Top 10 motoring convictions % increase in car insurance
Discussion
Top 10 motoring convictions followed by the % increase in car insurance premium after conviction and showing how much car insurance increased by after conviction:-
1. SP30 - Exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road
34%
£231
2. CU80 - Use of a hand-held device whilst driving
49%
£337
3. TS10 - Failing to comply with traffic light signals
24%
£162
4. SP50 - Exceeding speed limit on a motorway
34%
£231
5. IN10 - Using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks
131%
£896
6. DR10 - Driving or attempting to drive with alcohol level above limit
115%
£782
7. CD10 - Driving without due care and attention
51%
£346
8. LC20 - Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence
49%
£331
9. CU30 - Using a vehicle with defective tyre
69%
£471
10. SP40 - Exceeding passenger vehicle speed limit
34%
£231
Taken from:- http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/top...
Interesting to note that it is considered more dangerous to speed than to run a red light...
1. SP30 - Exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road
34%
£231
2. CU80 - Use of a hand-held device whilst driving
49%
£337
3. TS10 - Failing to comply with traffic light signals
24%
£162
4. SP50 - Exceeding speed limit on a motorway
34%
£231
5. IN10 - Using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks
131%
£896
6. DR10 - Driving or attempting to drive with alcohol level above limit
115%
£782
7. CD10 - Driving without due care and attention
51%
£346
8. LC20 - Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence
49%
£331
9. CU30 - Using a vehicle with defective tyre
69%
£471
10. SP40 - Exceeding passenger vehicle speed limit
34%
£231
Taken from:- http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/top...
Interesting to note that it is considered more dangerous to speed than to run a red light...
Not convinced by those numbers at all. All those percentages are based on a premium of £680. Surely passenger vehicle insurance would be more expensive so SP40 should be higher increase?
I would imagine that 4. SP50 was not done often by older drivers with cheaper insurance, and therefore the average premium of someone committing that offence would be higher than CU80 where offenders cover the age range, and different to SP40.
No correlation with loss of NCD effects.
No indication whether first, second or third SP30. Not comparable to DR10 offence convictions which can only be obtained once.
Pretty useless as there is plenty of evidence of SP30’s resulting in no premium increase.
I would imagine that 4. SP50 was not done often by older drivers with cheaper insurance, and therefore the average premium of someone committing that offence would be higher than CU80 where offenders cover the age range, and different to SP40.
No correlation with loss of NCD effects.
No indication whether first, second or third SP30. Not comparable to DR10 offence convictions which can only be obtained once.
Pretty useless as there is plenty of evidence of SP30’s resulting in no premium increase.
speedking31 said:
Pretty useless as there is plenty of evidence of SP30’s resulting in no premium increase.
Must say that I have no idea how useful the data is but I know how the usual suspects on here like a good figure or two to throw about. Also the Traffic Light one sparked my attention as my secretary is currently having to deal with one of these Muppets - she says that her light was very definitely, very certainly green, someone ran the lights and hit her car and is now trying to claim it was my lady who ran the lights... (If you met my secretary you'd know that a) she is very competent behind the wheel, b) double checks everything (it's almost like an OCD with her and one of the reasons she's exceptional at her job) and c) in 11+ years of knowing her I've yet to hear a lie from her. I therefore believe it highly unlikely she was the one running the light).
For first offences only?
Across all age groups?
Among both sexes?
Nationally?
Regardless of claims history?
Irrespective of driving experience?
No matter what insurance group?
The increase for a speeding offence seems high, given anecdote that a first SP30 results in no significant increase in premium from the current insurer.
Streaky
PS - I can't verify this from personal experience. Crosses fingers and avoids walking under ladders.] - S
Across all age groups?
Among both sexes?
Nationally?
Regardless of claims history?
Irrespective of driving experience?
No matter what insurance group?
The increase for a speeding offence seems high, given anecdote that a first SP30 results in no significant increase in premium from the current insurer.
Streaky
PS - I can't verify this from personal experience. Crosses fingers and avoids walking under ladders.] - S
speedking31 said:
Pretty useless as there is plenty of evidence of SP30’s resulting in no premium increase.
Is it useless?We have anecdotal evidence of it not affecting premiums.
However this will be based on a large dataset and so more likely to reflect what people experience on average.
Devil2575 said:
speedking31 said:
Pretty useless as there is plenty of evidence of SP30’s resulting in no premium increase.
Is it useless?We have anecdotal evidence of it not affecting premiums.
However this will be based on a large dataset and so more likely to reflect what people experience on average.
That's the problem with handing them out like candies, everyone ignores them. It's just a revenue raising exercise.
CaptainSlow said:
Devil2575 said:
speedking31 said:
Pretty useless as there is plenty of evidence of SP30’s resulting in no premium increase.
Is it useless?We have anecdotal evidence of it not affecting premiums.
However this will be based on a large dataset and so more likely to reflect what people experience on average.
