National demonstration against the rising cost of insurance

Special Circumstances

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The system here in NZ is pretty good. Centrally controlled agency responsible for all accident costs. Insurance include in you Rego (motor tax for want of a better comparison) and insurance outside of this is not mandatory.
Should be copied in Ireland IMO, a single agency setting payouts and fighting against crazy claims would be far more effective.

There's a lot to be said for state control or very very tight regulation of a product that is legally required. In a modern country which some notion of serving the people.

Unfortunately we'd end up with a quango that spent bajillions on consultants, and wages and prices running about 4 times any other comparable country. All the connected people lining up to get on the gravy train. "Irish Insurance"... frightening prospect.

greengone

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The system here in NZ is pretty good. Centrally controlled agency responsible for all accident costs. Insurance include in you Rego (motor tax for want of a better comparison) and insurance outside of this is not mandatory.
Should be copied in Ireland IMO, a single agency setting payouts and fighting against crazy claims would be far more effective.

sounds like you're getting shafted here too...

Also South Africa has similar system they charge few cent per liter for petrol and diesel to cover third party injury and death claims .
Property and other claims are done by competition and not compulsaryand the prices due to competion were interesting low when I visted South Africa

Looking the statistics on Irish crash and claim rates they are broadly similar to the rest of the western world .
It shows that the average claim for car crash is less than 25,000 both for property and personale injury .
Strippling out the property element suggests that a fee of €150 per car per year would easy cover all injury and death claims in South Ireland for one year

That fee can be done with less than 10cent a liter levy on the fuels sold in south of Ireland


Also it is fairer those who use more fuel with lots of driving and large cars or older cars with less fuel economy pay more third party Insurance

Of course we know the Irish government in bed with thier buddies in the insurance industry wont ever go there to real solutions that dilute car insurance rip off profits .
Also unfortunalty the Irish people wont come together to demand this type of solution or other reforms to car insurance as trying to get them to pull together on issues is like herding cats


A interesting thing I saw is all public protests by Unions and political parties are covered with Public liabilty insurance they take out to cover these events

The Garda often do and often will close down protests for demonstrations if there is no public liablity for that event .

Also it seems if there is damage at some demostrations the Garda might look to recover costs from the organisers of demonstrations if there is no liabilty insurance in place .

when the SH!T hits the Proverbale just blame Boards they organised it all

MarkAnthony

Henry Ford III wrote: »

For me it's the legal system that's mainly at fault here.

Why not protest outside some ambulance chasers office?

brooke 2 wrote: »

Absolutely!!

By that logic the current housing crisis is the fault of bricklayers.

The legal system in Ireland is the cheapest to the taxpayer in Europe. The alternative is a Civil law system (as opposed to common law) which is much easier to access and much more expensive to the taxpayer. At the moment it's mainly paid for by people who access it.

The insurance lobby has a massive pull over the legal system here. The PIAB, such as it is, and removal of juries in civil cases. It turned out that juries actually awarded less than a Judge, but you only need look at Irish begrudgery to have seen that coming, but I digress.

The solution is either more money in tax, more time spent on juries, which people will just weasel out of, or here's a thought we could have less accidents and start limiting those that do to cars with specific safety equipment and lower powered engines. That and actually have a driving test that's not rooted in 1953.

Willfarman

MarkAnthony wrote: »

By that logic the current housing crisis is the fault of bricklayers.

The legal system in Ireland is the cheapest to the taxpayer in Europe. The alternative is a Civil law system (as opposed to common law) which is much easier to access and much more expensive to the taxpayer. At the moment it's mainly paid for by people who access it.

The insurance lobby has a massive pull over the legal system here. The PIAB, such as it is, and removal of juries in civil cases. It turned out that juries actually awarded less than a Judge, but you only need look at Irish begrudgery to have seen that coming, but I digress.

The solution is either more money in tax, more time spent on juries, which people will just weasel out of, or here's a thought we could have less accidents and start limiting those that do to cars with specific safety equipment and lower powered engines. That and actually have a driving test that's not rooted in 1953.

So juries will lower the rates of compensation? Or do they need to be lowered at all in your view? You think part of the solution is an insurance tax? Are you a solicitor?

dr.fuzzenstein

For anyone who thinks that insurance companies are creaming it, how come some new company doesn't come into the market, offers realistic premiums and rips through all those gouging bastards that are making obscene profits and turns this market upside down?
Oh wait, that already happened. Remind me how well that went?

PS:
I do think a national demonstration is a good thing. Everyone has to be targeted, the government and the insurers. I don't know if protesting against the judiciary will help in any way, they, by definition, don't give a sh*t what anyone thinks.

dodzy

Surely there is a market for a company specifically insuring over 30s with 10yrs plus NCB ?

Gotta be an earner there.

greengone

greengone wrote: »

That fee can be done with less than 10cent a liter levy on the fuels sold in south of Ireland

Optimistic. Didn't they work out that just incorporating tax alone into the cost of fuel was gonna add over 30c to the price of a litre? (37c seems to be stuck in my head for some reason)

Liam McPoyle

dodzy wrote: »

Surely there is a market for a company specifically insuring over 30s with 10yrs plus NCB ?

Gotta be an earner there.

Accidents happen across all classes of driver, driving all types of cars, male or female, multiple different occupations.

There is non sure fire earner for an insurance company.

It doesn't matter how many years bonus you have or what kind of driver you are, you can still have an accident, someone can still stop suddenly in front of you or cut across you, you can still have a split second lapse of concentration and end up costing an insurer hundreds and thousands of euro.

People have this attitude (not directed at yourself btw) that "I'm a great driver so I won't crash", sometimes its due to circumstances beyond driver control that lead to accidents.

In the future I believe telematics will be utilised much more and will be embraced by the driving public. There is also potential for pay per drive policies.

In simple terms a black box is fitted to your car and records your driving for a month - area of use, mileage, speeds, braking habits etc - and you get a bill every month based on the previous months driving.

There are real savings to be made but people are afraid that big brother is watching so are reluctant to utilise it.

For those that are afraid I would suggest that their driving habits are riskier than some which is where the reluctance comes from. For drivers that follow the rules of the road there are real cost savings available.

shietpilot

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

For those that are afraid I would suggest that their driving habits are riskier than some which is where the reluctance comes from. For drivers that follow the rules of the road there are real cost savings available.

Because they don't make sense. What happens if I take my car to a track day and the black box is running? What happens if I give my car to a mechanic and he needs to test the brakes?

Atomic Pineapple

shietpilot wrote: »

Because they don't make sense. What happens if I take my car to a track day and the black box is running? What happens if I give my car to a mechanic and he needs to test the brakes?

Flag it to your insurance company, easily done through an online interface. Data will likely contain location so will easily determine if you're on a track. It'll only be one day or a limited event in the data over 30 days so it'll be easily ironed out as an inconsistency in your overall driving capability. Not really a big deal at all.

MarkAnthony

Willfarman wrote: »

So juries will lower the rates of compensation? Or do they need to be lowered at all in your view? You think part of the solution is an insurance tax? Are you a solicitor?

The insurance lobby was part of removing juries from the civil side. Compensation went up as a result. You tell me if they would result in it going down, who knows years later.

Compensation rates always need to be higher if you're involved in the case, lower if you're an outside observer.

My career choice involves a cape, however I'm not yet wearing one.

Not sure where you're getting an insurance tax from; the legal system costs us very little in tax. Someone was suggesting changing the legal system we have in Ireland - presumably to reduce fees? If so that's the Civil (European) system. It costs an absolute fortune to run a civil legal system (as opposed to a Common Law system). There is also much greater access to it so although I can't really see PI (Injury) claims increasing you'd see a massive jump in other litigation as it became much cheaper to launch defamation claims for example.

MarkAnthony

dodzy wrote: »

Surely there is a market for a company specifically insuring over 30s with 10yrs plus NCB ?

Gotta be an earner there.

It's specifically barred under the Equal status act and the European jurisprudence (sorry can't think of another word for it). It's the same idiotic logic that resulted in women paying higher insurance. All insurance is based on discrimination, that needs to be accepted frankly.

Special Circumstances

Pity the black boxes don't work in 15 year old cars though.

shietpilot

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Pity the black boxes don't work in 15 year old cars though.

Del2005

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Flag it to your insurance company, easily done through an online interface. Data will likely contain location so will easily determine if you're on a track. It'll only be one day or a limited event in the data over 30 days so it'll be easily ironed out as an inconsistency in your overall driving capability. Not really a big deal at all.

In your other post you said inconsistencies are the cause of RTIs? Know you are saying that inconsistencies don't matter over the space of a month.

Del2005

Special Circumstances wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uncertainty-in-motor-insurance-sector-can-be-eased-1.2640251

Kevin Thompson, chief executive Insurance Ireland:

"Higher payouts
In addition, the average cost of claim was up approximately 8 per cent in private motor and approximately 27 per cent in public liability from 2012 to 2014. This means more claims and higher payouts; a routine whiplash case settles for €15,000 in Ireland, and €5,000 in the UK.
Of course, only a minority of such claims end up in court. For those that do, legal costs account for 60 per cent of compensation, according to the Injuries Board. This is especially costly as the average Circuit Court awards were up 14 per cent in 2014. Most claims are straightforward with no dispute over fault."

Somebody would want to get on to him and tell him get on side with the insurance industry reps line on boards.ie !

A lot of claims are settled on the steps of the court or before going to court, the solicitors aren't paid by the claimants

Willfarman

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The insurance lobby was part of removing juries from the civil side. Compensation went up as a result. You tell me if they would result in it going down, who knows years later.

Compensation rates always need to be higher if you're involved in the case, lower if you're an outside observer.

My career choice involves a cape, however I'm not yet wearing one.

Not sure where you're getting an insurance tax from; the legal system costs us very little in tax. Someone was suggesting changing the legal system we have in Ireland - presumably to reduce fees? If so that's the Civil (European) system. It costs an absolute fortune to run a civil legal system (as opposed to a Common Law system). There is also much greater access to it so although I can't really see PI (Injury) claims increasing you'd see a massive jump in other litigation as it became much cheaper to launch defamation claims for example.

So put your cape to one side. And put on your layman's anorak for a minute. Do you believe legal fees in Ireland are competitive and in line with the rest of Europe? And do you believe compensation rates are fair? Keep in mind that 8.65 an hour catches a lot of people's gross pay.

dr.fuzzenstein

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

In the future I believe telematics will be utilised much more and will be embraced by the driving public. There is also potential for pay per drive policies.

In simple terms a black box is fitted to your car and records your driving for a month - area of use, mileage, speeds, braking habits etc - and you get a bill every month based on the previous months driving.

There are real savings to be made but people are afraid that big brother is watching so are reluctant to utilise it.

For those that are afraid I would suggest that their driving habits are riskier than some which is where the reluctance comes from. For drivers that follow the rules of the road there are real cost savings available.

A thousand times NO! to that. Sorry, but not in a million years!
The insurance companies will bring this in under the guise of "savings", but what if everyone has one?
"Ah, Mr Fuzz, so glad you could come in, do please take a seat. Now let's see. Oh dear. Oh deary me. Oh no, no ,no ,no no, that's not good at all. You see here on the 10th? I really don't like how you applied the brakes here. Now those G forces on the 12th are completely unacceptable and what the HELL is this? Driving at 3 am? Do you think we insure you for these kind of shenanigans? OK, you have the choice of your premium going up by 50%, or you can bugger off to one of the other companies, by the way we will be sharing our data with them, so you're stuffed!".

So because I might have to brake for a deer, maybe take a tight motorway exit ramp at a speed deemed excessive by some pen-pusher in his ivory tower or I go out once in my life (and of course I don't drink if I drive) I will get stuffed, because some desk jockey who can only see data on a printout, wasn't there with me, can't see what was happening around me decides I have exceeded some arbitrary G-force set by faceless bureaucrats?
I agree with a lot of what you say, but fcuk that sh*t. Up the arse. With a broken bottle. Not in a million years and people are only morons for giving that much insight into a company whose only purpose it is to find risks and fcuk you accordingly.
This sh*t hjas to be stopped and drowned at birth.
Do you know that people have stickers on their cars explaining that they are not morons and please don't beep, because they have one of those boxes? Driving Miss Daisy is a fcuking trackday compared to how you have to drive with one of those.

Special Circumstances

If the boxes were any good for reducing claims there would be no need to ban 15year old cars.

Atomic Pineapple

Del2005 wrote: »

In your other post you said inconsistencies are the cause of RTIs? Know you are saying that inconsistencies don't matter over the space of a month.

For clarification, what other post?

MarkAnthony

Willfarman wrote: »

So put your cape to one side. And put on your layman's anorak for a minute. Do you believe legal fees in Ireland are competitive and in line with the rest of Europe? And do you believe compensation rates are fair? Keep in mind that 8.65 an hour catches a lot of people's gross pay.

Bear in mind the pay of a self employed barrister would be well below 8.65 for the first decade or so of their career and that I come from a different career, just to cast any preconceptions aside.

Legal fees in Ireland are huge, that's a reflection of the common law system. Legal professionals themselves are not hugely well paid. Some make it and are minted, the same can be said for electricians, plumbers, retail workers etc. The system demands highly skilled people and the judiciary costs the taxpayer very little therefore people who access it pay for it.

Should we increase taxes to allow everyone access? Perhaps - I'd just be pretty annoyed if I had to pay for some skangers defamation claim over a security officer accusing them of theft, but then on the other hand perhaps we should allow more people to take human rights cases etc and pay for them. The only thing preventing many prisoners in Ireland taking human rights cases is cost, perhaps we should remove that bar.

So you tell me. Should we all pay (like insurance) even if we don't use it or should it be pay as you go?

As for compensation rates - no they need a radical overhaul in the upwards direction. There was a discussion on the book of quantum there a few days ago. 192K for the loss of both hands - you tell me - two hands or 192K? Me I'd prefer hands.

As for the additional expenses there's legal fees - as discussed you need to make a call there then there are vouched for expenses. Medical costs, the cost of home help is required, even something as mundane as a cut and blow dry if the person is not able to do that themselves anymore, as per a recent case. Is it fair that someone doesn't receive compensation that makes them whole?

The issue a lot of people have is so called spurious claims, for example whiplash. While I do have my own views that certain areas of PI should be tightened up I do however see that the only way you can end up with a whiplash claim against one is poor driving (barring crash for cash) so I've little sympathy in many cases other than it affects my and everyone else's premium. That's a legislative issue not a legal one.

Liam McPoyle

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

A thousand times NO! to that. Sorry, but not in a million years!
The insurance companies will bring this in under the guise of "savings", but what if everyone has one?
"Ah, Mr Fuzz, so glad you could come in, do please take a seat. Now let's see. Oh dear. Oh deary me. Oh no, no ,no ,no no, that's not good at all. You see here on the 10th? I really don't like how you applied the brakes here. Now those G forces on the 12th are completely unacceptable and what the HELL is this? Driving at 3 am? Do you think we insure you for these kind of shenanigans? OK, you have the choice of your premium going up by 50%, or you can bugger off to one of the other companies, by the way we will be sharing our data with them, so you're stuffed!".

So because I might have to brake for a deer, maybe take a tight motorway exit ramp at a speed deemed excessive by some pen-pusher in his ivory tower or I go out once in my life (and of course I don't drink if I drive) I will get stuffed, because some desk jockey who can only see data on a printout, wasn't there with me, can't see what was happening around me decides I have exceeded some arbitrary G-force set by faceless bureaucrats?
I agree with a lot of what you say, but fcuk that sh*t. Up the arse. With a broken bottle. Not in a million years and people are only morons for giving that much insight into a company whose only purpose it is to find risks and fcuk you accordingly.
This sh*t hjas to be stopped and drowned at birth.
Do you know that people have stickers on their cars explaining that they are not morons and please don't beep, because they have one of those boxes? Driving Miss Daisy is a fcuking trackday compared to how you have to drive with one of those.

This is some of the fear I was talking about!



Of course its not workable and would be wholly unfeasible if every little indiscretion was punished.

It would be all well and good if we attached our cars to tram lines and could only go forwards or backwards but we don't so its regular patterns that would be measured as opposed to infrequent incidents.

Say you are on the motorway, driver in front of you is going 100km p/h, you are going to have to break the speed limit in this instance to safely overtake. You couldn't get punished for that.

Its regular patterns of unsafe driving that would be flagged.

For someone doing heavy mileage or motorway driving it may not be attractive but for people that do low mileage in a highly populated urban area where low speeds are the norm then there is no reason not to try it IMO.

There would have to be fair and defined parameters known to the driver from the get go or before they signed up for anything.

Special Circumstances

Seems bizarre that the answer to high premiums "caused by rampant fraud" is to monitor for regular patterns. Fraud you would assume is an exceptional event rather than something that occurs over consecutive journeys.

dr.fuzzenstein

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Seems bizarre that the answer to high premiums "caused by rampant fraud" is to monitor for regular patterns. Fraud you would assume is an exceptional event rather than something that occurs over consecutive journeys.

Agreed.
We are entering an age of total surveillance. Every webpage you visit, every credit or debit card transaction (and your bank balance), you exact whereabouts at all times (via your phone), your emails, phonecalls, (work and private) the exact location of your car (correlate that with your phone and credit card), CCTV everywhere you go, every flight, train journey and if we're cashless, every fcuking Mars bar you buy (your health insurance might be interested in that) what we in German call "Der gläserne Mensch", the glass person, every single thing about you will soon (or is already) collected, stored, correlated and you can bet your sweet behind, used exclusively against people.
Thanks, I will use my own recording equipment in my car, so I can share information I want to share and only that and no more.
I also agree that banning over 15 year old cars is utterly stupid, it's not the car that's at fault, but the driver.
But still, those are all sideshows and detract from the real problems with insurance here and that is still levels of payout 10 times what they should be and a Dickensian judiciary.

Autosport

You've mad it onto joe.ie, getting loads more coverage now

shietpilot

I'm definitely not going to this demonstration now. Apparently Shane Byrne from Dublin Meets (the same muppet who was on RTE's show about boyracers) is organising a convoy from Clondalkin. I'd say there will be a few drag races involved now...

alta stare

shietpilot wrote: »

I'm definitely not going to this demonstration now. Apparently Shane Byrne from Dublin Meets (the same muppet who was on RTE's show about boyracers) is organising a convoy from Clondalkin. I'd say there will be a few drag races involved now...

I reckon it was inevitable that some people would plan to go along and end up acting the idiots which would probably get more coverage than the actual demonstration itself.

Ill be going anyway and I know a few others who are going. This could be a big thing given the coverage seems to be gaining traction. Hope the dopes stay away tho.

Atomic Pineapple

On July 2nd, we will undertake the largest cruise this country has ever seen.

I can see the news reports already. Which is a shame.

Jesus.

shietpilot wrote: »

I'm definitely not going to this demonstration now. Apparently Shane Byrne from Dublin Meets (the same muppet who was on RTE's show about boyracers) is organising a convoy from Clondalkin. I'd say there will be a few drag races involved now...

That's me out too

shietpilot

alta stare wrote: »

I reckon it was inevitable that some people would plan to go along and end up acting the idiots which would probably get more coverage than the actual demonstration itself.

Ill be going anyway and I know a few others who are going. This could be a big thing given the coverage seems to be gaining traction. Hope the dopes stay away tho.

I've seen Shane Byrne posting messages about insurance companies before on Facebook and it went something like "insurance companies are scumbags so I'm driving my Skyline uninsured". Just from reading that you know the kind of people you're dealing with.

Not worth the hassle going there and looking like a tool with all the other idiots.