Insurance bullsiht, where's the incentive to use public transport

Ahhhh for forks sake!

An acquaintance of mine said that she stopped driving for two years and didn't get insurance in the mean time. She used public transport as it was more convenient for her circumstances and she couldn't afford to drive anyway.

She is now in better circumstances and she wants to start driving again. However, she has been slapped with a ridiculous premium of almost €2,000 for driving a modest 1 litre automatic hatchback, year 2015 due to losing her no claims bonus.

If the government want to incentivise people to bike it into work or use public transport more and hang up the keys for a while to reduce emissions then this absolute bull**** needs to stop.

A coworker of mine is going to Singapore for a year or two. I gave her some advice. Stay insured on her mam or dad's car as a named driver on a third party policy only. It'll only cost a couple of hundred per year and save money in the long run.

If people who hang up the keys for a year or two in favour of public transport are going to be met with extortionate insurance upon driving again, then people will simply continue to drive indefinitely.

magicbastarder

Maurice Riordan wrote: »

If the government want to incentivise people to bike it into work or use public transport more and hang up the keys for a while to reduce emissions then this absolute bull**** needs to stop.

at the risk of sounding facetious - the government should act to make car ownership cheaper in order to incentivise people to cycle or use public transport?

LeinsterDub

magicbastarder wrote: »

at the risk of sounding facetious - the government should act to make car ownership cheaper in order to incentivise people to cycle or use public transport?

I think the point is that if someone like me who only uses their car to drive to Rugby training for example would be forced to maintain insurance if I ever gave up playing (and the car as I'd no longer need it).

It would be cheaper to pay the 500 p/a to maintain a no claims than give it up for 5 years only to be hit with 2,000 p/a when my circumstances change.

Tombo2001

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I think the point is that if someone like me who only uses their car to drive to Rugby training for example would be forced to maintain insurance if I ever gave up playing as it would be cheaper to pay the 500 p/a to maintain a no claims than give it up for 5 years only to be hit with 2,000 p/a when my circumstances change.

I've read this four times......still trying to work it out.

You play rugby .....ok I got that bit......

the rest of it.....

thierry14

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I've read this four times......still trying to work it out.

You play rugby .....ok I got that bit......

the rest of it.....

No claims shouldnt disappear after 2 years if you stop driving a car to cycle to work , use public transport, leave the country, walk, whatever

Should be like 5 years on hold or so for no claims

Its a disgusting tactic by insurance companies

Get it now?

Allinall

Until there is a worldwide insurance database that companies can access, it’s going to be the way it is.

You can’t prove that you haven’t been driving around some other country incurring millions of Euro third party claims.

LeinsterDub

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I've read this four times......still trying to work it out.

You play rugby .....ok I got that bit......

the rest of it.....

I cycle or bus to work. I only have a car as I need it for Rugby training, if i gave up Rugby I'd get rid of the car.

LeinsterDub

Allinall wrote: »

Until there is a worldwide insurance database that companies can access, it’s going to be the way it is.

You can’t prove that you haven’t been driving around some other country incurring millions of Euro third party claims.

What is it to them? They wouldn't be responsible for those claims , no more than if I crash my car today and change my insurance provider tomorrow.

Allinall

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What is it to them? They wouldn't be responsible for those claims , no more than if I crash my car today and change my insurance provider tomorrow.

They want to know if you’re high risk .

magicbastarder

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What is it to them? They wouldn't be responsible for those claims , no more than if I crash my car today and change my insurance provider tomorrow.

but if you crash your car today and change tomorrow, that could well affect your NCD. and you'd have to declare on the application to the new insurance company that you've made a claim.

trellheim

Its the insurers call as to what they accept for the purposes of discounting a policy there's no law covering it AFAIK so anything you'd get would be goodwill ; did you go back to the original insurer ?

cgcsb

Insurance in this country, health home and car is a scam. However that has little to do with public transport. If the government is going to clip the wings of the insurance extortionists then all well and good but incentivizing public transport is hardly a motivating factor.

Tombo2001

cgcsb wrote: »

Insurance in this country, health home and car is a scam. However that has little to do with public transport. If the government is going to clip the wings of the insurance extortionists then all well and good but incentivizing public transport is hardly a motivating factor.

the scam is the claims culture that pushes up premiums.

If Insurance is such a scam, then you wouldnt have insurance companies shutting up shop because they cant make money.

Tombo2001

thierry14 wrote: »

No claims shouldnt disappear after 2 years if you stop driving a car to cycle to work , use public transport, leave the country, walk, whatever

Should be like 5 years on hold or so for no claims

Its a disgusting tactic by insurance companies

Get it now?

It 'shouldnt' ? Says who.....

A no claims bonus relates to policies. It runs usually for up to 5 consecutive years. The past five consecutive years. Not five consecutive years 8 years ago or 12 years ago. If you dont insure then you lose the consecutive years.

LeinsterDub

magicbastarder wrote: »

but if you crash your car today and change tomorrow, that could well affect your NCD. and you'd have to declare on the application to the new insurance company that you've made a claim.

So ask people have you been off the road or on the road in a other country.

Losty Dublin

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I cycle or bus to work. I only have a car as I need it for Rugby training, if i gave up Rugby I'd get rid of the car.

I'm a member of a rugby club. Last time I checked we weren't obliged to have cars and we are welcome to get the bus, cycle or even walk to training.

Isambard

more to the point, I think NCBs should be scrapped altogther. All they serve to do is limit the number of claims the Ins Companies get by making people reluctant to claim for fear of losing theirs. Premiums should be individually calculated to a known and transparent formula

Ahhhh for forks sake!

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I'm a member of a rugby club. Last time I checked we weren't obliged to have cars and we are welcome to get the bus, cycle or even walk to training.

Maybe the rugby club is located in an area not well served by public transport and too far from him to cycle. You don't know the circumstances.

Ahhhh for forks sake!

Isambard wrote: »

more to the point, I think NCBs should be scrapped altogther. All they serve to do is limit the number of claims the Ins Companies get by making people reluctant to claim for fear of losing theirs. Premiums should be individually calculated to a known and transparent formula

I suppose we could all get together and make an excel chart and spam a certain company with quotation requests, we can then tabulate the quotation with the criteria listed and hopefully see some sort of correlation. I trust someone here would be smart enough to extrapolate some sort of formula from all those data.

Middle Man

magicbastarder wrote: »

at the risk of sounding facetious - the government should act to make car ownership cheaper in order to incentivise people to cycle or use public transport?

No, you don't sound facetious - you come across (going on what's quoted above) like a monetary dictator who likes to control people. You should incentivise things by making them attractive - like building Metro Link to increase rail usage. We the ordinary people have had enough stick - it's now time for the carrot! Given the ridiculous cost of living in this country, what are you trying to do mate - cause a revolution??? The cost of living in this country has got to come down - for a start, let's have a proper free market economy rather than economic extortion!

magicbastarder

I'd respond to that if there was any actual point to respond to.

ED E

Ahhhh for forks sake! wrote: »

I suppose we could all get together and make an excel chart and spam a certain company with quotation requests, we can then tabulate the quotation with the criteria listed and hopefully see some sort of correlation. I trust someone here would be smart enough to extrapolate some sort of formula from all those data.

Except you'd need to do it on the same day. The actuarial profiles are always changing.



Fix the claim culture, then insurance costs can come down. Turn 19k for whiplash into €600 paid directly to the physio. SORTED. All gone. Bye bye.

Middle Man

magicbastarder wrote: »

I'd respond to that if there was any actual point to respond to.

Perhaps, brush up on comprehension!

The point is that if you want people to use alternative modes such as public transport, then you need to invest so as to increase the quality and capacity thereof which in turn increase the attractiveness of the said alternatives. No more car bashing - motoring is so expensive as it stands and any further anti-car measures in the absence of credible alternatives are sure to merely increase anger amongst the general population.

Ripping off people more and more for the privilege of living is no solution!

Sleeper12

What most people do in her situation is before the two years are up is to take out a policy. Cancel the policy after a month & you are good for another 23 months. It's the only way to keep the no claims bonus.

magicbastarder

Middle Man wrote: »

Perhaps, brush up on comprehension!

The point is that if you want people to use alternative modes such as public transport, then you need to invest so as to increase the quality and capacity thereof which in turn increase the attractiveness of the said alternatives. No more car bashing - motoring is so expensive as it stands and any further anti-car measures in the absence of credible alternatives are sure to merely increase anger amongst the general population.

Ripping off people more and more for the privilege of living is no solution!

you are arguing against a point i did not make.

Middle Man

magicbastarder wrote: »

you are arguing against a point i did not make.

Well, what I understand in what you were initially arguing is that making cars cheaper (and hence, making motoring less costly) is bad because it acts as a disincentive to use alternative modes. What I'm saying is that alternatives such as public transport should be made attractive instead of making motoring even less attractive.

Forget about motor tax and instead have road tax (we already pay motor tax on our fuel) that includes all road users except pedestrians - some of that tax can be used to invest in public transport infrastructure - Dublin's MetroLink is so badly needed before Dublin chokes. We also need better footpaths and decent regional roads where optimal.

magicbastarder

Middle Man wrote: »

Well, what I understand in what you were initially arguing is that making cars cheaper (and hence, making motoring less costly) is bad because it acts as a disincentive to use alternative modes.

no, i was suggesting that making car ownership cheaper does not incentivise people to use public transport. that was it. any further inference is yours, not mine.

how that makes me a 'monetary dictator' is something i'm still chuckling about.

Summer In the City

Allinall wrote: »

Until there is a worldwide insurance database that companies can access, it’s going to be the way it is.

You can’t prove that you haven’t been driving around some other country incurring millions of Euro third party claims.

I'm driving around a different country possibly incurring claims but like the op says my dad was good enough to put me on his insurance to maintain my no claims bonus. Anyone leaving the country or having a break from driving should be doing this if possible.

magicbastarder

Middle Man wrote: »

What I'm saying is that alternatives such as public transport should be made attractive instead of making motoring even less attractive.

do you include cycling as an alternative?

beauf

Tombo2001 wrote: »

the scam is the claims culture that pushes up premiums.

If Insurance is such a scam, then you wouldnt have insurance companies shutting up shop because they cant make money.

They might be closing because they made bad investments. Nothing to do with claims.

Before we had claim culture we had high premiums. We had theses high premiums in the 80s and 90s.

I'm not saying claims aren't an issue. But if I've had a clean license for 20yrs, no claims, I shouldn't go back to zero no claims after a break of two years.

Middle Man

magicbastarder wrote: »

do you include cycling as an alternative?

It's not a real alternative in Ireland - weather and narrow streets (it's a sport in reality). Unlike much of Europe, Dublin was not bombed out of it during WW2 and as a result, retained its original narrow street pattern, so no room for cycling. In the city centre, there's not even enough space for all the pedestrians let alone bikes - even without a single car, space would remain very tight for all the buses, trams and pedestrians - just look at College Green. The only real solution to Dublin's traffic problem is an underground rail system and higher density development. We also need better footpaths!

ED E

Middle Man wrote: »

It's not a real alternative in Ireland - weather and narrow streets (it's a sport in reality). Unlike much of Europe, Dublin was not bombed out of it during WW2 and as a result, retained its original narrow street pattern, so no room for cycling. In the city centre, there's not even enough space for all the pedestrians let alone bikes - even without a single car, space would remain very tight for all the buses, trams and pedestrians - just look at College Green. The only real solution to Dublin's traffic problem is an underground rail system and higher density development. We also need better footpaths!

-Weather: Bollox - See Denmark, Sweden, Finland.....
-Narrow Streets: Bollox

The footpaths are fine, its trucks driving on them to park that needs to change.

magicbastarder

Middle Man wrote: »

It's not a real alternative in Ireland - weather and narrow streets (it's a sport in reality). Unlike much of Europe, Dublin was not bombed out of it during WW2 and as a result, retained its original narrow street pattern, so no room for cycling.

that's actually quite an interesting story about how WW2 allowed europe to enable cycling.
it's a pity it's not true.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

also, what is it about the netherlands that their weather is so much more suited to cycling than in dublin?
amsterdam has more rainfall than dublin, for example.
"Amsterdam's average annual precipitation is 838 millimetres" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam
Dublin - "the average annual precipitation in the city centre being 714 mm " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin

magicbastarder

Middle Man wrote: »

alternatives such as public transport should be made attractive
...
have road tax (we already pay motor tax on our fuel) that includes all road users except pedestrians

the reason i asked about cycling is that this post would seem to suggest you're advocating taxing cyclists, but in a muddled way.

beauf

Middle Man wrote: »

... In the city centre, there's not even enough space for all the pedestrians let alone bikes - even without a single car, space would remain very tight ...

Yet we fit cars which are a lot wider than pedestrians or cyclists... Just saying.

The Dutch got fed up of traffic and deaths and injuries due to cars. That's why they changed.

Summer In the City

ED E wrote: »

-Weather: Bollox - See Denmark, Sweden, Finland.....
-Narrow Streets: Bollox

The footpaths are fine, its trucks driving on them to park that needs to change.

Nah, he's right. I've lived in Sweden and Denmark and the reason cycling works there is all to do with the street design. They don't have narrow streets or footpaths. Cyclists are also self aware enough not to be pegging it down the shared cyclepaths/footpaths. They hardly share the roads with cars at all.

On grand canal on any given evening or morning its a mess with cars, cyclists and pedestrians getting in each others way getting to and from work because nobody has any cop on and there just is not enough space.

beauf

The street design comes after the desire to make it better...

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15358234/times-square-snohetta-before-after-photos

HonalD

Middle Man wrote: »

magicbastarder wrote: »

do you include cycling as an alternative?

It's not a real alternative in Ireland - weather and narrow streets (it's a sport in reality).  Unlike much of Europe, Dublin was not bombed out of it during WW2 and as a result, retained its original narrow street pattern, so no room for cycling.  In the city centre, there's not even enough space for all the pedestrians let alone bikes - even without a single car, space would remain very tight for all the buses, trams and pedestrians - just look at College Green.  The only real solution to Dublin's traffic problem is an underground rail system and higher density development.  We also need better footpaths!

