Stopped by the Gardai, have to produce insurance cert

Cheensbo

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Apply that here and premiums would rocket.

How so?

Afaik premiums are pretty reasonable over there - however I just went along with the compulsory 3rd party myself, didn't bother with a premium so can't say from personal experience.

ThisRegard

kceire wrote: »

Your name is not on the disc so it doesn't confirm who is insured or for what purpose.

Certificate, not disk. I thought he said he had his cert infront.

Henry Ford III

Cheensbo wrote: »

How so?

Afaik premiums are pretty reasonable over there - however I just went along with the compulsory 3rd party myself, didn't bother with a premium so can't say from personal experience.

Consider the aggregate premium levels charged here right now. The figure is huge. I'm guessing an average is c.€650 a car. Higher risk drivers pay way more.

Now consider that the highest risk drivers don't bother getting their own cover and rely on 3rd party extensions and the like.

Who pays the deficit? The risk hasn't changed after all.

Jesus.

Cheensbo wrote: »

It works in oz / nz too so add another continent/sub continent - insure the car (or don't - compulsory third party insurance comes with your registration/tax) And anyone who's licence allows them (depending on classification of the car) - can then drive it no hassle at all. Look up red p's & green p's - it's a pretty good system.

Ain't that what they do in the US?

emo72

I always wondered what was the point of displaying an insurance disc, when they ask you to produce a certificate. I know a few lads who carry the cert anyway. But yeah putting insurance on the car seems sensible. But you can't do that because it's not the way we do things around these here parts.

Cheensbo

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Consider the aggregate premium levels charged here right now. The figure is huge. I'm guessing an average is c.€650 a car. Higher risk drivers pay way more.

Now consider that the highest risk drivers don't bother getting their own cover and rely on 3rd party extensions and the like.

Who pays the deficit? The risk hasn't changed after all.

Agree with the logic but responsibility is applied differently - if you only have basic 3rd party you are only covered for injury to 3rd parties, you become personally liable for any property damage caused. I.e. you get sued. Now I must admit I will have to bow out because I don't know enough to debate it, I'm not even certain it could work here but I just wanted to add it in as a possibility/reference

Story Bud?

My mr2 has open drive. It allows anyone age 25-70 with a full licence and 4 pp or less, drive it.

I don't see why we couldn't have a system lile that across the board.

Pay a premium if you have a particularly powerful car, a premium to allow 18 year olds to drive it. Not that you should have a million premiums, but why not have a few levels from basic up to higher risk.

Anyome with an ounce of cop ok will be careful of who they're allowing to drive their car. No different to now really, as driving of other cars is always third party only so your takings risk allowing someone even with their own insurance, take your car onto the road.

Del2005

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Even a 17 year old, with a learner permit, no experience, and an overly inflated view of their driving abilities.

Genius stuff.

Unless they had a person who has a full licence for 2 years in the car they wouldn't be insured. We would have to start enforcing the licencing laws and start penalising unlicensed drivers, which unaccompanied permit in cars are.

GM228

Del2005 wrote: »

Unless they had a person who has a full licence for 2 years in the car they wouldn't be insured. We would have to start enforcing the licencing laws and start penalising unlicensed drivers, which unaccompanied permit in cars are.

They would be insured - for a minimum third party.

Having the appropriate licence and following the requirements for a second driver etc is a different issue.

Del2005

GM228 wrote: »

They would be insured - for a minimum third party.

Having the appropriate licence and following the requirements for a second driver etc is a different issue.

They're not licenced so can't be insured, we've ignored the law for too long. In any other country a person driving outside the conditions of their licence/permit would have the vehicle lifted, here you get to drive off.

Jesus.

I don't think that's true Del

GM228

Del2005 wrote: »

They're not licenced so can't be insured, we've ignored the law for too long. In any other country a person driving outside the conditions of their licence/permit would have the vehicle lifted, here you get to drive off.

They are insured, by law as per EU Directives they must be insured to a minimum of third party irrespective, in other words their insurance company would have to pay any third party claims, but may not pay your own losses and may try to recover any payments they made via a Civil case.

Not being licensed is against the law, but dosn't invalidate your insurance, same way being drunk and driving is against the law but even in that case your still insured.

grogi

GM228 wrote: »

They are insured, by law as per EU Directives they must be insured to a minimum of third party irrespective, in other words their insurance company would have to pay any third party claims, but may not pay your own losses and may try to recover any payments they made via a Civil case.

Not being licensed is against the law, but dosn't invalidate your insurance, same way being drunk and driving is against the law but even in that case your still insured.

So they are not insured. The Underwriter have the right to get compensation for driving unlicensed - and they should in such situations.

joeysoap

You don't need to display an insurance disc or a tax disc in Northern Ireland . PSNI can tell if the car tax is paid and if the car is insured by scanning the reg number. Don't know if it works or not but sounds better than a guard at a checkpoint examining a disc to see its genuine or not.

orm0nd

joeysoap wrote: »

You don't need to display an insurance disc or a tax disc in Northern Ireland . PSNI can tell if the car tax is paid and if the car is insured by scanning the reg number. Don't know if it works or not but sounds better than a guard at a checkpoint examining a disc to see its genuine or not.

the guards here know if the vehicle is insured or not, the issue arises with named drivers (underage or otherwise)

we have a copy of the cert. in each vehicle, most guards will accept it on the spot , if not it's easy to show the original @ the station

GM228

grogi wrote: »

So they are not insured. The Underwriter have the right to get compensation for driving unlicensed - and they should in such situations.

They are insured, I specifically used may as redress for the insurance company is not guaranteed, that would be a civil matter and nothing to do with the validity of the insurance.

Depending on amounts paid the insurance company may not even bother trying to recoup any monies paid via civil matters, but they will penalise you one way or another and have a massive loading in the next premium no doubt.

Jesus.

So much worth of a car would you claim on if you wrote it off? Anything over 5 grand? 7 or 8 grand?

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Even a 17 year old, with a learner permit, no experience, and an overly inflated view of their driving abilities.

Genius stuff.

I wouldn't be for allowing learner permit holder to drive under open driving policies.
IMO learners system should be changed in the first place.
They shouldn't be allowed to drive without instructor anyway - but that's a discussion for different thread.

But answering the question - yes - even 17 year old full licence holder with very little experience and overly inflated view of their driving abilities should be allowed to drive under open driving policies.
That's how it works in most countries.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Consider the aggregate premium levels charged here right now. The figure is huge. I'm guessing an average is c.€650 a car. Higher risk drivers pay way more.

Maybe higher risk drivers pay more, but how many of them actually pay?
I read it's estimated that 6% of drivers in Ireland drive uninsured.
Assuming vast majority of low risk drivers actually pay for their insurance as it's reasonably cheap for them, then probably majority of high risk drivers don't pay and just drive uninsured.
Cost of damage caused by them needs to be covered anyway (by MIBI which is funded from out premiums).
Also having only named drivers to be covered creates huge amount of uninsured driver who just borrow a car from a friend, parent, etc... So many people don't bother adding them to policy, as what's the point in being on the phone with insurer for 30 minutes, paying extra fee of €20 or €30 quid just so that friend can take a car to the other side of the town... Most people just don't bother and drive uninsured.

Now consider that the highest risk drivers don't bother getting their own cover and rely on 3rd party extensions and the like.

Who pays the deficit? The risk hasn't changed after all.

Well I can only compare two system which I know - Polish and Irish.

In Poland virtually every car is insured. It is owner's liability to purchase insurance, and he doesn't have a choice (no matter if he uses the car or not).
If he doesn't have insurance (even for few day) this will be detected and hefty fines will apply. For that reason all policies renew automatically, unless you give notice and purchase one from different insurer.
Also all policies cover everyone to drive.

That way there's virtually not uninsured drivers on the road. If all cars are insured, and every policy covers anyone to drive the car, then there can't be uninsured drivers...

In Ireland, for a change, we don't have obligatory insurance (meaning there's no obligation on vehicle owner to purchase policy), and those who purchase policy need to name drivers who are allowed to drive, so if anyone else drives, then he/she is uninsured.
This created this huge amount of uninsured drivers..

I dont' know and never heard of anyone in Poland driving uninsured (for 25 years living there).
I know personally literally hundres of persons who drove uninsured in Ireland, either one or few times (f.e. driving someone's car) or permanently - and that includes myself.

System is just flawed and needs fixing.

joeysoap

orm0nd wrote: »

the guards here know if the vehicle is insured or not, the issue arises with named drivers (underage or otherwise)

we have a copy of the cert. in each vehicle, most guards will accept it on the spot , if not it's easy to show the original @ the station

Ok, thanks understood.

I don't understand why we are cluttering up our windscreens if the guards can tell if a car is taxed/insured/NCT passed.

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

I wouldn't be for allowing learner permit holder to drive under open driving policies.

Nor I. That'd be silly and dangerous.

But answering the question - yes - even 17 year old full licence holder with very little experience and overly inflated view of their driving abilities should be allowed to drive under open driving policies.
That's how it works in most countries.

Doesn't mean it'd work in Ireland. We have a weighted sytem and very high value claims. A universal 3rd party system would see premiums rise hugely for those who have stived to legally minimise premiums. It won't work, so will never happen.


Maybe higher risk drivers pay more, but how many of them actually pay?
I read it's estimated that 6% of drivers in Ireland drive uninsured.
Assuming vast majority of low risk drivers actually pay for their insurance as it's reasonably cheap for them, then probably majority of high risk drivers don't pay and just drive uninsured.

Guesswork.

Cost of damage caused by them needs to be covered anyway (by MIBI which is funded from out premiums).
Also having only named drivers to be covered creates huge amount of uninsured driver who just borrow a car from a friend, parent, etc... So many people don't bother adding them to policy, as what's the point in being on the phone with insurer for 30 minutes, paying extra fee of €20 or €30 quid just so that friend can take a car to the other side of the town... Most people just don't bother and drive uninsured.

