Speed awareness - notifying insurance
Discussion
bad company said:
As you say it's really quite simple. Insurance companies are businesses and their business is making money. If they can get away with charging for SAC's they will do so. It follows that if Admiral are seen to get away with it others will follow.
That's the way it works. No cartel, no conspiracy, no collusion, just companies trying to maximise their profits.
In which case, can you explain why, for decades, some insurers will charge extra for a single speeding offence, and others won't. Can you explain how some insurers charge for non fault accidents, and some don't. How come some insurers charge for business use, and others throw it in for nothing.That's the way it works. No cartel, no conspiracy, no collusion, just companies trying to maximise their profits.
Edited by bad company on Wednesday 18th June 11:00
If you are right, all insurers would charge for everything, because others do and they "get away" with it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
bad company said:
As you say it's really quite simple. Insurance companies are businesses and their business is making money. If they can get away with charging for SAC's they will do so. It follows that if Admiral are seen to get away with it others will follow.
That's the way it works. No cartel, no conspiracy, no collusion, just companies trying to maximise their profits.
In which case, can you explain why, for decades, some insurers will charge extra for a single speeding offence, and others won't. Can you explain how some insurers charge for non fault accidents, and some don't. How come some insurers charge for business use, and others throw it in for nothing.That's the way it works. No cartel, no conspiracy, no collusion, just companies trying to maximise their profits.
Edited by bad company on Wednesday 18th June 11:00
If you are right, all insurers would charge for everything, because others do and they "get away" with it.
Having renewed with Admiral last month with a SAC pending, I can confirm that they loaded my premium by around 14% or so. I negotiated my renewal down from £232 to £200 on the Swift, and then phoned them back to tell them about the SAC and it went back up to £228
However, I chose to renew as that was still a good price given the level of cover compared like-for-like with their competitors.
The SAC itself was a mixed bag with quite a lot of Daily Mail style "think of the children" / tugging at the heart strings type tripe. I plan to blog about it in more detail at some stage.
One key bit of information to note is you are eligible for these courses every 3 years, and the selection criteria is 10%+2 < speed < 10%+9 which I thought was interesting.
(not sure if 'less than' or 'less than or equal to')
However, I chose to renew as that was still a good price given the level of cover compared like-for-like with their competitors.
The SAC itself was a mixed bag with quite a lot of Daily Mail style "think of the children" / tugging at the heart strings type tripe. I plan to blog about it in more detail at some stage.
One key bit of information to note is you are eligible for these courses every 3 years, and the selection criteria is 10%+2 < speed < 10%+9 which I thought was interesting.
(not sure if 'less than' or 'less than or equal to')
JonRB said:
Having renewed with Admiral last month with a SAC pending, I can confirm that they loaded my premium by around 14% or so. I negotiated my renewal down from £232 to £200 on the Swift, and then phoned them back to tell them about the SAC and it went back up to £228
However, I chose to renew as that was still a good price given the level of cover compared like-for-like with their competitors.
The SAC itself was a mixed bag with quite a lot of Daily Mail style "think of the children" / tugging at the heart strings type tripe. I plan to blog about it in more detail at some stage.
One key bit of information to note is you are eligible for these courses every 3 years, and the selection criteria is 10%+2 < speed < 10%+9 which I thought was interesting.
(not sure if 'less than' or 'less than or equal to')
I haven't attended an SAC, is it true that if you argue/challenge some of the stuff you can fail the course and still get the fine and points?However, I chose to renew as that was still a good price given the level of cover compared like-for-like with their competitors.
The SAC itself was a mixed bag with quite a lot of Daily Mail style "think of the children" / tugging at the heart strings type tripe. I plan to blog about it in more detail at some stage.
One key bit of information to note is you are eligible for these courses every 3 years, and the selection criteria is 10%+2 < speed < 10%+9 which I thought was interesting.
(not sure if 'less than' or 'less than or equal to')
bad company said:
I haven't attended an SAC, is it true that if you argue/challenge some of the stuff you can fail the course and still get the fine and points?
My understanding from talking to people who have been involved in running SACs is that's more than just an attendance course. Managing to turn up is not sufficient and the offer to drop the speeding prosecution is conditional on you not failing the course (if 'failing' is the right word). That said, I believe you have to try pretty feckin' hard to fail. Sitting there throughout flatly refusing to say anything or be involved at all might do it. As might a lot of belligerence. But simply engaging and debating isn't going to be a problem - that's the whole point.I don't know if there's anything you imagine you might want to argue about or challenge, but if you find yourself on a course it's probably worth bearing in mind that it'll be your first one, whereas the people running it will probably have done loads, so the chances of you coming out with something they're not aware of or haven't ever heard before are pretty minimal
.bad company said:
I haven't attended an SAC, is it true that if you argue/challenge some of the stuff you can fail the course and still get the fine and points?
If you fail to complete the course for whatever reason, then yes. There was an implied threat that people who "didn't join in" sufficiently might be asked to leave so I would imagine that if you were particularly argumentative then you could also be asked to leave. One attendee was a little argumentative initially and I was interested to see if he'd make it to the end but I he must have thought the same thing as he stopped after a while. Must have decided to chow down on his s
t sandwich just like I had already decided to. Edit: SK425 put it better than I did whilst I was writing my reply.
SK425 said:
I don't know if there's anything you imagine you might want to argue about or challenge, but if you find yourself on a course it's probably worth bearing in mind that it'll be your first one, whereas the people running it will probably have done loads, so the chances of you coming out with something they're not aware of or haven't ever heard before are pretty minimal .
One that got me was the instructor saying "when was the last time you saw a Police patrol on the motorway?".I replied "yesterday"
He told me that it was not on patrol because this job was given to the Highways Agency about 10 years ago, and that the Police car must have been going somewhere.
And I started to say that the Police patrol car was not on Response but was merely cruising on the inside lane and how am I supposed to know the difference between a Patrol and simply cruising, but he started talking all over me and pretty much cut me off.
Same went for him saying that speed cameras are not about revenue, and the belligerent chap that I mentioned countered that they were self-funding until the law changed and suddenly most are not being maintained or have been decommissioned, because they are now costing councils money, and therefore they were all about revenue. But likewise he was talked over and silenced.
So they do encourage debate, but only if you are in agreement with them.
bad company said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
bad company said:
As you say it's really quite simple. Insurance companies are businesses and their business is making money. If they can get away with charging for SAC's they will do so. It follows that if Admiral are seen to get away with it others will follow.
That's the way it works. No cartel, no conspiracy, no collusion, just companies trying to maximise their profits.
In which case, can you explain why, for decades, some insurers will charge extra for a single speeding offence, and others won't. Can you explain how some insurers charge for non fault accidents, and some don't. How come some insurers charge for business use, and others throw it in for nothing.That's the way it works. No cartel, no conspiracy, no collusion, just companies trying to maximise their profits.
Edited by bad company on Wednesday 18th June 11:00
If you are right, all insurers would charge for everything, because others do and they "get away" with it.
Make your mind up!!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that if Admiral are allowed "to get away" with this, then all other insurers will follow suit. I said that wouldn't happen because it's a market and markets don't work that way. You argued with me, but are now agreeing with me.
Make your mind up!!
I tried a reasonable debate with twig once before. Should have known better than to do so again. Make your mind up!!
bad company said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that if Admiral are allowed "to get away" with this, then all other insurers will follow suit. I said that wouldn't happen because it's a market and markets don't work that way. You argued with me, but are now agreeing with me.
Make your mind up!!
I tried a reasonable debate with twig once before. Should have known better than to do so again. Make your mind up!!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
bad company said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that if Admiral are allowed "to get away" with this, then all other insurers will follow suit. I said that wouldn't happen because it's a market and markets don't work that way. You argued with me, but are now agreeing with me.
Make your mind up!!
I tried a reasonable debate with twig once before. Should have known better than to do so again. Make your mind up!!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Davidonly said:
I KNOW that they exist simply to pay themselves. There is no other explanation for the continued myopic focus on 'speed'.
So surely you have figures to back this up. What level of obscene profit is being made on SACs if what you claim to "know" is true.Davidonly said:
Again: There is no profit, the operators and managers and other stakeholders of these 'partnerships' sole aim is the self perpetuation of the system for the benefit of the incumbents and no one else, hence 'parasite'.
I dont know why you should be forced to justify your figures when Twig suggested that SAC's could cut road deaths and were a benefit to society yet chose not to back that up ? Davidonly said:
Again: There is no profit, the operators and managers and other stakeholders of these 'partnerships' sole aim is the self perpetuation of the system for the benefit of the incumbents and no one else, hence 'parasite'.
In our class of 20 attendees, I was the only one who had done any further driver training at all. I don't know if this means that I am a crap Advanced Driver for getting caught, or if the number of people who do further training is woefully small. Also, I was the only person who knew that dual carriageways (and hence the speed limit of 70mph) is determined by the fact that the two carriageways are separated by a permanent central reservation, and not the fact that they have 2 or more lanes.
However, I did get a very real sense that many attendees had their eyes opened somewhat about hazard perception, situational awareness, and observation (all things taught by the IAM and Rospa) so I don't think a SAC is an entirely pointless exercise.
JonRB said:
However, I did get a very real sense that many attendees had their eyes opened somewhat about hazard perception, situational awareness, and observation (all things taught by the IAM and Rospa) so I don't think a SAC is an entirely pointless exercise.
Exactly. At the start of the course you were the only one who had done any further driver training at all. By the end of the course that was no longer the case.SK425 said:
Exactly. At the start of the course you were the only one who had done any further driver training at all. By the end of the course that was no longer the case.
Well, only in the sense that someone who has done a track "Experience" day can then say they've done a track day (ie. they haven't). But it's a taster, for sure. JonRB said:
SK425 said:
Exactly. At the start of the course you were the only one who had done any further driver training at all. By the end of the course that was no longer the case.
Well, only in the sense that someone who has done a track "Experience" day can then say they've done a track day (ie. they haven't). But it's a taster, for sure. Whether they choose to apply what they've learnt is a different question, but that applies to anybody who does any form of further driver training.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff