RE: Speed limit call is 'misleading': campaign
Discussion
vinny1275 said:
Presumably the people who said that the limit needs to be 40 are the same bugg3rs I get stuck behind on my way to work - doing 45 in a 60 - who then completely ignore the 30 signs when they enter a village, where they're much more likely to encounter pedestrians / cyclists / horses / other cars joining the road.
...and to be honest, that's probably the vasy majority of drivers. PH'ers get indignant about it because our driving is of a much higher standard than the average person.
I drive a lot on Cheshire single carriageway A roads, and the main problems seem to be people who drive at constant speeds around blind bends and towards unsighted junctions.
I wish you all would stop looking at this problem from a logical perspective, this is a business decision, it's about saving/making money at all costs. DL couldn't care less about improving driving standards, so long as they rake in higher premiums and pay out less on claims.
It just puzzles me that they see it in such simple terms, these companies are bloody good at spotting trends so I guess one of the payouts they think they can reduce or influence is rural accidents
It just puzzles me that they see it in such simple terms, these companies are bloody good at spotting trends so I guess one of the payouts they think they can reduce or influence is rural accidents
I've just had a thought.
Direct Line is an insurance company competing with other insurance companies.
Numpties in Nissan Micras drive like they can't see past their own bonnet.
These type of numpties are seen as having a low risk of accident.
Low risk of accident means less payouts by insurance companies.
Perhaps the report is actually an advertising campaign by Direct Line to these kind of punters, saying "we know you drive like a snail, we're on your side and we're going to make sure that there's no nasty people right up your chuff trying to make faster progress than you any more - you can weave all over the road and brake for every single corner but you won't be frustrating anyone because they'll HAVE to drive at your speed AND you'll save on headlight bulbs and horn sensors with much less flashing and beeping cos no-one can overtake you"
Direct Line is an insurance company competing with other insurance companies.
Numpties in Nissan Micras drive like they can't see past their own bonnet.
These type of numpties are seen as having a low risk of accident.
Low risk of accident means less payouts by insurance companies.
Perhaps the report is actually an advertising campaign by Direct Line to these kind of punters, saying "we know you drive like a snail, we're on your side and we're going to make sure that there's no nasty people right up your chuff trying to make faster progress than you any more - you can weave all over the road and brake for every single corner but you won't be frustrating anyone because they'll HAVE to drive at your speed AND you'll save on headlight bulbs and horn sensors with much less flashing and beeping cos no-one can overtake you"
Why don't DL add to their T&Cs that you are not insured for an accident if the other driver claims you were speeding. That would save them piles of dosh on payouts leading to lower premiums and all the drivers that agree to 'reduce the speed limit' can insure with them.
Though they may not have many customers in reality.
Though they may not have many customers in reality.
dr chuff said:
I can't find any other evidence of this report by Direct Line.
Before I complain, can anyone else find any info on this from Direct Line?
Dr C
Before I complain, can anyone else find any info on this from Direct Line?
Dr C
Try the AOL link above - NB I had to go to the motoring home page though first as the directlink gave a blank page.
Direct Line motor spokesperson Emma Holyer is quoted.
The Direct line complaints no. is 0845 246 8811
heard this on R1 this morning and is on the BBC news site, bloody rediculus that crap like this gets airtime
Time for the motoring enthusiast to rise up against these numpties, one straw too many! Looks like DL have shot themselves in the foot, time to do the same to Blair and his bottom feeders too, and maybe the BBC lot while were there
Time for the motoring enthusiast to rise up against these numpties, one straw too many! Looks like DL have shot themselves in the foot, time to do the same to Blair and his bottom feeders too, and maybe the BBC lot while were there
I've never found Direct Line all that competitive in terms of cost. If you have anything vaguely resembling a warm hatch or faster, they seem to hike the premium. I always assumed they liked sensible "family" saloons, which is why I always ended up insuring with Admiral, Tesco or Sainsbury's (the insurance quote service on Autotrader website usually found all the good quotes).
It's a pity though, because I've been impressed with the recent Direct Line adverts stating new features like no-claims-bonus for named drivers, and the application of NCB if you insure a second car with them.
It's a pity though, because I've been impressed with the recent Direct Line adverts stating new features like no-claims-bonus for named drivers, and the application of NCB if you insure a second car with them.
jsr said:
How about making ALL roads + motorways maximum speed limit 10mph. No one would be killed, very few injured, and insurers would have to pay out next to no claims.
F&%ki£g muppets
F&%ki£g muppets
Even beter, if they re-introduced the "red flag" rule, they could cut unemployment at a stroke and then blame the congestion on the EU migrants who cannot run fast enough
. 
I honestly despair of the constant blaming of "speed" as the sole cause of all accidents. Excessive speed in the wrong situation/conditions is a main contributor. They need to toughen up on the driving test, introduce compulsory re-testing and medicals (to catch those who crawl along at the limit of their eyesight or reaction times), restrict novice drivers to lower powered vehicles (as per France and others), and improve driver education at all levels.
Modern vehicles have much higher performance envelopes than when the current driving testing standards were introduced. Even the most basic supermini can acheive levels of preformance (speed and acceleration) far in excess of what the average "sport saloons" cars could about 10-15 years ago. They are being driven by people who have not got the experience, nor competence to handle them, placing blind faith in ABS, traction control, higher grip, air bags etc to protect them when they get it wrong. Modern vehicles lull them into a false sense of security, the limits of the performance envelope are higher, so when is does go wrong, the responses from the driver and the other technology are required quicker, unfortunatly the driver is often not aware, due to the use of mobile phones, deafeningly loud music, unresponsive power steering with no feeback etc. Its rather like having a PC with ultra powerful processor and graphics, huge memory, high speed hard-drive and running on Windows 3.1. A recipie for disaster.
Do we really need "shopping" and "family" cars to be as high performance as they are? After all how many enthusiasts would prefer a Caterham or an Elise to a Mondeo or an Accord? Power levels may be similar, but which gives the most pleasurable driving experience?
Edited by renny on Wednesday 2nd August 15:04
pcwilson said:
Does anyone know where Direct Line called for 40mph on rural roads?
The only reference I have found is from 1999 in a MORI poll. It could be that Direct Line are pushing out old information.
MORI Poll - Public Back Lower Speed Limits On Country Lanes
15 September 1999
www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/1999/cpre.shtml
Slower speed = lighter damage to cars = savings for Direct Line
It isn't rocket science.
Also on the MORI polls, there are a couple of other interesting articles about the attitude of the Automobile in Society and the Nation-wide Survey on Perceptions of Transport, with the latter stating clearly what they expect of the Government but they aren't doing anything about it.
Q6 If the government were to invest extra money on transport, in which two or three of the following areas would you most like to see greater investment made? (all numbers in percentages)
Reducing the cost of public transport 56
Improving the reliability and frequency of bus services 40
Improving road and pavement maintenance 35
Building new roads in congestion 'hot spots' 35
Improving road safety 34
Improving the railway network 30
Improving personal safety when using public transport 19
Other 1
None of these 1
Don't know 2
MORI Poll - The Automobile & Society 2003
June 2003
www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2003/pdf/fia_gb.pdf
MORI Poll - Nation-Wide Survey On Perceptions Of Transport
22 November 2000
www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2000/css.shtml
renny said:
Even beter, if they re-introduced the "red flag" rule, they could cut unemployment at a stroke and then blame the congestion on the EU migrants who cannot run fast enough .
. If this information came from an out of date MORI poll, then I think we can address the red flag people issues from another Hot Topic Poll.
MORI POLL - Teenagers 'Need More To Do'
17 January 2002
www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2001/auditcommission.shtml
Edited by bridgland on Wednesday 2nd August 15:53
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff