Speed awareness courses could 'invalidate insurance'
Discussion
Just read this article on the telegraph.
Thought it might be of interest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Thought it might be of interest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
So, basically, the article boils down to "an anti-camera campaigner says so", with a tenuous link to a bloke who reckons his insurer hiked his premium because he went on an SAC. I wonder which insurer...? Oh, yes. Admiral. What a surprise.
Jesus. The Telegraph continues the inexorable slide towards the Daily Wail.
Jesus. The Telegraph continues the inexorable slide towards the Daily Wail.
Ha, I should pay more attention when reading such rubbish.
I would be interested to hear from insurance companies to see if there is an eliminate of truth in this. I would imagine that if you did volunteer this information to them they would increase your premium, they don't need much of an excuse after all.
There also becomes a point where going on the course would be beneficial depending on the state of your license if insurance companies did treat the awarness course the same as a sp whatever.
I would be interested to hear from insurance companies to see if there is an eliminate of truth in this. I would imagine that if you did volunteer this information to them they would increase your premium, they don't need much of an excuse after all.
There also becomes a point where going on the course would be beneficial depending on the state of your license if insurance companies did treat the awarness course the same as a sp whatever.
Henzy said:
I would be interested to hear from insurance companies to see if there is an eliminate of truth in this. I would imagine that if you did volunteer this information to them they would increase your premium, they don't need much of an excuse after all.
Usual rules apply.If they ask, you have to answer honestly.
Only one insurer seems to ask. Three guesses who...?
'course, it's all complicated by the fact that said muppet has a "multi-car" policy, which said insurer are the best-known providers of, and is a GREAT lock-in. If it wasn't for that, he'd have done what anybody sane would do and say "Well, if that's your renewal quote, shove it." But, no, he's a sheep, and multi-car must be cheaper, so I'll just piss and moan and whinge and ignore the fact it'd probably be cheaper and easier to not be so blinkered.
Henzy said:
Ha, I should pay more attention when reading such rubbish.
I would be interested to hear from insurance companies to see if there is an eliminate of truth in this. I would imagine that if you did volunteer this information to them they would increase your premium, they don't need much of an excuse after all.
There also becomes a point where going on the course would be beneficial depending on the state of your license if insurance companies did treat the awarness course the same as a sp whatever.
There isn't even an element of truth to it, let alone an eliminate of truth. I would be interested to hear from insurance companies to see if there is an eliminate of truth in this. I would imagine that if you did volunteer this information to them they would increase your premium, they don't need much of an excuse after all.
There also becomes a point where going on the course would be beneficial depending on the state of your license if insurance companies did treat the awarness course the same as a sp whatever.
An insurer must ask you specific, unambiguous questions when gathering information. If they don't ask you specifically about SAC attendance, then they can not use it later.
It is that simple
My brother was told (on the course) there was no way 'they' could find out if you'd done a SAC?
They also told him, if 'they' asked, he should answer truthfully.
Is this true? How would 'they' know, as it's not recorded anywhere (apart from the NIP/Police records)?
BTW, he also did 2 SACs within a 12 month period a few years ago, I thought this wasn't possible?
They also told him, if 'they' asked, he should answer truthfully.
Is this true? How would 'they' know, as it's not recorded anywhere (apart from the NIP/Police records)?
BTW, he also did 2 SACs within a 12 month period a few years ago, I thought this wasn't possible?
Jim1556 said:
My brother was told (on the course) there was no way 'they' could find out if you'd done a SAC?
They also told him, if 'they' asked, he should answer truthfully.
Is this true? How would 'they' know, as it's not recorded anywhere (apart from the NIP/Police records)?
BTW, he also did 2 SACs within a 12 month period a few years ago, I thought this wasn't possible?
Of course it is possible - how else would the SCPs get the cash instead of the fines going to the treasury.They also told him, if 'they' asked, he should answer truthfully.
Is this true? How would 'they' know, as it's not recorded anywhere (apart from the NIP/Police records)?
BTW, he also did 2 SACs within a 12 month period a few years ago, I thought this wasn't possible?
Lancs were offering SACs way above the threshold years ago for the same reason.
Jim1556 said:
My brother was told (on the course) there was no way 'they' could find out if you'd done a SAC?
They also told him, if 'they' asked, he should answer truthfully.
Is this true? How would 'they' know, as it's not recorded anywhere (apart from the NIP/Police records)?
BTW, he also did 2 SACs within a 12 month period a few years ago, I thought this wasn't possible?
On the top two points, they are correct on both counts. Insurers have no access to the SAC database, which is probably why nobody, other than Admiral, bothers asking. However, if they do ask, then you should reply honestly. Lying on an insurance proposal is not a great idea if you need to claim down the line. They also told him, if 'they' asked, he should answer truthfully.
Is this true? How would 'they' know, as it's not recorded anywhere (apart from the NIP/Police records)?
BTW, he also did 2 SACs within a 12 month period a few years ago, I thought this wasn't possible?
The telegraph article has the mix of truths, half-truths and misleading statements that we have come to expect in any media article on speed cameras. The most worrying aspect might be that Chief Constable Suzette Davenport seems to have felt the need to deceive the public with her comments. It is said that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Maybe, but it needs an unquestioning media to achieve it.
TooMany2cvs said:
Henzy said:
I would be interested to hear from insurance companies to see if there is an eliminate of truth in this. I would imagine that if you did volunteer this information to them they would increase your premium, they don't need much of an excuse after all.
Usual rules apply.If they ask, you have to answer honestly.
Only one insurer seems to ask. Three guesses who...?
'course, it's all complicated by the fact that said muppet has a "multi-car" policy, which said insurer are the best-known providers of, and is a GREAT lock-in. If it wasn't for that, he'd have done what anybody sane would do and say "Well, if that's your renewal quote, shove it." But, no, he's a sheep, and multi-car must be cheaper, so I'll just piss and moan and whinge and ignore the fact it'd probably be cheaper and easier to not be so blinkered.
As it seams they are the only company to do this and the fact that I do not think Multi car policies are not that much cheaper but to be honest I did it because I thought it would be more convenient rather than to save money I will move to a different insurance company when it expires in May 2016.
Edited by btcc123 on Sunday 8th November 10:21
The SAC policy varies from Constabulary to Constabulary, as does the threshhold for being offered them, and since there's no central database it's perfectly possible to one with every constabulary.
Wrt to insurance, IMHO, a SAC is further training that is designed to make you a better driver. Many folk have come off them praising them and driving safer as a result; ergo this should be evidence for a reduced premium. If you called it 'continuation training' or 'refresher training' but offered the same course content, what would the insurance position be?
Wrt to insurance, IMHO, a SAC is further training that is designed to make you a better driver. Many folk have come off them praising them and driving safer as a result; ergo this should be evidence for a reduced premium. If you called it 'continuation training' or 'refresher training' but offered the same course content, what would the insurance position be?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff