Speed Awareness Course - Admiral
Options
Comments
-
The reality: they have no way of finding out if you've been on a speed awareness course. Details are stored on the NDORS database, which does not provide commercial access. Records are kept for six years.
Quote from the website given below:
"NDORS Data is NOT shared with insurance companies and they have no access to it."
https://ndors.org.uk/faqs/
Until they are given access - what's to stop them getting access in the future?I consider myself to be a male feminist. Is that allowed?0 -
Interesting. So they aren't actually asking the question. Rather, they are giving you an instruction. Why, I wonder, do they single out an issue which, in the overall scheme of things, is less relevant than other issues? Maybe they realise they shouldn't be asking about speed awareness courses and this is a cynical work around.
They are perfectly entitled to ask, and they are asking. By requiring you to contact them if a driver on the policy has attended a speed awareness course they are asking if any driver named on the policy has attended a speed awareness course! They are not engaged in any kind of, "cynical Work around".
It is your view that it is less relevant than other issues, but Admiral clearly believe that it is relevant to the risk posed and therefore are entitled to ask about it.0 -
Admiral are perfectly entitled to ask, you are perfectly entitled to feel them asking is taking the pi$$.
So Would I.
Although I totally 'get' the taking a SAC makes you a higher risk argument, I also understand that taking an SAC is actually better for road safety than you getting 3 points without any reminder or further training refresher.
Admiral effectively ensuring you get the same damn penalty as if you did have 3 points makes a mockery of the choice of either taking 3 points OR doing an SAC.
In actual fact getting the same sort of insurance loading as having 3 points whilst having a day off work and possibly even travelling some distance to take an SAC is more expensive in many cases than taking the damn points.0 -
Admiral are perfectly entitled to ask, you are perfectly entitled to feel them asking is taking the pi$$.
So Would I.
Although I totally 'get' the taking a SAC makes you a higher risk argument, I also understand that taking an SAC is actually better for road safety than you getting 3 points without any reminder or further training refresher.
Admiral effectively ensuring you get the same damn penalty as if you did have 3 points makes a mockery of the choice of either taking 3 points OR doing an SAC.
In actual fact getting the same sort of insurance loading as having 3 points whilst having a day off work and possibly even travelling some distance to take an SAC is more expensive in many cases than taking the damn points.
The course isn't intended to save you money.
How do you know that they apply the same load to the premium as they do for SP30?0 -
Admiral are perfectly entitled to ask, you are perfectly entitled to feel them asking is taking the pi$$.
So Would I.
Although I totally 'get' the taking a SAC makes you a higher risk argument, I also understand that taking an SAC is actually better for road safety than you getting 3 points without any reminder or further training refresher.
Admiral effectively ensuring you get the same damn penalty as if you did have 3 points makes a mockery of the choice of either taking 3 points OR doing an SAC.
In actual fact getting the same sort of insurance loading as having 3 points whilst having a day off work and possibly even travelling some distance to take an SAC is more expensive in many cases than taking the damn points.
How do you know the loading Admiral apply for SAC is the same as the loading for an SP endorsement?
Regardless; all Admiral are doing is differentiating those who have been caught speeding and those who don't speed (or not been caught).
I actually think it's a good idea, as it enables those who don't speed to be rewarded with lower premiums than those who do speed but happen to have a clean license.0 -
Whether the course is intended or not intended to save the attendee money -that is exactly why most who opt for it take it.
They know they will get a loading for repeated insurance lasting around 5 years and weigh this up against the expense of taking the course.
The more 'expensive' the alternative to simply taking the points, the more likely people will turn down the SAC.
That might be OK with you -but you can't convince me that given the choice someone who's attended the SAC isn't a better risk that someone who coughs up, gets 3 points and carries on regardless.
Maybe admiral do load the SAC declaration to the same level as an SP30 maybe they don't -they clearly don't just ask for the fun of asking however.0 -
Whether the course is intended or not intended to save the attendee money -that is exactly why most who opt for it take it.
It is irrelevant why people take the course. What is relevant is the purpose of it. Admiral are entitled to conclude that someone taking the course poses a higher risk than someone who has not been required to take the course and has not received any points. Indeed, the very fact that most people take the course to avoid points, rather than to improve their driving, suggests that Admiral have good grounds for making that assumption!They know they will get a loading for repeated insurance lasting around 5 years and weigh this up against the expense of taking the course.
That isn't Admiral's, or any other insurer's, problem. The course is not intended for you to get a reduced premium.The more 'expensive' the alternative to simply taking the points, the more likely people will turn down the SAC.
That might be OK with you -but you can't convince me that given the choice someone who's attended the SAC isn't a better risk that someone who coughs up, gets 3 points and carries on regardless.
Do you have evidence to prove that people who have taken the course change their driving behaviour long term?Maybe admiral do load the SAC declaration to the same level as an SP30 maybe they don't -they clearly don't just ask for the fun of asking however.
Well, that is rather the point! Of course they are asking so that they can load the premium appropriately, but you don't know whether or not it is at the same level of loading as for SP30.0 -
ValiantSon wrote: »Do you have evidence to prove that people who have taken the course change their driving behaviour long term?
Here are details of some studies:
https://www.foraymotorgroup.co.uk/news/article/speed-awareness-courses-praised-for-effectiveness
http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Evidence/Details/112890 -
Thanks for the links. Unfortunately they are based on questionnaires of drivers' attitudes and do not present any objective evidence as to whether or not behaviour is changed on the road.0
-
ValiantSon wrote: »Thanks for the links. Unfortunately they are based on questionnaires of drivers' attitudes and do not present any objective evidence as to whether or not behaviour is changed on the road.
The quotes by Professor Martin are interesting http://www.aston.ac.uk/news/releases/2013/january/speed-awareness-courses/0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards