I wondered when the insurance companies would make hay out of people getting caught speeding but avoiding conviction by attending a speed awareness course...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20328860
They will have to ask specifically (like Admiral apparently do), because if you attend one you are not charged / found guilty of any offences as far as I am aware....
|
Forget loyalty.
Each year, one month before the insurance has to be renewed, log on to a number of price comparison websites. Choose the best deal that you find - it may not be the absolute cheapest; but the one that works best for you.
|
""Our claims statistics show that drivers who have committed a speeding offence could be a higher risk than drivers who do not commit speeding offences."
This raises some issues:
If as at present you do not have to declare a Speed Awareness Course how do their claim statistics indicate a higher risk? Where do they get this data from?
Perhaps his revolves around the word 'Could'. It could be argued that drivers who pick their nose whilst driving 'could' be a higher risk.
If we are to believe those statistics exist then the whole SAC programme is a total waste of time then??
Perhaps this is just insurance speak for, "How can we squeeze a bit more cash out of the hard pressed British public."
Call me cynical if you want.
|
Look, based on my (admittedly limited) personal experience, the SAC does not work. My lad has had three. Yes i know you are only supposed to be allowed one - AND they were all in the thames valley police area!
Most of his age group look on it as a "get out clause"
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 18 Nov 12 at 11:26
|
|
Look. The underlying point I was trying to make is if attendees of SACs are statistically more likely to be involved in collisions then they are waste of time. The justification of SACs is that 'speed' is the major contribution to RTCs. SACs are based upon the idea that those caught at the lower level of speed infringement are 're-educated' therefore less likely to be involved in a RTCs. This is therefore at variance with the claims of the insurance industry.
|
I don't know where you got the quote from but this bit...
>>could be a higher risk than
tends to suggest meaningless marketing speak.
Could be? Of course they could be. There could be a green man on Mars, doesn't mean there is.
|
>> Look. The underlying point I was trying to make is if attendees of SACs are
>> statistically more likely to be involved in collisions then they are waste of time.
And i am saying they are a waste of time.
The
>>The justification of SACs is that 'speed' is the major contribution to RTCs.
likely
>> SACs are based
>> upon the idea that those caught at the lower level of speed infringement are 're-educated'
>> therefore less likely to be involved in a RTCs.
And I am saying this is not the case, as I said its seen as a soft option - A get out clause.
>> This is therefore at variance with
>> the claims of the insurance industry.
there is no one with a better handle on what happens on the road then the insurance industry.
|
>> at present you do not have to declare a Speed Awareness Course
That is not accurate.
You must declare all material facts. if you are not sure as to whether or not a fact is material, then you should declare it anyway.
There are many factors which determine how the insuer will treat it if they are aware, and how they will treat it if they find out in the event of a claim.
But it is a material fact and should be declared.
I will never cease to be amazed at the risk people will take by trying to avoid declaring something to save themselves a few quid.
And if you believe that they won't do anything in the event of finding out in the course of a claim, then there is really no reason not to tell them beforehand, is there.
|
>> You must declare all material facts. ...
...
>> them beforehand, is there.
>>
While that is true in law, the Financial Ombudsman takes a different approach when dealing with the issue of disclosure.
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm
There are moves to reform the law:
www.out-law.com/en/topics/insurance/insurance-law-and-liability/reforming-insurance-law-business-insurance/
As for SAC, I think (but may be wrong in my belief) there are no records kept of NIPs annulled via attendance of SAC. Hence it would be difficult for an Insurer to prove that you had attended a course.
Also, I know that some (if not all) SAC instructors tell their audience that they do not need to inform their insurance company of having attended this event unless the insurer specifically asks the question.
|
>> Each year, one month before the insurance has to be renewed, log on to a
>> number of price comparison websites. Choose the best deal that you find - it may
>> not be the absolute cheapest; but the one that works best for you.
Excellent advice.
I'd just add that you should not rely on comparison websites alone.
|
+1
If Admiral with their loading on SAC then turn out to be not the best overall (quality & price), you are not obliged to take up their quote.
Another non-problem solved.
|
This isn't new - Admiral Group (Admiral, Bell, Elephant and Diamond) have listed SAC and DAC (driver awareness course) codes on their quote system for several years.
Most other insurers wouldn't be able to do anything even if you did tell them as they don't list those codes in their quote systems.
|
I quite agree on the shopping round. I also agree on not just using price comparison sites..
And Im not with Admiral...!
|
Funny when I first started driving Admiral was the cheapest, now they come up as the most expensive and ironically Churchill which is aimed at middle aged drivers was the cheapest!
I ended up staying with Directline as I got it down to not that much more than Churchill wanted but it is a lot less hassle just to stay with the existing insurance company.
But this news won't affect anybody on this site, because we all good drivers aren't we would never dream of going 1mph over the speed limit.
|
I went on one of these speed awareness courses some years ago. Like many I suppose, I saw it, prior to attending, as a mildly inconvenient, potentially boring, but nonetheless, get out of jail free option. (I'd been caught by a camera at 30 not very much)
However, I have to admit, in an odd sort of way, I enjoyed it. I learned things which I genuinely didn't know, like for example, how to work out what the speed limit is if you can't see, or can't remember seeing a sign.
It did actually make me more concious of and indeed obedient of the urban ( 30 mph ) speed limits and more appreciative of why they exist.
I also learned that a frightening percentage of the attendees, despite holding full UK driving licences, were desperately unaware of the basics. Remarkably few knew the true meaning of the white circle with a black diagonal stripe sign. Fewer still knew the complexities of different limits depending upon vehicle type, even those who regularly drove such restricted vehicles scarily enough.
The one I attended wasn't at all pitched as a punishment, it was run by a couple of amusing and empathic retired driving instructors who seemed more concerned with imparting knowledge as opposed to reprimanding anyone.
It was in the end, for me anyway, a worthwhile excercise. I think everyone who has been driving for more than a while would benefit from doing one voluntarily to be truthful.
|
>> I also learned that a frightening percentage of the attendees, despite holding full UK driving
>> licences, were desperately unaware of the basics. Remarkably few knew the true meaning of the
>> white circle with a black diagonal stripe sign. Fewer still knew the complexities of different
>> limits depending upon vehicle type, even those who regularly drove such restricted vehicles scarily enough.
>>
Everyone who goes on them says that. One of my daughters attended one a few months ago and a van driver genuinely didn't seem to know some of the limits for vans are different to those of cars.
|
|
I have just done a price comparison site quote for a 70 year old lady. claim and conviction free and low mileage, driving a basic 206. Best quote was LV @ £152 and 63 places higher was Admiral @£249. I don't what circumstances any one might be in, enter their details, and find that Admiral was the best buy! I appreciate that they do a multi-car discount but their quote wasn't close for this lady
|
Admiral recently gave a profits warning despite insuring 10% more cars than last year.
tinyurl.com/crh2z7q
Claims rising...
|
>> Admiral recently gave a profits warning despite insuring 10% more cars than last year.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/crh2z7q
>>
>> Claims rising...
>>
I can't read that but the reports I saw said the profit fall was due to price pressure. They've also been hit by the ban on referral fees to no-win no-fee lawyers.
|
>> I don't what circumstances any one
>> might be in, enter their details, and find that Admiral was the best buy!
They were the best for both my kids from 21 to 24, but bizzarely (based on everyone saying car insurance drops at 25) leapt up for both of them at 25. Tried the usual negotiation (which was getting wearing year after year) but even with "loyalty" discount they were way out and they cheerfully let us walk away.
|
|
That is really surprising BP! Cheap for the allegedly risky young, and astronomic relatively, for mature mimsers!
|
>> That is really surprising BP! Cheap for the allegedly risky young, and astronomic relatively, for
>> mature mimsers!
>>
Might well explain their current financial challenges.
|
IME Admiral are cheap for a multi car policy. Initially for my partner, 18 yo daughter and I with mirror policies on Xantia and Berlingo was around £350 per vehicle. Similar to what we were paying before daughter started driving.
I think Bobby in Scotland found same thing.
|
|
And I found Admiral multi-car very expensive. I think it's about target groups, and Bromp happens to be in one of theirs this year, while I'm in Aviva's. It could all change next time round.
|
Speed awareness course and insurance premium hike - Duncan
