Anyone been on a 'RIDE' course for speed naughtniess?

[catso]

LoonR1 said:

The Moose said:

Some insurers are now asking about speed awareness courses in the last x years

One, it's one insurer and that's Admiral and their brands. That whole discussion has got way out of hand.

The slippery slope?...

[vonuber]

I suspect I might be having one of these winging my way - brain fade through a camera I have gone through hundreds of times; probably doing about 34 or so which is immensely frustrating but entirely my own fault.
I'll take it if I get offered it.

[LoonR1]

catso said:

The slippery slope?...

Yes so slippery, that's it's been the same for the past 3 or 4 years

[GTIR]

MC Bodge said:

Motorcycling should be about getting from A to B cheaply and safely for those who can't afford cars.

It should not be about excitement or enjoyment. All laws are right at all times. Exceeding any speed limit is akin to genocide.

I agree.

They're a menace and should be limited to 124cc.

[The Moose]

LoonR1 said:

The Moose said:

Some insurers are now asking about speed awareness courses in the last x years

One, it's one insurer and that's Admiral and their brands. That whole discussion has got way out of hand.

Do we really need to be so pedantic?

Let me try again

Some insurance brokers are now asking about speed awareness courses in the last x years.

Better?

[Silver993tt]

The Moose said:

Some insurers are now asking about speed awareness courses in the last x years

and quite rightly so. Attending a speed awareness course means the person in question was caught speeding, so from an insurers perspective that increases risk. The fact that points haven't been added is meaningless in these circumstances.

[LoonR1]

The Moose said:

LoonR1 said:

The Moose said:

Some insurers are now asking about speed awareness courses in the last x years

One, it's one insurer and that's Admiral and their brands. That whole discussion has got way out of hand.

Do we really need to be so pedantic?

Let me try again

Some insurance brokers are now asking about speed awareness courses in the last x years.

Better?

It wasn't pedantry, it was about the way that the whole asking about SACs has led to hundreds of discussions, all ending with the conclusion that it's the thin end of the wedge and none recognising that it doesn't seem to have spread further.

[catso]

LoonR1 said:

The Moose said:

LoonR1 said:

The Moose said:

Some insurers are now asking about speed awareness courses in the last x years

One, it's one insurer and that's Admiral and their brands. That whole discussion has got way out of hand.

Do we really need to be so pedantic?

Let me try again

Some insurance brokers are now asking about speed awareness courses in the last x years.

Better?

It wasn't pedantry, it was about the way that the whole asking about SACs has led to hundreds of discussions, all ending with the conclusion that it's the thin end of the wedge and none recognising that it doesn't seem to have spread further.

Not often a business will ignore a new revenue stream opportunity though, especially one that the customer can 'choose' not to pay and that can be easily justified as they are clearly wrong-doers so deserve to pay more.

Not attacking the insurance industry per se as most industries are at it nowadays, especially where the motorist is involved and/or the service is one that we have to purchase. It will be interesting to see what the norm is in another 3-4 years.

Witness, for example the way 'security' led to airports starting to restrict and then charge drivers for passenger drop-off/pickup and how that charge is now being ratcheted up. Now that everyone's accepted it just about every place that did offer free parking now charge, often extortionately, (e.g. Alton Towers) for the 'service'.

[LoonR1]

catso said:

Not often a business will ignore a new revenue stream opportunity though, especially one that the customer can 'choose' not to pay and that can be easily justified as they are clearly wrong-doers so deserve to pay more.

Not attacking the insurance industry per se as most industries are at it nowadays, especially where the motorist is involved and/or the service is one that we have to purchase. It will be interesting to see what the norm is in another 3-4 years.

Witness, for example the way 'security' led to airports starting to restrict and then charge drivers for passenger drop-off/pickup and how that charge is now being ratcheted up. Now that everyone's accepted it just about every place that did offer free parking now charge, often extortionately, (e.g. Alton Towers) for the 'service'.

FFS. Few insurers charged for the first SP30 in the days before SACs, so your argument about income streams pretty well falls flat there.

There's a much wider issue about penalty points coming soon around them being spent as sons as they are given. A big, big issue. Bear in mind that insurance needs to generate a certain pot of money. If we have to charge one lot less, then everyone else has to pay a bit more to make up the gap. Insurance is by definition discriminatory as, on the whole, it penalises the worse drivers and rewards the better ones. As the rating factors are reduced as the EU and government rule on anti-discriminatory rules, then it is more likely to be a flat fee and then all hell will break loose from drivers. The main solution to avoid this is black box insurance, but that opens up a whole new debate.

That being, everyone wants insurance that relates directly to their own personal driving style and means they get a truly bespoke premium. Yet the one thing that offers that is the thing that most of these drivers complain about and fear the most.

[catso]

LoonR1 said:

FFS. Few insurers charged for the first SP30 in the days before SACs, so your argument about income streams pretty well falls flat there.

I realise you have an interest in defending the industry but you must understand the perception people have? especially when they get a substantial increase which often, to them at least, seems 'unfair'.

LoonR1 said:

That being, everyone wants insurance that relates directly to their own personal driving style and means they get a truly bespoke premium. Yet the one thing that offers that is the thing that most of these drivers complain about and fear the most.

Interesting and I agree with your point here but will admit that I am one who fears it.

All things considered I prefer the Status Quo as, personally I have always managed to get reasonably priced policies and now that I'm an old git it actually seems quite cheap - probably the only benefit of getting old.

[LoonR1]

catso said:

LoonR1 said:

FFS. Few insurers charged for the first SP30 in the days before SACs, so your argument about income streams pretty well falls flat there.

I realise you have an interest in defending the industry but you must understand the perception people have? especially when they get a substantial increase which often, to them at least, seems 'unfair'.

LoonR1 said:

That being, everyone wants insurance that relates directly to their own personal driving style and means they get a truly bespoke premium. Yet the one thing that offers that is the thing that most of these drivers complain about and fear the most.

Interesting and I agree with your point here but will admit that I am one who fears it.

All things considered I prefer the Status Quo as, personally I have always managed to get reasonably priced policies and now that I'm an old git it actually seems quite cheap - probably the only benefit of getting old.

Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh. How was it unfair that we didn't charge for the first SP30? Seriously, how can it possibly be seen as unfair?

Everybody fears black box insurance, because we're all far from perfect and we do use the roads as racetracks a lot of the time. There will always be a market for non black box insurance and there will always be a lot of providers for it. If not then I'll be setting up and making millions off it

[catso]

LoonR1 said:

Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh. How was it unfair that we didn't charge for the first SP30? Seriously, how can it possibly be seen as unfair?

Well I wasn't specifically referring to that but by definition (you say 'few charge') then some obviously do and I can see why they would, but there are many cases of treatment seen as 'unfair' with insurance.

As an example, some years back my Wife had an accident in my car in which she was a named driver. The accident wasn't her fault (delivery van scraped down the side of the car whilst she had stopped to let it by) but due to the lying & scheming of the driver and his mate it went down as a 50/50 (or whatever the term is) so they would repair their damage (none) and my ins. would repair ours (not blaming the ins co. for this BTW, just venting!).

I appreciate then, why the insurance went up the next year but I can't agree with it being 'right' that my motorcycle policy, on which I was the only also increased - I understand that although the claim involved my Wife, the policy was in my name and that this 'entitles' them to do so, but how does the standard of my Wife's driving make me a higher risk on my bike?

You may wish to defend this action but the perception to most is that this was unfair, I'm sure many can offer similar cases.

LoonR1 said:

Everybody fears black box insurance, because we're all far from perfect and we do use the roads as racetracks a lot of the time. There will always be a market for non black box insurance and there will always be a lot of providers for it. If not then I'll be setting up and making millions off it

Personally I won't have black box insurance and any black box placed in my vehicle will be removed/disabled/broken so I may be one of your future customers...

[LoonR1]

catso said:

LoonR1 said:

Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh. How was it unfair that we didn't charge for the first SP30? Seriously, how can it possibly be seen as unfair?

Well I wasn't specifically referring to that but by definition (you say 'few charge') then some obviously do and I can see why they would, but there are many cases of treatment seen as 'unfair' with insurance.

As an example, some years back my Wife had an accident in my car in which she was a named driver. The accident wasn't her fault (delivery van scraped down the side of the car whilst she had stopped to let it by) but due to the lying & scheming of the driver and his mate it went down as a 50/50 (or whatever the term is) so they would repair their damage (none) and my ins. would repair ours (not blaming the ins co. for this BTW, just venting!).

I appreciate then, why the insurance went up the next year but I can't agree with it being 'right' that my motorcycle policy, on which I was the only also increased - I understand that although the claim involved my Wife, the policy was in my name and that this 'entitles' them to do so, but how does the standard of my Wife's driving make me a higher risk on my bike?

You may wish to defend this action but the perception to most is that this was unfair, I'm sure many can offer similar cases.

LoonR1 said:

Everybody fears black box insurance, because we're all far from perfect and we do use the roads as racetracks a lot of the time. There will always be a market for non black box insurance and there will always be a lot of providers for it. If not then I'll be setting up and making millions off it

Personally I won't have black box insurance and any black box placed in my vehicle will be removed/disabled/broken so I may be one of your future customers...

I had exactly the same car and bike scenario and I disagree with it too.

If some charge and some don't, it can't be unfair as you can always use one that doesn't charge. Obviously if the one that charges is still cheaper than the one that doesn't then it's even less unfair.

[Hooli]

catso said:

Personally I won't have black box insurance and any black box placed in my vehicle will be removed/disabled/broken so I may be one of your future customers...

+1

[Mr2Mike]

I'd tried to book this a number of times, but always gave up after being on hold for 20 minutes or so. However I had a sudden panic the other day when I realise I had almost run out of time to book it, so a mere 35 minutes on hold later I get through.

Whilst on hold some annoying pre-recorded person came on every 20 seconds to tell you how busy they are and that it would be much quicker to use the website for booking. This was also suggested in the letter from the police. I query this and the woman who explained that it's not possible to book RIDE courses online

Anyway, good news is that the course is being held locally in Plymouth city centre, but the course is run very infrequently so I have to wait for the 22nd October for the next one. Looks like I'm going to remain an anti-social, thrill obsessed loony for another 2 1/2 months until I am submitted for reprogramming.

[TorqueDirty]

Mike600F said:

In summary, as said: DO NOT correct them on anything. Smile, nod, agree politely and try not to speed out of the car park upon leaving.

When I was young and foolish ( now old and foolish) I pulled a big wheelie on my XL125 on the way out of the test centre just after I had been handed my new bike license.

The instructor waited till my front wheel touched down at the end of the car park and then called me back, took my brand new license off me and asked me if I wanted it back. I say yes. He said, well don't fking do that again.

I was suitably chastened and embarrassed. Still got a cheer from the other lads taking the test though!

Funnily enough 20 yrs later I flipped over my XR 650R whilst doing a long distance wheelie down the straight by my house. It fking bding hurt too. Still does a few years later in fact. Maybe I should have listened to my instructor - or better yet maybe I should have gone to wheelie classes to make use that I always, but always made sure I covered the rear brake when on my back wheel.

Anyway, take the course and count your lucky stars that you don't have a court appearance and many points.

TD

[vonuber]

vonuber said:

I suspect I might be having one of these winging my way - brain fade through a camera I have gone through hundreds of times; probably doing about 34 or so which is immensely frustrating but entirely my own fault.
I'll take it if I get offered it.

Or not - it's now three weeks and not a sign of anything through the post..

[Mr2Mike]

Did my RIDE course today, took 5 hours. It was taken by an ex-copper who came across as a genuinely nice bloke, and attended mostly by teenagers and younger riders who had had an "at fault" crash. Lots of tea/coffee/biscuits provided.

The course itself was predictable; lots of powerpoint slides with various scary stats, a handful of videos and Q&As. It was rather disjointed though, the content seemed to hop around a lot which reduced the impact of the message it was trying to send IMO.

One of the scrotes participants was unbelievably annoying; constantly interrupting, talking over the guy doing the presentations, knew the (wrong) answer to everything, constantly boasting about his exploits on a bike and basically wouldn't shut the fk up. Eyes were being rolled around the room every time this gobste opened his mouth.

£95 and a days holiday to avoid the points was still a reasonable deal, though I'm dubious about the effectiveness of the course.

[black-k1]

Mr2Mike said:

..... £95 .....

The course was totally effective. It put another £95 into the "jobs for ex-plod" scheme while making you feel like they've done you a favour!

[twizellb]

Silver993tt said:

and quite rightly so. Attending a speed awareness course means the person in question was caught speeding, so from an insurers perspective that increases risk. The fact that points haven't been added is meaningless in these circumstances.

To be read in a Reginald Molehusband voice for full comic effect.