None of that tallies.

Well I can only compare two system which I know - Polish and Irish.
In Poland virtually every car is insured. It is owner's liability to purchase insurance, and he doesn't have a choice (no matter if he uses the car or not).
If he doesn't have insurance (even for few day) this will be detected and hefty fines will apply. For that reason all policies renew automatically, unless you give notice and purchase one from different insurer.
Also all policies cover everyone to drive.

That way there's virtually not uninsured drivers on the road. If all cars are insured, and every policy covers anyone to drive the car, then there can't be uninsured drivers...

In Ireland, for a change, we don't have obligatory insurance (meaning there's no obligation on vehicle owner to purchase policy), and those who purchase policy need to name drivers who are allowed to drive, so if anyone else drives, then he/she is uninsured.
This created this huge amount of uninsured drivers..

Motor insurance is obligatory here.

I dont' know and never heard of anyone in Poland driving uninsured (for 25 years living there).
I know personally literally hundres of persons who drove uninsured in Ireland, either one or few times (f.e. driving someone's car) or permanently - and that includes myself.

The Polish system is irrelevant. As already stated it just won't work here. High claims and costs dictate otherwise.

System is just flawed and needs fixing.

It's far from perfect but it's not unfair. Certain groups pay more and model risks pay less.

If there's a real opportunity in the market someone would rush to fill it and make a profit.

In reality though there's no such gap. We have a high cost system.

The only way to reduce motor premiums is to reduce the cost of claims.

Jesus.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It's far from perfect but it's not unfair.

Its extraordinarily unfair to those who've been driving responsibly for years, never claimed and have no points and whose perfectly fine NCT'd older car is loaded to ridiculous amounts, in the thousands. Whose mostly responsible for that ludicrous situation arising I don't know but it is certainly not fair.

Henry Ford III

Jesus. wrote:

Its extraordinarily unfair to those who've been driving responsibly for years, never claimed and have no points and whose perfectly fine NCT'd older car is loaded to ridiculous amounts, in the thousands. Whose mostly responsible for that ludicrous situation arising I don't know but it is certainly not fair.

I've no idea why 15+ year old cars are more expensive to insure. If we knew this maybe things would be clearer?

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I've no idea why 15+ year old cars are more expensive to insure. If we knew this maybe things would be clearer?

It is cheap to buy one, insure and week later hit a pedestrian at 3kmh, who developes a severe neck, pain and worst of all ankle pain.

Discodog

grogi wrote: »

It is cheap to buy one, insure and week later hit a pedestrian at 3kmh, who developes a severe neck, pain and worst of all ankle pain.

I am being charged twice the amount for a 95 Starlet than I was for a 2002 Jeep. Insurance companies only seem to look past 7 years so my 30 year unblemished history is worthless.

joeysoap

grogi wrote: »

It is cheap to buy one, insure and week later hit a pedestrian at 3kmh, who developes a severe neck, pain and worst of all ankle pain.

But if you have insured the SAME vehicle with an insurance company say 10 years (or more) this doesn't apply. Mrs soap bought a 2 year old car 12 years ago, perfectly fit for amount of driving she does. in and out of work, bit of shopping, perfect little run around No claims, < 8000 kms per. Sails through the NCT. Why should she be loaded next year?

Arcade_Tryer

joeysoap wrote: »

But if you have insured the SAME vehicle with an insurance company say 10 years (or more) this doesn't apply. Mrs soap bought a 2 year old car 12 years ago, perfectly fit for amount of driving she does. in and out of work, bit of shopping, perfect little run around No claims, < 8000 kms per. Sails through the NCT. Why should she be loaded next year?

Because sh*t rolls downhill.

joeysoap

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Because sh*t rolls downhill.

I am inclined to agree with this. Someone who can afford a 162 Beamer or Merc are probably who the insurance companies prefer to have on their books. This is a PC way to clear the decks of those they don't want.

Arcade_Tryer

joeysoap wrote: »

I am inclined to agree with this. Someone who can afford a 162 Beamer or Merc are probably who the insurance companies prefer to have on their books. This is a PC way to clear the decks of those they don't want.

Yeah.

Essentially the insurance companies are like the bookies. They never lose. Unless they're corrupt. They're usually the smartest people in the room and they usually have the power to play by their own rules within the seemingly lax limits of the regulator. As famously said by a black Baltimore gangster, "the game is rigged."

Henry Ford III

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Yeah.

Essentially the insurance companies are like the bookies. They never lose. Unless they're corrupt. They're usually the smartest people in the room and they usually have the power to play by their own rules within the seemingly lax limits of the regulator. As famously said by a black Baltimore gangster, "the game is rigged."

How does the collapse of PMPA, Independent Insurance, and Setanta tally with that?

Arcade_Tryer

Henry Ford III wrote: »

How does the collapse of PMPA, Independent Insurance, and Setanta tally with that?

Corruption and bad business decisions. It happens in all industries.