Points for phoning/texting - Insurance companies hiking premiums/refusing to insure

spiro

There was an article on the front page of yesterday's (Tuesdays) Metro advising that some companies are now refusing to insure drivers who have points for phoning/texting or only offering much higher premiums. You have been warned.

The theory why they are doing this for this offence but not basic speeding is that you could accidently do 33mph in a 30mpoh zone but you cant accidentally use the phone.

neilmcl

If that's true then sounds pretty good to me.

Ionkontrol

Brilliant idea. In fact they should be banned from driving.

vaio

and equally I'm sure there will be other companies who will continue to treat using a mobile as the non event it is whilst refusing to insure (or only offering much higher premiums) for people who live in certain postcodes or drive certain cars.

Horses for courses really & shop around come renewal time

Lum

Given this kind of thing is usually based on risk, it is a very revealing story.

Insurance companies have been pretty much ignoring 3-6 points on your licence for speeding these days, which shows that it's really not unsafe.

Points for mobile phone use shows that you not only make phone calls when driving*, but that you are so stupid and pay so little attention to what you are doing that you actually managed to get caught! Simply putting the handset on speakerphone and sitting it on your lap is enough to avoid getting caught, but you didn't even think of this! People like that are likely to be arrogant crap drivers.

The fly in the ointment here is the ridiculous rule that means it's illegal to use a handheld phone while parked up in neutral+handbrake only with the engine still switched on to run the aircon.

*Most research shows that the distraction comes from the act of having a telephone conversation, not from holding a handset. However it is fairly simple to hold a conversation in such a way that it is not distracting, something I've written about at length in other mobile phone threads here.

thenudeone

A few years ago I was about two cars behind a car which ended up on its roof in a field when the driver got distracted to look at his phone for a text.

It was a straight dual carriageway with no junctions for miles. There was no other reason for the accident.

Fortunately, the driver climbed out and was completely unharmed.

There's no excuse really, nowadays.

You can get a plug in bluetooth handsfree kit for a fiver these days.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bluetooth-Handsfree-Car-Kit-Nokia-Samsung-Apple-/330521965271?pt=UK_Holders_Mounts&hash=item4cf4a4f2d7#ht_1781wt_1344
Much cheaper than a £60 fine + 3 points (and much safer too)

colino

While I dutifully use handsfree and keep my nose clean, surely every normal, thinking human being knows that points for using a phone and how distracting it allegedley is are just another stealth tax. What next, drivers not allowed to communicate with passengers? Werthers Originals to be splashed across The Mail as Killer Kandy? Radios to be tuned in to that nice Simon Bates only?
Give me a break. While I agree with our local cop that the rules at least give them an excuse to stop !!!!!! bad drivers (if you are so gormless you fail to see the cop, you deserve to be pulled) I think more time should be spent on bad road users and restrict their darwinian ways.

treeboa

having seen some idiots on phones holding the phone to thier ear with one hand and gesticulating with the other hand you can fully understand why some morons should not be in charge of a vehicle on the move, also watching women driving and applying makeup in the mirror is further proof that some dont have the cs gene

Lum

This one, I don't believe is actually a stealth tax. As a tax it's a failure because it doesn't actually make money.

The law is actually a symptom of one of the other great evils of politics... responind to tabloid cries of "something must be done!". You get badly written hurried legislation that criminalises part of the problem and legalises the other half of the problem, all because it was done in a rush to be seen making a big gesture of "doing something" and appease the Daily Mail readership.

It's possible to have a perfectly safe telephone conversation. The short version is to keep it brief and to the point and to tell your caller when to shut up because you need to concentrate. Whether it's handheld or hands free really makes very little difference, it's all about conversation technique.

The real problem is that by effectively legalising handsfree calls, you encourage people who may previously have made the odd emergency call to fit a handsfree kit. As this kit is legal many will then start to use it more often, since they have it, and actually make more calls beyond the odd handheld emergency call they made previously.


The worst part is, the police already had an offence that they could use to charge people who aren't paying attention due to being on the phone, it's called "Driving without due care and attention".

The correct approach would have been to add the making of a phone call into an aggravating factor for a due care and attention charge, resulting in stiffer penalties. This would have sent the same message of phone use = bad, without making everyone run out and buy hands free kits and without criminalising using a phone while sat idle in a layby.

thenudeone

Lum wrote: »

The worst part is, the police already had an offence that they could use to charge people who aren't paying attention due to being on the phone, it's called "Driving without due care and attention".

... which can't be dealt with by fixed penalties, and requires a detailed statement explaining why the driver's action reduced the attention they were paying to the road.

We live in the real world. The more complicated and time-consuming it is to prosecute an offence, the less likely it is that the police will spend the time to do so.

Drivers would also be much more likely to defend a "due care" offence because of the harsher penalties (up to 9 points plus very expensive insurance)

I'd rather the traffic cop spent 5 minutes writing a fixed penalty ticket for phoning while driving, than an hour or more writing a statement and producing a summons file for prosecution in court and possibly a full day waiting in court to explain what he/she saw.

IMO a fixed penalty option is a good compromise for this sort of offence.

rev_henry

Lum wrote: »

This one, I don't believe is actually a stealth tax. As a tax it's a failure because it doesn't actually make money.

Because it needs actual human policemen to catch rather than scameras?

The law is actually a symptom of one of the other great evils of politics... responind to tabloid cries of "something must be done!". You get badly written hurried legislation that criminalises part of the problem and legalises the other half of the problem, all because it was done in a rush to be seen making a big gesture of "doing something" and appease the Daily Mail readership.
Like the dangerous dogs act

It's possible to have a perfectly safe telephone conversation. The short version is to keep it brief and to the point and to tell your caller when to shut up because you need to concentrate. Whether it's handheld or hands free really makes very little difference, it's all about conversation technique.

The real problem is that by effectively legalising handsfree calls, you encourage people who may previously have made the odd emergency call to fit a handsfree kit. As this kit is legal many will then start to use it more often, since they have it, and actually make more calls beyond the odd handheld emergency call they made previously.

Indeed, since setting my car up with a cradle and handsfree kit I sometimes think 'Oh I'll make that call in the car.' and occasionally read texts (pop up automatically, I don't need to press anything, though I do to get back to my satnav app). I know I shouldn't but its legal so I will.

The worst part is, the police already had an offence that they could use to charge people who aren't paying attention due to being on the phone, it's called "Driving without due care and attention".

The correct approach would have been to add the making of a phone call into an aggravating factor for a due care and attention charge, resulting in stiffer penalties. This would have sent the same message of phone use = bad, without making everyone run out and buy hands free kits and without criminalising using a phone while sat idle in a layby.

Agree with everything you've said though.