Admiral car insurance :eyebrow:
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20328860
"The insurance group says its statistics show that drivers who have attended a course, pose a higher risk."
Brilliant. Clearly doing their job...
If Insurance companies wanted to be completely fair they would provide statistics for claims made by drivers who had been caught speeding but who had been on a course. I don't know but I would suspect that the courses would leave attendees less likely to speed in the future compared to people who had not been on the course. So it seems unfair to identify course attendees but then lump them in with those who paid a fine, seems like profiteering to me.
the process should be -
lowest for people who have no motoring convictions
medium for those who took a course
high for those who took a fine
Then again insurance companies have never been about working out fair premiums for customers.
Whenever I see 'car insurance' I read 'legalised extortion' as that's what it is. The insurance industry, never has there been such a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
They really need sorting out as it's getting so expensive to insure a car now. Luckily we're old enough and have a low risk car that only costs a few hundred pounds a year for fully comp but for anyone under 25 I hear they need to sell a kidney to be able to insure a rusty old ford fiesta!
Tbh my car insurance is somewhat opposit, if i get a conviction my insurance premium increases, tho if i take a speed course it doesnt.. THO! i would have to pay for the course myself, which is a bit more expensive then the increase would be... so it does fall a bit short
Aren't those that take the course normally maxing points anyway, so it's a means to avoid a ban? Seems fair in that case...
Sweeping generalisations, that's my bag.
Yep you swept your generalisation well there. it's not the case, the police/CPS decide who does and doesn't get offered a course. if your a confirmed nutter with nearly max points then it's unlikely you'll get the chance to take a driver awareness course. My mother ran a speed light and got her first penalty in fifty years. She got offered the course and found it very useful. So much so that she went on a few more voluntary ones they offered. So I think it's actually the opposite of what you suggest.
Aha...oh...You fell into my pool of ignorance and escaped intact, damn you!
Now I think about it I was wrong. Invariably the people I know that have taken it have said they took it for someone else to save points. Love is....breaking the law.
They've also said it was 1 hours worth of substance and 3 hours of blarney, but worthwhile nonetheless. Irrespective, I have zero points and zero intention of getting any. :)
On the subject of insurers, they are up there with estate agents and more specifically letting agents in my book!
Although I have to admit that this year my car insurance actually went down!!!
So the insurance companies are affectively saying that the awareness courses are useless.
If these courses are actually effective, why aren't they part of the standard driving test to begin with?
It's hard to feel any sympathy for a company whose profits increased by 13% in the last year.
I think their argument is that regardless of whether a person took a fine or a course they were still caught speeding. And statistically in order to get caught a person needs to speed on a semi consistent basis. And that sort of person is going to have a higher chance of being in a collision. Hence their premiums are higher. What would be useful is to see how attending a driving course altered a drivers habits compared with a fine. I have read that a driver adjusts their driving for about a month after getting caught and then reverts back to however they drove before. If a driver that attends a driving course changes their habits for the long term then Insurance Companies should show that in the premium they charge.
What's epidemic though is 3rd party companies buying up accident claims details and trying to convince perfectly healthy drivers like me to claim thousands of pounds for non existent whiplash injuries. Two years on from my very minor collision where some bumped into the back of my car and I'm still being hounded by these scum to make a claim for injuries I never sustained. Sadly it seems too many people are just greedy and willing to take the offer of a payout.