decision. Of course if hes a friend of mine hes gonna want money back off me...but thats my problem...

Insurance companies asses risk for a living, you don't......

djimi

whomitconcerns wrote: »

but they will...its going to cost their insurance...

If I drive someones car here and cause a crash its the owners insurance is claimed off, so if he trusted me to drive his car, hes made that decision. Of course if hes a friend of mine hes gonna want money back off me...but thats my problem...

So basically its just open driving, but its available on every policy? We have that in Ireland too; its available to a lot of people. They are just a little more selective about who they offer it to; an 18 year old on their first policy isnt going to get the option of open driving on the policy!

You still havent answered my question; when the policy is the policy holder taken into consideration at all?

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

You also pay more for the M3 because it is worth considerably more than the Yaris; I would have thought that would be pretty obvious...

The reason a convertible costs more to insure is that they are quite liable to malicious damage.

I thought we were talking about obligatory insurance (which I think all over EU is third party only).
Car value or it's liability to malicious damage is completely irrelevant when it comes to third party cover. While still you get charged way more for M3 than Yaris.

CiniO

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Insurance companies asses risk for a living, you don't......

Maybe they do, but I know way better than my insurance company, which of my friends is more likely to crash.

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

So basically its just open driving, but its available on every policy? We have that in Ireland too; its available to a lot of people. They are just a little more selective about who they offer it to; an 18 year old on their first policy isnt going to get the option of open driving on the policy!

You still havent answered my question; when the policy is the policy holder taken into consideration at all?

I tell you how it works in Poland.
First you need to buy obligatory third party insurance. It's the vehicle owner who has to purchase it.
Premium depends on engine size (which IMO is pure stupid), and place where car owner lives. Also prices vary between insurers, but it's not big differences, as there is plenty of competition on the market, and all insurers are trying to keep prices as low as possible.
Furthermore there are discounts and increases. You get the same as here No Claims Discount (I think max is 60% discount for 8 years claims free driving). There is usually 5% discount for continuing insurance with the same insurer. And there might be increase for young driver (usually 30%). Also No Claims bonus, might turn into Claims increase (it all works on step-back rules, so if you claim while having no NCB, then you get claims increase of probably 10% to 20%. Another claims and you jump to 30% increase, and so on.

Obviously everyone is allowed to drive a car, but in case of a claim, it's the owners policy that get's affected. So if I give my car to my friend, and he will crash, I will loose my NCB.


Then completely separate thing is Own car damage insurance (autocasco) - same thing you get when you purchase comprehensive in Ireland.
But it's compeltely separate, so you can purchase it with different insurer, it's not obligatory, and no claims discount is counted separately on it, (so for example if you have a claim on your autocasco policy because you crashed your car into wall, then you NCB on your third party won't get affected, and as well the opposite, if you cause damage to someone else, but don't claim for your car, then NCB on your third party will be affected, but not on your autocasco).
This kind of insurance is usually more expensive than third party, and base annual premium is about 10% of car value. Obviously if you have 60% NCB on this policy, it comes as 4% car value, but with car worth 100,000k this might be significent sum anyway.



To be honest, I think this is better system than operates in Ireland.

djimi

Okay that makes it a bit clearer!

With the autocasco policy, is it just NCB that is taken into account or is any other aspect of the policy holder accounted for? As in, would it cost a 17 year old and a 57 year old the same amount to insure the same car, provided their NCB is the same?

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

Okay that makes it a bit clearer!

With the autocasco policy, is it just NCB that is taken into account or is any other aspect of the policy holder accounted for? As in, would it cost a 17 year old and a 57 year old the same amount to insure the same car, provided their NCB is the same?

I'm not sure, but some insurers might also include this 30% increase for young drivers on autocasco policy aswell.

Also normally no 17 years old would be able to have full NCB, as you need 8 years claims free driving to get 60% no claims bonus. So this would make significent difference obviously.

But...

There is a backdoor. As a young person can purchase insurance together with someone who already holds NCB (for example parrent) and therefore use parrents NCB.
That's what I did when I was 19. I had no NCB on my own, so I purchased a car, and registered it in the name of both me and my dad. Therefore insurance was on both me and dad, and therefore while they included 30% increase for young driver (me) but they included 60% NCB from my dad. It came quite cheap.
Only trick here is, that as in Poland you can use NCB on as many policies as you wish (not like in Ireland separately on every policy), but if there is a claim on any of those policis, you loose NCB on all of them.
Therefore if I crashed, my dad would loose his NCB on his car as well.

Henry Ford III

Not being xenophobic here at all, but how relevant is insurance in Poland to the position here?

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Not being xenophobic here at all, but how relevant is insurance in Poland to the position here?

Last 30 posts in this thread are about insurance system in other countries.
I think it is relevant to see how it works elsewhere to be able to see how bad it is here

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Not being xenophobic here at all, but how relevant is insurance in Poland to the position here?

It started out as a rant about our insurance system, and became a discussion about how its handled in other countries!

The system in Poland does seem fairer; from what I can gather from what you are saying everyone starts out the same and is only then judged on their NCB? Makes more sense to me really. Part of me understands where the insurers over here are coming from with our current system, but in reality its unfair to tar all young males for example with the same brush because a subset of them act the mick and end up costing the insurer money. Its a much fairer system to treat everyone the same initially and punish for indescretion, rather than punish from the start and lesson that loading as the driver proves themselves.

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

Last 30 posts in this thread are about insurance system in other countries.
I think it is relevant to see how it works elsewhere to be able to see how bad it is here

I think the system here is ok actually. It's not perfect but no system is.

Premiums reflect risk, which is higher for bigger quicker cars, and younger or less experienced drivers.

Equalising premiums would merely make it cheaper for higher risks, whilst making it more expensive for lower risks.

Underwriting profits tend to be small enough for insurers, and investment returns often underpin overall profitabilty.

whomitconcerns

So why do the Germans and the Americans do it on a vehicular basis if its not a good idea...


Anyyyyway its mandatory for all the reasons aforementioned, to cover your own a$$ if you cause an accident and need to pay an amount that you could never afford normally, and it cant be optional for that very reason.

Bazzo

While the vast majority of the systems in place in insurance here DO make perfect sense, ie. younger drivers(especially males) are more likely to crash and thus pay higher insurance, I don't think anyone could deny that insurance companies inflate the numbers to ridiculous prices to up their own profits. The fact that this new EU gender discrimination law is coming into effect(regardless of your opinion on it) and that rather than balancing out insurance costs between males and females the companies are instead just matching the currently lower female prices to the higher male ones(a prediction I made a year or two ago when the announcement about this policy was first made) kind of proves that the insurance companies here are a bit out of control when it comes to profiteering.

The only solution I could think of would be a government body to regulate insurance companies, but then again, we don't exactly have a great track record there either.

Henry Ford III

Bazzo wrote: »

While the vast majority of the systems in place in insurance here DO make perfect sense, ie. younger drivers(especially males) are more likely to crash and thus pay higher insurance, I don't think anyone could deny that insurance companies inflate the numbers to ridiculous prices to up their own profits. The fact that this new EU gender discrimination law is coming into effect(regardless of your opinion on it) and that rather than balancing out insurance costs between males and females the companies are instead just matching the currently lower female prices to the higher male ones(a prediction I made a year or two ago when the announcement about this policy was first made) kind of proves that the insurance companies here are a bit out of control when it comes to profiteering.

The only solution I could think of would be a government body to regulate insurance companies, but then again, we don't exactly have a great track record there either.

A little simplistic I think - no offence.

Motor is a cut throat business, and consumers move insurers frequently based on price.

I don't think there's a cartell of any sort going on which conveniently keeps prices up oin certain market segments.

If increased market share could be had on a profitable basis someone would identify it, and reprice accordingly.

H3llR4iser

djimi wrote: »

It started out as a rant about our insurance system, and became a discussion about how its handled in other countries!

The system in Poland does seem fairer; from what I can gather from what you are saying everyone starts out the same and is only then judged on their NCB? Makes more sense to me really. Part of me understands where the insurers over here are coming from with our current system, but in reality its unfair to tar all young males for example with the same brush because a subset of them act the mick and end up costing the insurer money. Its a much fairer system to treat everyone the same initially and punish for indescretion, rather than punish from the start and lesson that loading as the driver proves themselves.

Let's be entirely honest and not hide behind the proverbial finger: fully believing the "risk calculation" thing would be quite naive, in any case or country. To give you a perfect example, the Italian system works in a similar fashion to the one in use in Poland; However, if you live in certain areas like the southern regions, you will pay up to FOUR TIMES the premium somebody from northern Italy does - this is because, according to the insurance companies, you are more likely to commit insurance fraud.

So, according to the "risk assessment"they do, all men are crashing boy racers, all southern Italians are fraudsters and all women are Alain Prost.

Being Ireland quite a small market, insurers have to milk such profit on a small customers base; The current system is just perfect for this as it effectively enables them to substantially increase the prize:real risk ratio. Add in the fact that Irish roads are, statistically, amongst the safest in Europe and there's the full, overpriced, picture.

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I think the system here is ok actually.

Look at it from such perspective.
Ireland is among few of the countries with the highest living standards in the world. Most people can afford a car no problem.
But.
1. There is so many uninsured drivers on the roads
2. In case of even small accident, there's so many cases when person who caused it just drives off without releving any details.
3. In case of damage caused to parked car, it nearly doesn't happen that person who caused it leaves contact details.
4. There is so many peope who prefer to pay out for the small claim out of their pocket, than claiming from their policy.

Generally speaking car insurance is meant to give us peace of mind on the roads, but unfortuantely, in Ireland considering how insurance system works and how much it costs, effect is opposite. People seem to be pushed to do everything to avoid claiming. That's not normal, and it not like this in other countries.

Bazzo

Henry Ford III wrote: »

A little simplistic I think - no offence.

Motor is a cut throat business, and consumers move insurers frequently based on price.

I don't think there's a cartell of any sort going on which conveniently keeps prices up oin certain market segments.

If increased market share could be had on a profitable basis someone would identify it, and reprice accordingly.

None taken, I'm still inclined to disagree that insurers are currently operating at their minimal viable profitability, though.

I mean, if you just take a look at cost of insurance here vs cost of insurance in the majority of other places across Europe you'll see that it tends to be a lot higher. There's no way that costs of running are double or even higher in Ireland vs other places.

Also, the last point I made about how all companies are simply going to raise women's prices to eliminate gender discrimination kind of proves that they all operate along the same mentality of taking any opportunity to increase profits, rather than acting on a fair basis, no?

H3llR4iser

CiniO wrote: »

...

4. There is so many peope who prefer to pay out for the small claim out of their pocket, than claiming from their policy.

This. It's the worst of them all, and it's the absolutely unquestionable indication that there is a price cartel, that insurers are not providing a good service and that they are essentially robbing their customers. It's the same as buying a car and then not being able to drive it because it's so badly put together it'll fall apart and cost you money to repair; Yuo'd be pretty annoyed with the manufacturers, wouldn't you?