Early 30s first time driver

xtraxtra

I have my full license since July and now have money together for a car.
About 3 months ago I was getting quotes of about 3.5k for fully comp with Kennco. Now the lowest I can get is around 4.8k 3rd party f&t with Liberty.

Most other companies wont quote and have explained its because I am just over 30 and no company is willing to insure first time drivers over 30.

Am I missing something or do I have no option but to cough up what will be well over twice the value of what im about to spend on a new car to get on the road?

Any help appreciated

I'm in a similar position, late 20s and it looks to be a nightmare.

noel100

Try boxymo.ie
Worth your driving being monitored to reduce insurance

Special Circumstances

xtraxtra wrote: »

Most other companies wont quote and have explained its because I am just over 30 and no company is willing to insure first time drivers over 30.

Wtf? I'd love to hear the science behind this one. They don't just make these things up like, there's a mathematically bulletproof proof of this somewhere.... LOL

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Wtf? I'd love to hear the science behind this one. They don't just make these things up like, there's a mathematically bulletproof proof of this somewhere.... LOL

G'wan SC. With your in-depth knowledge on insurance related conspiracy theories, you should know why insurers are reluctant to quote for mature 1st time drivers

xtraxtra

Happy to say I have now got the quotation down to 2,900 with a parent added as named driver on my policy albeit still only 3rd part f&t its a lot better than before. After speaking with some helpful people yesterday with a years NC down the line it will drop by a serious amount.

dev100

xtraxtra wrote:

Happy to say I have now got the quotation down to 2,900 with a parent added as named driver on my policy albeit still only 3rd part f&t its a lot better than before. After speaking with some helpful people yesterday with a years NC down the line it will drop by a serious amount.

Don't believe everything you hear just have about 2k + ish saved for your next insurance . You will be told your cars to old too much power the wrong car ,Other people are having too many accidents you need more NCD to get a larger discount oh and we ain't making enough profit . They are the type excuses you will hear when you go renew.

Happy driving

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

G'wan SC. With your in-depth knowledge on insurance related conspiracy theories, you should know why insurers are reluctant to quote for mature 1st time drivers

Yeah make it personal, don't attempt to explain the cast iron statistical reasons. I wonder why that is!!!

Anyone have a half logical reason for this?


Anyone?



No?

I'd settle for an illogical makey uppy "ye are all scumbags, the insurers are the real victims here"?






There's a few here that take criticisms of the industry (OMG, like how could anyone criticise this most charitable and transparent industry, it's not like ye are forced to buy our product) very very personally.

If your job has come to define you to that extent, that perfectly reasonable questions about the industry as a whole must be personalised.... you need to lighten up guys, for your own good. Maybe switch to a less despised profession - parking warden? repo man? clamper?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Yeah make it personal, don't attempt to explain the cast iron statistical reasons. I wonder why that is!!!


?

Anytime you are given an insightful explanation on matters relating to insurance, YOU personalise the matter by belittling the poster with nonsensical ramblings you consider to be humorous.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Anytime you are given an insightful explanation on matters relating to insurance, YOU personalise the matter by belittling the poster with nonsensical ramblings you consider to be humorous.

I wasn't aware the makey uppy stuff that I criticise was literally yer own personal makey uppy stuff, I thought it was the "party line" being parroted.

If you can find an example of something logical that I've belittled, or even a genuine ,but naive and lacking in logic, attempt to explain something that isn't an obvious parroting of the party line then lets see if I was out of line.

Here are some of my favourite insightful explanations:
123.ie - carjackings are a significant feature in price increases (more so than the more stringent requirements for reserves, or the poor investment performances apparently, conveniently neglected from their spoofy justifications)

Fronting - nobody needs or wants a second car. Even if there are no named drivers the price will be loaded upfront rather than waiting for the "inevitable" followup request to add a named driver.

15, no 14, no 8, no 5 year old cars and older are dangerous. Regardless of driver history and other factors. There's just no logical way of reducing this risk.

"There are NO insurers punishing people for making completely not at fault claims against a third party. Only zero credibility idiots who spout ridiculous nonsense would suggest otherwise"

A Citroen C5 HDI is a high performance vehicle.

Inciting more than insightful IMO. But if you have something that you believe stands up to common sense tests and I have poked holes it in then fire away like, lets revisit it.

What sort of car are you trying to insure?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I wasn't aware the makey uppy stuff that I criticise was literally yer own personal makey uppy stuff, I thought it was the "party line" being parroted.

If you can find an example of something logical that I've belittled, or even a genuine ,but naive and lacking in logic, attempt to explain something that isn't an obvious parroting of the party line then lets see if I was out of line.

Here are some of my favourite insightful explanations:
123.ie - carjackings are a significant feature in price increases (more so than the more stringent requirements for reserves, or the poor investment performances apparently, conveniently neglected from their spoofy justifications)

Fronting - nobody needs or wants a second car. Even if there are no named drivers the price will be loaded upfront rather than waiting for the "inevitable" followup request to add a named driver.

15, no 14, no 8, no 5 year old cars and older are dangerous. Regardless of driver history and other factors. There's just no logical way of reducing this risk.

"There are NO insurers punishing people for making completely not at fault claims against a third party. Only zero credibility idiots who spout ridiculous nonsense would suggest otherwise"

A Citroen C5 HDI is a high performance vehicle.

Inciting more than insightful IMO. But if you have something that you believe stands up to common sense tests and I have poked holes it in then fire away like, lets revisit it.

Do you know, if you presented all your arguments in the above fashion, myself (and I'm sure others) would interact and engage with you better. It's the other nonsense that puts me off anyway

Example; They are still living in the Max Power era when all japanese cars were fierce fasht and dangerous. By the time we all have flying cars they will be moving onto "slammed passats are the enemy".

They seem on the face of it to take their risk ratings from a straw poll of grannies outside Mass and wonder why they can't get a handle on the market

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Wtf? I'd love to hear the science behind this one. They don't just make these things up like, there's a mathematically bulletproof proof of this somewhere.... LOL

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

G'wan SC. With your in-depth knowledge on insurance related conspiracy theories, you should know why insurers are reluctant to quote for mature 1st time drivers

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Yeah make it personal, don't attempt to explain the cast iron statistical reasons. I wonder why that is!!!

Anyone have a half logical reason for this?


Anyone?



No?

I'd settle for an illogical makey uppy "ye are all scumbags, the insurers are the real victims here"?






There's a few here that take criticisms of the industry (OMG, like how could anyone criticise this most charitable and transparent industry, it's not like ye are forced to buy our product) very very personally.

If your job has come to define you to that extent, that perfectly reasonable questions about the industry as a whole must be personalised.... you need to lighten up guys, for your own good. Maybe switch to a less despised profession - parking warden? repo man? clamper?

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Anytime you are given an insightful explanation on matters relating to insurance, YOU personalise the matter by belittling the poster with nonsensical ramblings you consider to be humorous.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I wasn't aware the makey uppy stuff that I criticise was literally yer own personal makey uppy stuff, I thought it was the "party line" being parroted.

If you can find an example of something logical that I've belittled, or even a genuine ,but naive and lacking in logic, attempt to explain something that isn't an obvious parroting of the party line then lets see if I was out of line.

Here are some of my favourite insightful explanations:
123.ie - carjackings are a significant feature in price increases (more so than the more stringent requirements for reserves, or the poor investment performances apparently, conveniently neglected from their spoofy justifications)

Fronting - nobody needs or wants a second car. Even if there are no named drivers the price will be loaded upfront rather than waiting for the "inevitable" followup request to add a named driver.

15, no 14, no 8, no 5 year old cars and older are dangerous. Regardless of driver history and other factors. There's just no logical way of reducing this risk.

"There are NO insurers punishing people for making completely not at fault claims against a third party. Only zero credibility idiots who spout ridiculous nonsense would suggest otherwise"

A Citroen C5 HDI is a high performance vehicle.

Inciting more than insightful IMO. But if you have something that you believe stands up to common sense tests and I have poked holes it in then fire away like, lets revisit it.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Do you know, if you presented all your arguments in the above fashion, myself (and I'm sure others) would interact and engage with you better. It's the other nonsense that puts me off anyway

Example; They are still living in the Max Power era when all japanese cars were fierce fasht and dangerous. By the time we all have flying cars they will be moving onto "slammed passats are the enemy".

They seem on the face of it to take their risk ratings from a straw poll of grannies outside Mass and wonder why they can't get a handle on the market

Ah, you're taking my criticism of the industry's risk ratings personally. I thought we were going to see an example of me belittling you for a cast iron bullet proof slam dunk no nonsense "we load this because x,y,z".

Has my opinion (that there is a bias against Japanese cars that does not reflect the current modifying/boyracer trends at all, whatsoever) painted you specifically and personally in a bad light? Belittled you even?

Am I wrong in thinking that a boggo civic, lancer, impreza is loaded disproportionately to todays preferred acting-the-maggot-mobiles? Am I wrong in agreeing with another poster that "insert european performance car here" is automatically cheaper/easier to insure than a "insert Japanese car here"

Henry Ford III

This thread, and the contributions of certain contributor(s) therein, I feel are going nowhere.

Special Circumstances

Henry Ford III wrote: »

This thread, and the contributions of certain contributor(s) therein, I feel are going nowhere.

Would you say that it is odd that insurers would not want more mature learner drivers?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Insurers tend to avoid, or be cautious of, mature novice drivers because they would not be the norm. I have extensive experience (no statistics) of drivers reinventing themselves after a troubled past motoring history they do not wish to declare. Most people start driving long before 30, so they do come up on the radar

And yes, I know, the good honest decent ones all get tarred with the same brush

Henry Ford III

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Would you say that it is odd that insurers would not want more mature learner drivers?

I can't speak for Insurers.

Special Circumstances

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I can't speak for Insurers.

I'm not asking you to speak for insurers. Not in any form of english used and understood by people with common sense.

I'm trying to figure out if it was my initial post, expressing surprise at mature learner drivers being refused insurance, that bothered you so much or if it was my subsequent replies to another poster's insinuations that I was belittling specific posters.

jimgoose

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Insurers tend to avoid, or be cautious of, mature novice drivers because they would not be the norm. I have extensive experience (no statistics) of drivers reinventing themselves after a troubled past motoring history they do not wish to declare. Most people start driving long before 30, so they do come up on the radar

And yes, I know, the good honest decent ones all get tarred with the same brush

It would be a fairly trivial matter for an insurance company to find out if such a thing was indeed going on in any particular case, by collaborating with the RSA/NDLS and the Gardaí. This reads like more bullshit.

Special Circumstances

jimgoose wrote: »

It would be a fairly trivial matter for an insurance company to find out if such a thing was indeed going on in any particular case, by collaborating with the RSA/NDLS and the Gardaí. This reads like more bullshit.

I thought I might be venturing too far into badgering territory if I said the same. I left it up to people with a bitín of critical thinking to make up their own minds on it.

Basically we're all scumbags because they can't be bothered to do extra checks or lobby for a more effective system of driver records if needed.

jimgoose

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I thought I might be venturing too far into badgering territory if I said the same. I left it up to people with a bitín of critical thinking to make up their own minds on it.

Basically we're all scumbags because they can't be bothered to do extra checks or lobby for a more effective system of driver records if needed.

The NDLS records go back 26 years and if they feel like it they can tell you in five minutes if anyone is after "reinventing" themselves as a driver. This is a fact.

Special Circumstances

I can see I'm getting on some people's goat with my calling BS when I see BS.

I just don't believe in any profession, department, industry etc being allowed a free pass for BS.

We could just make it a "rants and raves" thread if nobody is expected to get a valid answer.

"They don't insure people with purple cars because their car is purple and that's unusual. Or they're usually scumbags" isn't a valid answer.

Eventually I guess ill be told to stop questioning illogical BS, or all questions will be answered with "stats dude, top secret".

Mccabe96

I'm with First Ireland , they're a broker related to AIG insurance. I was giving quotes for over €4,000 also even with boxymo. So I tried first Ireland and got a quote for €2,430. Still expensive but the cheapest around, I'm only 19 and provisional so I'm sure yours would be a lot cheaper.

Henry Ford III

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I can see I'm getting on some people's goat with my calling BS when I see BS.

I just don't believe in any profession, department, industry etc being allowed a free pass for BS.

We could just make it a "rants and raves" thread if nobody is expected to get a valid answer.

"They don't insure people with purple cars because their car is purple and that's unusual. Or they're usually scumbags" isn't a valid answer.

Eventually I guess ill be told to stop questioning illogical BS, or all questions will be answered with "stats dude, top secret".

Continual ranting isn't going to give you a greater understanding of motor insurance underwriting, ratings, or standards.

None of us is entitled to transparency on premium calculations for example, regardless of how badly you want it.

Insurers are doing a difficult job, trying (but often failing) to make money, and most importantly protect their customers and 3rd parties.

If they chose not to offer cover to certain risks then so be it. It's not their job to justify that to any of us.

jimgoose

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Continual ranting isn't going to give you a greater understanding of motor insurance underwriting, ratings, or standards.

None of us is entitled to transparency on premium calculations for example, regardless of how badly you want it.

Insurers are doing a difficult job, trying (but often failing) to make money, and most importantly protect their customers and 3rd parties.

If they chose not to offer cover to certain risks then so be it. It's not their job to justify that to any of us.

These people have been handed a viable, lucrative business on a plate because it is a criminal offence in this jurisdiction to not purchase one of their products from one of them. This is the perennial wet-dream of CEOs the World over. In view of this, I feel quite entitled to protest the continuous illogical carry-one and lack of transparency apparent in the industry.

Special Circumstances

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If they chose not to offer cover to certain risks then so be it. It's not their job to justify that to any of us.

Then don't. Just give us the "insurance is a contract ... etc ... pay up or fvck off" line.

I'd rather no explanation than "illogical mumbo jumbo". There's too much voodoo and superstition involved in many people's understanding of insurance T&Cs as it is without adding more.


(Now, to be honest I do actually believe that many things there are decided on the basis of whims and mumbo jumbo rather than any sensible, professional and effective analysis, but that's like my opinion... man)

Henry Ford III

jimgoose wrote: »

These people have been handed a viable, lucrative business on a plate because it is a criminal offence in this jurisdiction to not purchase one of their products from one of them. This is the perennial wet-dream of CEOs the World over. In view of this, I feel quite entitled to protest the continuous illogical carry-one and lack of transparency apparent in the industry.

This isn't new. Mandatory motor insurance has been around for decades.

What's the basis of your argument btw? Cost? Underwriting?

If huge profits were being made you could argue premiums are too high. That's not the case though. New insurers aren't piling in here either.

If it's underwriting then as I've said before Insurers are free to accept or decline to accept as they see fit. The market is open. We've no access to their criteria or business models and we're not entitled to have either.

If there's a cartel being run covertly however all bets are off. I think this is being investigated.....

Henry Ford III

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Then don't. Just give us the "insurance is a contract ... etc ... pay up or fvck off" line.

I'd rather no explanation than "illogical mumbo jumbo". There's too much voodoo and superstition involved in many people's understanding of insurance T&Cs as it is without adding more.


(Now, to be honest I do actually believe that many things there are decided on the basis of whims and mumbo jumbo rather than any sensible, professional and effective analysis, but that's like my opinion... man)

Trying to make sense of any of that, but I'm failing.

We understand that you don't understand btw.

Special Circumstances

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Trying to make sense of any of that, but I'm failing.

We understand that you don't understand btw.

Go on, is there a particular part of it that's throwing you?

It's a fairly simple post that can be broken down into two main messages.

Is it the "zero explanation is better a makey uppy BS explanation" statement?

Or the "personally I believe that there ARE many decisions made that ARE based on makey uppy BS rather than a grown up analysis of the stats".

xtraxtra

Mccabe96 wrote: »

I'm with First Ireland , they're a broker related to AIG insurance. I was giving quotes for over €4,000 also even with boxymo. So I tried first Ireland and got a quote for €2,430. Still expensive but the cheapest around, I'm only 19 and provisional so I'm sure yours would be a lot cheaper.

Jaysus, this thread fairly picked up

I think boxymo/first Ireland are geared towards younger first time drivers, they dont seem to be much use to the (just over thirty) first time drivers.

I would like to know how certain criteria adjusts loading but realistically there are just too many variables

@Sue Pa Key Pa... How are you suggesting people "re-invent" themselves? I would imagine any insurance company can readily trace your motoring history

jimgoose

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Trying to make sense of any of that, but I'm failing.

We understand that you don't understand btw.

We all understand perfectly well what the insurance game is about. My belief, in a nutshell, is that most of these insurance companies are losing money due to mismanagement and appalling incompetence, and that they are complacent about it because they have a giant barrel full of fish to shoot at, as 'twere, while feeding us a bunch of whiney, plausible-sounding made-up excuses with the able assistance of various asshole actuaries.