Speed awareness - notifying insurance

[Cooperman]

Not a lot of point in paying £90 to attend an SAC if you still have increased premiums for a few years. Might as well take the £60 + 3 points instead and save yourself the time, aggrevation & cost of attending the SAC.

[Noger]

creampuff said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You are suggesting that because they have no way of finding out the truth, you are not obligated to tell the truth. That seems a strange thought process.

I am not suggesting that at all; I'm pointing out that if it is not possible for an insurer to establish if you have or have not been on a SAC, then a negative answer from a policy holder will have no consequences for them. A persons own moral compass and how they choose to answer is up to them.

But the insurer has the statutory right to cancel. So they make consequences.

[creampuff]

Noger said:

But the insurer has the statutory right to cancel. So they make consequences.

The no consequences is because they have no facility to check and would therefore have no evicence or reason to cancel, not because there would be no consequences if they were able to check.

[irocfan]

Cooperman said:

Not a lot of point in paying £90 to attend an SAC if you still have increased premiums for a few years. Might as well take the £60 + 3 points instead and save yourself the time, aggrevation & cost of attending the SAC.

^^^^ this

[AJI]

whoami said:

highflyer said:

You do not have to notify your insurance co that you have attended a SAC you have attended it, so as not to get the points or the fine, they tell you that at the end of the SAC.

You certainly do if they specifically ask you (as Admiral do).

I guess this may come down to what are they 'allowed' to ask for and what are you 'obliged' to give them?

They could ask you about your sexual orientation. Are you obliged to answer that?
They could ask you about your earnings. Are you obliged to answer that?
They could ask you how many times do you bang your missus.... etc. etc.

[AJI]

madmover said:

They aren't allowed to charge you for it ....

So are they breaking a rule?
Because some have replied on here stating that they received premium increases.

[whoami]

madmover said:

They aren't allowed to charge you for it but you are legally obliged to inform them if they ask.

They can apply whatever rating factors they like.

[over_the_hill]

I think a wider question is why is this now being increasingly asked for.

A lot of people have speeding points on their licences - mainly 3 via a FPN for a few mph over the limit.

This has been a good revenue stream for the insurance companies through loaded premiums even though the correlation between excess speed and crashes is quite low. The Governments own figures sate something like 7% of RTA's are due to excess speed. That's excess speed and not even necessarily speeding - and little mention of the other odd 90% of causes.

More and more people are being offered SACs as the threshold for eligibility seems to be going up quite often.

Insurance companies must have seen a dip in profits as less people were getting points and not have to subsequently having to declare them.

[IroningMan]

SACs have become a very tidy little earner, for ACPO among others. Expect to see them become compulsory alongside a fine and points, rather than as an alternative to them.

If your insurer asks whether you have been on one you MUST answer honestly - there may not be a database that the insurer can check, but in the event that you are involved in a substantial claim then you may very well find yourself answering the same question in court.

[AJI]

Looking at it from the other side, isn't a SAC suppose to result in an improved driver?
More aware of speed, more aware of road signs etc.

Therefore shouldn't the insurance premiums be cheaper for those that have attended a SAC?

[IroningMan]

AJI said:

Looking at it from the other side, isn't a SAC suppose to result in an improved driver?
More aware of speed, more aware of road signs etc.

Therefore shouldn't the insurance premiums be cheaper for those that have attended a SAC?

You'd think so, but if no-one is keeping any records then who knows? In the meantime insurers might be prudent to load for a SAC in the same way that their claims statistics tell them they should load for an SP30.

[RSoovy4]

IroningMan said:

AJI said:

Looking at it from the other side, isn't a SAC suppose to result in an improved driver?
More aware of speed, more aware of road signs etc.

Therefore shouldn't the insurance premiums be cheaper for those that have attended a SAC?

You'd think so, but if no-one is keeping any records then who knows? In the meantime insurers might be prudent to load for a SAC in the same way that their claims statistics tell them they should load for an SP30.

For sure it would be prudent, because if you're on one you've been nicked for speeding!

[AJI]

RSoovy4 said:

IroningMan said:

AJI said:

Looking at it from the other side, isn't a SAC suppose to result in an improved driver?
More aware of speed, more aware of road signs etc.

Therefore shouldn't the insurance premiums be cheaper for those that have attended a SAC?

You'd think so, but if no-one is keeping any records then who knows? In the meantime insurers might be prudent to load for a SAC in the same way that their claims statistics tell them they should load for an SP30.

For sure it would be prudent, because if you're on one you've been nicked for speeding!

But the 'end result' is a supposed 'improved driver'. So less risk in terms of insurance.

[RSoovy4]

AJI said:

RSoovy4 said:

IroningMan said:

AJI said:

Looking at it from the other side, isn't a SAC suppose to result in an improved driver?
More aware of speed, more aware of road signs etc.

Therefore shouldn't the insurance premiums be cheaper for those that have attended a SAC?

You'd think so, but if no-one is keeping any records then who knows? In the meantime insurers might be prudent to load for a SAC in the same way that their claims statistics tell them they should load for an SP30.

For sure it would be prudent, because if you're on one you've been nicked for speeding!

But the 'end result' is a supposed 'improved driver'. So less risk in terms of insurance.

The end result is "£90 poorer and severely patronised" driver.

[AJI]

RSoovy4 said:

AJI said:

RSoovy4 said:

IroningMan said:

AJI said:

Looking at it from the other side, isn't a SAC suppose to result in an improved driver?
More aware of speed, more aware of road signs etc.

Therefore shouldn't the insurance premiums be cheaper for those that have attended a SAC?

You'd think so, but if no-one is keeping any records then who knows? In the meantime insurers might be prudent to load for a SAC in the same way that their claims statistics tell them they should load for an SP30.

For sure it would be prudent, because if you're on one you've been nicked for speeding!

But the 'end result' is a supposed 'improved driver'. So less risk in terms of insurance.

The end result is "£90 poorer and severely patronised" driver.

Having not been on the course I can only go by what others have said. But I thought the whole point of it was 'education' rather than 'told you so....we know better than you' type of course.

But I think the question remains as to what insurance companies need to ask rather than what they can get away with asking, and how this reflects on what you are obliged to answer.
I'm guessing it may just come down to accepted conditions of contract between two parties, but if for some reason a case went to court, would the fact that a question asked and not answered be held against you if that question asked had no legal right to be asked in the first place?

[croyde]

Having been flashed in the Limehouse link the other day oooerr missus, this is of interest to me as my last points were 20 or 30 years ago. So you pay to go on a SAC and you still get loaded by your insurance company?

Don't see the point then, especially as a day wasted on a course is a day's lost wages. Far more than 5 years of loading.

SAC my arse, how patronising! I was fully aware that the Ivan in the badly loaded truck was about to crush me so I kept at a speed that made me safe. More time looking where you are going and less time staring at speedos, sat navs, safety cameras and constantly changing speed limit signs means a safer driver/rider.

I fekin' hate driving/riding in areas I don't know these days.

[LeoSayer]

AJI said:

But I think the question remains as to what insurance companies need to ask rather than what they can get away with asking, and how this reflects on what you are obliged to answer.
I'm guessing it may just come down to accepted conditions of contract between two parties, but if for some reason a case went to court, would the fact that a question asked and not answered be held against you if that question asked had no legal right to be asked in the first place?

If you said 'No' when the correct answer is yes, then you'd have lied.

If you don't like the questions then don't lie, try a different insurance company.

[Starfighter]

It would be interesting to understand the definition of a "driver awareness course".

My local county Road Safety Unit runs coures open to the public. These consist of a couple of hours in a class room going over defensive driving techniques, attitude and other Roadcraft Chapter 1 / 2 type topics with a Class 1 intructor and fininshes with an hour on the road with an IAM / RoADA observer. Some attendees have been stopped or involved in RTC situations but the course is optional.

Would this count? If it does then I'm screwed as I have done dozens!

[joe_90]

madmover said:

They aren't allowed to charge you for it but you are legally obliged to inform them if they ask.

Really? Why do I have to answer? Can I not just say 'I do not recall'.
What if they ask me any other stupid questions, am I legally obliged to answer those too?

Edited by joe_90 on Wednesday 6th March 13:04

[Jakg]

joe_90 said:

Really? Why do I have to answer? Can I not just say 'I do not recall'.
What if they ask me any other stupid questions, am I legally obliged to answer those too?

Edited by joe_90 on Wednesday 6th March 13:04

They can (and probably will) refuse to insure you if you don't answer their questions (i.e. "have you had an accident in the last 5 years" "errrr, can't remember, no comment")