Admiral group asking about 'Speed Aware' courses now?

richard734

Just updating my insurance for my new car - don't even get me started on that , and was asked the normal accidents or convictions question, was then asked if I had done a speed awareness course in the last 5 years...

I haven't so it didn't bother me, but I thought these course were meant to be an alternative to points etc and non-insurance affecting?

bluenoseam

Can't say I blame them, it's an avoidance of a punishment for something the driver has done aimed at defrauding insurance companies in essence. The harsh truth is that people on a speed awareness course are there for a reason, that reason is one that were the speed awareness course NOT there would incur an increase in premiums. Where I come from that sounds dodgy and if I were an insurance company, I would want to know if the person had been on one and adjust their premiums accordingly.

Horizon81

Yes the insurers will be missing out on ramping up the premiums if you can honestly answer that you have no speeding points, so now they'll ask about the speed awareness course to which you must of course answer honestly. There's no escape. Time will tell if this leads to people just taking the points instead and these courses will die out. But then the police/speed awareness course trainers will lose out - someone will need to come up with a formula for the cheapest option.

Avoiding speeding would help of course!

richard734

I thought the Speed Awareness courses are only offered for first offence/minor transgression - ie 33 in a 30 etc.

Now I fully admit I could be wrong on that one

If I am right, then surely the slapped wrist of an awareness course is punishment enough? Are they going to want you to declare roadside chats with traffic officers that don't result in a ticket?
(Before I get slammed for that, I believe in Dragons, Fairies, Goblins, Actual Traffic Police Officers, Unicorns and other mythical beings)

spacey2012

Do they have any way of accessing the data ?
If they did, would they need to ask.

Strider590

Insurance companies are just catching up and closing those lost revenue holes.

Speeding fines are just about making money, if they wanted to improve safety they'd sit in residential areas and outside schools, instead of dead straight sections of dual carriageway with inappropriately low speed limits.

The most dangerous drivers are those that tootle along at 42mph on every road, they're not paying attention, they're driving in "auto mode" and out on the NSL roads they cause anger and frustration. The act of passive-aggressive driving, doing all they can to turn normal sane drivers into raging monsters.

BUT they never get caught speeding because the talivan task force goes for the easy targets on dual carriwageways instead.

Horizon81

Strider590 wrote: »

Speeding fines are just about making money, if they wanted to improve safety they'd sit in residential areas and outside schools, instead of dead straight sections of dual carriageway with inappropriately low speed limits.

Whilst I agree (they're always in places to catch you out rather than in places where you run a higher risk of killing someone), what did you make of Clarkson's comments years ago when talking to John Prescott. Clarkson said he agreed they weren't about making money as the total revenue generated from them was less than Simon Cowell's annual tax bill (or words to that effect).

Strider590

Horizon81 wrote: »

Whilst I agree (they're always in places to catch you out rather than in places where you run a higher risk of killing someone), what did you make of Clarkson's comments years ago when talking to John Prescott. Clarkson said he agreed they weren't about making money as the total revenue generated from them was less than Simon Cowell's annual tax bill (or words to that effect).

I vaguely remember something like that, I think it had quite a large pinch of sarcasm thrown in............

It's not just about money though, as since 2007 the revenue no longer goes directly to local road safety partnerships, it's more about meeting targets and producing false road safety statistics.

If 100 people die in car accidents and 20 cars are stolen, but no one is ever caugh speeding, that looks pretty bad, positively crime ridden. But if 100 people die in car accidents, 20 cars are stolen and 10'000 drivers are caught speeding, the statistics change completely.

smashingyour...

Strider590 wrote: »

I vaguely remember something like that, I think it had quite a large pinch of sarcasm thrown in............

It's not just about money though, as since 2007 the revenue no longer goes directly to local road safety partnerships, it's more about meeting targets and producing false road safety statistics.

If 100 people die in car accidents and 20 cars are stolen, but no one is ever caugh speeding, that looks pretty bad, positively crime ridden. But if 100 people die in car accidents, 20 cars are stolen and 10'000 drivers are caught speeding, the statistics change completely.

What have stolen vehicles got to do with the ksi stats?

Strider590

smashingyour... wrote: »

What have stolen vehicles got to do with the ksi stats?

I'm talking vehicle crime....... Local authorities like to say "yeah we're solving vehicle crime, look at all these speeding drivers we caught!!"

FacelessNumber

I went on a speed awareness course last year....and the reason they gave for insurers not being supposed to ask is that they have a proven decreased number of reoffenders from the courses than from just points and a fine. Therefore if you have been on one statistics indicate that you are less likely to speed and as insurers work on statistics this should not affect your premium.

Bear in mind I am just repeating what I have been told. They have also upped the limit for when you can go on the courses (maybe this is why they have started asking) so it is now speed limit plus 10% + 9. Therefore up to 42 in a 30.

The reason they have upped it is supposedly due to the stats proving decreased risk of reoffending.

Hope that makes sense....it does in my head!!