That's the problem with handing them out like candies, everyone ignores them. It's just a revenue raising exercise.
Devil2575 said:
CaptainSlow said:
Devil2575 said:
speedking31 said:
Pretty useless as there is plenty of evidence of SP30’s resulting in no premium increase.
Is it useless?We have anecdotal evidence of it not affecting premiums.
However this will be based on a large dataset and so more likely to reflect what people experience on average.
That's the problem with handing them out like candies, everyone ignores them. It's just a revenue raising exercise.
Article said:
The figures in the table below are based on a test quote we ran for a 30-year-old female marketing manager living in Cardiff and driving a 2003 Mini Cooper.
So that's representative, then. And includes all responses to the questions on the RFQ. 
Streaky
streaky said:
So that's representative, then. And includes all responses to the questions on the RFQ.
Streaky
This table is based on customers who obtained a car insurance quote from Confused.com between October and December 2012, with motoring convictions in the last five years prior to the date of the quote.Streaky
I read it that the average % increase was calculated from all people with convictions who had quotes in that 3 month period. The % was then applied to the sample quote to show a typical £ increase.
Assuming I have read it correctly, then it would seem that the % values are more meaningful than the £ value.
Devil2575 said:
This table is based on customers who obtained a car insurance quote from Confused.com between October and December 2012, with motoring convictions in the last five years prior to the date of the quote.
I read it that the average % increase was calculated from all people with convictions who had quotes in that 3 month period. The % was then applied to the sample quote to show a typical £ increase.
Assuming I have read it correctly, then it would seem that the % values are more meaningful than the £ value.
I'd read it as saying that the selection of conviction codes is based on data from their actual customers - ie these 10 codes were the ones most people entered. We then asked for a quote for a hypothetical marketing manager's with each code and got these numbers...I read it that the average % increase was calculated from all people with convictions who had quotes in that 3 month period. The % was then applied to the sample quote to show a typical £ increase.
Assuming I have read it correctly, then it would seem that the % values are more meaningful than the £ value.
Confused would not be able to say what the increase for each conviction code for their average consumer actually is, unless they'd taken two quotes for everybody who used their website between October and December. I suppose they might be able to say that on average someone with an IN10 conviction paid £X more than someone without one, but that would be fairly meaningless if drivers with IN10 include a disproportionately large number of young men in dodgy postcodes insuring modified Corsas, who would pay much more than an average driver even before their convictions.
Also they don't say what penalties they ascribed to each offence - a speeding conviction which got you 6 points or a 2 month ban will give you a much bigger premium hike than a 3 point/£60 job. Ditto many of the others - I would hope insurers wouldn't see a 3 point CD10 conviction (probably a minor prang at low speed) in the same light as a 9 pointer (probably a head on smash while overtaking - lucky not to be done for dangerous driving).
All in all not a very useful survey - I suspect the main motive is to get some free newspaper space for a certain website rather than to get a scientific insight into the effects of convictions on insurance premiums.
Aretnap said:
I'd read it as saying that the selection of conviction codes is based on data from their actual customers - ie these 10 codes were the ones most people entered. We then asked for a quote for a hypothetical marketing manager's with each code and got these numbers...
You might be right there.On reflection that sounds more likely.
CommanderJameson said:
Insurers bum you most of all for not having insurance.
Well, knock me down with a feather.
Bloody irritating that - my wife got done for it - admin oversight on my part when we renewed policy through a broker and didn't realise the 'Covers you TP for all other vehicles you don't own' had gone. Well, knock me down with a feather.
Seems unfair that it is no indicator of bad driving/more likely to crash. However, I suppose the stats will show that people who drive uninsured are also more likely to drive badly, drive when pissed, have crashes, claim off their insurance (fraudulently or not) etc etc etc
It is probably a proxy for something else. Or you are getting grouped with others who we can't tell apart from you.
Again, as per the other thread, if we had a way to tell YOU (admin error, good driver type) from THEM we would do it. Then we would price you lower.
The idea that we want to charge more for everything is wrong. We want to charge the right price for the risk. But we only have so many price levers. Which is why telematics is so useful, it allows you to price the good teenager from the bad. Without it....what else is there. 18, small car, no NCD...
Again, as per the other thread, if we had a way to tell YOU (admin error, good driver type) from THEM we would do it. Then we would price you lower.
The idea that we want to charge more for everything is wrong. We want to charge the right price for the risk. But we only have so many price levers. Which is why telematics is so useful, it allows you to price the good teenager from the bad. Without it....what else is there. 18, small car, no NCD...
Sounds like scare tactics, particularly with respect to the SP30s. One or two SP30s make no difference to premiums and probably neither do SP40s etc. Insurance companies work on risk factor to calculate premiums (obvious?) and they know just because you have exceeded what is probably a stupidly low limit, you are no more likely to crash (they know most people exceed speed limits - and I have discussed this with the owner of an insurance broker).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff