Why are old cars such a risk?

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

Going Forward

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"

Whatever.

Hellrazer

There is no greater risk with older cars that I can find anyway.
The insurance companies have not provided any statistical evidence whatsoever to show that older cars are a greater risk other than a vague answer that "they are used more in fraudulent claims"
They have shown absolutely no proof of this and personally I would dispute the extreme levels that they are claiming.


See this page :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057645266&page=4

galwaytt

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

galwaytt wrote: »

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

If 1. is really bull**** why is it older cars find their way into scrapyards?
Before a car finds its way into a scrapyard where has it been driven for the preceding weeks, months etc?

How many 3/4 year old cars are driving around with corroded brake lines, ABS lights on due to failed sensors etc compared to 15 year old cars?

Seth Brundle

Hellrazer wrote: »

The insurance companies have not provided any statistical evidence whatsoever to show that older cars are a greater risk other than a vague answer that "they are used more in fraudulent claims"
They have shown absolutely no proof of this and personally I would dispute the extreme levels that they are claiming.

The challenge in finding out why they won't insure older cars is that they don't have to give out this business sensitive statistical information.
Without that data, all allegations of unfairness remain baseless unfortunately.

Seth Brundle

Augeo wrote: »

How many 3/4 year old cars are driving around with corroded brake lines, ABS lights on due to failed sensors etc compared to 15 year old cars?

I think the point many people are making is that despite their cars passing our national roadworthiness test, cars are still refused insurance.

galwaytt

Augeo 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 ?

That's why we have the NCT (allegedly...), so that point is moot.

Augeo wrote: »

If 1. is really bull**** why is it older cars find their way into scrapyards?
Before a car finds its way into a scrapyard where has it been driven for the preceding weeks, months etc?

How many 3/4 year old cars are driving around with corroded brake lines, ABS lights on due to failed sensors etc compared to 15 year old cars?

Because many end up their on economic grounds, not technical grounds. Case in point: my 05 Saab is heading to the scrapper shortly because of a fuel pump. Apart from that the car is in perfect condition, and if I could start the thing, it would pass the NCT in a heartbeat.
As for your latter paragraph, you've just make my point for me: as my (2001) has successfully passed the test, it's proven to be on par with a 4yr old car.

Liam McPoyle

Insurance doesn't deal in absolutes most of the time, it deals in probabilities.

So completely parking the question about road worthiness, older cars are more likely to be bought cheap which obviously means they are more likely to be driven by

Young drivers

First time drivers

Drivers with no experience in Ireland

People that don't care about the car as it cost little money so they are potentially more likely to drive recklessly

Parents insuring a cheap car with the intention of adding a son or daughter at a later date

People that are taking policies with the sole intention of engineering claims

I personally don't think that the fear of mechanical failure is a massive reason why older cars aren't attractive to insurers. I'm sure its a factor but certainly not the main consideration.

galwaytt

galwaytt wrote: »

That's why we have the NCT (allegedly...), so that point is moot.



Because many end up their on economic grounds, not technical grounds. Case in point: my 05 Saab is heading to the scrapper shortly because of a fuel pump. Apart from that the car is in perfect condition, and if I could start the thing, it would pass the NCT in a heartbeat.
As for your latter paragraph, you've just make my point for me: as my (2001) has successfully passed the test, it's proven to be on par with a 4yr old car.

Do you really think that?
You have a collection of 15 year old parts with a finite lifespan rolling around that are much closer to end of life than they were when they were 4 years old.

Proven to be on a par, nope. Just not failed yet.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Insurance doesn't deal in absolutes most of the time, it deals in probabilities.

So completely parking the question about road worthiness, older cars are more likely to be bought cheap which obviously means they are more likely to be driven by

Young drivers

First time drivers

Drivers with no experience in Ireland

People that don't care about the car as it cost little money so they are potentially more likely to drive recklessly

Parents insuring a cheap car with the intention of adding a son or daughter at a later date

People that are taking policies with the sole intention of engineering claims

I personally don't think that the fear of mechanical failure is a massive reason why older cars aren't attractive to insurers. I'm sure its a factor but certainly not the main consideration.

Apologies to offend/inconvenience ye with yet more perfectly reasonable (IMHO) lateral thinking.... but aren't half these "problem" customers perfectly identifiable without having to have a blanket ban or a loading for older roadworthy cars?

