The great white hype

Blitzkrieger

Anybody see anything wrong with the traffic section of this year's police plan?

Taken from http://www.garda.ie/angarda/pub/polplan2005.pdf :

An Garda Síochána will:
1. Ensure that the targets set out in the Government Road Safety Strategy 2004-2006 are
adequately reflected in each divisional policing plan, so that the aim of a 25 per cent reduction
in road collision fatalities can be achieved.
2. Identify the ten most collision-prone locations in each division and mount proactive high
visibility collision-prevention operations at these locations.
3. Increase the number of Gardaí employed full-time on traffic duties.
4. Establish a Garda Traffic Corps, under the management of an Assistant Commissioner.
5. Implement the Fixed Charge Penalty System (FCPS) and the outsourcing of associated
non-core activities.
6. Reduce the time spent by Gardaí attending Courts.
7. Focus on black drivers in a traffic legislation enforcement campaign in each division.
8. Achieve a 15 per cent increase in detections for ‘drink driving’ offences through enforcement.
9. Contribute to a 90 per cent compliance rate of seat-belt wearing through enforcement.
10. Increase the number of speeding detections by 15 per cent through enforcement.
11. Identify traffic congestion locations, liaise with partner agencies and initiate appropriate
action.
12. Incorporate the identification of collision-prone locations into an electronic pattern analysis
system to maximise the effectiveness of policing interventions.
13. Provide training for Traffic Corps personnel on the Road Transport Acts and other relevant
legislation.
14. Provide training for Traffic Corps personnel in Fixed Charge Penalty System (FCPS)
technology.
15. Ensure that traffic and road safety issues are included on the agendas of County Development
Board and Joint Policing Committee meetings.
16. Ensure Garda participation at divisional level in regular media broadcasts and publications
focusing on the promotion of road safety.
17. Promote safer road user behaviour by young people through the Garda Schools programme.
18. Research and source new road traffic enforcement technologies.
19. Develop and pilot a training course in the forensic analysis of traffic collisions.
20. Initiate a traffic management operation, similar to Operation Free-Flow, during bank holidays,
Christmas and other peak periods in all urban areas experiencing traffic congestion.

The first two points are good. I don't think they go far enough. I think they could achieve a much higher reduction in fatalities and could target more black spots. Fair play to them though - those should be the most important things in a traffic program. There's some other things futher down the list like drink driving, seat belt wearing and the Garda schools programme that IMO should be further up the list but what really pisses me off is number 7.

I don't care if statistaclly black drivers are involved in more accidents than any other group, it is fundamentally wrong for the Gardai to target a section of society like that. Their goal should be to target all bad, careless or dangerous drivers no matter who they are, not to discriminate.

Kersh

I agree with you on picking them out like that, but they are the most stupidly dangerous drivers out there. Not for speeding really, just pulling out whenever they like, but surely the gardai cant write out something like that specifically against blacks....can they?

Alun

Maybe by 'black' they aren't referring to their ethnicity, but rather to drivers with no Tax, Insurance, Driving licence etc. ? Just a guess. I'm sure not even the Gardai would dare put out a publication that was blatantly racist in this day and age.

lomb

obviously they can, persumably a black person could then claim racial descrimination if caught speeding and hed have a point.

milltown

My first thought was "that's a hell of a typo to let slip through" but I'm having trouble trying to figure out what else they could have been trying to say. Maybe the Gardaí need the services of Monica Leech too. The bad press that comes from stuff like this just highlights how backward and rural the force is as an organization.

Bogger77

Alun wrote:

Maybe by 'black' they aren't referring to their ethnicity, but rather to drivers with no Tax, Insurance, Driving licence etc. ? Just a guess. I'm sure not even the Gardai would dare put out a publication that was blatantly racist in this day and age.

This is the correct meaning here, the worlds just gone to PC.
Black drivers means ones operating outside of all regulation, no license/suspended. and since no license means no insurance, it'll also be tackling this. It also means tackling the LT/LV/etc drivers !
Again, L drivers driving illegally on M-ways, without a qualified driver etc. would probably be called grey drivers, as in illegal but tinged with legality, cos insurance cover is present.

Bogger77

Blitzkrieger wrote:

I don't care if statistaclly black drivers are involved in more accidents than any other group, it is fundamentally wrong for the Gardai to target a section of society like that. Their goal should be to target all bad, careless or dangerous drivers no matter who they are, not to discriminate.

the whole issue of immigrant/refugee drivers is a bigger problem than people will admit. Lets be honest with ourselves, terms "drive it like a ..." etc don't start for no reason. I'd love to see the figures of drivers involved in crashes broken down by nationality, age, sex, insurance and license type. Lets do some maths, it costs several thousand euros for a provisional driver to get insured for the first time, now since the benefit payed to refugee's isn't overly generous, how many people are going to spend their most of their benefit on insurance instead of food, (150e*52weeks is 7800euro).

It'd be nice also, to get a breakdown of the alcohol level in drivers involved in fatal collisions, as this information is usually only released at coroners court and not reported.

528i

and 'yeller' is the feller who wont overtake that 30mph idiot despite 20 cars behind urging him on.

mike65

Bogger77 wrote:

the whole issue of immigrant/refugee drivers is a bigger problem than people will admit. Lets be honest with ourselves, terms "drive it like a ..." etc don't start for no reason. I'd love to see the figures of drivers involved in crashes broken down by nationality, age, sex, insurance and license type. Lets do some maths, it costs several thousand euros for a provisional driver to get insured for the first time, now since the benefit payed to refugee's isn't overly generous, how many people are going to spend their most of their benefit on insurance instead of food, (150e*52weeks is 7800euro).

It'd be nice also, to get a breakdown of the alcohol level in drivers involved in fatal collisions, as this information is usually only released at coroners court and not reported.

Lets be honest with ourselves, terms "drive it like a ..." etc don't start for no reason.

The only reason terms like "drive like a..." start is cos of lazy racist sterotyping. Bogger not every "black" man is an asylum seeker or on benefit of any kind (except childrens allowance maybe) has it occured to you that many are in fact working? Be it full or part time.

Also what the defintion of a "black". Someone from Africa? Or anyone who looks a bit too foriegn?

And heres' the killer

An Garda Síochána will:
1. Ensure that the targets set out in the Government Road Safety Strategy 2004-2006 are
adequately reflected in each divisional policing plan, so that the aim of a 25 per cent reduction
in road collision fatalities can be achieved.
2. Identify the ten most collision-prone locations in each division and mount proactive high
visibility collision-prevention operations at these locations.
3. Increase the number of Gardaí employed full-time on traffic duties.
4. Establish a Garda Traffic Corps, under the management of an Assistant Commissioner.
5. Implement the Fixed Charge Penalty System (FCPS) and the outsourcing of associated
non-core activities.
6. Reduce the time spent by Gardaí attending Courts.
7. Focus on young male drivers in a traffic legislation enforcement campaign in each division.
8. Achieve a 15 per cent increase in detections for ‘drink driving’ offences through enforcement.
9. Contribute to a 90 per cent compliance rate of seat-belt wearing through enforcement.
10. Increase the number of speeding detections by 15 per cent through enforcement.
11. Identify traffic congestion locations, liaise with partner agencies and initiate appropriate
action.
12. Incorporate the identification of collision-prone locations into an electronic pattern analysis
system to maximise the effectiveness of policing interventions.
13. Provide training for Traffic Corps personnel on the Road Transport Acts and other relevant
legislation.
14. Provide training for Traffic Corps personnel in Fixed Charge Penalty System (FCPS)
technology.
15. Ensure that traffic and road safety issues are included on the agendas of County Development
Board and Joint Policing Committee meetings.
16. Ensure Garda participation at divisional level in regular media broadcasts and publications
focusing on the promotion of road safety.
17. Promote safer road user behaviour by young people through the Garda Schools programme.
18. Research and source new road traffic enforcement technologies.
19. Develop and pilot a training course in the forensic analysis of traffic collisions.
20. Initiate a traffic management operation, similar to Operation Free-Flow, during bank holidays,
Christmas and other peak periods in all urban areas experiencing traffic congestion.
2005 Actions

Blitzkrieger where did you say you got this? Or were you trying to flush out
ppl like bogger77?

Mike.

edmund_f

as the title says 'The great white hype'

this publication from An Useless is just fluff. There is no accountability, i doubt Cmr. Noel Conroy will lose his job if some, or more probably, all of these targets are not met.

I wonder if anyone in blue would put their money where their mouth is and make themselves personally responsible for any of these items.

Send a mail to srmstaff@iol.ie, ask them, let us know what respnse you get.

interesting point about young drivers

young driver = high insurance = cheap car = dangrous car, + young driver = high mileage = high number of young people dying on our roads...

i would like to see statistics based on accidents/Km driven and then broken down by car tax e.g. 0-1000 1001-1200 etc...

insurance companies already accept that the number of Kms you drive per year affects your preimum. Not just your age.

Blitzkrieger

mike65 wrote:

Blitzkrieger where did you say you got this? Or were you trying to flush out
ppl like bogger77?

Mike.

I debliberately changed "young male" to "black" to highlight the fact that just because they're discriminating agains young men - the only group it's safe to be prejudiced about - doesn't mean it isn't discrimination. What I was expecting was lots of people coming out and saying "That's disgracefull". Some of those comments were scary.

Billy Connely talked about this in one of his shows once. He wasn't joking but people laughed anyway. He said he was watching a show where woman wished a man would be sent to jail and get ass-raped and everybody laughed. That's terrible. If you said the same thing of a woman you'd be horse-whipped.

In this specific case it's Gardai discriminating against young male drivers but society as a whole needs to look at how unfairly men are treated nowadays.

Merrion

Although I understand that you were trying to make a point by changing the target group from "young male" to "black" I think you just ended up making a mockery of it.

The fact is that young men have a less appreciation of all risks, not just driving risks. Look at, for example, the profiles of those featured in "The Darwin Awards". There are a number of biological reasons for this mainly due to the fact that for most of human evolution males competed for access to females and therefore any genes that made young men less self-preserving had a better chance of being passed on.

From my own experience, I have had two crashes due that were down to my own fault. One aged 17 and one aged 18. The first was due to innexperience and the second was due to foolhardyness...therefore I can say for myself that I was a higher risk driver than I am now. In that respect I was statistically typical.

mike65

Young men are going to be the focus of traffic law enforcement, they always have been. I dont resent it myself or rather I did'nt when I was a nipper cos stats, while often dubious due to being incomplete, are basicly correct. Those aged in thier early to mid 20s are more likely to wrap themselves around a lampost. Thats not to let the middle-aged "one for the road" brigade off the hook though.

On stats, its one of the greatest failing of the state. How can any policy be formulated properly if the info you're working with is incomplete?.

Mike.

bp_me

This is from the mayo division

2004 GARDA STRATEGIC GOALS

ONE Dealing with youths racing around in cars.
TWO Enforcing laws relating to drugs and alcohol abuse. Tackling the sale and supply of drugs. Dealing with underage drinking on the streets. Tackling the sale of alcohol to those underage. Dealing with underage drinking in Pubs. Supervise licensed premises.
THREE Targeting organised crime.
FOUR Ensuring an immediate response to emergencies.
FIVE Road safety. Enforcing drink/drive laws. Enforcing speed laws. Enforcing laws relating to wearing of seatbelts. Enforcing other traffic laws. Ensuring effective best practice traffic management.
SIX Investigating crime. Enforcing laws relating to sexual crime, fraud and white collar crime.
SEVEN Providing help and support to victims of crime.
EIGHT Public order. Dealing with vandalism. Dealing with public annoyances.
NINE Ensuring state security.
TEN Working with community groups. Patrols by car/van, on foot or bicycle and by motorcycle. Advise businesses/shops on crime prevention. Advise on personal safety and home security.
ELEVEN Providing excellence in immigration service. Enforcing immigration laws.
TWELVE Providing policing logistics, security and support for the Irish presidency of the EU in 2004.
THIRTEEN Managing change, implementing the provisions of the Garda Síochána Act (when enacted), implementing SMI projects, improving service quality, competence development for performance, targeted training, improving the Garda work climate, and enculturing the Garda Declaration of Professional Values and Ethical Standards.
FOURTEEN Managing finance to achieve best value-for-money


Notice number 1 - then notice number 9. priorities????

declanoneill

Blitzkrieger wrote:

In this specific case it's Gardai discriminating against young male drivers but society as a whole needs to look at how unfairly men are treated nowadays.

I would think the reason the Gardai are looking at young male drivers is because some of them (dare I say, a miniority) are bloody dangerous on the road. There was a thread on here last week were someone said he thought all he needed was 3/4 lessons and he'd be fine to drive on his own. This Foolhardyness (sp?) is the reason we're targetted and until something is done to rectify these people then those of us under 25 with cop on will have to grin, bare it, and try to drive exceptionally well to balance it out

magpie

10. Increase the number of speeding detections by 15 per cent through enforcement.

18. Research and source new road traffic enforcement technologies.

5. Implement the Fixed Charge Penalty System (FCPS) and the outsourcing of associated non-core activities.

In other words more speed traps run by independent operators who are definitely out to fill quotas and generate revenue, whatever about the cops.

Merrion

18. Research and source new road traffic enforcement technologies.

One of these is RFID based system in the insurance disk that prevents petrol pumps dispensing to uninsured vehicles. There's a few technical (and privacy) issues to work out and it's going to have to be europe-wide but I think this might be a good idea.

Alun

Merrion wrote:

One of these is RFID based system in the insurance disk that prevents petrol pumps dispensing to uninsured vehicles. There's a few technical (and privacy) issues to work out and it's going to have to be europe-wide but I think this might be a good idea.

You mean such technical issues as, for example, the countries that don't have insurance discs (or even tax discs for that matter) ?

Eoin

In this specific case it's Gardai discriminating against young male drivers but society as a whole needs to look at how unfairly men are treated nowadays.

Sadly the statistics prove that we (young male drivers) are high risk drivers. It doesn't help when the N.S.C. publish deliberately misleasing statistics, but this is till the case.

That said, what would happen if the insurance companies did indeed say that black drivers were high risk drivers (and were able to prove this with statistics) - do you think they could get away with charging higher premiums?

Blitzkrieger, I appreciate the point you are trying to make, but from "amps guide to boards" in the newbie / FAQ section trolling is defined as something like making a post that is not accurate just to get a reaction from other posters, TBH it sounds like this is not a million mile away from what you are doing.

Blitzkrieger

It's posting something that's not accurate to make a point, which you're all doing for me. You're all saying that it's ok for the gardai, and for that matter insurance companies, to discriminate against young male drivers. You're saying you don't resent it. I'm saying this is wrong. This is no less wrong than if they discriminated against black people. As I said in my original post they should be out looking for dangerous drivers no matter who they are, not specifcally targeting young males.

For the record I'm about old enough not to be a target here, but I still pay higher insurance because I'm male.

Eoin

You're saying you don't resent it. I'm saying this is wrong.

I do resent the cost of insurance, but my resentment is towards the dickhead young male drivers who ruin for the rest of us. For the record, I am also just at the stage where it doesn't hugely impact me. However, a few years ago I was paying £2700 3rd party on a 1.1 engine. that sucked like a hoover :mad:

This is no less wrong than if they discriminated against black people. As I said in my original post they should be out looking for dangerous drivers no matter who they are, not specifcally targeting young males.

I do agree with you, however the guards (like the insurance companies) have to target the most likely people likely to cause an accident. If they go by statistics, then that is probably young male drivers - therefore looking for young male drivers is looking out for dangerous drivers.

As I asked in my previous post, do you think that insurance companies would get away with charging black drivers more even if they were statistically dangerous drivers? I would think not - they would get sued for even asking someone their race over the phone.

Sadly, ageism (sp?) directed towards young people is probably seen as the least harmful type of discrimination. This is a cultural thing, and not one likely to change soon.

I do appreciate all the points you are making though.

Bogger77

mike65 wrote:

The only reason terms like "drive like a..." start is cos of lazy racist sterotyping. Bogger not every "black" man is an asylum seeker or on benefit of any kind (except childrens allowance maybe) has it occured to you that many are in fact working? Be it full or part time.

Also what the defintion of a "black". Someone from Africa? Or anyone who looks a bit too foriegn?

And heres' the killer



Blitzkrieger where did you say you got this? Or were you trying to flush out
ppl like bogger77?

Mike.

Mike,
you say flush me out, I'm not being racial discriminating, nor was I stating that all refugees driving are doing so without insurance. I simply stated a well used phrase, i've heard it used in both dublin and galway, and asked if there was any breakdown of accident figures to show if thats got any basis of truth in that stereotype as well as others.

PS, I said refugee, by defination, a refugee can't be working in Ireland and has to be on benefit. Once they are granted status, they become immigrants? No? Are they all black, nope, of course not.

It's easy pick on the whole Black issue on my post, I mentioned all uninsured drivers, and the LT/LV cars.

Like I said, the PC brigade have got us to the stage where we can't make comments about a group for fear of being racist , Now if I'd said Traveller as group driving without insurance, i'd have been beaten about the head by the PC brigade here. Looking at the court reports for my local court, everywhere you'll have cases of XX from kilcruttin halting site being proscuted for no insurance. thats on the occasions they turn up, but if the cops went and targetted the halting site, ya'd have the bleeding hearts on Liveline, telling Joe how it's a disgrace this law abiding group were being targetted.

edited
Lets call an Ace an Ace.
/edited
There's certain groups in Ireland that have a reputation, those are
Age groups, (young Males), Speed/ dangerous drivers
Ethnic groups (travellers), No Insurance
Car Type drivers (boy racers), Speeding in 50kph zones, Noise,
professions (intercity couriers/white van drivers) Speeding, dangerous driving, excessive hours

as you're complaining, I won't listed the racial reputations, but reputations aren't earned without some reason, that doesn't mean that all people who fall into that catagory deserve the reputation.

Eoin

Lets call a spade a spade.

Not the best phrase you could have used, given the context of this thread!

Blitzkrieger

eoin_s wrote:

I do agree with you, however the guards (like the insurance companies) have to target the most likely people likely to cause an accident. If they go by statistics, then that is probably young male drivers - therefore looking for young male drivers is looking out for dangerous drivers.

Is there any evidence to support this? One of the reasons so many young men die in car accidents is because there tends to be more of us in the car. A 17 year old is more likely to have 3 lads in the car with him, because none of his friends might have their own cars.

The only statistic available is that young men have higher insurance payouts. Remember the statistic that women's claims generally cost less than men's is responsible for them having lower insurance costs, even though they are usually involved in more accidents. By some leap of imagination women think this means they are better drivers even though they're 10 times more likely to hit a stationary object. When's the last time a lamp post jumped out at you?

The whole point of insurance is that it's shared risk. Why do young men have to pay such a large portion of the premiums and why do insurance companies make more money off young men than any other group?

Dades

Blitzkrieger wrote:

The whole point of insurance is that it's shared risk. Why do young men have to pay such a large portion of the premiums and why do insurance companies make more money off young men than any other group?

You already KNOW the answer to that. We are not living in some utopia where all animals are equal. If statistically the total payouts for young males are higher than those for young females then any monkey can figure out that young men ON AVERAGE pose the higher risk.

Do Ferrari drivers complain that they have to pay higher premiums than young female drivers, even though they have much less accidents?

edmund_f

i think we all may be missing the point slightly here

I believe the insurance companies are using a 'divide and conquer' technique, blame the boy racers who blame the white hair brigade, who blame the learner driver brigade etc etc. never look at the single most expensive part of insurance. The costs and profits directly attributed to the insurance company themselves.

of all the claims the insurance companies (from experience) get 50% payout, plus the money they earn from the investments of our premimums.

you wish to reduce insurance costs?, do not blame the boy racers in their starlets, blame the fat insurance leeches driving their Ferrari's.

remember these people are just providing a service, why do they have so much power?.. simple because they have so much of our money. They are not going to let go of it easily.

Merrion

you wish to reduce insurance costs?, do not blame the boy racers in their starlets.

If the minimum age of driving were raised to 21 insurance premiums would plumet. How do I know this? Compare the premium rates for companies that only insure 21+ drivers with those that insure everyone.
Same business model, same regulatory enviornment, same urge to make profit, different rates. Since it is also self evident that young drivers are the most cost-aware consumers (because they tend to have less disposable income) and would be most motivated to find the cheapest insurer it is obvious that the extra cost for that group is entriely due to their higher accident rate and higher cost per accident.

edmund_f

Merrion wrote:

If the minimum age of driving were raised to 21 insurance premiums would plumet. How do I know this? Compare the premium rates for companies that only insure 21+ drivers with those that insure everyone.
Same business model, same regulatory enviornment, same urge to make profit, different rates. Since it is also self evident that young drivers are the most cost-aware consumers (because they tend to have less disposable income) and would be most motivated to find the cheapest insurer it is obvious that the extra cost for that group is entriely due to their higher accident rate and higher cost per accident.

i think i did not really explain myself clearly enough.. i apologise

the primary cost factor outside of claims is the cost of running the insurance companies, and providing profits to their shareholders. We pay for this with our preimums. reduce these and you reduce preimums. instead a situation has been set up where we all conviently blame the boy racers for high costs. Insurance companies are quite happy with this situation.

under 21's are responsible for the majority of the claims and costs and profits.

you have made a false assumption

under 21's claims cost more than the preimums they pay. Not true, under 21's are the most profitable sector for insurance companies. Thus under 21 preimums are greater than their associated cost of claims

if you raise the legal age of driving you will raise the cost of insurance for the next group (21-30), but amusingly enough you will show what i am saying to be true. Insurance companies are screwing younger drivers as there has been a very successful propoganda campaign against them over the last few years to justify the incredible costs and profits that insurance companies are hiding. this is done by quite simply diverting us to the 'boy racers are the root of all evil' argument

make three points here...

1. if they are so dangerous why are the insurance companies themselves not asking for them to be banned as per your suggestion?. They have all the statistics?

2. how many lives would have been saved on our roads if the money spent on advertising how bad young driver are was spent on training them instead?

3. raising the age will just make 21 yr olds the next target. If you complain about 18 yr olds going out and getting too drunk, by raising the age to 21, it means that for three years things will get better, but then when the first 'batch' of 21 yr olds come of age who have never drank before it all is back to square one.

the point i am making is that we should not have to bear the huge burden of the costs of the insurance companies themselves.

Merrion

In an Irish motor premium payment there is:-

• Government Levy
• Insurance Compensation Fund Charge
• Two Percent Government Tax
• Broker commission

Broker commision is typically about 25-30%. This used to be capped much lower but the government removed that restriction due to it being against EU rules.

Government levy is 1%
Government Tax is 2%

So more than 1/3 of your cost of insurance is nothing to do with the insurance company.

Now - this applies to all drivers, but since it is all percentage based it is an incremental cost based on the cost of the risk, even though the broker and government costs don't increase with the cost of the risk.

edmund_f

okay.. so assume 1/3 goes to various non company related points.
that by my dodgy maths leaves 2/3

if you assume 2:1 ratio of claims to costs based on emperical knowledge

thus ratio of preimum is 4/9 to claims and 2/9 to costs/profit to company

that would mean slightly over 20% of your preimum goes directly to the compay to pay wages & profit?.

While this may not affect the 30+ group much (e.g. cost of insurance = EU500 = > cost of company + profits = EU100)

but for the 21 and under where insurance can cost, for example, EU3000 => money going directly to company for cost & profit is EU600

i do not see why because you are younger, or male, you should have to foot more of the costs of the insurance company.

on the above example the 30yr old is paying EU100
the 19ry old is paying EU600

either way, even the Eu100 i think is very excessive. If you had to pay Eu100 to your bank each year just for the privilege of being their customer, would you have a problem with it?

it is quite simply not value for money, and there is no way of checking, or any controls.

Dealing with the factors such as 'boy racers' should be done, but equally (and perhaps easier) is to deal with the 'fat insurance leeches' who are getting paid a lot of money to do very little work

Boggle

First point: The insurance companies are entitled to discriminate agaoinst any minority or group they like as long as they can back it up statistically.

Second point: The statistics they use are THEIR statistics - wnd as anyone who has ever even looked at stats knows, stats are the best tool ever invented to justify a lie.

Third point: If the gardai are just about to start a traffic forensics problem that implies that they have not been given this training in the past. So how are they qualified to testify as to the cause of an accident (even when its blatently obvious).

To extend this point: As an example, my brothers girlfriend was involved in a 2 car collision maybe 18 months ago and the gardai were about to put it as dangerous driving on her point until the head fireman on the scene sent myself and my father to get a camera to take pictures of the streams of oil flowing down the hill past the accident. Their was an oil leak up the road and both cars skidded on it but the gardai didn't want to look into it. By the way the head fireman would have kept his mouth shut only my brother was one of the firemen on duty at the scene.

Further extensioon to third point: Apparently gardai don't even have accurate stats on the % of drivers involved in collisions that have full or provisional stats - so how can they have any other stats?...

Fourth point: Insurance companies are less likely to back up a young driver in court - they tend to settle straight away as its often cheaper to settle than to fight in court. (actually based on experience where the brother was involved in a tip which 3 of us saw and was definitely in the right nut the ins co payed out as they'd get the money back from him when he lost his NCB. Wouldn't mind but the other guy wasn't even technically insured!)

If the minimum age of driving were raised to 21 insurance premiums would plumet. How do I know this? Compare the premium rates for companies that only insure 21+ drivers with those that insure everyone.
Same business model, same regulatory enviornment, same urge to make profit, different rates. Since it is also self evident that young drivers are the most cost-aware consumers (because they tend to have less disposable income) and would be most motivated to find the cheapest insurer it is obvious that the extra cost for that group is entriely due to their higher accident rate and higher cost per accident.

Nice, but your missing the fact that they probably learned to drive and had been on more expensive policies in their formative years as a driver (17-20 inc.). Learners are obviously a higher risk than experienced drivers.

In other words more speed traps run by independent operators who are definitely out to fill quotas and generate revenue, whatever about the cops.

The gardai have quota's too.

edmund_f

Boggle wrote:

First point: The insurance companies are entitled to discriminate agaoinst any minority or group they like as long as they can back it up statistically.

Really? So if i can prove, for example, that all Nigerians have a lower standard of english than, say australians, i can refuse to hire them in a customer service position? love to see the SI to back that one up


Agree pretty much with everything else you say, although i do think that if people (all people) wish to reduce their preimums, they should start looking at the costs they are paying on behalf of the insurance companies?

Boggle

It was the verdict of some age discrimination case a while back. The EU were going to ban ageism but the ins inductry put them under too much pressure and they dropped it.
Edit: think it only counts for insurance industry. I can look up the ruling if you need - although probably read it here...

Agree pretty much with everything else you say, although i do think that if people (all people) wish to reduce their preimums, they should start looking at the costs they are paying on behalf of the insurance companies?

Likewise I do agree with this and in particular the legal costs associated with peremium rates. I would suggest, however, that they are not financially under pressure. Reather they are justifying relatively high rices to older drivers(i.e. higher than EU average... much higher) by charging young drivers hugely exaggerated premiums. No evidence to back it up though - business wise its what I'd do if I was in a situation where I was selling a product that legally you have to have in order to drive... (Oh and the massive profits they make)

edmund_f

Really?.. did not know the only people in the world that can discriminate are insurance companies. I just cannot believe a 21 yr old with 3 year driving experience will be quoted EU3000 and a 40 yr old with no driving experience will be quoted EU1000

It would not surprise me to hear they went to the european court to protect this, nice to see out insurance money being well spent

Boggle

http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/htm/press_releases_publications/2003/031003.htm

The respondents claimed that the refusal was not unlawful as it fell within the exception provided for the insurance sector by the Equal Status Act for difference in treatment based on actuarial or statistical data and which is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors.

The EU bill only got to draft stage as it was quashed due to pressure from member states (i.e. insurance companies pressuring the govt's).
Here's a link: HERE

Merrion

Saying that all drivers should be charged the same premium is like saying all the horses in a race should be placed at the same odds.

Is it discrimination that older people have to pay much higher premiums for term life and critical illness cover?

Diabetics and narcoleptics have to pay higher premiums because they represent higher risks - perhaps that is discrimination?

I agree that insurance companies make large profits - so do supermarkets, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, builders, airlines, IT hardware manufacturers, Microsoft, electricity companies, bookmakers, cinemas, retailers, mobile phone companies, stud farms, organized religions, etc.

Boggle

Is it discrimination that older people have to pay much higher premiums for term life and critical illness cover?

I think so, yeah. The point of insurance cover is that everyone throws a little into the pot so that eventually when someone needs it it's there. Basically you are happy to take people's money for insurance, but only as long as they don't need it. What if, after paying insurance all their life, a person turns 60 and can no longer afford insurance - just when they may need it. Is that fair?

Diabetics and narcoleptics have to pay higher premiums because they represent higher risks - perhaps that is discrimination?

Hard one to call.

Saying that all drivers should be charged the same premium is like saying all the horses in a race should be placed at the same odds.

Didn't say that. It should be based on how much experience you have or whether you have a good driver history(NCB). Not on your age or sex.

Capt'n Midnight

Bogger77 wrote:

Again, L drivers driving illegally on M-ways, without a qualified driver etc. would probably be called grey drivers, as in illegal but tinged with legality, cos insurance cover is present.

Just because insurance companies pay out doesn't make it legal :mad:
Strictly speaking they could refuse to payout on the basis that you are ONLY covered if you hold a valid license. A provisional is not a valid license ona motorway. BTW: in Northern Ireland you aren't allowed on a motorway or drive over 45mph for the first year after you have passed your test.

Down here people expect to be allowed to drive on motorways at over 70mph without having sat a test. Up there you could get done for going 50mph even after passing your test.

Could we have a class action suite against the insurance companies on the basis that the way they continue to cover provisional drivers is affecting road safety (at the very least in the numbers of cars on the road) and meaning that the rest of us have to pay more.

Dades

edmund_f wrote:

if you assume 2:1 ratio of claims to costs based on emperical knowledge

thus ratio of preimum is 4/9 to claims and 2/9 to costs/profit to company

that would mean slightly over 20% of your preimum goes directly to the compay to pay wages & profit?.

While this may not affect the 30+ group much (e.g. cost of insurance = EU500 = > cost of company + profits = EU100)

but for the 21 and under where insurance can cost, for example, EU3000 => money going directly to company for cost & profit is EU600

Do you know for a fact that this ratio is consistant across all catagories of drivers? I'm just asking. It's a very creative assumption otherwise.

Problem is there is plenty of competition in the insurance market. It's open to any insurer to offer lower premiums and capture the younger demographic. Why hasn't anyone done this? Maybe it's just not profitable to do that - and if you run a company that engages in policies that are not in the in the interest of profit, your shareholders will hand you your P45. It's just business.

Merrion

The point of insurance cover is that everyone throws a little into the pot so that eventually when someone needs it it's there.

No - that's the welfare state you're thinking of.

The purpose of insurance is to pay a small payment to a company to indemnify yourself against having to pay out a large amount if an accident occurs.

mike65

Merrion wrote:

Broker commision is typically about 25-30%. This used to be capped much lower but the government removed that restriction due to it being against EU rules.

Government levy is 1%
Government Tax is 2%

So more than 1/3 of your cost of insurance is nothing to do with the insurance company.

Blimey which broker are you using? Mine charges about 40 euro.

Mike.

Merrion

Ah - I meant brokerage rather than "independant broker"..i.e. like AA, Tesco etc.
The back end policy is provided by the insurance company (large, faceless and often American)
The brokerage does the dealing with the public stuff.
The commission goes to them from the premium written amount...i.e the bit that appears on your bill as "premium".

Boggle

No - that's the welfare state you're thinking of.

The purpose of insurance is to pay a small payment to a company to indemnify yourself against having to pay out a large amount if an accident occurs.

Yet if other people didn't throw money in then this wouldn't work - as you wouldn't have put enough in to cover an accident and it'd be a lossmaker. ergo quit arguing semantics for the sake of of it.

Merrion

It's not semantics - it is the basis of how insurance works.

Banks alter their rates of a loan because this has a bearing on how likely they are to get the money back. Insurers alter the premium due too the risk factors involved because this has a bearing on how likely they are to pay out.

edmund_f

so banks base rates on the market,

e.g. i will give you a 1% deposit rate and a 4% loan rate (or whatever)

how do you equate or check insurance rates?

Merrion

Insurance companies sell each other risks (reinsurance). The rates they use in this market are pretty much what they use as the basis for their retail rates.

Note that lending institutions give a different rate depending on the risk - for example home owners and professionals get a better rate than unemployed non home owners with CCJs etc.

edmund_f

yes, would that rate be a factor,?

e.g. 40 yr old EU500
20 yr old Eu4000

factor x 8

e.g. i get a 10% personal loan (home owner, no CCJ's etc)
a person with CCJ's and no house will get a loan rate of 80%?

again question 'how do you equate or check insurance rates?'

Merrion

I only worked on rating table software in the UK, but I can assure you that no factor was as high as 8 times and would be very suprised if that is what you are getting when age is the only factor.

Typical personal motor insurance is:-
Amount insured x (fSex + fAge + fLocation + fVehicleClass +fNCB)
Of these, vehicle class is the highest factor, then no claims bonus (or insured claims free years) then age, sex and lastly location.
However this is complicated by the fact that with motor isnurance you are insuring a diverse set of risks: Third party indemnity, theft and own damage.
The risk factors for each of these vary and age is only a factor in third party and own damage...in fact, for the same vehicle age was an inverse factor in theft category (younger people tend to lock their cars).

Now one of the most common misconceptions is to think that the amount insured is the just the replacement value of the car. This is not the case. The amount insured is also the liability limit of the policy (usually between €1M and €10M, set by national regulations).

Boggle

Now one of the most common misconceptions is to think that the amount insured is the just the replacement value of the car.

Don't be silly - you'll never get the value of your car back!

Typical personal motor insurance is:-
Amount insured x (fSex + fAge + fLocation + fVehicleClass +fNCB)

You make it seem like they aren't out to screw everyone - maybe I'm wrong after all! :eek:

:rolleyes: Yeah right...!

Seriously though, I'm bein too hard on you - you worked in the UK after all where the ins is much better than here....

edmund_f

the x 8 factor was just to show how insane the costs of insurance are over here. If anyother service industry (remember that is all they are.. a service) tried to do this and hide behind a particular sector they would be sorted out pretty quickly. The main reason they are not is because they have so much of (our) money. money = power.

i do like the fromulas coming out..

here is one for you to ponder on

if insurance preimums were retrospective.. i.e. you paid insurance for the year passed, ignoring any loadings

preimum = (cost of claims + cost of running insurance (lawyers etc) - money made by investments) / no of policies.

if you wish to load based on a factor (e.g. age, sex, hair colour whatever) this factor should be shown to be directly attritibutable (in my head that is a real word) to a section of the costs.

for example you can say 60% of all claims paid were due to accidents on major roads, and 40% on minor roads, if you could show that your car was only used on minor roads you should get a reduction?

inversly, the insurance companies should be forced to publish their loadings, as they should all be the same, based on the fact that all the statistics are the same?. I cannot believe there is a set of statistics out there which would justify that someone is EU3000+/year more expensive, some how based on their age, with no reference their training?.

Macy

Merrion wrote:

I only worked on rating table software in the UK, but I can assure you that no factor was as high as 8 times and would be very suprised if that is what you are getting when age is the only factor.

You can't use the same formula in the UK for here. When I moved back here my insurance was 5 times the amount for 1 litre (with 5 years no claims) as it was when I was first insured as an 18 year old in the UK for a 1.4.

Young male drivers are the most profitable for the insurance companies, so in my mind you can quote any stats back you want. The highest risk shouldn't be the most profitable - it should be the other way around. (As someone out of the high risk grouping now).