Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20328860
Drivers who attend a speed awareness course instead of taking a fine and points on their licence may see their insurance premiums increase.The BBC has learned that Admiral is treating it as if it were a conviction, even though the police do not.
The insurance group says its statistics show that drivers who have attended a course, pose a higher risk.
The Association of Chief Police Officers say Admiral's stance could harm efforts to improve road safety.
The insurance group says its statistics show that drivers who have attended a course, pose a higher risk.
Strange as the whole principle behind speed awareness is that enforcements doesn't work, whilst education does!
No need to say you've been on the course is there?
How do they check? The DVLA must be passing the details on.
Given the responses from some people on here who have been on a speed awareness course it doesn't surprise me.
Also - if you're not aware of your speed should you be driving?
I keep thinking this recently but if everyone just said F... The insurance
It would solve a shed load of problems sure it might create a few but in all honesty insurance is just a way for some to get a payout if folks knew there wasn't a meal ticket on the end of an accident how they would drive?
Another thought even if there was for example next year not a single accident or vehicle theft I bet insurance would still go up
Seriously considering abandoning cars all together
What next? Higher premiums if you drive on roads that have bad accident stats?
They ask you on your renewal forms if you've been on a course according to the article, failure to own up would be the same as not coughing up to any other piece of information witheld, i.e. it would invalidate your insurance if they found out.
I can see their argument but I think it falls a bit flat when other elements of the info they use and have a significant effect on your premiums are so bluntly applied such as where you live. I also think if the industry could get it's house in order to weed out fradulent claims and the claims handling industry they'd be in a better place arguing over how they calculate the premiums.
Still all a bit of a lottery if you get caught, especially with so many cameras offline. I can see the spy in the car boxs becoming more prevelant as they get cheaper. I'd have one if it knocked £100 off my premium a year, also give me the boot up the backside to drive more appropriately sometimes.
Another thought even if there was for example next year not a single accident or vehicle theft I bet insurance would still go up
You don't understand what Actuaries do for a living do you ?
No idea mate explain? Actually no need goggled it
The way I see it insurance is legal requirement
Insurance company therefore has right to shaft you for whatever they lost gambling in stocks and shares.
Easy option stop driving
However there's a fat greedy **** on the board somewhere making a a mint and it irks me somewhat
Higher premiums if you drive on roads that have bad accident stats?
FGS don't be giving them ideas!
I've been on one, is it something that needs to be declared if you didn't get any points or any actual conviction?
Depends...when you renewed your insurance did they ask if youd been on a course? If not, no probs...if yes and you said no...good luck if they find out...
Insurance company therefore has right to shaft you for whatever they lost gambling in stocks and shares
I remember reading somewhere recently that Direct Line lose or lost money on their insurance business and the only reason they make a profit is because of their investments.
Edited: it wasn't Direct Line but Admiral
Elsewhere, Admiral, another insurer which posted results yesterday, said revenue dropped 2pc to £570m.
Soaring claims from personal injuries such as whiplash has meant the UK motor insurance market hasn’t made an underwriting profit for about 15 years and relies on other income, such as investment returns, according to the Association of British Insurers.
but how would they find out?
^^^^
I just read on another singletrack thread that's how it works
If I want to support direct line maybe buying shares would be a better option
But hey I believe every article I read on the Internet also and I'm sure creative accounting is merely fictional heresy
If they don't like the market they are in fair enough they know what to do
however admiral are the ones that are saying speed awareness can be added to the public udder ripe for a milking
Insurance wouldn't be so high if the providers weren't run by idiots. Take the example of my mate. Got knocked off his bike and fractured his arm. He contacted the person responsibles insurer as he correctly thought he was due some compensation for injury, bike/clothes were knackered etc. He thought he might get 3k ish, which he felt was fair. The insurance company point blank refused.
Roll on 3 months and my mate has got one of our lawyer mates involved. Eventually they admitted responsibility (it was a no brainer case) and forked out 11 k plus the lawyer fees. If they'd just done the fair thing in the first place then they would have paid out far less, and our premiums wouldn't be skyrocketing as a result.
I've delivered one, does that count?
Biggest waste of a day for me, those who had to attend made it obvious that they were there for one reason only. To avoid the points and fine.
Thread title should read "Admiril Insurance looking less attractive"
I went on a course recently. It was very much aimed at making people safer drivers.. Being more observant, smoother, etc. There were a few argumentative c**ts in the room who obviously weren't going to take home anything from it, but I think most would have.. I've been better since!
What Admiril lose in custom, others will pick up. Not every insurance company will start to penalise it.. That's 700000 people a year that are potential customers.
This is worrying as I am with admiral and I am attending an awareness course in the coming weeks.
The DVLA must be passing the details on.
I thought it was nothing to do with DVLA as you don't get endorsed erg you don't need to tell DVLA. I'll be ringing DVLA on monday to as kif I can remove my permission to share my information with 3rd party companies.
if you're not aware of your speed should you be driving?
Awesome smugness. Well done - high standard even for SmugTrackWorld. I hope your high horse never breaks the speed limit.
It's a serious question.
Second offense should result in a ban, it's the only way.
I'd say I'm not aware of my speed 99% of the time I'm driving. I tend to look out of the windscreen rather than down at the instrument dials.
[quote=bikewhisperer ]
What Admiril lose in custom, others will pick up. Not every insurance company will start to penalise it..
They will if they start having to pay out more often.
[quote=The Flying Ox ]I'd say I'm not aware of my speed 99% of the time I'm driving.
if you've only been driving for a few months, that would be understandable.
I have attended a speed awareness course.
My 'crime' was using speed to avoid another driver who was driving very erratically. If I had braked, I would have put several other road users in danger, so I used speed to get past the idiot driver who was putting me at risk. This was on a dual carriageway with no risk to other drivers. There was a camera up ahead and it clocked me at 60 on a 50-limited stretch of road, just as I was starting to slow down again.
I thought the course was excellent. I learned a lot and it refreshed and reinforced a lot of points for me.
if you've only been driving for a few months, that would be understandable.
Hehe. I think you're mistaking me with someone who gives a toss what condescending internet blowhards think they know about my driving.
Edited for civility.
I thought the course was excellent. I learned a lot and it refreshed and reinforced a lot of points for me.
+1, it was actually useful and didn't really feel too condescending or anything like that. The guy doing it was a bit of a smarmy prick though.
I think you're mistaking me with someone who gives a toss what condescending internet blowhards think they know about my driving.
🙄
🙂
I enjoyed the first.
Found the second quite boring though. 🙂
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.
Generally, they're only offered to people who have slightly exceeded the speed limit...and who may benefit from re-educating. eg 35 in a 30, 60 in a 50 etc. If you're caught committing a "serious" offence, eg limit + >50%, then generally you're just punished with points/fine/ban or a combination of all three. (All this afaik)
smell_it - MemberSecond offense should result in a ban, it's the only way
Is that a bit like an offence but committed in the US?
Maybe the content of the courses is not upto scratch and doesn't educate well enough to change attitudes.
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.
Whatever your (wrong in this case) opinion is, you cannot deny that £85 isn't getting off scot-free. just because you don't get the points, it doesn't mean it has been overlooked by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't feel like I need re-educating in how speed kills but I am opting for the course because I think it might teach me some things I wasn't aware of.
you cannot deny that £85 isn't getting off scot-free
It's peanuts though in terms of buying and running a car. One tank of petrol?
Can I have £85 please?
3pts on my licence doesnt seem to have put up my premiums so it seems a bit harsh to put up premiums for the course.
media making a story out of nothing?
I heard about this today. I think they are treating the course as they would points. Quite regressive I think and Admiral should be boycotted, seems an opportunity for the competition.
I cannot believe the smugness on here, two speeding fines and a ban ! I am very much in favour of road safety but that suggestion is ridiculous.
I reckon getting off scot-free would be around the £0 mark.
Driving standards in the UK are terrible. Yet people think that their skills are amongst the best there is.....
Driving standards in the UK are terrible. Yet people think that their skills are amongst the best there is.....
arent you a driving instructor? surely you must be part of the problem then...
. I think they are treating the course as they would points. Quite regressive I think and Admiral should be boycotted, seems an opportunity for the competition.
I suspect the industry is sitting back to see what happens. Admiral has dipped their toe in and everyone else is waiting to follow suit. It's not in their interest to compete on this really.
It's like the energy industry, no one want to be the first one to announce a price increase, but it inevitable the others will do the same.
arent you a driving instructor? surely you must be part of the problem then...
I was a driving instructor. The scariest thing about it was the stupid risks qualified and so called experienced drivers would take just to get past a learner driver going at the speed limit.
The most interesting thing was the [s]arguments[/s] debates I'd regularly have with people who had been driving for years, but needed a driving assessment for their work. They were dangerous but thought they were the best drivers on the road.
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.