Speed awareness courses now increase premiums ...

[oli445]

Agree with PVR and Mr Wilks,I have been through the coarse and can understand that at the time of me getting caught, I posed the same statistical risk regardless of the punishment. That said, after completing the coarse I have slowed down a bit and I did learn some useful info that I think makes me a lower risk.

If I had points instead of a bit of education, I would still be at higher risk.

The instructor that led our coarse made a point of telling us that there is no way your insurance company can find out that you completed the coarse. He said your name will be on an internal record for 3 years with the sole purpose of seeing if you are eligible for the coarse if you get caught again.

 

[micz4]

Has anybody attended one of these courses and been "Cured"? :lol:

I have,i removed my front no plate

 

[philip27]

if a speeding fine affects your insurance premium then so should attending a speed awareness course .
i don,t see how you can differentiate ? both drivers have committed similar offences only one has had a "2nd" chance
taking the course doesn't guarantee you won't speed again & as someone who has been caught already its fair to assume you may do it again .
call me a cynic but wasn't the course invented as a cushy job for retired motorway police

I have to agree with this as you have still been caught speeding. The methods used to catch people need to be questioned more if you ask me.

 

[pvr]

100% catch chance, no way of avoiding it if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Without condoning driving within the speed limits, that was one way of avoiding it

Nah, that option is not available

 

[mmm-five]

Am i on my own here ?
if a speeding fine affects your insurance premium then so should attending a speed awareness course .
i don,t see how you can differentiate ? both drivers have committed similar offences only one has had a "2nd" chance

I disagree.

Speeding and not being caught could be seen as your 2nd/3rd/4th/etc. chance, so why only penalise those that have been caught?

I see the course as no different than being stopped by the police, given a verbal bashing, and sent on your way - except the retired motorway police don't get any fee.

Would you tell you insurer if you're stopped and sent on your way?

Or if that's not clear enough, then how about this...

The offence occurs as soon as you drive over the limit - even if you're not caught. So using Admiral's thinking, they could start asking "Do you EVER go above the posted limit?", and as I don't believe anyone who claims NEVER to have been above the limit, then everyone would have to answer "Yes".

Alternatively Admiral could just assume (as I am sure most insurers already do) that EVERYONE breaks the limit at some time, thus commits the offence of speeding, and therefore EVERY policy should be loaded by the same percentage. Next they'll be asking if you overtake, take a corner fast (albeit within the limit), drive for fun, etc.

The difference between a conviction and a course is that the course is 'spent' as soon as it is passed, so in theory it's as if it never happened. Just like if they ask you about any speeding convictions from more than 4/5 years ago...anything over 5 years is spent and you can say 'No' even if you have speeding convictions from that long ago. The problem is the speeding course is not treated the same way legally as a conviction, and as there is no conviction there cannot be any basis for non-declaration using to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Imagine if they were to start asking if you ever committed rape? You'd have to say yes if your 15 year old self and your 15 year old girlfriend had consensual sexual relations.

 

[mmm-five]

The instructor that led our coarse made a point of telling us that there is no way your insurance company can find out that you completed the coarse. He said your name will be on an internal record for 3 years with the sole purpose of seeing if you are eligible for the coarse if you get caught again.

If it's on record anywhere then there's a chance that it might find its way into your insurer's hands.

Swiss bankers/whistleblowers illegally sold details of foreign account holders to German & British tax officers to help track down tax evaders, and the account holders had no recourse to the courts to sue the Swiss or breach of contract/confidentiality, so what hope would Mrs Miggins have if the insurance companies 'obtained' the secret, internal database?

 

[inkey$]

I won't be telling any insurance company anything, even if they ask me. My speed awareness course was two summers ago after a spirited drive down to Goodwood and a van logging me at 87mph on a dual carriageway. Took the speed awareness course option and categorically told after the 4 hour session that no further action would be taken and that insurance premiums cannot be affected by my attendance - which was one of the two points of the course in the first place (the other being retention of a clean license).

 

[mr wilks]

Am i on my own here ?
if a speeding fine affects your insurance premium then so should attending a speed awareness course .
i don,t see how you can differentiate ? both drivers have committed similar offences only one has had a "2nd" chance

I disagree.

Speeding and not being caught could be seen as your 2nd/3rd/4th/etc. chance, so why only penalise those that have been caught?

I see the course as no different than being stopped by the police, given a verbal bashing, and sent on your way - except the retired motorway police don't get any fee.

Would you tell you insurer if you're stopped and sent on your way?

Or if that's not clear enough, then how about this...

The offence occurs as soon as you drive over the limit - even if you're not caught. So using Admiral's thinking, they could start asking "Do you EVER go above the posted limit?", and as I don't believe anyone who claims NEVER to have been above the limit, then everyone would have to answer "Yes".

Alternatively Admiral could just assume (as I am sure most insurers already do) that EVERYONE breaks the limit at some time, thus commits the offence of speeding, and therefore EVERY policy should be loaded by the same percentage. Next they'll be asking if you overtake, take a corner fast (albeit within the limit), drive for fun, etc.

The difference between a conviction and a course is that the course is 'spent' as soon as it is passed, so in theory it's as if it never happened. Just like if they ask you about any speeding convictions from more than 4/5 years ago...anything over 5 years is spent and you can say 'No' even if you have speeding convictions from that long ago. The problem is the speeding course is not treated the same way legally as a conviction, and as there is no conviction there cannot be any basis for non-declaration using to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Imagine if they were to start asking if you ever committed rape? You'd have to say yes if your 15 year old self and your 15 year old girlfriend had consensual sexual relations.

hypothetical situations could be dreamt up all night
i go for A beer sometimes then drive home but have never been convicted of drink-driving
all i,m saying is if you have been caught speeding whether you are offered the awareness course or not you should be treat the same in the eyes of insurance companies :|

 

[WLH]

Bookies - with a captive audience!
(No offence to bookies intended)

 

[Bing]

Next they'll be asking if you overtake, take a corner fast (albeit within the limit), drive for fun, etc.

The cynical side of me says this is beginning to happen already - they're not asking you, but offering the choice of having a black box installed in your car to monitor your driving behaviour. Wonder how long it will before this is cheap enough to be mandatory... Maybe the next step is to have one legally installed if you get caught speeding x number of times...

 

[Anonymous]

This may be a bit controversial but hey, it's the Internet

So how can attending the course make you a more dangerous driver

It can't, in fact the official line is that the purpose of SACs is to make people less likely to speed in future rather than convict them and allow them to carry on speeding. If insurance companies load premiums they are complicit in admitting that SACs don't work and the government are not going to be too keen on that so it's unlikely to happen IMO.

The issue for insurance companies is accurately assessing future risk not past performance. They will of course use past performance as a proxy for risk. If you have had 5 accidents in the last three years they can be pretty confident that you are a menace and will continue to have them. In the same way, they will assess speeding offences as an indicator of driving style and hence risk.

The issue hinges on whether they believe that the SAC lowers your likelihood of speeding in future to a greater extent than your underlying propensity to speed creates risks.

The trap I saw today was impossible to spot, hidden behind a sign and no sign of a police car near it. 100% catch chance, no way of avoiding it if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Missed the obvious way then, staying within the speed limit!

call me a cynic but wasn't the course invented as a cushy job for retired motorway police

Specifically not. There is limited if any police involvement for the very reason of avoiding the allegation that the SAC is anything other than an educational tool. It is not run by the police. The only thing the police know is whether you attend and complete the course and when in case you get caught again.

If it's on record anywhere then there's a chance that it might find its way into your insurer's hands.

Data Protection Act. The company holding the data on you and / or the police who released it would be guilty of a breach as would the insurance company if they used that data illegally when they were not entitled to it. The fine would go a long way to wiping out the income they collected from the courses thus rendering the whole thing pointless.

All i,m saying is if you have been caught speeding whether you are offered the awareness course or not you should be treat the same in the eyes of insurance companies :|

I have attended one of these courses. It was astonishing to listen to some of the attendees. The one obvious thing was that some of the people attending just didn't get it. They had been caught speeding. They felt that being caught was somehow unfair as though it was a game. They didn't think their speeding was wrong. They didn't think it was a danger. They thought they were invincible and they were all the safest drivers on the road. They thought that speed cameras should be banned to avoid the inconvenience to them. They were insistent that people who drive slowly were just as much if not more of a risk. They would endlessly quote anecdotal instances of slow drivers that had caused accidents whilst at the same time quoting instances of people driving far faster and more dangerously than them as a reason for being unfairly treated. They think they have nothing to learn despite constantly embarrassing themselves by showing their inadequate knowledge of the most basic rules of the road.

It is these people that should be taken out, shown their car being crushed and then have their licence torn up in front of them before being burned. These habitual offenders will eventually through bad luck or bad driving or a combination of both, kill or maim themselves or someone else.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the methods used in detection are perfect and I think the whole issue of speeding is badly handled in this country. The debate should be whether as a country we are content to accept the risk of road casualties that inevitably comes with having a system of road transport based on car usage. This includes the balance of speed and journey times versus injuries sustained. Unfortunately the debate is polarised in the media by using extreme examples.

There's no point in asking a mother who's child has just been killed by a car whether we have that balance right. This is what the media constantly do. In any article on speeding they bring out mothers who have lost little Johnny and Quentin Wilson cos that makes for good tv. It makes for cr4p policy development though. Ask ordinary people who are not wrapped up in the heat of it. Set policy on what the country wants not what the extremists think.

Rant over sorry

 

[ronk]

I wouldnt worry too much, I think its only a matter of time before all vehicles are fitted with "pit lane" type speed limiting devices. A 30mph limit road sign and "boing" thats as fast as you go matey!

 

[buzyg]

Statically speaking all insurance companies are b@stards! :evil:

Bookies - with a captive audience!
(No offence to bookies intended)

+1

 

[Stark]

Let them do it.....more premiums, less business. F@@k em! I hope this all backfires on them....

 

[mmm-five]

Data Protection Act. The company holding the data on you and / or the police who released it would be guilty of a breach as would the insurance company if they used that data illegally when they were not entitled to it. The fine would go a long way to wiping out the income they collected from the courses thus rendering the whole thing pointless.

That's assuming the people who hold the data on attendees don't suddenly declare that they have an exemption for this sort of thing - like the DVLA did by providing private/cowboy clamping companies with registered keeper details.

I'm not worried myself as mine was outside the period they ask for and even if it wasn't, the Admiral quote didn't ask for any info on SAC attendance just "Have you had any motor related convictions, fixed penalties, or disqualifications in the past five years?" - to which I can honestly answer 'No'.

 

[aquazi]

what happens if you attend more then one of these courses?

I have a friend who has been caught twice in the space of a month... on both occasions was given the option of doing the speed awareness... does his policy go up more then someone who does it once :lol:

 

[pvr]

Surprised about that as officially, there is no way you are allowed to do two courses in a time span like 3 years or so.

I guess the one was not aware of the other as it had not been registered yet. The second one will be cancelled no doubt and points added instead.

 

[aquazi]

Surprised about that as officially, there is no way you are allowed to do two courses in a time span like 3 years or so.

I guess the one was not aware of the other as it had not been registered yet. The second one will be cancelled no doubt and points added instead.

Thats what i thought too, this happened last year, no points on his licence.. paid close to £200 for both of them plus loss of earnings etc... he was willing to sacrifice his wife to get the points if he needed!

EDIT:
Althought probably shouldnt have publicly said that... as found the conditions of this on the net:

ACPO Guidlines on Speed Awareness Courses state that
speed awareness offered only if no previous course completed
within the last 3-years, with a national database administered by
DVLA for this use.

This means on the Drivers file at DVLA will be a record of the
first course.

When attending such course there is:

Registration
? Record participant attendance ? formal register
? Check driving licence ? record endorsements
? Check appropriate person attends ? photo licence or signature

Clearly their database isnt very good.. maybe they use SAP like we use at work :lol:

 

[Oakandacorns]

Statically speaking all insurance companies are b@stards! :evil:

Can be, yup

 

[Oakandacorns]

For getting caught you mean

The trap I saw today was impossible to spot, hidden behind a sign and no sign of a police car near it. 100% catch chance, no way of avoiding it if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

imo you're more likely to have an accident if you drive slowly, if you wanted to get all picky about it, young people who drive fast and old people who drive slow are probably the dangerous ones.

+1