Caught speeding - 125mph on A2 Kent!!!! Hellllp
Discussion
robsti said:
markmullen said:
robsti said:
Dick_Phallus said:
MEATANDCHEESE said:
12 month ban, moohoosive fine.
I thought maximum ban for speeding was 56 days? 
R1 Loon said:
G51CAV said:
As an aside recently I've been told of instances where insurance companies have refused to payout simply because the likelihood was that their client had been exceeding the speed limit!
Give us some examples then, as this is unlikely to have happened because:1. There is no exclusion within the policy for this on any policy sold in the UK
2. If they tried then then FSA would be very interested in terms of their Treating Customers Fairly principle.
3. Speed is rarely a factor when determining fault in a claim, as few witnesses are capable of accurately assessing speed.
4. The RTA obligations preclude any attempt by an insurer not to pay a Third Party.
There are one or two newly designed policies that exclude own damage if you are found to be over the drink drive limit, but these are rare in the extreme.
I'll await the examples, with details, as "I've been told of instances where insurance companies have refused to payout simply because the likelihood was that their client had been exceeding the speed limit!", so you are undoubtedly in possession of all the necessary details
However unlikely you find it, if you choose to act like a loon on your R1, crash it as a result and it can be reasonably inferred that the cause of that crash was down to you acting unlawfully then you may find that your insurer will not pay out you on those grounds.
You can bleat all you want to the FSA but an unlawful act is an unlawful act and is reason enough for them to void the cover provided to you, it is a given that you are not taking out insurance to cover you for said acts, as we all know the actual speed doesn't have to be determined.
I never mentioned a third party, on provision that the policy is up to date then of course they are obliged to settle in respect of third party risks, that is also a given.
If you want examples and it interests you that much then go do some research, you will be waiting a while for me to provide information that I have been privy to just to satisfy your idle curiosity!
Go on admit it, you haven't got any examples have, you just made it up as your interpretation of what could happen didn't you. 
I do know that with my Admiral fully comp' policy there is a specific exclusion that they make a point of telling you about when you take it out along of the lines, that if you have an accident and it it later shown that you were over the drink driving limit or under the influence of non perscription drugs then they will not pay out for your side of the claim only for third party liabilities. The fact that they make a point of telling you about this specific clause on the phone when you take the policy says to me that they have to be very specific to include it and show it as a fair restriction. Note they do not say we won't pay out to you if you're drunk, druged or driving like a bell end, just the first two instances that implies that you still do actually have have bell end cover in place, which is reflected in the premium calculation with policy holders who show a higher score on the likelihood of bell end behaviour algorithum being charged a higher policy.
I do know that with my Admiral fully comp' policy there is a specific exclusion that they make a point of telling you about when you take it out along of the lines, that if you have an accident and it it later shown that you were over the drink driving limit or under the influence of non perscription drugs then they will not pay out for your side of the claim only for third party liabilities. The fact that they make a point of telling you about this specific clause on the phone when you take the policy says to me that they have to be very specific to include it and show it as a fair restriction. Note they do not say we won't pay out to you if you're drunk, druged or driving like a bell end, just the first two instances that implies that you still do actually have have bell end cover in place, which is reflected in the premium calculation with policy holders who show a higher score on the likelihood of bell end behaviour algorithum being charged a higher policy.
G51CAV said:
R1 Loon said:
G51CAV said:
As an aside recently I've been told of instances where insurance companies have refused to payout simply because the likelihood was that their client had been exceeding the speed limit!
Give us some examples then, as this is unlikely to have happened because:1. There is no exclusion within the policy for this on any policy sold in the UK
2. If they tried then then FSA would be very interested in terms of their Treating Customers Fairly principle.
3. Speed is rarely a factor when determining fault in a claim, as few witnesses are capable of accurately assessing speed.
4. The RTA obligations preclude any attempt by an insurer not to pay a Third Party.
There are one or two newly designed policies that exclude own damage if you are found to be over the drink drive limit, but these are rare in the extreme.
I'll await the examples, with details, as "I've been told of instances where insurance companies have refused to payout simply because the likelihood was that their client had been exceeding the speed limit!", so you are undoubtedly in possession of all the necessary details
However unlikely you find it, if you choose to act like a loon on your R1, crash it as a result and it can be reasonably inferred that the cause of that crash was down to you acting unlawfully then you may find that your insurer will not pay out you on those grounds.
