National demonstration against the rising cost of insurance

shietpilot

That video doesn't even look like it's in Ireland... Looks like some Japanese touge run

Seth Brundle

shietpilot wrote: »

That video doesn't even look like it's in Ireland... Looks like some Japanese touge run

I don't think it matters where it was recorded; it's an inappropriate video to be shared by a campaign to reduce motor insurance!

shietpilot

kbannon wrote: »

I don't think it matters where it was recorded; it's an inappropriate video to be shared by a campaign to reduce motor insurance!

What does motor insurance and street racing have to do with each other though? The cost of insurance is not high because of street racers. It's high because of silly payouts for non-existent injuries. Furthermore the video was not posted by "a campaign". It was posted by a motoring page covering the car scene in Ireland which itself has "a campaign" against motor insurance. Big difference.

Atomic Pineapple

shietpilot wrote: »

What does motor insurance and street racing have to do with each other though? The cost of insurance is not high because of street racers. It's high because of silly payouts for non-existent injuries. Furthermore the video was not posted by "a campaign". It was posted by a motoring page covering the car scene in Ireland which itself has "a campaign" against motor insurance. Big difference.

There is a big difference but it doesn't make it irrelevant, when a campaign is being organised where it is coming from and who's behind it is an important factor in its success, no one is going to take a campaign related to motoring seriously if it's coming from a forum that promotes Street racing or organises/markets the protest as a "cruise".

You need mass market attendance for a protest, not a niche one and the mass market won't be seen anywhere near anything that they feel could be labelled under the "boy racer" moniker.

VincePP

shietpilot wrote: »

What does motor insurance and street racing have to do with each other though? The cost of insurance is not high because of street racers. It's high because of silly payouts for non-existent injuries. Furthermore the video was not posted by "a campaign". It was posted by a motoring page covering the car scene in Ireland which itself has "a campaign" against motor insurance. Big difference.

"boy racers" statistically have the most accidents with the highest cost.

colm_mcm

VincePP wrote: »

"boy racers" statistically have the most accidents with the highest cost.

Source?

shietpilot

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

You need mass market attendance for a protest, not a niche one and the mass market won't be seen anywhere near anything that they feel could be labelled under the "boy racer" moniker.

Might explain why the attendance was as poor as it was Not disagreeing with anything by the way but we're not fighting against boy racers. Focus should be on getting the government to sort out these claim payouts.

Atomic Pineapple

shietpilot wrote: »

Might explain why the attendance was as poor as it was Not disagreeing with anything by the way but we're not fighting against boy racers. Focus should be on getting the government to sort out these claim payouts.

Agreed, my point was any sort of association with boy racer groups or their apparent behaviour will be detrimental to the success of such a campaign.

Seth Brundle

shietpilot wrote: »

What does motor insurance and street racing have to do with each other though?

Are you really asking this? Surely it is obvious?

shietpilot wrote: »

Furthermore the video was not posted by "a campaign". It was posted by a motoring page covering the car scene in Ireland which itself has "a campaign" against motor insurance. Big difference.

Semantics.
The group going to national media looking to further the issue of expensive insurance post videos of street racing. Do people care if it's not an insurance campaign but actually a car scene page?

gctest50

Deleted User wrote: »

Not trying to be funny, but does that have anything to do with this?

Was yer man that organised this one of those up in court or something?


If not I don't see how it's relevant?

When you have a Facebook page looking for lower insurance, you don't put a video of drifting in the dark on the road in it.

Even though car enthusiasts / boy racers probably have less accidents

EagererBeaver

Ffs, I spent 3.50 going over and back across the East Link as the radio was warning about gridlock round Merrion Square. Could have spent it on a sambo.

VincePP

colm_mcm wrote: »

Source?

Source? Ah come on, don't tell me you haven't checked any accident / fatility statistics of any country before saying the usual naysayer response of "show me the source"

Check any accident statistic report form any country and it will show factual figures that young male drivers age 17-24 represent 8-12% of the driving population (depends on country) and 25-30% of accidents incurring fatalities and serious injuries.

Its not an Ireland issue - young male drivers worldwide are high risk because they take more risk.

Back in the 80's I was paying almost £2000 for insurance - about 25% of my after tax annual salary fo my forst job. Similar job would pay about 30k after tax now, so in todays money it was about 6k.

shietpilot

VincePP wrote: »

Source? Ah come on, don't tell me you haven't checked any accident / fatility statistics of any country before saying the usual naysayer response of "show me the source"

Check any accident statistic report form any country and it will show factual figures that young male drivers age 17-24 represent 8-12% of the driving population (depends on country) and 25-30% of accidents incurring fatalities and serious injuries.

Its not an Ireland issue - young male drivers worldwide are high risk because they take more risk.

Back in the 80's I was paying almost £2000 for insurance - about 25% of my after tax annual salary fo my forst job. Similar job would pay about 30k after tax now, so in todays money it was about 6k.

Just because a certain type of driver is involved in crashes more often doesn't mean that they make up for a higher damage to insurance companies.

Chances are your typical boy racer will crash the car into a ditch. I suspect the injury claims aren't as bad as in normal fender benders where May's neighbour tells her she's stupid not to claim injury and buy herself a nice holiday abroad.

Like I mentioned previously, it's not a fight about low-high risk drivers. We are trying to get the government to fix this compo culture. No need to be all "blame dem boy racers" about it.

millington

That ridiculous "Ireland Underground" page is exactly why I wouldn't be associated with this protest. Absolute shower of idiots!

It's not stereotyping or generalisation, but you'll find the eegits running and liking that page drive around in A4s and Passats with straight pipes. I've been into cars all my life and always have driven modified or sporty cars of some sort, as have all my friends, but the crowds that generally like those pages are just airheads.

The only insurance claims that any of us were involved in was when my IS200 got rearended by a 35 year old woman and when my mates daily Passat TDI was stolen. I could have done what everyone does and claimed for some sort of back injuries but I understand why insurance is so high and I'd rather not be a direct cause of that. I was happy enough to get paid for my car and that was it. It's a pity most other people involved in accidents don't have the same outlook.

shietpilot

millington wrote: »

The only insurance claims that any of us were involved in was when my IS200 got rearended by a 35 year old woman and when my mates daily Passat TDI was stolen. I could have done what everyone does and claimed for some sort of back injuries but I understand why insurance is so high and I'd rather not be a direct cause of that. I was happy enough to get paid for my car and that was it. It's a pity most other people involved in accidents don't have the same outlook.

Which is exactly the point. Shane Byrne started to organise another protest yesterday and his plan was to block the entrance to every insurance company's office in the country.

The lads don't even know what they are fighting for and just shouting "dem rip off insurance companies".

Absolute muppets everywhere.

tipptom

Notice a lot of the FG heads turning up here.


Criticizing any TDs who actually turned up,banging on about water charges and defending the insurance industry to the hilt.


Sugar Daddy Denis o Brien must have a big investment in the insurance industry in Ireland!

ThisRegard

tipptom wrote: »

Notice a lot of the FG heads turning up here.


Criticizing any TDs who actually turned up,banging on about water charges and defending the insurance industry to the hilt.


Sugar Daddy Denis o Brien must have a big investment in the insurance industry in Ireland!

This bull**** has been let out of the political cafe threads into the wider population?

VincePP

LIGHTNING wrote: »

So basically you are dancing around the fact that you have nothing to back up your original statement. There is a massive difference between boy racer and young male drivers. Nice attempt though

No, I just couldn't be arsed givign you a link because a very simple google search will give you a massive amoun of statistics that prove that youg male drivers have proportionately higher number of crashes that cause death and injury.

Insurance companies simply price risk. Young male drivers can mitigate that risk and get discounts - back in the 80's I used Ansvar Insurance and signed a declaration with a solicitor that I would not drink one drop of alcohol during the time of the entire policy - it got me a 30% discount. It was still over £1500 though. Also the max engin size young people could get insurance on's was 1.4l - given today's engine technology it's equivalent to about 1l

These days you can sign up to various options including monitoring of driving behaviour and speed to get 30% discount(xlnt wih aig is one) - but young drivers don't want to do that.

So, see what was wrong with this "massive protest" - it was described as a "cruise", it only targeted one single cause of high insurance, the FB page was full of boy racer types alientating most motorists, it made no mention of fraud, it made no mention of legal fees, it made no mention of high awards.

Each area could possibly save 5-10% on insurance - so targeting one area, even if successful makes little difference. Target all four areas and you have potential of 30%-40% savings.

As I said, idea is good, but back to the drawing board.

Kiangriffin

Well folks, I took a shot. I tried to organise something to see if I could better the situation for motorists here. If nothing else, the campaign has shed some light on the insurance issue so it's something to take from it all. I've come in for a lot of criticism since Saturday but also some praise.
I'm glad to see so many people here have excellent ideas on how to resolve the issue. I will fully support any of you when you will be doing your bit to help bring down the insurance premiums.
This has been an almost vertical learning curve, I pitched it as a "cruise" to try and pique the interest of younger drivers (obviously didn't work). Our speakers each focused on different issues contributing the the rise and as a group covered the full spectrum.
I, and those who volunteered their time to help, will not be going quietly into the night after this. we are going to continue to lobby the government as we have been over the last number of weeks.

Also, that drifting video I share on my "ridiculous Ireland underground page" was a legally organised uphill drift event in Japan. all above board.

Atomic Pineapple

Fair play to you for trying, I think most posters on here commend you for that and most posts are constructive feedback on what might have been areas that had a negative impact on the protest itself, I'd encourage you to take even what might seem like negatives digs at you as something you can take and use as better preparation moving forward.

Kiangriffin

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Fair play to you for trying, I think most posters on here commend you for that and most posts are constructive feedback on what might have been areas that had a negative impact on the protest itself, I'd encourage you to take even what might seem like negatives digs at you as something you can take and use as better preparation moving forward.

I do appreciate the constructive opinions. At least I know plenty of people are talking about this, talking will result in ideas being put out there and from those ideas we'll hopefully find a solution 🙂

To be honest Kian, I reckon you need to have another stab at it.

If it flops, let it die, but i reckon a sequel will see more support.

Padraig Mor

Another insurance company throwing around money when they could have fought the case, and won - but sure, we'll just load people's policies instead! From today's news:

Irish Times wrote:

An eight-year-old girl, who was knocked down by a car as she ran across a road after her dog, has been awarded €25,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court.

Barrister Fran Rooney said Katelynn Barrett had run across Canal Road, Portarlington, Co Laois, in a bid to catch her dog as she thought it would have been injured or killed.

Mr Rooney, counsel for Katelynn, of Raheen Park, Ballyfermot, Dublin, said that in 2011 she had been visiting family friends in Portarlington with her mother, Ms Susan Barret, when the accident happened.

He said Katelynn, who will be 13 on the 31st of this month, had not seen the car of Bridget Mitchell, Annamoe, Portalington, approaching and was knocked down.

Mr Rooney, who appeared with B and P Byrne Solicitors, told Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Raymond Groarke, that there could be a problem on liability if the defendant’s insurers contested the case.

He said the defendant’s insurer had indicated they would claim there was a liability issue on the basis that Katelynn had run out on to the road after her dog and that Ms Mitchell did not have time to react.

Mr Rooney told the court a settlement offer of €25,000 had been made to Katelynn, who sued the defendant through her mother Susan, and he was recommending that the court approve the offer.

He said Katelynn had suffered a fracture to her left wrist, a cut to her lower lip and abrasions to her face and chin and cuts to her ankles and right knee. There had been no question of scarring.

She had been taken to the fracture clinic at Midlands General Hospital where she had been treated for her injuries. She had suffered pain in her left wrist for four months and it had remained weak for some time afterwards.

Judge Groarke, approving the €25,000 settlement, said there was a serious issue on liability according to statements made by a garda and an independent witness.

“This is a good offer as Katelynn was fine after four months and had made a full recovery. It would be reckless of me to refuse the offer,” he said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/girl-knocked-down-as-she-chased-dog-awarded-25-000-1.2711094

So, unless I'm reading this incorrectly, here we have a case where a girl ran out on a road straight in front of a driver who had no time to react, and hit her - totally the girl's own fault. A witness and Gardaí back this up. The girl's own legal team even admit that she would be unlikely to win a contested court case. Yet the driver's insurance company offer the girl 25 grand anyway?! Because they couldn't be bothered going through a court case presumably?! No mention of costs, but no doubt the insurance company will pay for the girl's legal team too (solicitor + barrister) - so it will likely end up a 30 - 40 grand claim on that poor driver's record? No wonder every chancer in the country has a well worn path to the courtroom doors!

shietpilot

Beyond stupid really. The parents should be happy to see their daughter alive but of course they see it like a jackpot! It's a sad world we live in...

NufcNavan

Scandalous, but not surprising.

I got my premium in the post today. It is north of 2k for the year despite a year's no claims. It would be 4 or 5 years if it wasn't for an accident I had in 2014. I tipped into a woman's car. I completely accepted liability. Stupid error. However, the woman has since claimed personal injuries which I fully dispute. There wasn't a thing wrong with her and she is being a total opportunist.

So far she has claimed over €6,000 in personal injuries and the claim still isn't settled. I'm left to twiddle my thumbs and wait for another few years for it to be settled while she gets more and more money thrown her way. It's an absolute disgrace.

The worst part of it is that I am getting punished twice for this because I cannot shop for another quote while a claim is still unsettled. The insurance company I am with can throw any figure my way and I have no choice but to pay it. What a broken system.

Seth Brundle

NufcNavan wrote: »

I got my premium in the post today. It is north of 2k for the year despite a year's no claims. It would be 4 or 5 years if it wasn't for an accident I had in 2014. I tipped into a woman's car. I completely accepted liability. Stupid error. However, the woman has since claimed personal injuries which I fully dispute. There wasn't a thing wrong with her and she is being a total opportunist.

You hit her, she claimed as she is entitled to do.
How do you know what is or isn't wrong with her?
I've already mentioned how I have permanent neck pain from an injury received years ago. Money won't make it better but it will pay for physio treatment, etc. Looking at me, you'd think there was nothing wrong.
So how exactly have you diagnosed her lack of problems?

NufcNavan wrote: »

So far she has claimed over €6,000 in personal injuries and the claim still isn't settled. I'm left to twiddle my thumbs and wait for another few years for it to be settled while she gets more and more money thrown her way. It's an absolute disgrace.

6k isn't much and is irrelevant to a large extent. the insurance company have probably spent twice that on legal and medical costs.
You injured her (allegedly). She is entitled to ensure that she gets treated for it. Why should she be concerned over you given that you're not concerned for her?

NufcNavan

kbannon wrote: »

You hit her, she claimed as she is entitled to do.
How do you know what is or isn't wrong with her?
I've already mentioned how I have permanent neck pain from an injury received years ago. Money won't make it better but it will pay for physio treatment, etc. Looking at me, you'd think there was nothing wrong.
So how exactly have you diagnosed her lack of problems?


6k isn't much and is irrelevant to a large extent. the insurance company have probably spent twice that on legal and medical costs.
You injured her (allegedly). She is entitled to ensure that she gets treated for it. Why should she be concerned over you given that you're not concerned for her?

I know because the contact was so minimal that I didn't even need repairs done to my car. She got out of the car no problem, chatted away fine and seemed like a decent person. On going home and reflecting on it she probably realised she could get a few bob out of the situation.

I have no time for her at all. This could easily have been sorted without going through the insurance route which I was willing to do but she decided otherwise. As I said the thing is dragging on and on without word from the insurance company over what's happening and I get screwed because of it.

Seth Brundle

NufcNavan wrote: »

I know because the contact was so minimal that I didn't even need repairs done to my car. She got out of the car no problem, chatted away fine and seemed like a decent person. On going home and reflecting on it she probably realised she could get a few bob out of the situation.

I have no time for her at all. This could easily have been sorted without going through the insurance route which I was willing to do but she decided otherwise. As I said the thing is dragging on and on without word from the insurance company over what's happening and I get screwed because of it.

My neck incident was low speed. It still hurts!
Don't make assumptions! At the very least you're only getting worked up about it. On the other end of the scale you could have someone who has back pain to the point that the have barely slept one comfortable night since the incident!

NufcNavan

kbannon wrote: »

My neck incident was low speed. It still hurts!
Don't make assumptions! At the very least you're only getting worked up about it. On the other end of the scale you could have someone who has back pain to the point that the have barely slept one comfortable night since the incident!

I try to sleep knowing that isn't the case but anyway.