Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,164 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,354 CMod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #34
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,354 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Summer In the City
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #38
    HonalD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #39
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,354 CMod ✭✭✭✭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!)


  • Options
    #40
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #41
    Summer In the City
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    HonalD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭HonalD


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    The insurance companies might consider that fraud.[/quote]

    Not sure it falls under fraud tbh.


  • Options
    #43
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,395 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #45
    Lord Glentoran
    Closed Accounts Posts: 876 ✭✭✭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 ;)


  • Options
    #46
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,470 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    corks finest
    Registered Users Posts: 8,629 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #48
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #49
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,470 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #51
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,470 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #53
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    ..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..... 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.

    I said if a person has 20 yrs of clean driving. You shouldn't be treated the same as some one with none. Which is what they are doing. That's not an assessment of risk, that is sharp practice.

    Also they will take some experience from some countries (UK) as a minor discount. Similar to how they take being a named driver on a Irish policy as a discount in some cases. They just have chosen not to take it from other countries or factor it in the risk assessment.

    If the insurance company actively ignores information used for assessing risk, and also isn't proactive in reducing costs from fraud, legal cases etc. Then its deliberate in my opinion.


  • Options
    #54
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,787 ✭✭✭Cordell


    NCB is a bonus, given at their discretion, not an entitlement. NCB system is fine as it is, the real problem are the premiums, not the discounts.


  • Options
    #55
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Usually its someone with a connection with an insurance company, or its someone with no claims thus far, who thinks thinks they'll never have an accident, or make a mistake.

    Its like the idea, that if you have the reflexes of a F1 driver. Anyone who doesn't shouldn't be driving. The idea of a range of abilities a range of normal is an alien concept.


  • Options
    #56
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Cordell wrote: »
    NCB is a bonus, given at their discretion, not an entitlement. NCB system is fine as it is, the real problem are the premiums, not the discounts.

    If its a legal requirement, then there should be some fairness and affordability in the process. They shouldn't have Carte blanche to charge what ever they like with no scrutiny from regulation.


  • Options
    #57
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,470 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Attack the post, not the poster pal. Not appreciated. Just because someone doesnt take the conventional view.

    You are making the glib assumption that you can rock up without a No Claims Bonus and that they can verify that you nonetheless were driving in the past and were claims free then; and that you havent been driving and making claims in the interim; or for that matter that you didnt incur penalty points in the interim.

    (i) you dont know that they can do that, you are 'assuming' they can. Maybe they can, maybe they cant.
    (ii) these decisions are automated, they are made by computers not by individuals, you either tick the box or you dont - they dont employ people to go checking databases on your behalf when you arent even a customer.


  • Options
    #58
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    And so I've changed address...... what then.

    Name and Date of birth reduces the search considerably.

    If they have a shared database even for authenticating details that would solve that.

    But why bother.


  • Options
    #59
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    ...
    (ii) these decisions are automated, they are made by computers ....

    A person programmed the computer with a business process, decision.


  • Options
    #60
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Attack the post, not the poster pal. Not appreciated. Just because someone doesnt take the conventional view....

    He said the insurers were gangsters not the posters. So unless you're an insurer...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,787 ✭✭✭Cordell


    beauf wrote: »
    If its a legal requirement, then there should be some fairness and affordability in the process. They shouldn't have Carte blanche to charge what ever they like with no scrutiny from regulation.

    Totally agree with you here: the premiums are too expensive and not transparent; if there is a hike in premium you don't know why, I've seen it myself, with no change in circumstances other that gaining another year on no claims and experience the price went up instead of down, and by a significant amount.

    But claiming that you HAVE to get a discount that it's granted at their discretion, that is not right. The premium has to be affordable by itself, even before any NCB is applied, for any driver that has a clean history.


Advertisement