Car Insurance Speed Awareness

Cubana48

Just spoke directly to Aviva and Esure over the phone and they confirmed that unless you end up with points on your license they don't penalise you for attending a Speed Awareness course

Nobbie1967

Nearly_Old wrote: »

I agree with both your points but if someone has i) committed an offence; and ii) been caught committing the offence then IMO the answer to part a) has to be "Yes" irrespective of how the offence is dealt with?


IMO there is no difference between a Fixed Penalty and a Speed Awareness Course as both relate to the same offence and I'm surprised that all insurers do not ask the question directly.

My take would be that the NIP indicates that you are suspected of committing an offence. You are only considered to have committed an offence if you are successfully prosecuted or accept your guilt and take points etc. A Speed Awareness Course is an alternative to either admitting your guilt or being proscecuted.

Woofiedog

I believe the speed awareness option is the Police option to not to be prosecuted and to avoid conviction - because you fit certain criteria (you've not been nabbed before and your speed was within a certain parameter over the limit). It is the criminal justice equivalent of a police caution for any other minor criminal offence.

So unless the qualifying insurer's question (or comparison site) specifically asks for whether you have been served with NIPs or/and asks if you have attended or been invited to attend a speed awareness course, then you can legitimately answer No without lying. Therefore, it is by far the safest option even if it does cost around £80-90 and a few hours of rigid boredom to attend it.

A speed awareness option is also an admission of guilt that you were speeding, which is worth taking on board. The offer is not the police necessaril claiming that they don't have enough evidence or do have enough evidence to convict, only they do to prosecute - unless you successfully rattle the CPS cage. You simply don't know. So it is still worth considering whether the CPS has sufficient evidence to prosecute and convict if the police website containing your case number only contains a flimsy photo of a 1 second camera shot of your VRN with no moving camera video.  Sometimes the police don't turn up at the Mag Court either, which could result in a the case being dismissed. You have to be sure of your ground though to take that option though, and be prepared to put up with three points and a hefty fine if you lose. But it is still worth bearing in mind that even with strict liability offences like speeding, the prosecution can only satisfactorily lead to a conviction if the alleged offence was reasonably avoidable or preventable (intention doesn't come into the equation, though). A one second camera shot doesn't real prove that it was reasonably preventable and avoidable necessarily, does it? Sometimes solicitors will give half an hour of free advice and ask the CPS for more evidence of a mean average speed over a longer stretch. Sometimes the camera calibration might not be good enough either. So don't assume that you were actually committing an offence that can be successfully prosecuted and convicted just because the ticket office says you were and has evidence of a camera shot of your car at over the limit. So contesting the case might be something to consider if you have a good driving record, are sure you want to avoid a guilty equivalent speed awareness court option with no chance of ever having that option open to you again should you be unluckily caught in another reasonably preventable/avoidable speeding situation which you never questioned the first time.

What I am saying is this: make sure the police are sure of their ground -  that you did speed, you did commit an offence and you can and will be convicted. Unless they can answer all three of these questions confidently, you are in with a chance of getting the ticket dismissed if handled in the right way.  It is not up to you to prove your innocence; it is for them to prove your guilt.

TooManyPoints

What I am saying is this: make sure the police are sure of their ground -  that you did speed, you did commit an offence and you can and will be convicted. Unless they can answer all three of these questions confidently, you are in with a chance of getting the ticket dismissed if handled in the right way.  It is not up to you to prove your innocence; it is for them to prove your guilt.

A driver will receive no evidence of his guilt before deciding whether to accept the offer of a course or a fixed penalty. The best he can get is to ask for "photographs to help identify the driver". He can do this if he was not stopped at the time and has received a Section 172 request to provide the driver's details. The photographs rarely identify the driver (most are taken from the rear and their function is to identify the vehicle, not the driver). They may contain an overprint of the speed alleged but this is not evidence that would be used to convict the driver if the matter went to court. The whole idea of the course and fixed penalty system is that the police do not have to spend resources providing evidence and preparing the matter for prosecution. As a reward for accepting the allegation as it stands (and neither a course nor a fixed penalty is a conviction) the driver is offered a disposal at a considerably lower cost than if he were prosecuted and had the the matter dealt with in court. If the police were to fanny around providing evidence much of the advantage they gain will be lost.

...the prosecution can only satisfactorily lead to a conviction if the alleged offence was reasonably avoidable or preventable

Perhaps you could point us to some legislation or case law that supports that with relation to speeding. There are very few instances where speeding is unavoidable or unpreventable and if such a situation was to be put forward as a defence the onus would be on the defendant to prove it to the court's satisfaction (which would be "on the balance of probabilities" - i.e more likely to be true than not).

Jumblebumble

Woofiedog said:

A speed awareness option is also an admission of guilt that you were speeding, which is worth taking on board. 

Please can you clarify why you think  accepting a speed awareness course is an admission  of guilt when accepting a fixed penalty is not according to Northumbria police.
I suspect you will not be able to produce any evidence of your claim

https://beta.northumbria.police.uk/advice-and-info/road-safety-and-vehicles/tickets-and-traffic-offence-reports/
Traffic Offence Reports can be given for a road traffic offence, such as speeding, and Penalty Notices for disorder relating to minor anti-social behaviour or nuisance. These exist to enable Police officers to quickly process minor driving offences quickly. Once your Traffic Offence Report has been processed you may be issued with the offer of a Fixed Penalty. Acceptance of a Fixed Penalty does not constitute an admission of guilt on the part of the person in receipt of it, and neither does it constitute part of a criminal record. The alternatives that may be offered to you could be the National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme or court appearance.

TooManyPoints

No it is not an admission of guilt. Nowhere in any of the paperwork for either a FP or a course does the driver have to accept guilt. They are simply ways of disposing of the matter without a prosecution. Of course the question that arises is why would anybody accept either unless they were guilty. But that's a different matter entirely. 

AdrianC

They aren't an admission of guilt...

But if you want to dispute guilt, they aren't what you do. You refuse them and ask for a court hearing instead.

[Deleted User]

It's not a guilty plea in the sense of a court or criminal offence, but you are admitting you were speeding, else you wouldn't have got and accepted the course offer.
Given the tolerances of UK speedometers (10% + 6.25 at most), such that your speedo could read 50.25 when you were doing actually 40mph, if you were caught and offered a course (so more than the 10% + 2mph ACPO guidance) then on a motorway, for example, the course can be offered up to 86mph - your speedo could easily have shown you doing 90+ (assuming 86mph with just 5% over-read) so it's not like you would be unaware you were over the limit 

Jumblebumble

TooManyPoints said:

No it is not an admission of guilt. Nowhere in any of the paperwork for either a FP or a course does the driver have to accept guilt. They are simply ways of disposing of the matter without a prosecution. Of course the question that arises is why would anybody accept either unless they were guilty. But that's a different matter entirely. 

Perhaps because a not guilty plea will cost around £600 in costs if you lose and most people would not be inclined to take the risk
(I certainly would not) 

Car_54

Deleted_User said:

It's not a guilty plea in the sense of a court or criminal offence, but you are admitting you were speeding, else you wouldn't have got and accepted the course offer.

Let's suppose I'm not guilty, and I know it and think I can prove it

Taking the course would cost say £90 and a few hours of my time.

Going to court would involve more hours (court time plus consultation with lawyer), the cost of a lawyer (itself more than £90), and with the real risk of a guilty verdict with points, fine, costs and a victim surcharge.

So it's a course for me, but absolutely no admission of guilt.