"Hello, I'm a fully qualified, fulltime employed professional with 10years no claims bonus, in Ireland, no penalty points with a 9 year old car"
"I'm afraid that due to the age of your car you could be an unaccompanied minor from libya, we can't insure you"


So we're back to the analysis of the stats, and the effort/effectiveness in verifying people's bona fides.
So far all suggested "reasoning" for the declining of people with good records etc etc due to the age of their car suggests that the analysis is amateur AND/OR the verification of customers bona fides is amateur/ not done/ not practical.

Insurers literally can't tell a " fully qualified, fulltime employed professional with 10years no claims bonus, in Ireland, no penalty points with a 9 year old car" from "undesirable minority/serial scammer/whatever ye are blaming this week". Seriously - do these "serial scammers" really play such a long game, accumulating 5 years+ NCB before striking again? Just how many of them are there if they are such sleepers?

jimgoose

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Apologies to offend/inconvenience ye with yet more perfectly reasonable (IMHO) lateral thinking.... but aren't half these "problem" customers perfectly identifiable without having to have a blanket ban or a loading for older roadworthy cars?

"Hello, I'm a fully qualified, fulltime employed professional with 10years no claims bonus, in Ireland, no penalty points with a 9 year old car"
"I'm afraid that due to the age of your car you could be an unaccompanied minor from libya, we can't insure you"...

That's it, right there. That is textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc ballygobackwards mismangled logic. What is wrong with these people?? :pac:

Special Circumstances

jimgoose wrote: »

That's it, right there. That is textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc ballygobackwards mismangled logic. What is wrong with these people?? :pac:

And they wonder why they keep losing money :pac: :pac:


Young drivers have lots of crashes in older cars.
People with no experience of driving have lots of crashes in older cars.
People with a recent history of crashes have a lot of crashes in older cars.
People who will have to ring us up again to add their young/no experience son/daughter to the policy and pay us more money for this when it absolutely does happen have lots of claims on them older cars
...
...
Older cars must therefore be very dangerous! Now more so than any time in history!

Going Forward

Augeo wrote: »

Do you really think that?
You have a collection of 15 year old parts with a finite lifespan rolling around that are much closer to end of life than they were when they were 4 years old.

Proven to be on a par, nope. Just not failed yet.

Think about that the next time you step onto a plane or a ship then.

ShadowHearth

The whole older cars thing more dangerous is complete idiocy and they contradict them selves.

Up to 10 years old car - perfectly safe.
10-20 years old car - death trap!!!
20 years and older - perfectly safe classic, cheap insurance.

Nct means jack **** now. Might as well scrap it.
10 years and older cars are now just completely dead stock. Its like after 10 years cars value just written off and no one buys it as it's almost impossible to insure damn thing. Basically 10 year old cars are only good for scrapage deals. I noticed so many nice cars just completely plummet in value this year.

I already heard a story about how they do insurance scam in Dublin from a trusty source and it's absolutely magnificent in its simplicity. These new insurance tactics completely ignored the way it's being done and those scams ( which is pretty much a business now) will continue like it used to, but we will just pay more.

Only in last few years I learned to live with tax system and I just don't get annoyed about it. Its just a thing accounted in my budget and the thing I pay without thinking too much.
Now I just can't swallow this whole insurance idiocy on top of tax.

Special Circumstances

It's not even 10 years now SH, FBD won't insure over 8 years old.

At this rate, pretty soon we might as well be just buying or renting cars direct from the insurance companies because actually owning anything that doesn't have their blessing is just gonna be a minefield of hassle.

Going Forward

Going Forward wrote: »

Think about that the next time you step onto a plane or a ship then.

In conjunction with life limited parts etc I'd give the matter due consideration.

Lantus

Very hard for the car industry to sell new cars if people can continue to keep the old ones on the road. No need for government to even attempt to pass some ludicrous safety law. Just needs private companies to make a legitimate business decision.

Going Forward

Lantus wrote: »

Very hard for the car industry to sell new cars if people can continue to keep the old ones on the road. No need for government to even attempt to pass some ludicrous safety law. Just needs private companies to make a legitimate business decision.

So a conspiracy between insurance companies and the motor industry to force motorists to upgrade would be legitimate?