Why are old cars such a risk?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I'm not putting words in your mouth - I'm merely saying that, as with SPKPs earlier post, you are indirectly supporting my assertion that the age of the vehicle is about the only thing ye can be sure of.

You're really in 'Special' form today. I'll give one more go at explaining my earlier posts an leave it at that.

If insurers analyse their claims and discover a pattern of ONE of the following groups ( men/women/black/white/yellow/traveller/gingers/Tibetans/Polish/Kerrymen etc., et., etc.,) are buying older cars to stage accidents, they can only use the excuse of the older car to kick that group off their books. They cannot cite anything from that list as business they no longer want on discriminatory grounds. I haven't heard one insurer say older cars are not safe, they say they are causing them a disproportionate number of claims. It may not be the car that's the core of the problem, it's the people choosing an older car for their fraudulent purpose

aphex™

Euro NCAP ratings improve over time. The tests get updated and more stringent to meet new industry standards. They are constantly moving the goalposts out. A car with a 5 star rating 10 years ago might only get a 3 star rating today.
Thus, the relative safety of a car actually diminishes over time. Then older cars cost more to insure as there are more whiplash/compo payouts for people traveling in them.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You're really in 'Special' form today. I'll give one more go at explaining my earlier posts an leave it at that.

If insurers analyse their claims and discover a pattern of ONE of the following groups ( men/women/black/white/yellow/traveller/gingers/Tibetans/Polish/Kerrymen etc., et., etc.,) are buying older cars to stage accidents, they can only use the excuse of the older car to kick that group off their books. They cannot cite anything from that list as business they no longer want on discriminatory grounds. I haven't heard one insurer say older cars are not safe, they say they are causing them a disproportionate number of claims. It may not be the car that's the core of the problem, it's the people choosing an older car for their fraudulent purpose

It's not the cars fault, it's a particular type of customer - why not make a better effort to target them in a smart way rather than the pretty dumb sledgehammer approach?

I'm saying there are more targeted ways to differentiate between desirable customers and undesirable but they rely on proper, professional systems being in place to facilitate the verification of details. To me there are at least two possible explanations for the "dumb" choice - the systems dont'/won't/can't work, or ye just take the lazy way.


Let's try it with some imaginary pictures yeah? Remember Venn diagrams?

We have 2 "sets" (actually we have 3 but let's walk before we run yeah?)-

Set A - a certain demographic that cannot be discriminated against on that basis alone. A hugely disproportionate (Allegedly ) number of these commit fraud as drivers (Allegedly ), or at the very least cause a lot of claims.

Set B - Drivers with

• 10years no claims bonus.
• No penalty points.
• No convictions.
• "Professional class" employment requiring a degree or better.
• Full time employment in same
• NCT, tax, all in order.

Which of the following is true do you know, do you think, would you say?
Set A = Set B. There is no difference.
Set A is a subset of Set B - All of this particular troublesome demographic have perfect driving records and are in full time professional, college educated, work?
Set B is a subset of Set A - not all of the demographic have perfect profiles, but even if they do they claim way more often and bigger amounts than members of other demographics.

Set A and Set B have significant overlap? Such a significant number of them belong to both sets you have to exclude both.

Set A and set B have practically NO overlap? The number of "perfect on paper" profiles who are actually undesirable customers is lower than "members of demographic X with cars newer than 10 years".


My assertion is that Set B does not intersect with Set A at all, and those in Set B could be insured without issue and Set A could be excluded without violating any "discrimination clauses" that insurers are bound by. But... you'd have to be sure of the bona fides.

Special Circumstances

aphex™ wrote: »

Euro NCAP ratings improve over time. The tests get updated and more stringent to meet new industry standards. They are constantly moving the goalposts out. A car with a 5 star rating 10 years ago might only get a 3 star rating today.
Thus, the relative safety of a car actually diminishes over time. Then older cars cost more to insure as there are more whiplash/compo payouts for people traveling in them.

But you're saying this is a new development right? Seeing as it's only come in recently that insuring an 8,10,14,15 year old car is so sticky?

By linking it to advances in occupant safety you are saying that a 2000 reg car was effectively the same as a 1985 car, which was the same as an 1970 one, with was the same as a 1955 one... well, you get the picture...

... but a 2015 reg car is light years ahead of a 2000 reg one? Or indeed a 2007 reg if you are with FBD? There has been a quantum leap in those 8 years?

Going Forward

aphex™ wrote: »

Then older cars cost more to insure as there are more whiplash/compo payouts for people traveling in them.

Source?

Is whiplash more prevalent in Ireland than other countries, and does it pay better?

Isn't this the problem, that figures to support that theory are not being published?

And head restraints have been around for a long time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_restraint

Sue Pa Key Pa

TL;DR

Special Circumstances

Going Forward wrote: »

Source?
....
And head restraints have been around for a long time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_restraint

Head restraints as you say, active head restraints appeared in some cars.... I'm struggling really to come up with any quantum leaps since then to combat this alleged scourge of whiplash that is bleeding the industry dry since their investments went down the toilet.

If there was an age limit due improved safety features you'd say it would be relaxing over time, you'd say that all modern cars now meet a certain minimum standard but it was a fairly ropey mixed bag back in the 90's.... when there was no insurers refusing to insure cars over 8 years old.

Going Forward

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Head restraints as you say, active head restraints appeared in some cars.... I'm struggling really to come up with any quantum leaps since then to combat this alleged scourge of whiplash that is bleeding the industry dry since their investments went down the toilet.

If there was an age limit due improved safety features you'd say it would be relaxing over time, you'd say that all modern cars now meet a certain minimum standard but it was a fairly ropey mixed bag back in the 90's.... when there was no insurers refusing to insure cars over 8 years old.

This is the point, where is the evidence that outside of the known 18 to 24 age risk group which shows that drivers of older cars are responsible for costing the insurance industry vastly more in payouts?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Going Forward wrote: »

This is the point, where is the evidence that outside of the known 18 to 24 age risk group which shows that drivers of older cars are responsible for costing the insurance industry vastly more in payouts?

So you'll accept that 18 to 24 age group is a higher risk group without evidence, but not that older cars are a problem?

The proof that older cars are costing more in claims is that the insurance companies don't want them and are quoting premiums to make you bugger off. Every other argument is waffle and ranting

road_high

Much more likely to be killed or injured in an older car vs one from the past 5 years or so. So maybe that's a loading on the policies? Far more likely to walk away unscathed from a serious accident than even ten years ago. Most new cars are 5 star Euro Ncap.
Less injuries and less likely deaths equals less massive medical claims and lower premiums.

Seth Brundle

road_high wrote: »

Much more likely to be killed or injured in an older car vs one from the past 5 years or so. So maybe that's a loading on the policies? Far more likely to walk away unscathed from a serious accident than even ten years ago. Most new cars are 5 star Euro Ncap.
Less injuries and less likely deaths equals less massive medical claims and lower premiums.

To my knowledge, a younger driver killing themselves does not cost the insurance company as much as a bad injury or permanent disability.
However, younger drivers tend to be in older, i.e. cheaper cars.

Liam McPoyle

kbannon wrote: »

To my knowledge, a younger driver killing themselves does not cost the insurance company as much as a bad injury or permanent disability.
However, younger drivers tend to be in older, i.e. cheaper cars.

When younger drivers are in severe accidents they tend to have other younger people in the car with them. In recent memory there was a young lady killed by a 17 driving a Levin in Waterford I think, two or three young men killed in Donegal with young drivers too.

People can rant and rave all they want and post nonsense conspiracy but the fact of the matter is that insurers are free (within reason) to write whatever type of business they want.

There are rules in place that if called upon they must prove why they are not quoting for a particular class of business. I'd suggest if people are so sure that insurers are lying that they bring the matter to Insurance Ireland and make the companies prove their reasoning, instead of waffling on Boards.

Going Forward

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

So you'll accept that 18 to 24 age group is a higher risk group without evidence, but not that older cars are a problem?

The proof that older cars are costing more in claims is that the insurance companies don't want them and are quoting premiums to make you bugger off. Every other argument is waffle and ranting

Without evidence??

Are you disputing that that group is the highest risk category?


The insurance industry has not given a reason for deciding to load owners of older vehicles.

I have screenshots (had at least, will have to double check!) where all they stated was that they are unable to quote me at this time.

In a couple of cases I was referred to some "specialist" broker as if I were a convicted drunk driver.

No reason given.

They're just chancing their arm in the hope that the uninformed general public comes up with some banal reason, which is exactly what's happening here.

Yet my current insurer renewed my policy no questions asked and they have no additional information on me than their competitors do and did not load me for the "risk" that their competitors envisage.

Seth Brundle

Going Forward wrote: »

Without evidence??

Are you disputing that that group is the highest risk category?


The insurance industry has not given a reason for deciding to load owners of older vehicles.

I have screenshots (had at least, will have to double check!) where all they stated was that they are unable to quote me at this time.

In a couple of cases I was referred to some "specialist" broker as if I were a convicted drunk driver.

No reason given.

They're just chancing their arm in the hope that the uninformed general public comes up with some banal reason, which is exactly what's happening here.

Yet my current insurer renewed my policy no questions asked and they have no additional information on me than their competitors do and did not load me for the "risk" that their competitors envisage.

So many insurance companies don't want your money and you think it's a big conspiracy?

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

So you'll accept that 18 to 24 age group is a higher risk group without evidence, but not that older cars are a problem?

There's not many 20 year olds with 10 years perfect driving records, or even 5 in their own name. Are you saying that NCB (or lack of) counts for nothing or are you just throwing out any oul half baked comebacks?

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

The proof that older cars are costing more in claims is that the insurance companies don't want them and are quoting premiums to make you bugger off. Every other argument is waffle and ranting

This is a good illustration of what is wrong with the insurance industry. There is no logic or credible analysis involved. There is either a tragic misconception of what constitutes a proof, or they have an incredibly low threshold for picking and choosing what suits them as "evidence".

This "proof" assumes that these companies have a good track record of decision making.

They have been losing money hand over fist since their investments went down the toilet, stricter requirements for reserves etc came in. Or the bogeymen fraudsters came out of the woodwork and bled the industry dry - depending on which extreme you want to swing to.*
Losing money hand over fist? Does that sound like a company with a solid track record of decision making?

An industry that can see that uninsured drivers are involved in a huge amount of serious and fatal accidents CANNOT / WILL NOT assist the Gardai in detecting these drivers effectively and efficiently. Does that sound like good decision making?

An industry that has an unnatural fear of japanese cars and appears to be blind to the sheer number of modified German diesel cars out there... does this sound like a clued in, keeping up with changes in the market, solid decision making industry?

In fact - The actual "proof" of this policy will be if all companies adopt it and all quickly become profitable without a boost from investments.





Bonus question - cast your mind back say 15 years, does anybody remember Quinn insurance asking the colour of your car?

*Of course, maybe the staggering fraud was always there but the industry were in "making enough profit, thanks" or "are those my feet" mode until the investments tanked....

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

So many insurance companies don't want your money and you think it's a big conspiracy?

You say they have a good track record of making profit over the last decade without including investments?

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence"

Marcusm

Special Circumstances wrote: »

There's not many 20 year olds with 10 years perfect driving records, or even 5 in their own name. Are you saying that NCB (or lack of) counts for nothing or are you just throwing out any oul half baked comebacks?
...

I suspect the issue is in part related to low risk parents fronting for children on cars to of this nature. Of course, the appropriate way to deal with that is by excluding such cars only where there is a named driver or properly taking account of the risk profile of the named driver.

Even where fronting can be established, the insurer will still have to pay out to third parties (and recover from an owner who likely doesn't have the assets to meet the claim).

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

You say they have a good track record of making profit over the last decade without including investments?

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence"

Where did I say that?

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

Where did I say that?

You said conspiracy.
I said incompetence is more likely, as evidenced by their track record.

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

You said conspiracy.
I said incompetence is more likely, as evidenced by their track record.

Be very careful how you phrase things. A number of times you appear to re-word what I have posted (and there was no ambiguity in my posts).

I simply asked a question on why they are turning down business.
Your response to me suggests that I said that "they have a good track record of making profit over the last decade without including investments" whereas I said no such thing!

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

Be very careful how you phrase things. A number of times you appear to re-word what I have posted (and there was no ambiguity in my posts).

I simply asked a question on why they are turning down business.
Your response to me suggests that I said that "they have a good track record of making profit over the last decade without including investments" whereas I said no such thing!

OK, fair enough, this is an informal message board not a court of law or a scientific discussion. So people throw things out without seeing the deeper implications.

Your suggested alternative to there being "solid financial decision" behind the 15/14/10/8 year old car ban is "some malicious conspiracy". Right? Or is this a significant twisting of what you said? Again, the "malicious" is my interpretation - I took it as being implied that you regarded this suggested conspiracy as being motivated by some desire just to mess with people rather than being based on any genuine motive.


OK, personally I see great merit in the "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" adage, so I see your suggestion of some "baseless, malicious conspiracy" as the alternative rather than "incompetence" as IMPLYING* that "this is an industry with a strong record of good financial decisions".

The reality suggests that the apocryphal dart throwing monkey would match or exceed their success.


So.... do you believe the insurance companies in general have exhibited a good track record over the last decade of making sound financial decisions for the future?


*mea maxima culpa, I used "say" in my original quoting of you. I should of course have said that your post implied that you believe (in the face of all evidence!) that they generally make competent decisions.


For the TLDR boys, Suggesting "waaaa conspiracy" ahead of "incompetence" implies that they have shown, in your eyes, a track record of sound decisions.

Going Forward

kbannon wrote: »

So many insurance companies don't want your money and you think it's a big conspiracy?

Why am I such a risk to them but not my current insurer??

Seth Brundle

Going Forward wrote: »

Why am I such a risk to them but not my current insurer??

I don't know. Did you ask them?

WH BONNEY

Trying in vain to get a quote on a 92 car, can anybody point me in the right direction ?

Special Circumstances

WH BONNEY wrote: »

Trying in vain to get a quote on a 92 car, can anybody point me in the right direction ?

Japanese or other? It makes a difference.

Henry Ford III

WH BONNEY wrote: »

Trying in vain to get a quote on a 92 car, can anybody point me in the right direction ?

Might you be able to get a classic car policy for that?

WH BONNEY

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Japanese or other? It makes a difference.

Opel Astra

WH BONNEY

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Might you be able to get a classic car policy for that?

Yeah I've looked at this but seemingly you must have another policy in your name before they will give you a classic car policy.

Going Forward

kbannon wrote: »

I don't know. Did you ask them?

So you don't know and neither do I.

But something something risks and older car.

And no I didn't ask my insurance company why they didn't chance increasing my premium by €500 this year because I don't think it would be the most productive question.

Special Circumstances

Going Forward wrote: »

So you don't know and neither do I.

But something something risks and older car.

And no I didn't ask my insurance company why they didn't chance increasing my premium by €500 this year because I don't think it would be the most productive question.

