Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
Given that Aviva posted profits of UK£2.2bn for 2014, and given the seeming lack of linkeage between older cars and accident rates (something the Garda are quoted as saying in the article) this looks like naked profiteering to me - something that will affect the poorest, who are less likely to own newer car, disproportionately. The whole insurance market is a licenced scam, I think :(.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
Completely ridiculous. Gardai are giving figures of 7 in 3200 accidents being the fault of the car.
Think FBD won't insure cars over 20 years old and others load premiums for cars over 10 years old.
Government won't do a thing about it either as it'll force people to buy newer cars as soon as they get into the 10-15 year range. Fleece the drivers mentality again.

Isn't there legislation forcing Insurance companies to give a quote to someone regardless of their age/license etc? Would this not force them to provide a quote regardless of the cars age as well?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
Completely ridiculous. Gardai are giving figures of 7 in 3200 accidents being the fault of the car.
Think FBD won't insure cars over 20 years old and others load premiums for cars over 10 years old.
Government won't do a thing about it either as it'll force people to buy newer cars as soon as they get into the 10-15 year range. Fleece the drivers mentality again.

Isn't there legislation forcing Insurance companies to give a quote to someone regardless of their age/license etc? Would this not force them to provide a quote regardless of the cars age as well?
If anything, the government is working seemingly in the same direction with the outstandingly stupid motor tax "cc vs co2" rates.

It also conflicts with the MOT too (Whatever its called in Ireland) Why bother doing the test?
Yeah, it's called NCT here and it is indeed the pink, giant, stinking elephant in the room. A 10+ years old car is "dangerous" according to insurers just because of its age, forgetting it had to have a check in the previous 12 months to even be on the road. Conversely, a 3 years old car never had an NCT and might very well be driving around with a broken inner tie rod or a wonky suspension arm...but it is "safe" because the insurance says so!

The best part of the article is the last period however:

The Department of Transport added that the decision was "regrettable" but noted that there were 30 companies on the market offering cover.
No offense folks, but this is a pearl of "Irish wisdom" - "sure it'll be grand, shop around and you'll be fine!". The fact it comes from a Government body is utterly shameful - they are supposed to be there to watch on these things, besides putting GoSafe vans on downhill motorway stretches.

This is the mentality that led to the continuous insurance price increase across the board - it's not like there are some companies out there that are either "nicer" or stupider than the others...if their pricing is significantly lower than the competition, it won't stay there very long - they will align at some point because they'd still make business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
About time both tax and third party insurance was put on the fuel. Will stop both uninsured drivers and tax dodgers....although id fear that in ten years down the line they'd bring back motor tax.
They've done it before, the ******s
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
About time both tax and third party insurance was put on the fuel. Will stop both uninsured drivers and tax dodgers....although id fear that in ten years down the line they'd bring back motor tax.
They've done it before, the ******s
To be honest, I would absolutely love that - I drive less than 20km/day, a 50 Euro fill up will last two weeks even with the thirst the 159 has :biglaugh:

Yet I do not think it would be fair, as it would become a tax on living far from work. People that for any reason can't move closer to their place of employment (kids schools, owned house/apartment, spouse job and so on) would end up shafted big time, while the lucky feckers (like me!) living at the office's doorstep would get a big break, regardless of what they drive - even an American V8 driven 10 km a day will use less fuel than a 1.3 diesel driven for 200 km/day :biglaugh:

I honestly don't think there would be a "silver bullet" solution; I used to hate the way motor tax works in Italy, but it makes more sense than the co2 vs. cc absurdity we have here: it's based on engine power, so two cars with say 150 HP will pay the same tax. On the surface it looks bad - somebody with a 2.0 TS 155 from 1997, worth 500E, will pay the same (or more) tax as a new 318i worth 40k; But it's still better than we get here, where the guy with the older car pays twice or thrice the price than somebody with a comparable new car.

Alternatively, it could be linked to the car's value; An option that seems quite feasible in Ireland, given that the Revenue seems to perfectly know such values for VRT calculation, as clearly visible on the relevant website.

For insurance, I would say there's no hope - unless the Government comes up with an antitrust/price watch body (which they should as it's a Government-mandated requirement to have third party cover) they are private companies and will do as they please :furious:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
I have Acorn Insurance brokers and never had any problems insuring cars and always get brilliant service from them. Not mentioning best price... ;-)
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top