Hey need to make the insurance companies comply with the bloody law themselves first!
Take the reporting of points - valid for 3yrs, on license for 4yrs and that's it by law.
Except insurance companies demand you declare in the last 5yrs and if you don't will increase the premium, add admin charges and consider cancellation of the policy!
Legally not required but because they can - they will and do demand what they actually have no right to :-/
An excuse to drive up premiums IMO
I did a course a couple of years ago and learned loads and am far more careful with my speed these days...
If someone has been given points and a fine then yes, increase insurance as they're clearly a risk. But if they've been on a course to improve speed awareness, I would have thought they'd be a lower risk as likely to drive more carefully - so I'd like to see Admiral's evidence that course attendees are a higher risk...
They were dangerous but thought they were the best drivers on the road.
Nobody likes to be told they are bad at something.
Nobody likes to be told they are bad at something.
They dont have to like it, but accepting it would be a good start.
Driving standards in the UK are terrible.
Terrible, yet still better than anywhere else?
Legally not required but because they can - they will and do demand what they actually have no right to :-/
They can ask what they like, you don't have to answer.
I went on one; about 10% of us actually knew the correct speed limits across the various road types...
And it was mainly the 40-70 age bracket, no boy-racers.
Unfortunately if you don't they always do a DVLA confirmation and then charge you accordingly - already had this argument twice this year, second time AFTER the 5yrs had expired they still tried to insist it was "within" the fifth year....
That one they didn't get away with but the ****er tried.
Certainly used to be the case3pts on my licence doesnt seem to have put up my premiums so it seems a bit harsh to put up premiums for the course.
Maybe Admiral's thinking is that people who opt for the courses are the sort who make a tactical decision to avoid points in order to leave more leeway for their shit driving to accrue points in future and that they have no intention of modifying their behaviour ?
Alteratively, if the figures show that drivers who've been on a course have more or bigger claims against them then of course they should pay more for cover
Hammy that's a scary lack of mathematical ability there! I hope you pointed it out to the youngster.
I did second time round and they removed the charges but only after a week of arguing :-/
First time they point blank refused to back down and said if you don't pay we will cancel your policy and inform all other insurers of the denial of policy.
So you were lying to get cheaper insurance?
Well done.
So by the title people think it's worth doing the course to avoid the points. Seems like admiral have worked out most people just attend rather than learn anything.
Got clocked at 10kph over here in oz just after a changing limit. Go my 1 warning now officially on record. Next its a fine and points no excuses. The ticket shows what the fine would have been took. Worked out about £100.
Lying? Not at all - legally answered the questions.
In my case the points had expired for almost two years and had been removed almost a year.
I had no obligation to declare anything but the "industry requires" 5yrs for nothing more than loading of premiums.
First time was 2 DAYS! Before the 5yr point and the second 3 months afterwards.
Am I expected to be penalised for that? Or do you think it's acceptable to be shafted without any legal basis?
Thread title should read "Admiril Insurance looking less attractive [b]for people that get dinged for speeding[/b]"
An Admiral press release from 2004
[url= http://www.admiral.com/press-releases/16/caught-by-a-speed-camera-cut-the-expense/ ]"I think our research reinforces how important it is to shop around for insurance. Different companies view drivers with speeding convictions in different ways. We personally consider a motorist with three convictions as a high risk, but a motorist with one conviction perhaps shouldn't be criminalised."[/url]
Terrible, yet still better than anywhere else?
What about Sweden, Switzerland etc?
Got any statistics to say that the UK has the best driving standards?
Legally not required but because they can - they will and do demand what they actually have no right to :-/
Or do you think it's acceptable to be shafted without any legal basis?
What "legal basis" do you think insurance companies need to use, to decide how long [b]They[/b] consider penalty points to be relevant for ?
Just because it is a different timescale than you want it to be, what imaginary Law do you they are breaking ?
Lying? Not at all - legally answered the questions.
In my case the points had expired for almost two years and had been removed almost a year.
I had no obligation to declare anything but the "industry requires" 5yrs for nothing more than loading of premiums.
First time was 2 DAYS! Before the 5yr point and the second 3 months afterwards.
Am I expected to be penalised for that? Or do you think it's acceptable to be shafted without any legal basis?
The legal basis is that you are two parties forming a contract, except you're telling fibs on your part.
Believe it or not, you have breached the contract.
I'll put this simply as you are obviously a simpleton.
You tell lies = no insurance.
Got any statistics to say that the UK has the best driving standards
No stats, but I've been driving an average of 2k miles around Europe every year for the past 5 years, this year driving through 6 countries, I can say that most of the countries I passed through (with the exception of Germany, perhaps) the standard of driving was a generally worse than the UK.
Belgium for example...take the worst driver you've ever seen, EVER....and that's about par for the course.
I've driven around Switzerland, and I wouldn't say it was any worse or better than the UK.
Have you got any statistics to say that the Driving standards in the UK are terrible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_traffic_safety
Shows only Finland as having less deaths per mile driven, though I appreciate the list is not exhaustive.
What about Sweden, Switzerland etc?Got any statistics to say that the UK has the best driving standards?
...UK has a significantly better record than Sweden and Switzerland then, if you go by deaths per miles travelled according to the stats in the link above.
[i]source: International Road Traffic and Accident Database[/i]
just noticed Spain....bloody hell 😯
Having seen their brand new s****y HQ going up in the centre of Cardiff & judging by some event they put on the other night, Admiral seem to be doing very well & I suspect therefore don't GAS!
So drivers who have broken the speed limit and been caught - possibly repeatedly are pissed off that their premiums are going up? What planet are they on? Tough shit. That's what happens when you speed, you're more likely to crash and more likely injure others - so you pay more.
So drivers who have broken the speed limit and been caught - possibly repeatedly
I believe the speed awareness course is only offered for the first offence in any three year period, so prolific speeders will get points.
Girl who works at our place has been on 2. Few years between them and for different forces - East Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. She has also had some other points put on her licence too.
Also in the past month she has had 2 parking tickets and this morning got a fine for driving in a bus lane.
Some people should just be made to use public transport!!
Ideally, insurance contracts should contain a 'Car Cruahed to the Size of a Satsuma' clause for any at-fault accident/incident
None of this namby-pamby 'ahhh, you were driving too fast? here, go on a cosy little course' 🙄
Of course, after having their vehicle crushed they should still attend the course otherwise nothing'll ever improve
And they should also need to re-take the driving theory & practical test.
😀
What I don't understand is why they are effectively get out of jail free cards? If you've committed a serious enough offence that the Popo feel you need a bit of re-educating that's fine, but you should be penalised for the offence too. IMO they shouldn't be an either or, option.
It's driver education and probably more beneficial to us all than handing out 3 points and a £65 fine each time. As it happens, the course costs £65 anyway...
I attended one and I can honestly say it has had a positive effect. Went in sceptical, and came out with a little more driver knowledge and greater appreciation of the affects of speeding. These days I rarely edge above limit at all, and have noticed a decent proportion of other drivers doing the same recently.
These days I rarely edge above limit at all, and have noticed a decent proportion of other drivers doing the same recently.
I'm cynical, so put this down to people driving more conservatively to save on the extortionate price of fuel 😀
My theory is that most people get caught speeding as the result of a one-off (or very rare) event, and are not generally dangerous drivers.
It's the repeat offenders who habitually drive too fast that are the problem, but they obviously couldn't care less otherwise they'd have the sense to moderate their driving themselves. And if they couldn't care less before, I don't believe they'll care much more after a training course.
My theory is that most people get caught speeding as the result of a one-off (or very rare) event, and are not generally dangerous drivers.
I kinda agree with what you're saying. There are a minority of really bad drivers out there, and they are the ones the courses would probably benefit least.
However, driving is inherently dangerous. And being a numbers game, it's the average person who will find themselves involved in an accident. And your speed at the time of that accident has a direct effect on the outcome.
It's very much a good thing to educate those who are not generally considered to be dangerous. It should also have an influential effect on the truly bad drivers as general standards of practice are brought into line.
You can still be a 'speeder' but drive safely.
60 and under, I'll stick to the limit religiously. Too easy to get snapped doing 35 in a 30 (recently saw a speed trap in a 20mph zone, which is new in the centre of our village!). Much to the frustration of my wife "We're late, can't you go a bit faster??".
On motorways and dual-carriage ways, with good conditions (inc. weather, traffic volume, etc) then I usually cruise in the 80-90 zone...
As long as you don't take corners too quickly, undertake to maintain that speed or take your eyes of the road then yes. No one leaves enough room between cars either though.On motorways and dual-carriage ways, with good conditions (inc. weather, traffic volume, etc) then I usually cruise in the 80-90 zone...
I don't do any of the above, as I'm not a wreckless/dangerous driver - and don't fancy ending up in a ditch at high speed either...
Does the course involve riding a bike through a city centre during rush hour? If not they should.
On motorways and dual-carriage ways, with good conditions (inc. weather, traffic volume, etc) then I usually cruise in the 80-90 zone...
As long as you don't take corners too quickly, undertake to maintain that speed or take your eyes of the road then yes. No one leaves enough room between cars either though.
What about Blow outs? People coming off the slip road at 40mph. Cyclists! Dogs running across the road. Firework displays... Etc.
Butcher - why don't you add those that do 40mph on motorways (usually in the middle lane) & rural roads that are perfectly safe to do 60mph they do 30mph - dangerous to those around them & tend to cause normally safe drivers to consider rash overtakes.
Even worse are the people who accelerate as you overtake!
Glad to have plenty of bhp & torque so that if I'm going to overtake, I can do so quickly & safely rather than need half a mile of road trundling along the wrong side of the road.
Can we also add motorbikers who lean across the white libe when taking corners - know of a head on (off) collision as a result of this & had a few near misses with bikers getting rather close.
Sorry Im going to scream bollocks. Alot of insurers are private equity owned and they are not charities. The biggest fraudsters and rip offs are the insurers themselves.
Take me- 7yrs premiums, 7yrs 100% in an insurers backpocket. Im told my premiums rise due to bad claims. If I crash into someone I ultimately pay that claim over the following 5yrs to whoever. There are many many drivers who never claim and the ones that do/even the ones who were 100percent innocent in a crash also pay as they are now classed as higher risk. **** off!
If they've lost money in insurance for the last 15 years why the hell are they still in insurance? Are they a listed company, I thought they had a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders? Sounds like creative accounting.
Me n other half both had 3 points, no effect on either of our premiums.
probably more cost effective than having prangs fixed at full whack body shopsIdeally, insurance contracts should contain a 'Car Cruahed to the Size of a Satsuma' clause for any at-fault accident/incident
The course seemed to be a good idea - the threat of a rise in insurance premium is more effective than the cumulative points risk / fine in deterring most people from getting caught, and it was like the Police decided to give us a little bit of a buffer from this plus the chance to spread their message.
Do I still speed - Yes. Do I drive more slowly - Yes. Am I happpy about what insurance companiess can get away with? Not in the slightest.
If I still did a lot of miles I'd seriously consider some Institute of advance motorist training though.
there are so many factors to consider, such as postcode (do other drivers in your bit of the world claim a lot) the car you drive, your age, your mileage etc... so when you say, I've done nothing and my premium has gone up, you have got older and driving an older car, doing a job that other heavy claimants do for a living....
Is the cost of insurance a shocker, yes it is but the personal accident premiums are fuelling the rises, go and look at the claims technical ratios to see how relatively small the margins are for the insurers (technical ratio is the premium plus the investment, minus the business operating costs minus the claim payout)
with the blackbox recorders that are being rolled out (to the young first but it'll extend) the accident blackspot data will be built up and then it will probably start to be used as another underwriting consideration - I'm really not looking forward to the over 25s having the boxes forced on them because I only use my car in the evenings, although the super low mileage will offset it...
It helps I have a car with plenty of ooomph and torque, meaning I'm on the wrong side of the road for a minimal amount of time when overtaking.
I wouldn't be doing 90 in the inside lane, so people coming down the sliproad aren't relevant.
A bit of common sense goes a long way to driving safely...
I wouldn't be doing 90 in the inside lane, so people coming down the sliproad aren't relevant.
Middle lane driver?
Hang him!