I'm afraid you're straying so far from your original argument that you are leaving yourself open to significant discourse.
There is space for different modes of transport to co-exist in all City Centres in Ireland. It's just a question of which modes do you want to give priority to (No need to reply, I know your answer.)
And for your final point, if only life was so simple and for starters - What sort of underground rail system would you propose, what scope would it have, who is going to accept the construction impact an extensive underground system would create and who will pay for it?

magicbastarder

Summer In the City wrote: »

Nah, he's right. I've lived in Sweden and Denmark and the reason cycling works there is all to do with the street design. They don't have narrow streets or footpaths. Cyclists are also self aware enough not to be pegging it down the shared cyclepaths/footpaths. They hardly share the roads with cars at all.

so we regard an electrified rail system - running *under the ground* - as being possible and welcome, but cannot fathom reasonable design for accomodating cyclists (to be fair i know you did not explicitly say this!)

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Summer In the City

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The insurance companies might consider that fraud.

The insurance company told me to do it.

I'm not sure if you understand the situation. I'm insured here with a company and a named driver at home.

HonalD

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The insurance companies might consider that fraud.[/quote]

Not sure it falls under fraud tbh.

LeinsterDub

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I'm a member of a rugby club. Last time I checked we weren't obliged to have cars and we are welcome to get the bus, cycle or even walk to training.

No bus. I don't feel like cycling home , then to training , then home after a hard session . Also completely missed my point. The Rugby was just a real world example not the core of my argument.

AndrewJRenko

ED E wrote: »

Fix the claim culture, then insurance costs can come down. Turn 19k for whiplash into €600 paid directly to the physio. SORTED. All gone. Bye bye.

Perhaps the crap standard of driving here could be a factor too? Perhaps the fact that we're 2nd worst on the European league table for mobile phone abuse at the wheel might be a factor too?

Lord Glentoran

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No bus. I don't feel like cycling home , then to training , then home after a hard session . Also completely missed my point. The Rugby was just a real world example not the core of my argument.

A team with Losty on it sounds like the men rather than the guys

Tombo2001

beauf wrote: »

They might be closing because they made bad investments. Nothing to do with claims.

Before we had claim culture we had high premiums. We had theses high premiums in the 80s and 90s.

I'm not saying claims aren't an issue. But if I've had a clean license for 20yrs, no claims, I shouldn't go back to zero no claims after a break of two years.

In your opinion.

You're not the one selling insurance.

corks finest

Ahhhh for forks sake! wrote: »

An acquaintance of mine said that she stopped driving for two years and didn't get insurance in the mean time. She used public transport as it was more convenient for her circumstances and she couldn't afford to drive anyway.

She is now in better circumstances and she wants to start driving again. However, she has been slapped with a ridiculous premium of almost €2,000 for driving a modest 1 litre automatic hatchback, year 2015 due to losing her no claims bonus.

If the government want to incentivise people to bike it into work or use public transport more and hang up the keys for a while to reduce emissions then this absolute bull**** needs to stop.

A coworker of mine is going to Singapore for a year or two. I gave her some advice. Stay insured on her mam or dad's car as a named driver on a third party policy only. It'll only cost a couple of hundred per year and save money in the long run.

If people who hang up the keys for a year or two in favour of public transport are going to be met with extortionate insurance upon driving again, then people will simply continue to drive indefinitely.

Totally agree, insurance here is mad, ATM getting renewal quotes, ranging frome500 to e1000,I mean wheres the bloody regulator?p.s. never had a crash etc,30 years driving,l pity young drivers trying to get going

beauf

Tombo2001 wrote: »

In your opinion.

You're not the one selling insurance.

...I'm not sure if that means your a fan of sharp practise or just like posting the obvious...

Tombo2001

beauf wrote: »

...I'm not sure if that means your a fan of sharp practise or just like posting the obvious...

Ok

I will put it a different way.

You have expressed a view that insurance companies 'should' offer a no claims bonus to drivers who had a continous run of 5 years without claims at some point in the past.

You havent said why.

Here are the facts. The purpose of the no claims bonus is that from the company's perspective it de-risks the transaction, when they sell insurance to you.

If you can display the PAST five years without claims, then to state the obvious they know that you havent made a claim for five years.

If you cant display the PAST five years without claims, then they dont know if you have made a claim in the past five years; and as a result you are a more risky proposition that the person who can show that they havent made a claim.

As such, - why should you expect to have equal treatment with the person who can show that they havent made a claim; when you cant do same.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Tombo2001

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And so I've changed address...... what then.