You can bleat all you want to the FSA but an unlawful act is an unlawful act and is reason enough for them to void the cover provided to you, it is a given that you are not taking out insurance to cover you for said acts, as we all know the actual speed doesn't have to be determined.
I never mentioned a third party, on provision that the policy is up to date then of course they are obliged to settle in respect of third party risks, that is also a given.
If you want examples and it interests you that much then go do some research, you will be waiting a while for me to provide information that I have been privy to just to satisfy your idle curiosity!
of course the third party is automatically covered.
Edited by ZOLLAR on Tuesday 21st September 13:10
ZOLLAR said:
G51CAV said:
R1 Loon said:
G51CAV said:
As an aside recently I've been told of instances where insurance companies have refused to payout simply because the likelihood was that their client had been exceeding the speed limit!
Give us some examples then, as this is unlikely to have happened because:1. There is no exclusion within the policy for this on any policy sold in the UK
2. If they tried then then FSA would be very interested in terms of their Treating Customers Fairly principle.
3. Speed is rarely a factor when determining fault in a claim, as few witnesses are capable of accurately assessing speed.
4. The RTA obligations preclude any attempt by an insurer not to pay a Third Party.
There are one or two newly designed policies that exclude own damage if you are found to be over the drink drive limit, but these are rare in the extreme.
I'll await the examples, with details, as "I've been told of instances where insurance companies have refused to payout simply because the likelihood was that their client had been exceeding the speed limit!", so you are undoubtedly in possession of all the necessary details
However unlikely you find it, if you choose to act like a loon on your R1, crash it as a result and it can be reasonably inferred that the cause of that crash was down to you acting unlawfully then you may find that your insurer will not pay out you on those grounds.
You can bleat all you want to the FSA but an unlawful act is an unlawful act and is reason enough for them to void the cover provided to you, it is a given that you are not taking out insurance to cover you for said acts, as we all know the actual speed doesn't have to be determined.
I never mentioned a third party, on provision that the policy is up to date then of course they are obliged to settle in respect of third party risks, that is also a given.
If you want examples and it interests you that much then go do some research, you will be waiting a while for me to provide information that I have been privy to just to satisfy your idle curiosity!
of course the thrid party is automatically covered.
I mentioned this as I am aware of a recent specific incident where as a result of an inquiry and in particular the contents of a crash investigators report the insurer HAS refused to pay out, whether you choose to accept that is up to you, but I am neither willing nor able to provide the details of said incident!
G51CAV said:
ZOLLAR said:
G51CAV said:
R1 Loon said:
G51CAV said:
As an aside recently I've been told of instances where insurance companies have refused to payout simply because the likelihood was that their client had been exceeding the speed limit!
Give us some examples then, as this is unlikely to have happened because:1. There is no exclusion within the policy for this on any policy sold in the UK
2. If they tried then then FSA would be very interested in terms of their Treating Customers Fairly principle.
3. Speed is rarely a factor when determining fault in a claim, as few witnesses are capable of accurately assessing speed.
4. The RTA obligations preclude any attempt by an insurer not to pay a Third Party.
There are one or two newly designed policies that exclude own damage if you are found to be over the drink drive limit, but these are rare in the extreme.
I'll await the examples, with details, as "I've been told of instances where insurance companies have refused to payout simply because the likelihood was that their client had been exceeding the speed limit!", so you are undoubtedly in possession of all the necessary details
However unlikely you find it, if you choose to act like a loon on your R1, crash it as a result and it can be reasonably inferred that the cause of that crash was down to you acting unlawfully then you may find that your insurer will not pay out you on those grounds.
You can bleat all you want to the FSA but an unlawful act is an unlawful act and is reason enough for them to void the cover provided to you, it is a given that you are not taking out insurance to cover you for said acts, as we all know the actual speed doesn't have to be determined.
I never mentioned a third party, on provision that the policy is up to date then of course they are obliged to settle in respect of third party risks, that is also a given.
If you want examples and it interests you that much then go do some research, you will be waiting a while for me to provide information that I have been privy to just to satisfy your idle curiosity!
of course the thrid party is automatically covered.
I mentioned this as I am aware of a recent specific incident where as a result of an inquiry and in particular the contents of a crash investigators report the insurer HAS refused to pay out, whether you choose to accept that is up to you, but I am neither willing nor able to provide the details of said incident!
