Why are old cars such a risk?

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