Admiral group asking about 'Speed Aware' courses now?

smashingyour...

Strider590 wrote: »

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

Speeding has nothing to do with vehicle crime. As it's not a recordable crime there is nothing to detect.

Aretnap

Ultimately speed awareness course organisers don't get to decide what insurers can and can't ask about or what they can base their premiums on. The situation is that insurers are private companies and can base their pricing on whatever they like, unless there's a law to prevent them from doing so. Equalities legislation prevents them from basing their premiums on race or sex, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act prevents them from asking about most convictions more than 5 years old, but there's nothing to stop them using speed awareness courses as a basis for assessing risk.*

They also don't get the final say on whether SACs are effective in making people safer drivers - insurance companies will do their own assessment based on their own statistics which may or may not agree with the organisers' conclusions. But it's quite possible for them both to be right. If (say) people who've been caught speeding are 10% more likely to have an accident than those who haven't, and people who've been caught speeding and have done a SAC are 5% more likely to have an accident then the SAC has done its job in making the people who've been caught speeding safer drivers... but they're still a higher risk than people who didn't speed in the first place.

AFAIK Admiral and its various brands are the only insurers who currently adjust premiums for SAC attendance, so if you don't like then doing it you can always vote with your feet and use another insurer. People do get annoyed because Admiral are often one of the cheapest insurers, but why are they cheap? Could it be because they're very good at assessing risk?**

*For the moment. There are some changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in the pipeline which will make "alternatives to prosecution" similar to cautions and they will be treated in the same way as spent convictions - AIUI this will prevent insurers from asking about SACs, unless they get an exemption to the act.

**Or it might be because of their cheap, crappy Indian call centres and heir Ryanair-like admin fees for making any changes to your policy... but those are other good reasons to avoid them.

james_joyce

It seems to me that a stage was missed out when the speed awareness courses were devised - ACPO should have discussed with the insurance industry and agreed that drivers doing the courses would not suffer any increase in insurance premiums.

Instead an assumption seems to have been made that only penalty points could affect insurance premiums - and in the absence of points, ie doing the course instead, there would be no effect on premiums.

In other words ACPO assumed they didn't need to discuss it with the insurance industry.

Now Admiral are reaping the benefits.

Hintza

bluenoseam wrote: »

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.

That really is not the best way to look at it.

A speed awareness course is all about educating the driver, thus (supposedly) making them a better and safer driver. If there is no benefit from taking the course they start to become pointless, might as well just pay the fine and take the points.

Serial offenders don't keep getting the option of taking the course.

AndyPK

Must be a recent thing as admiral didn't ask me a few weeks ago.

Hoof_Hearted

I was assured that the database of those who have attended courses is completely private and insurance companies have no access to it. You have to be honest on the proposal, but they would never find out either way.

Aretnap

james_joyce wrote: »

It seems to me that a stage was missed out when the speed awareness courses were devised - ACPO should have discussed with the insurance industry and agreed that drivers doing the courses would not suffer any increase in insurance premiums.

It's not obvious that insurers would have agreed to it.

Now Admiral are reaping the benefits.

The benefits being (apparently) more accurate assessment of risk. Admiral's customers reap the benefits as well - what's never mentioned is that higher premiums for people who've been caught speeding mean lower premiums for those who haven't.

Another knock on effect is that insurers have started to load premiums for drivers with speeding convictions more than they used to. At least part of the reason is that a few years ago 3 points meant that you'd probably been caught once, just over the limit. Now with most people being offered SACs for their first minor offence, 3 points probably means that you've been caught twice, or that you were caught once quite a long way over the limit.

Hoof_Hearted

Having a SP 30 seems to make very little difference to premiums in my experience. Perhaps Admiral will offer lower premiums for those that have been on the course as they are now safer drivers.

Iceweasel

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

Having a SP 30 seems to make very little difference to premiums in my experience. Perhaps Admiral will offer lower premiums for those that have been on the course as they are now safer drivers.

Ha ha - that's highly unlikely - but I see how you're thinking.