ZOLLAR said:
I do apoligise i didn't mean for my post to come across as "I know more than you" i just wanted to provide an immediate example from one insurer, as i usually say on my posts these things will vary per insurer but we now know of at least one that will pay out as i truthfully didnt know the answer thats why i rang them.
Likewise!I am not saying that each and every insurer will refuse, but I am aware that contrary to what certain individuals on here may think, they can and as I have seen will in certain circumstances refuse to pay out.
As you work for an insurance company you will be aware that each case will be dealt with on it's own merits and a number of factors will decide how it is disposed of, while your company may pay out fro a single vehicle hitting a motorway barrier at 100mph, they may not necessarily decide to honour the cover if a similar speed was suggested in an urban area if other vehicles/pedestrians were involved.
G51CAV said:
Really!
However unlikely you find it, if you choose to act like a loon on your R1, crash it as a result and it can be reasonably inferred that the cause of that crash was down to you acting unlawfully then you may find that your insurer will not pay out you on those grounds.
You can bleat all you want to the FSA but an unlawful act is an unlawful act and is reason enough for them to void the cover provided to you, it is a given that you are not taking out insurance to cover you for said acts, as we all know the actual speed doesn't have to be determined.
I never mentioned a third party, on provision that the policy is up to date then of course they are obliged to settle in respect of third party risks, that is also a given.
If you want examples and it interests you that much then go do some research, you will be waiting a while for me to provide information that I have been privy to just to satisfy your idle curiosity!
And I can state with absolute 100% certainty that my insurer would pay out to me in the above example. However unlikely you find it, if you choose to act like a loon on your R1, crash it as a result and it can be reasonably inferred that the cause of that crash was down to you acting unlawfully then you may find that your insurer will not pay out you on those grounds.
You can bleat all you want to the FSA but an unlawful act is an unlawful act and is reason enough for them to void the cover provided to you, it is a given that you are not taking out insurance to cover you for said acts, as we all know the actual speed doesn't have to be determined.
I never mentioned a third party, on provision that the policy is up to date then of course they are obliged to settle in respect of third party risks, that is also a given.
If you want examples and it interests you that much then go do some research, you will be waiting a while for me to provide information that I have been privy to just to satisfy your idle curiosity!
I can also state with absolute certainty that the 10,000s of claims that my staff deal with each year would all be paid out without any reference to speed being a reason to decline the claim.
R1 Loon said:
I can also state with absolute certainty that the 10,000s of claims that my staff deal with each year would all be paid out without any reference to speed being a reason to decline the claim.
Can you also state with absolute certainty that every single claim that comes your way in the future will be paid out without scrutiny and irrespective of circumstance?G51CAV said:
However unlikely you find it, if you choose to act like a loon on your R1, crash it as a result and it can be reasonably inferred that the cause of that crash was down to you acting unlawfully then you may find that your insurer will not pay out you on those grounds.
I don't really agree with you on this one.I was obviously at fault with my accident, I have a guilty plea criminal conviction and an ongoing civil case (for which I'm liable, the debate is just how much money). My insurer never batted an eyelid about paying out for my car. If other insurers were not paying when the driver was guilty of an offence directly responsible for the loss, I am certain none of the would.
When you take out insurance, you pay a premium calculated on the risk of you becoming a loss to them. It is for them to alter the premium to mitigate that risk. They cannot charge you a premium calculated on risk then refuse to pay out when you have an accident. It would essentially be an unfair contract with a huge advantage to the insurer.
If there is a suspicion that the insured party has deliberately caused damage, that is then a different matter. If the insurer feels they can prove it in court, they can of course try that. For most people, even when driving like a cock, their aim is not to have an accident and cause a loss, though.
There are bits of the A2 that are every bit as clear, straight, well surfaced, and far from pedestrians as unrestricted bits of Autobahn are, so it's hard to see how any speed could automatically be called unsafe if you can see it to be clear. Even 150mph can be done safely in parts, when you can clearly see that there are no cars ahead, and you know that there are no ways to join the road coming up.
I just don't understand the contention that a road can be safe at x speed in Germany, but unsafe at the same speed here, if you know it to be clear ahead beyond your stopping distance.
