Following on from the other one…

I’m just sorting out my insurance renewal and on the declaration it asked if I had attended a course (which is a bit bloody naughty of them to ask IMHO). I phoned them up (Admiral) and told them that I had and my premium went up by 10%. I told them that it was a bit bloody naughty IMHO and I wasn’t going to renew and as if by magic my premium came back down again.

Don’t let them bend you over!

Er, so you went on a course because you were caught breaking the law while driving? And you think that’s of no relevance to your car insurers?

Right….

confused

Why is this “a bit bloody naughty” ?

Seems pretty reasonable to me!

If every driver was to answer the question do you always stick to the driving laws we would all have to say no …I assume this is why they dont ask

Why just punish the unlucky ones who get caught

Classed as a conviction when it isn’t.

Police have asked insurance companies not to do it.

The course is about education not punishment.

” you were caught breaking the law while driving?”

No he wasn’t, if he had he would have had 3 points min and a fine.
He has neither.

But he has recieved extra training which in theory make him a safer driver.

Is it classed as a conviction or a traffic offence? If the former, I could see your point, if the latter – no chance.

Admiral class it as a conviction… until you threaten to take your money elsewhere.

Why just punish the unlucky ones who get caught

Because they have also demonstrated that they aren’t observant enough to see a bright yellow speed camera?

It’s probably easier to see from higher up, maybe he should get a horse like yours.

Naughty of the police etc to promote the course on the basis that it will help with your insurance IMHO (which costs more – 3 points or the course). There is no formal agreement in place with insurers and they should not be making out that there is.

In respect of the insurance issue – from a pure underwriting point of view I see very little difference in risk between a driver who has been caught driving say 40mph in a 30 zone and another driver who has been caught doing say 40mph in a 30 zone.

Cheers

Danny B

It’s probably easier to see from higher up, maybe he should get a horse like yours.

I don’t think you can technically speed on a horse:

Because they have also demonstrated that they aren’t observant enough to see a bright yellow speed camera?

I was just being sarcastic with that I did not expect a reply

Of course getting caught is worse than not getting caught especially in the eyes of the law

FWIW the top speed of a race horse is over 40 mph so you could

From the Go Compare website

Do I have to inform my insurers?

While the successful completion of a speed awareness course does mean you’ve side-stepped a physical driving conviction, your insurance company still need to be made aware of this development as you broke the Road Traffic Act.

Insurers will not be informed by the police or local authority of your speed awareness course completion, so the onus is on you to inform them in good faith. This needs to be done by the renewal of your policy at the very latest.

Unfortunately at present there is no set rule for insurers to follow when a policy holder completes a speed awareness course.

In most cases your premium will increase… but not as much as it would if you took the fixed penalty and points option.

So, in the eyes of the police and local authority the course isn’t reason enough to inform the insurers. DVLA don’t do it either. Even the insurance industry don’t have a policy other than to squeeze you for a few more pounds… until you tell them they can stick their renewal and then they take it off.

Because they have also demonstrated that they aren’t observant enough to see a bright yellow speed camera?

Or a Police person in dark clothing against a dark background, or an innocuous van with blacked out windows…oh wait, my apologies, I’ve ruined a good story with facts. 🙄

Don’t know where you live Tucker but I’ve not seen a bobby with a speed gun for years and I’ve never noticed a special undercover van with blacked out windows. Big old police Transit with high-viz and POLICE written on it yeah, but that’s not exactly stealthy.

I’ve never noticed a special undercover van with blacked out windows

Surely that shows you how good they are 😉

GrahamS – Member

Don’t know where you live Tucker but I’ve not seen a bobby with a speed gun for years and I’ve never noticed a special undercover van with blacked out windows. Big old police Transit with high-viz and POLICE written on it yeah, but that’s not exactly stealthy.

I live in Cambs and see police with speed guns all the time.
They don’t have to be bright yellow, and they don’t have to be in a liveried Transit.
They can be completely hidden, such as in a horsebox, and can nab you from 1,000m away.
Can you see into an unlit horsebox from 1km? 💡

I hope this post has been informative.

xxx
Sbob “nil point” Sbobertson. 😀

WRT the OP, it has been shown that people who have completed a speed awareness course are a greater risk.
Nothing more sinister than statistics.

Got no real sympathy for people caught speeding.. However the purpose of the course is to make you a better driver by increasing your awareness of speeding. By upping the premiums the insurers are essentially saying that the course doesn’t work, and that rather than being a safer driver having been on the course you are now more of a risk….. so what exactly is the point of the course?

Lets face it nearly everyone speeds and if we all stuck to every speed limit we would get nowhere very quickly .When there is no
one around at 6 in the morning in broad daylight whats wrong with 40 in a 30 most of us do it ?.The same as doing a ton on an empty motorway at night ,but of course everyone sticks to the limit dont they ?

WRT the OP, it has been shown that people who have completed a speed awareness course are a greater risk.

The type of people prepared to bend over and take a speed awareness course are a greater risk. The beauty is they can now be identified and penalised for it.

MTFU. Take the points.

Why just punish the unlucky ones who get caught

Because for those of us careful to NOT speed it is unfair.

Lets face it nearly everyone speeds and if we all stuck to every speed limit we would get nowhere very quickly

Not really. Believe it or not I generally stick pretty closely to the speed limits on everything bar motorways and I frequently catch up with people who speed past me, because they just reach the back of the queue slightly before I do.

Then of course there are those that zip past at 60 through the 40, then inexplicably stay at 60 when they get to the dual carriageway. 😕

It must be awesome to be like all the Peter Perfects on here who’ve never put a foot wrong.
I always thought I was immune from a speeding ticket until 2 years ago, (seeing as I’m always on at my Mrs who flies around like a loony).
06.40 on a Sunday morning & & I’m on my usual route to work, past 2 cameras in a 60 (doing about 45 cos I’m NEVER in a hurry to get to prison!) & approaching the one in the 30 zone. My heads up my ass cos I was thinking about the impending doom of work, decelerating in readiness to turn right at the junction 150mtrs beyond the camera. Never saw the flash but 2 weeks later came the letter, ’36 in a 30′ (which isn’t a built up area, no schools etc) Took it on the chin along with 3 points (1st in 38 years of driving)
Told my insurance company & they weren’t bothered one bit.

The thing that annoyed me was that in the eyes of the police, the local authority and the DVLA a course was sufficient for my crime. Yet to an insurance company it isn’t until you tell them they can sod off… then all of a sudden it is.

But speeding is an indicator of a (more) risky driver in some ways.
Not a great indicator, but none are.

What ways are they?

I guess what the insurers (try) to use: age, car type, car use, accident history etc etc.

But speeding is an indicator of a (more) risky driver in some ways.
Not a great indicator, but none are.

[quote]What ways are they?[/quote]Here is a simple example: child runs out into the road in front of you, being above the speed limit or below it can make the difference between killing the child and stopping in front of them.

Sounds like you could do with a speed awareness course.

esselgruntfuttock: and…? Not really sure of your point. You usually drive safely. One day you drove with “your head up your ass” and got busted for 20% over the limit. You accept that and your insurance company took your good driving into account and didn’t increase your premium. Sounds like the system is working fine there to be honest?

being above the speed limit or below it can make the difference between killing the child and stopping in front of them.

No, it won’t. That’s hand-wavingly simplistic at best.

Driving at the speed limit won’t magically make you dodge children like Neo with bullets. What it will do is reduce fatalities; beyond 30mph, the chances of causing a fatality with an impact increases sharply. It’s bog all to do with stopping distances.

Driving at a speed commensurate with conditions will make a bigger difference than arbitrary limits. Driving past a school or between parallel-parked cars, the oft-posted 30mph is too fast. In poor visibility conditions, 30mph is too fast. On wet or icy roads, 30mph is too fast. On a clear, wide, deserted road at 3am, doing 40 in a 30 is unlikely to have you mowing down toddlers like skittles.

But many people don’t have much common sense, so we have catch-all speed limits.

If you’re driving around going “I’m alright Jack, I’m driving under the limit so I’m perfectly safe” without any consideration for conditions, well, I’m not the one who needs an awareness course.

No, it won’t. That’s hand-wavingly simplistic at best.

Yes, that is exactly why I said it was a simple example, and that speeding can make the difference.

I totally agree that sometimes driving at the speed limit is often far too fast for the particular road and conditions. And I agree that a person who always drives exactly on the speed limit may well be more dangerous than someone who sometimes breaks the limit but also slows down when conditions require it.

However, do you seriously not agree that all things being equal, driving more slowly down a given stretch of road will reduce the risk of an accident? You original question suggests that you don’t.

Harry_the_Spider – Member

Admiral class it as a conviction…

I don’t see that they’re “classing it as a conviction”, they’re just treating it in a similiar way, which makes total sense. Aaaand

Harry_the_Spider – Member

The thing that annoyed me was that in the eyes of the police, the local authority and the DVLA a course was sufficient for my crime. Yet to an insurance company it isn’t

That’s not what it’s about at all! It’s not the insurance company punishing you for a crime, it’s them recognising the extra risk that you pose as someone who they know speeds.

No high horsing incidentally- I’ve got a clean licence but that’s entirely because I’ve never been caught. But if/when it happens I will bite the pillow rather than squealing like a piggy 😉

However, do you seriously not agree that all things being equal, driving more slowly down a given stretch of road will reduce the risk of an accident? You original question suggests that you don’t.

All other things aren’t equal, so it’s a moot point. By that logic we should go back to little men with red flags. It might be a simple example, but the fact of the matter is that it’s not that simple. Driving slower will in all likelihood reduce the severity of an accident, but if you’re away with the fairies then it won’t reduce the probability of one.

All other things aren’t equal, so it’s a moot point.

I think the whole point of this thread is that as far as the HarryTheSpider’s insurer can tell, all other things are equal.

They have no way of knowing whether or not he is good at adjusting speeds for road conditions, all they know is that until last year he has never been caught exceeding the speed limit, but this year he has. This piece of information suggests that in general, he probably drives faster than they used to think he did, and therefore is a bigger risk.

I appreciate it is simplistic, but they do their best with the information they have. GPS black boxes are the solution, but they aren’t cheap at the moment and only really make sense for young drivers.

esselgruntfuttock: and…? Not really sure of your point.

That’s because there wasn’t really ‘a point’ to be made was there? I simply told my wee tale.

& talking about unmarked vans with cameras, there’s often one parked on the A168 just south of the Boroughbridge roundabout. Plain white, blacked out windows & fore & aft facing cameras sticking out of the roof, usually accompanied by a couple of marked traffic cars parked out of sight. The van parks in a field entrance just nicely so that if your’e heading into Boroughbridge at over 60 on the 168 you don’t see it till it’s toooo late!

This piece of information suggests that in general, he probably drives faster than they used to think he did, and therefore is a bigger risk.

Which they decided to drop when I phoned them up. So my risk as a driver isn’t as great to them as the risk of losing me as a customer.

Why just punish the unlucky ones who get caught

Hah ha ha ha that is SO funny! It’s not luck, it’s lack of awareness. If you can’t spot a big yellow box high up on a pole, what chance does a small kiddie have?