Why are old cars such a risk?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

But how would they have 10 years claims/convictions/penalty points free records if "these people" you want to discriminate against were so bad?
.

You're not listening to what I say.

If insurers discover that Demographic X are causing a lot of accidents, they cannot refuse them cover on that basis alone. If another common feature is that Demographic X use a high % of older cars, insurers will use that reason to get rid of them EVEN if it means they have to lose the 10 yr claims/conviction/penalty points good customers along with them

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You're not listening to what I say.

If insurers discover that Demographic X are causing a lot of accidents, they cannot refuse them cover on that basis alone. If another common feature is that Demographic X use a high % of older cars, insurers will use that reason to get rid of them EVEN if it means they have to lose the 10 yr claims/conviction/penalty points good customers along with them

Well Cher, if you wanna know, that's basically admitting that your system is wide wide wide open to lies (the actual reg of the car is the only thing ye can verify) and by telling the truth about pretty much anything else except the reg we are subsidising a LOT more people than we think, a LOT more than we should. That's where it is.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote:

Well Cher, if you wanna know, that's basically admitting that your system is wide wide wide open to lies (the actual reg of the car is the only thing ye can verify) and by telling the truth about pretty much anything else except the reg we are subsidising a LOT more people than we think, a LOT more than we should. That's where it is.

Special Circumstances wrote:

Well Cher, if you wanna know, that's basically admitting that your system is wide wide wide open to lies (the actual reg of the car is the only thing ye can verify) and by telling the truth about pretty much anything else except the reg we are subsidising a LOT more people than we think, a LOT more than we should. That's where it is.

What on Earth are you on about?

phester28

CJhaughey wrote: »

I can see two parts to this.

1. Exchequer directly benefits as older cars are deemed uninsurable, new cars are bought to replace them.
VRT and VAT and associated taxes directly benefit the govt, and in addition cars under the old tax regime are removed from the national fleet, this moves the point at which most cars will be under the new emissions based tax regime.
Therefore there will come a point where the new emissions based tax will slowly creep up to the levels of previous CC based tax.

2. The Exchequer gains as a proportion of the insurance is also earmarked for the State through levies on the Insurance.
Higher Insurance costs = More money into the Gov't coffers.

It's a win win for the Govt and they have no interest in mere plebs struggling to insure a car as they all have large salaries and in many cases a Govt car with driver.

Exchequer looses on an annual basis becuase of the lower tax rates PA on cars post 2008.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You're not listening to what I say.

If insurers discover that Demographic X are causing a lot of accidents, they cannot refuse them cover on that basis alone. If another common feature is that Demographic X use a high % of older cars, insurers will use that reason to get rid of them EVEN if it means they have to lose the 10 yr claims/conviction/penalty points good customers along with them

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about?

You are saying there is no way of separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of ownership of older cars.

You are saying that no single one of the following, or any combination of them can be used to separate the wheat from the chaff.

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

Now, anyone with a 5 year olds level of critical thinking can come up with the following conclusions with regard to that assertion
1) Either the above combination of factors perfectly describe the "undesirable" demographic, or overlaps to significant amount. A five year old would quickly dismiss this.
2) Although these factors would be enough to differentiate legitimately between desirable and undesirable customers, it would depend on there being some reliable way to verify these.
3) So reasonable ways exist to differentiate, but they depend on people being 100% honest OR a way to verify them. These legitmate factors are not being used to exclude undesirable customers, instead a very blunt instrument is being used. This suggests that it is the verification system that is flawed, amateur, unprofessional - just about the only thing you can verify is that 01 MO 8008 is an actual car, registered as a Yaris.
4) You have of course said that people "reinventing" themselves is the reason insurers won't insure "new" drivers over 30. Are you standing by this or are you accepting that there is no proper way to verify someone presenting themselves as a new driver over 30?



So, I'm not sure if this is enough to explain why I made the assertion that the age of the car is just about the only thing that can't be lied about? It was pretty common sense straight off I thought but let me know if you need more dots to get from A to B.



The other part of my post is saying that the system is rewarding those who are willing to tell any lie to get insurance, and the honest drivers are picking up the tab. Surely that's self explanatory.


If it was the "Cher" "you're not listening to all I say" reference that confused you well... that's understandable. :pac:

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote:

You are saying there is no way of separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of ownership of older cars.

There is a way, but you cannot always act on the answer it throws up in case the discrimination card is used.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

There is a way, but you cannot always act on the answer it throws up in case the discrimination card is used.

You're saying that none of the ones I've listed, individually or in combination, work?

Or you're admitting that the crafty people lie about these all the time and the honest fools pay over the odds for them?

Henry Ford III

Special Circumstances wrote: »

You're saying that none of the ones I've listed, individually or in combination, work?

Or you're admitting that the crafty people lie about these all the time and the honest fools pay over the odds for them?

If he/she was a spokesman for motor insurers you might have a point.

Special Circumstances

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If he/she was a spokesman for motor insurers you might have a point.

But if all opinions expressed here carry the same weight, zero apparently as none of us are insurance spokespeople, why are my opinions that I back up with examples and reasoning always "nonsense" compared to opinions which are just parroted party lines that dissolve in the face of the slightest bit of analysis?

I know the finer details are only for the grand high insurance wizards to see, which I'm sure you guys aren't, but if there's a fault in my deductions can either of you show it to be due to incorrect initial assumptions, or subsequent faulty logic?

It IS possible to wield a scalpel* rather than a slash-hook against fraud, why would you choose the slash hook when it makes your statistical analysis look so so amateur?

*OK maybe a steak knife, there's only so far you can drill down into things before the benefits outweigh the gains.

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Does it meet the minimum required standards as required by the EU and the Irish government and the RSA and the AA for the purposes of being on the road or not?
If it does then it is just a nicer car than all the other cars of that age that meet the same requirements.

I have no idea. I cannot see their car. I only have what they said to go on. Regardless, assuming that it was in showroom condition, my point was that most 15 year old cars would not he looked after in quite the same way as the previous posters cousins immaculate car.
Do you dispute this?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

By not even applying a five year olds level of critical thinking to this (or doing so but abandoning the conclusions, don't be causing no fuss now), shrugging your shoulders and saying ah sure most a dem cars are crap (despite meeting the requirements) you are excusing and perpetuating this sh1t or perhaps trying to inveigle yourself with this unaccountable masters. IMO this traits are perfectly in line with being called a sliveen. IF the cap fits wear it.

So I'm a sleeveen because I merely pointed out that most 15 year old cars are not maintained quite like what the previous poster said?

This has nothing to do with the fairness of the policies put in place by an insurance company which I did not express a view on (positive or negative). I never once suggested that these cars hsould not be on the road, should not be insured or anything.
I merelt asked in response to a poster who said that their coousin had an immaculate car whether this was representative of cars of that age.

I'm not trying to perpetuate anything put in place by the insurance industry. I'm merely pointing out the obvious!

Get over yourself!

NUTLEY BOY

kbannon wrote: »

Does the high standard that your cousin keeps reflect that for all cars of similar age?

Probably not .

Ergo, why would he not be underwritten on the particulars of the individual merits of the risk that he actually presents to an insurer ?

BTW I do appreciate the underwriting concept of the sharing of a pool of risk.

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

I have no idea. I cannot see their car. I only have what they said to go on. Regardless, assuming that it was in showroom condition, my point was that most 15 year old cars would not he looked after in quite the same way as the previous posters cousins immaculate car.
Do you dispute this?


So I'm a sleeveen because I merely pointed out that most 15 year old cars are not maintained quite like what the previous poster said?

This has nothing to do with the fairness of the policies put in place by an insurance company which I did not express a view on (positive or negative). I never once suggested that these cars hsould not be on the road, should not be insured or anything.
I merelt asked in response to a poster who said that their coousin had an immaculate car whether this was representative of cars of that age.

I'm not trying to perpetuate anything put in place by the insurance industry. I'm merely pointing out the obvious!

Get over yourself!

So what if that guys car is nicer than others of a given age or newer - from a "legal to be on the road" point of view it has met the minimum requirements that the others have. Saying "sure it's a nice one but most aren't" without commenting further is implying that insurers are justified in putting NCT'd cars off the road.

Do you accept that the majority of 15 year old cars on the road are found to meet a minimum standard once a year?

If you say that cars of age X wouldn't be that well looked after, where would you say the cutoff is?

Seth Brundle

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Probably not .

Ergo, why would he not be underwritten on the particulars of the individual merits of the risk that he actually presents to an insurer ?

BTW I do appreciate the underwriting concept of the sharing of a pool of risk.

Why would they not be underwritten? I don't know. I don't agree with the practice of not covering older cars but why owuld an insurance company just decide to turn down loads of potential business.
I don't have the answer as to why they don't cover. However, they don't have to if they don't want to!

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

So what if that guys car is nicer than others of a given age or newer - from a "legal to be on the road" point of view it has met the minimum requirements that the others have. Saying "sure it's a nice one but most aren't" without commenting further is implying that insurers are justified in putting NCT'd cars off the road.

You're waffling now. From your comment you think that because I simply asked if the previous posters immaculate cousins car was reflective of all cars of the same age, I should have written up a whole diatribe just to avoid being misinterpreted?
FFS!

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Do you accept that the majority of 15 year old cars on the road are found to meet a minimum standard once a year?

I never said that they weren't! You just started hyperventilating thinking that this is what I meant!

Special Circumstances wrote: »

If you say that cars of age X wouldn't be that well looked after, where would you say the cutoff is?

I don't think age should come into it as a principal factor for refusal but let's not let that get in the way of your name calling!

Special Circumstances

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

This twaddle is almost as bad as what they tried in the UK a few years ago. Insurers thought that it would be a good idea to try and load policyholders for accident frequency. Ostensibly reasonable until you realise that they wanted to reckon against you accidents for which the policyholder had no liability. So if in the space of 12 months you were hit from behind whilst stationary at red traffic lights that made you a sub-standard risk. I don't really think so......

Shur that's here now too!

Liam McPoyle

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Probably not .

Ergo, why would he not be underwritten on the particulars of the individual merits of the risk that he actually presents to an insurer ?

BTW I do appreciate the underwriting concept of the sharing of a pool of risk.

Because it is simply not possible to review every case individually, not even close.

I personally review on average 250 to 300 renewals a month. These are all policies that have been flagged for a variety of reasons eg claims, young drivers or because we have to request medical certs if the policy holder has an illness that may effect their driving ability such as Alzheimer's or MS.

In an ideal world every case would be taken on its individual merits but with the time that would take there are not enough hours in the day to do it. To employ the number of staff that it would take to review every single proposal would mean the costs would outweigh the benefits.

cruizer101

kbannon wrote: »

However, they don't have to if they don't want to!

And this I think is a fundamental problem with motor insurance. When motor insurance is mandatory insurance companies should not be allowed to refuse to quote. However I can't see this changing anytime soon as I think the government are happy enough to have people forced to buy newer cars.

Also given insurance in mandatory anonimized details of all claims should be made public.

Actually to be honest insurance should be dealt with by government but there is little to no chance of that happening.

Special Circumstances

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

My cousin drives a 1990 Toyota Corolla. Hardly touched 50,000 miles (an indisputably evidenced fact) yet. Serviced annually and properly by a main dealer. Passed every NCT.

My cousin is in good nick himself as well.

So, how could he represent a sub-standard or unacceptable risk from an underwriters perspective ? I venture to suggest that he doesn't but insurers would have you believe otherwise :mad:

This twaddle is almost as bad as what they tried in the UK a few years ago. Insurers thought that it would be a good idea to try and load policyholders for accident frequency. Ostensibly reasonable until you realise that they wanted to reckon against you accidents for which the policyholder had no liability. So if in the space of 12 months you were hit from behind whilst stationary at red traffic lights that made you a sub-standard risk. I don't really think so......

kbannon wrote: »

Does the high standard that your cousin keeps reflect that for all cars of similar age?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Do the insurers have some special requirements that they would like added to the NCT?

kbannon wrote: »

I'm not justifying their action but if they have a policy of not insuring something there will always be outliers that should possibly not be part of the exclusion.

OK, maybe I picked this up wrong - I assumed by outliers you meant that a small percentage of these older NCT'd cars would be in decent condition and should be insured but that most of them were utter crap and shouldn't be insured.

I thought your comment was a clear implication that most older annually NTC'd cars are at risk of major failures as evident from some particular accident statistics, except for a few "golden" outliers.

So I pressed on with an argument about the annual NCT, should they make it stricter to address these insurance issues etc etc.


So...

Was there a point wrt to insurance in your query about the cars condition compared to the vast bulk of NCT'd older cars? Or was it just general interest?

If you meant nothing by it, no point, no implication, just idle chit chat, then I do apologise for jumping down your throat.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Because it is simply not possible to review every case individually, not even close.

I personally review on average 250 to 300 renewals a month. These are all policies that have been flagged for a variety of reasons eg claims, young drivers or because we have to request medical certs if the policy holder has an illness that may effect their driving ability such as Alzheimer's or MS.

In an ideal world every case would be taken on its individual merits but with the time that would take there are not enough hours in the day to do it. To employ the number of staff that it would take to review every single proposal would mean the costs would outweigh the benefits.

OK, I'm not arguing with your point, or contradicting it. I'm merely being a bit "lateral thinking" here, looking at the implications of what you guys are saying.

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. Everything else is mostly just assumed to be true and number crunched by a big machine somewhere until it pops out a quote yeah?

So the reason insurers do not / cannot weed out undesirable customers based on

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

is that your systems do not allow any efficient way to verify any of these, or indeed that Person X IS Person X.

So the "year on the reg" sledgehammer is used instead, because the systems are just not there to verify that Sheila Sensible the teacher from bray is not Mary "crash dummy" Mad-orra-it

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

OK, maybe I picked this up wrong - I assumed by outliers you meant that a small percentage of these older NCT'd cars would be in decent condition and should be insured but that most of them were utter crap and shouldn't be insured.

I thought your comment was a clear implication that most older annually NTC'd cars are at risk of major failures as evident from some particular accident statistics, except for a few "golden" outliers.

So I pressed on with an argument about the annual NCT, should they make it stricter to address these insurance issues etc etc.


So...

Was there a point wrt to insurance in your query about the cars condition compared to the vast bulk of NCT'd older cars? Or was it just general interest?

If you meant nothing by it, no point, no implication, just idle chit chat, then I do apologise for jumping down your throat.

Firstly, thanks for the clarification.
Secondly, Nutley's post about their cousins car has nothing to do really with the discussion on insurance as their car is not reflective of the reality. I'm not saying that cars of that age shouldn't be insured but if they are then insurance companies will look at the average quality and not the top quality when forming their view.
Effectively Nutley's cousins car is not the norm.
Were the companies going to make a decision to stop (or continue) covering 15 year old cars it wouldnt be a decision based on Nutley's cousins car.
They would be looking at the average 15 year old motor which may have an NCT despite receiving crappy Irish type services. etc. These cars in general would not have been loved like Nutley's.

Now the next question should be why they are refusing to cover these cars. Is it because the NCT is not adequate in their view or because these owners tend to lodge more claims or what?
I don't know the reason. I do know that no company would willingly turn away business if it was profitable!

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.