Of course, lots of places do have people nearby, slip roads on, cambers that make that speed unsuitable, and so on, but there definitely exist motorways and A roads in the UK where very high speeds can be done perfectly safely.
Like most people on here, I care about legality, as well as about safety, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to condemn someone else for breaking the limit by more than me. I've done over 180mph through France before, safely, and would still do so if the legal outcome was as rare and benign as it once was.
I just don't understand the contention that a road can be safe at x speed in Germany, but unsafe at the same speed here, if you know it to be clear ahead beyond your stopping distance.
Of course, lots of places do have people nearby, slip roads on, cambers that make that speed unsuitable, and so on, but there definitely exist motorways and A roads in the UK where very high speeds can be done perfectly safely.
Like most people on here, I care about legality, as well as about safety, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to condemn someone else for breaking the limit by more than me. I've done over 180mph through France before, safely, and would still do so if the legal outcome was as rare and benign as it once was.
G51CAV said:
R1 Loon said:
I can also state with absolute certainty that the 10,000s of claims that my staff deal with each year would all be paid out without any reference to speed being a reason to decline the claim.
Can you also state with absolute certainty that every single claim that comes your way in the future will be paid out without scrutiny and irrespective of circumstance?You started out making a bold and sweeping statement, implying fact. It was refuted. Can't you just gracefully accept that your example is an exception rather than the rule that you initially tried to represent it as?
ZOLLAR said:
NorthernBoy said:
. I've done over 180mph through France before, safely, and would still do so if the legal outcome was as rare and benign as it once was.
Oooo what car were you driving? 
I must admit, that was indicated, not GPS verified, but still a high point in life to date.
NorthernBoy said:
ZOLLAR said:
NorthernBoy said:
. I've done over 180mph through France before, safely, and would still do so if the legal outcome was as rare and benign as it once was.
Oooo what car were you driving? I must admit, that was indicated, not GPS verified, but still a high point in life to date.
sounds fun! 
JonRB said:
You started out making a bold and sweeping statement, implying fact. It was refuted. Can't you just gracefully accept that your example is an exception rather than the rule that you initially tried to represent it as?
Whilst I've never heard of an insurer refusing to pay out for their client in the circumstances stated I have to disagree with your little snippet above.He didn't make a bold sweeping statement at all. He also didn't make it a 'rule' either that's just the way you incorrectly interpreted it.
I'll post G51CAV's post again so you can read it properly.
G51CAV said:
As an aside recently I've been told of instances where insurance companies have refused to payout simply because the likelihood was that their client had been exceeding the speed limit!
So he has heard of 'instances' where companies have refused to pay out rather than stating that he has heard that all insurance companies will refuse to pay out. I'd like to know about the specifics about the cases he mentions though but I doubt we'll find out.
NorthernBoy said:
I just don't understand the contention that a road can be safe at x speed in Germany, but unsafe at the same speed here, if you know it to be clear ahead beyond your stopping distance.
The difference is expectation, in that German drivers on the Autobahn expect drivers behind to be doing massive speed wheras here it's not the norm. Also there a lot of drivers in the UK who are lazy and never check their mirrors to see whats going on behind them, even on high speed roads.MadeInEngland said:
NorthernBoy said:
I just don't understand the contention that a road can be safe at x speed in Germany, but unsafe at the same speed here, if you know it to be clear ahead beyond your stopping distance.
The difference is expectation, in that German drivers on the Autobahn expect drivers behind to be doing massive speed wheras here it's not the norm. Also there a lot of drivers in the UK who are lazy and never check their mirrors to see whats going on behind them, even on high speed roads.What, precisely, are you coming up behind on this road that has no cars ahead of you?
This always, always happens when I mention high speed on a clear road. Someone always invents another car.
NorthernBoy said:
MadeInEngland said:
NorthernBoy said:
I just don't understand the contention that a road can be safe at x speed in Germany, but unsafe at the same speed here, if you know it to be clear ahead beyond your stopping distance.
The difference is expectation, in that German drivers on the Autobahn expect drivers behind to be doing massive speed wheras here it's not the norm. Also there a lot of drivers in the UK who are lazy and never check their mirrors to see whats going on behind them, even on high speed roads.What, precisely, are you coming up behind on this road that has no cars ahead of you?
This always, always happens when I mention high speed on a clear road. Someone always invents another car.
Edited by ZOLLAR on Wednesday 22 September 12:53
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff