[Closed] Please do not use Westminster Insurance for home or business

Why? I don't really see any problem with the advert (bar the fact that some Guardian-reading numpty will probably call "racism!!!!")

If more and more cyclists are using cameras then vehicle drivers using them as well makes total sense. We've been looking into getting a dash cam for our car, regardless of any insurance premium reductions as the amount of loony drivers nowadays does seem to be increasing.

Well it turns out they specialize in ....... Taxi Insurance!1. That's right get the cabbies to gang up on the cyclists by using a firm that would seem to be on the side of Black Cab Man !!. 🙁

Why shouldn't taxi drivers have a camera that might record evidencee in the event of an accident. Or is it only ok for cyclists ?

Additional 10% discount available on production of UKIP membership card.

Most of the taxi drivers around here are not, er, UKIP compatible.

@chakaping I know dozens of taxi drivers and have yet to meet one who's a card carrying member of UKIP. And what if they were.

Hm.

I don't see a problem with drivers having dash cams to record anything unfortunate that happens although I'm sceptical about it being a magic bullet.

I can see why this ad is going to ruffle feathers though, simply because it's implying that the camera indicated the cyclist was at fault, but realistically there are plenty of cyclists for whom this may well be the case, quite probably including all of us at some point or another if we're honest about it.

What would be more interesting would be to mandate video capture for all road users (or maybe just taxis, goods vehicles and busses on the basis of increasing risk with operator hours) and legal seizure of same (imagery, not vehicles!) rather than allowing tricky legal types to pick and choose snippets of footage to support their case. I can see that going down well, though.

@chakaping I know dozens of taxi drivers and have yet to meet one who's a card carrying member of UKIP.

I'll admit I'm prejudiced by where I used to live, which had a lot of BNP supporters including some of the cabbies.

And what if they were.

Then they are bigots.

Good on that taxi driver for nobbling that bicycle thief!

What would be more interesting would be to mandate video capture for all road users

+1 with extra dash cam pointed at driver too

Not sure I even want to get involved in this one but..

While your solidarity for other cyclists is admirable, the advert wasn't asking all cabbies to knock cyclists off as often as they can, it was stating that having an onboard camera will help you in the event of an accident (for example with a cyclist).

Well that was my take anyway, but I am not one of the professionally offended.

Evidence is evidence and surely if the evidence says that the cyclist did nowt wrong then....

While your solidarity for other cyclists is admirable,

Admirable is one word, professionally offended are 2 others.

It seems like quite an effort is needed to get worked up by this advert. It's merely reenacting an accident scenario. Probably went for a cyclist, as it worked out cheaper to get a guy from the office to lie on the floor with his bike, rather than recreate a vehicle on vehicle smash.

the knee jerk reaction is "blaming cyclists" for insurance fraud.
But also having a camera recording will produce evidence that may go against the driver as well.......with that in mind it may positively effect the way the driver drives.

W@nk advert thou.

Ok...

Not quite sure what UKIP has to do with this. The only person being depicted as acting badly in the ad is the lawyer and he's probably just as likely to be voting ukip as a London cabbie

Mandated video capture for all road users is probably the worst idea I've heard on here for a long time (and its had some stiff competition). I can't think of a worse way to 'police' our roads than letting private citizens, insurance companies and lawyers do it quite honestly.
I'm not a fan of taxis with cams because I'm not really a fan of anyone with cams, cyclists included - I think it often leads to needless confrontation. However I don't blame taxi drivers for wanting one or using one in todays litigious environment.

The ad is tasteless and is a slap in the face for the hundreds of cyclists killed or maimed on our deathtrap roads every year. It solves nothing, adds to the general groupthink that the roads are a battleground and worst of all puts a lawyer in the driving seat.

I hate it.

EDIT: In most accidents caused by cars, dash cams will make bugger all difference when used for evidence unless they are 360 degrees and as Mike says below tamperproof even then it may be doubtful. However that won't stop the insurance companies and lawyers trying to wriggle out of responsibility

The ad is
1) Crap, utter crap that looks like it came from a creative cesspit
2) Borderline offensive and suggesting that cyclists are trying to gain advantage from poor innocent taxi drivers by faking accidents/injury

Not to bring top gear into this but the footage of Richard Hammond cycling in Russia was probably one of the best ads for in car/on rider cams, they also need to be tamper proof to avoid the footage being lost.

The image aligns nicely with the target audiences extrapolated view of the world, and certainly seems to send a rather "anti-cycling" message but then they're not flogging insurance to cyclists are they...

And I'd actually applaud the proposal, think about it Dash-cams are what you might call an "Un-biased witness" they can provide evidence both for and [u]against[/u] a driver with one fitted, so that -10% inducement may just help improve the available evidence for any RTI's where a Taxi is involved, however the outcome of that evidence may or may not actually favour the driver...
And once a driver has a dash Cam, [i]"a spy in the car"[/i], fitted they might moderate their behaviour when driving, again a net benefit to all road users...

The image sends a certain message, but the offer is actually something quite different...

And I though this was going to be a useful public service anouncement about poor customer service from an insurance company.

It's a ropey advert...is it really woth getting your knickers in a twist over it?

Must say that mandated video for all strikes me as a bad plan too, I was only throwing it out as a field leveller.

I'm less sure about how bad an idea it would be for constant drivers though, such as taxis, busses, GVs of various classes etc. There's an obvious argument about how driving for a living makes you more experienced, however familiarity can breed contempt. It would also be a swings and roundabouts of showing where faults lay given that most accidents are the result of errors on all sides. What I liked about the idea was that it would allow decision makers (whether Police, insurance or jury) to see an entire journey for context rather than just the fateful moment, and expect it to be available. What I don't like about it is the obvious wholesale recording of everything everywhere.

Stepping away from that wild and probably bad idea though, it's hard to get upset that someone other than your pet user group (cyclists in this case) might be gathering evidence of poor road craft for the purpose of self exoneration if an accident occurs...

Agree with an earlier comment though that this advert looks like something that belongs in a sixth formers coursework.

Everyone's a bit Shit TBH...

Meh...

Meh...

Stick cameras on everything and at lest we'll be able to apportion blame after the fact, pick out people's various faults and show the whole internetz...

I'd happily accept a camera on my Car for a reduction in my insurance premium, but obviously I am utterly infallible...

As an insurer, I'd expect a camera to focus the mind of the driver as well as record what other road users get up to.

Can't believe the weeping and wailing over such a cheap advert. Some people need to get out and ride their bikes.

This:

1) Crap, utter crap that looks like it came from a creative cesspit
2) Borderline offensive and suggesting that cyclists are trying to gain advantage from poor innocent taxi drivers by faking accidents/injury

And this:

And I'd actually applaud the proposal, think about it Dash-cams are what you might call an "Un-biased witness" they can provide evidence both for and against a driver with one fitted, so that -10% inducement may just help improve the available evidence for any RTI's where a Taxi is involved, however the outcome of that evidence may or may not actually favour the driver...
And once a driver has a dash Cam, "a spy in the car", fitted they might moderate their behaviour when driving, again a net benefit to all road users...

You need an incentive to get driver/journey monitoring in vehicles, because people don't like have their freedom to be a bit naughty (either deliberately or not) taken away. People generally behave and drive better when they're being watched, and fewer accidents from a group means you can make money by insuring them at discounted premiums. Win for the ins. co. and win for fewer accidents and injuries.

Mandated video capture for all road users is probably the worst idea I've heard on here for a long time (and its had some stiff competition). I can't think of a worse way to 'police' our roads than letting private citizens, insurance companies and lawyers do it quite honestly.

my best friend had a motorcycle crash head on with a lorry, he lived but he knew nothing of the accident, luckily we were following him & able to give an account to the court & the lorry driver got 9pts & £2500 fine, had we not been there a camera might have been able to help piece together any evidence.

they also need to be tamper proof to avoid the footage being lost.

Definitely this. All very well having a dash cam to prove its not your fault and you were cut up, but you should be prepared to have your own driving judged too. Can't imagine that in this day and age it is that much more costly to link it to speed/cornering telemetry too. It would be an interesting study to compare 'optional' and 'mandatory not switch-offable' camera users to see if there was a difference in their own standards of driving and incidence of, er, incidents.