Here's an example of insurance industry transparency and honesty:

https://www.123.ie/blog/reasons-for-car-insurance-premium-increase

LOL some serious spin going on in that link. ZERO mention of investment returns tanking (quick we need a new monkey!!!) or the the stricter requirements for reserves. But look OMG - Carjacking and hijacking increased by 75% apparently!!!!!:eek::eek::eek:

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Here's an example of insurance industry transparency and honesty:

https://www.123.ie/blog/reasons-for-car-insurance-premium-increase

LOL some serious spin going on in that link. ZERO mention of investment returns tanking (quick we need a new monkey!!!) or the the stricter requirements for reserves. But look OMG - Carjacking and hijacking increased by 75% apparently!!!!!:eek::eek::eek:

A marketing blog by an insurance company fails to say that financial problems are their fault.
What a shocker!
:rolleyes:

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

A marketing blog by an insurance company fails to say that financial problems are their fault.
What a shocker!
:rolleyes:

oh kbannon, why the sour puss, not even a bit of a smile reading it?
cooochie cooochie cooochie coooo..... awww there's the smile! :pac:

Going Forward

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Here's an example of insurance industry transparency and honesty:

https://www.123.ie/blog/reasons-for-car-insurance-premium-increase

LOL some serious spin going on in that link. ZERO mention of investment returns tanking (quick we need a new monkey!!!) or the the stricter requirements for reserves. But look OMG - Carjacking and hijacking increased by 75% apparently!!!!!:eek::eek::eek:

Carjacking must have increased to a grand total of 10 incidences in the entire country.

Seth Brundle

Going Forward wrote: »

Carjacking must have increased to a grand total of 10 incidences in the entire country.

Well this article refers to the 5th incidence in a single month so it's possibly a little more common than you jokingly suggest: http://www.newstalk.com/Dublin-gardai-investigate-5th-carjacking-in-a-month

Going Forward

kbannon wrote: »

Well this article refers to the 5th incidence in a single month so it's possibly a little more common than you jokingly suggest: http://www.newstalk.com/Dublin-gardai-investigate-5th-carjacking-in-a-month

Possibly.

That 75% increase on the insurer's blog.

Devoid of figures. From what to what?

And at a cost of what?

A complete vacuum of information.


http://www.thejournal.ie/car-insurance-premium-hike-2831883-Jun2016/

Seth Brundle

Going Forward wrote: »

Possibly.

That 75% increase on the insurer's blog.

Devoid of figures. From what to what?

And at a cost of what?

A complete vacuum of information.


http://www.thejournal.ie/car-insurance-premium-hike-2831883-Jun2016/

Yes but it's a marketing blog. You can't expect anything that will appear negative towards the company in it!

Going Forward

kbannon wrote: »

Yes but it's a marketing blog. You can't expect anything that will appear negative towards the company in it!

Towards the industry.

You mentioned a conspiracy didn't you?

Skatedude

WH BONNEY wrote: »

Yeah I've looked at this but seemingly you must have another policy in your name before they will give you a classic car policy.

Nope, i have a classic policy for my 97 bmw 840, It's my daily and only car, It used to be with axa and now with allianz, but they wont accept all cars over 15 years.

galwaytt

Akrasia wrote: »

The reasons are:
1. Old cars aren't maintained to the same standard as new cars. If your brakes need repairs that cost 1000, but your car is only worth 500, you're going to b reluctant to spend that money and more likely to risk delaying the repairs

2. Old cars are more likely to be involved in insurance fraud.

It's not fair, but the whole car insurance system isn't fair

That's like something an insurance co would say, and in particular for point 1 I'm calling BS - in caps :P

I just NCT'd my 2001 car - the tester actually commented on how good it was, and the condition of it. There again, I only did 3800 miles in last year, and that's about the norm for me. And, by dint of it being tested every year, it is currently at least on par with the technical standard of a ......2012 car. This is because there is only one NCT, a common test standard, and mine passed same as my wife's 2012 car did. Ergo, my 2001 car is same standard as a 2012.

Actually - mine's better, and here's why: I have to test my car every year, whereas she only every 2nd year........until it's 10 yrs old. So my car is tested to the same standard, twice as often........technically, I should actually be getting a discount for it's increased surveillance over a car in the 4 - 10 yr bracket, not a loading.

But the insurance companies don't see that. Actually, they do, but they don't give a flying fupp.

Sue Pa Key Pa

galwaytt wrote: »

That's like something an insurance co would say, and in particular for point 1 I'm calling BS - in caps :P

I just NCT'd my 2001 car - the tester actually commented on how good it was, and the condition of it. surveillance over a car in the 4 - 10 yr bracket, not a loading.
.

If your tester commented on how good it was, it must have been unusual for him to see a car like yours in such a condition

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

If your tester commented on how good it was, it must have been unusual for him to see a car like yours in such a condition

Does the industry have any specific requests/recommendations for how the NCT should be carried for greater safety of the general public on 10 year old cars?

Is condition a significant factor in accidents?

If so what are the most common issues?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Does the industry have any specific requests/recommendations for how the NCT should be carried for greater safety of the general public on 10 year old cars?

Is condition a significant factor in accidents?

If so what are the most common issues?

I don't know. All I can tell you is that if insurers are refusing good money because older cars FEATURE in a disproportionate number of claims, then it must be true. I haven't heard any insurer say the car itself is the sole problem

the_syco

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I don't know. All I can tell you is that if insurers are refusing good money because older cars FEATURE in a disproportionate number of claims, then it must be true. I haven't heard any insurer say the car itself is the sole problem

This sounds logical; you damage a €30,000 car in your scam insurance claim, and you'll be out of pocket. But if it's a car that you picked up for €500, then you won't mind if it gets badly damaged when it gets rear-ended.

IMO, I'd say the cost may come down if you followed the UK's lead, and didn't pay out money to whiplash claims; only paid the medical bills.

Going Forward

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Does the industry have any specific requests/recommendations for how the NCT should be carried for greater safety of the general public on 10 year old cars?

Is condition a significant factor in accidents?

If so what are the most common issues?

Vehicle condition is an insignificant factor.

Driver error is the cause of 80% of accidents, the other 20% made up of a variety of factors.

Mechanic error as the sole cause of accidents is very rare.

Even as contributory factors, "bad" tyres for example, as being one we hear of most often, can be on a newer or older car.

There is no data available to my knowledge that states age of vehicle in accident data published by the RSA or insurance companies, but as always I would welcome any correction to that.

http://www.roadsafetymayo.ie/CausesofAccidents/

Going Forward

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I don't know. All I can tell you is that if insurers are refusing good money because older cars FEATURE in a disproportionate number of claims, then it must be true. I haven't heard any insurer say the car itself is the sole problem

Where is the data that shows older cars FEATURE in a disproportionate amount of claims?

gctest50

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=roa22&ProductID=DB_RSA&PLanguage=0


Cso should have it

Going Forward

gctest50 wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=roa22&ProductID=DB_RSA&PLanguage=0


Cso should have it

I can't find it, I can only see a differentiation between cars and goods vehicles?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Going Forward wrote: »

Where is the data that shows older cars FEATURE in a disproportionate amount of claims?

The data is open for everyone to examine on the insurer's quotation website. You'll find it under the heading "we're thieving bastards but we don't want to insure your old car no matter how much money you offer us, no take your credit card away, please, please go elsewhere"

Seth Brundle

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

The data is open for everyone to examine on the insurer's quotation website. You'll find it under the heading "we're thieving bastards but we don't want to insure your old car no matter how much money you offer us, no take your credit card away, please, please go elsewhere"

How exactly are they thieving from you if they're refusing to take your money?

Sue Pa Key Pa

kbannon wrote: »

How exactly are they thieving from you if they're refusing to take your money?

That's the point/joke/failed attempt at sarcasm