Insurers ignoring scamera points
Scamera fines don't indicate bad driving say insurers
Drive safely
Over 12 million people have been caught by speed cameras since their introduction by the Tories in 1992, and over two million were fined £60 and received three points in 2004 alone. However, the survey, conducted on behalf of The Times by insurance broker A&A Group, found that many insurers don't raise premiums for one speeding offence, and many also ignore the second. They used routinely to add £50 to the premiums of those caught by speed cameras.
The conclusion is clear, and was pointed out by Andrew Blowers, chief executive of insurer Swiftcover, who said that so many ordinary, safe drivers get three points that it is no longer an indication that they are a greater risk. He said that cameras don't take circumstances into account when dishing out the fines. Many drivers were driving safely given the conditions at the time, he said, but cameras had no discretion.
Road safety campaign Safe Speed said that this was clear and dramatic evidence of speed camera policy failure. If speed cameras identified drivers with higher than average crash risks, then the very sophisticated risk assessment systems that insurance companies use would clearly detect risk differences, said Safe Speed.
Safe Speed founder Paul Smith said: "But it's far worse than that because at the very least we would have expected speeding convictions to represent an 'exposure proxy'. People who drive higher mileages are more exposed to the risk of crashes and more exposed to speeding convictions. We'd expect to see a substantial increase in insurance premiums for drivers with speeding convictions due to this effect alone.
"The Times figures almost certainly show that the average driver with speeding convictions pays less insurance per mile driven than the average driver with a clean licence. That's exactly the opposite of the message we're getting from Government.
"The Government is dangerously wrong. Speed cameras are the wrong road safety policy and we have to get them off our roads right now. If we had put the same resources into real road safety policies instead of speed cameras we'd now have over 1,000 fewer road deaths each year.
"We're penalising millions of safe drivers and it's making the roads more dangerous - everyone is concentrating on the wrong safety factor."
Links
Adam B said:
I now spend more time looking for scameras than watching the traffic in front so have become a much worse driver IMO
I know it's not the best solution, but getting some form of notification (road angel, tom-tom with speed camera database etc) does at least remove that distraction. And even if the insurance hike is £30 for 5 years it's not really very expensive.
I explained the whole scenario, admitted to the offence but said that in 20 years of clean driving blah blah...
..they recalculated their figures and added £100 to my excess to change the premium. They tried to sting me on the renewal a year later with an increase of over £200, so I went elsewhere..
...Does my current insurer bump up the price, I dont know because the premium was cheaper than elephant from the year before, bargain!
My points are 3 years old as of next May (but as indicated, still showing on my licence for another year), so I wonder if my insurance would be cheaper
Pigs might fly!
>> Edited by Nostrils on Monday 17th October 16:37
We all speed at some point, I do. But I have been lucky so far that I have not been caught. I have a road angel and other bits and bobs
and I keep my eyes open. Anything comes up behind me fast (I look in my rear view mirror every 10 secs or so) I slow down. I never speed in villages and always assume that just around the next bend will be a horse, tree across the road, idiot overtaking etc so my speed is tailored to being able to stop very quickly, if need be.
Speeding is not dangerous (within reason) doing 70 0r even 80 on an open straight clear A road can be perfectly safe. Doing the same speed on a wet single track with lots of bends is very dangerous. Lets not forget the speed limits we have today were set nearly 50 years ago, when cars took miles to stop, had no ABS or traction control. Who hear can honestly say they stick to 70 MPH on a clear quiet motorway?
I phoned them to clarify - surely they were assuming guilt? I had a NIP, but was not convicted of any offence. I tried to argue with the rep for some time to no avail, she just kept stating that an "SP30 offence attracts a premium loading of ...". FFS, its not an offence until proven!
As it happens the prosecution was dropped due to lack of evidence.
So some insurers may have a more enlightened attitude, but others clearly still look for any reason to bump the premium, whether legitimate or not.
Needless to say my business went elsewhere. I hesitate to name names, as I honestly don't recall, but as I am insured with Tesco and More Than at the moment its fair to say it was neither of them!
jamesuk28 said:
Anything comes up behind me fast (I look in my rear view mirror every 10 secs or so) I slow down. I never speed in villages and always assume that just around the next bend will be a horse, tree across the road, idiot overtaking etc so my speed is tailored to being able to stop very quickly, if need be.
Speeding is not dangerous (within reason) doing 70 0r even 80 on an open straight clear A road can be perfectly safe. Doing the same speed on a wet single track with lots of bends is very dangerous. Lets not forget the speed limits we have today were set nearly 50 years ago, when cars took miles to stop, had no ABS or traction control. Who hear can honestly say they stick to 70 MPH on a clear quiet motorway?
EXACTLY THE WHOLE DAMN POINT!!!!!
Use of appropiate speed is all
it is cameras and speed traps that take your attention away from the road, into hedges and bridge parapets, looking for that dayglow green flash.
not speed, comfortable cruising (on a dual carriageway for instance) speed gets more concentration on the road than pansying about at 40.
bet you havent had any accidents>
Peter Ward said:Oh great - here we go - bleating apologists for the governments latest tax, who're either bribed enough of blinkered enough to actually think it's doing what they want!!!
One bit that the government will certainly listen to:
Times said:
Road safety groups said that the financial consequences of being caught speeding were now so low that the fine should be at least doubled to £120 to maintain the deterrent effect.
Peter Ward said:
One bit that the government will certainly listen to:
Times said:
Road safety groups said that the financial consequences of being caught speeding were now so low that the fine should be at least doubled to £120 to maintain the deterrent effect.
Oh yeah baby they WILL spot that one.
DL SP50 that'll be £30 extra please. Eh NO was the answer.
MoJo
bluepolarbear said:
Not sure Paul logic is right in this one. There is no premium hike because so many people have 3 pts it can not be used to differiante risk. If you have 9 pts for speeding I am sure your premiums will go up.
I've been told 11 points can get you a discount (from driving everywhere like an angel), but I'm not sure if that's just an urban myth.
How ever as some one who owns a car probably capable of 190 and a bike which i know does 170 ish, it seems some what ironic I have only ever been "detected" speeding on two duel carridgeways recently reduced to 30, and a dodgy 60 coming out from a 30 into country side.... Ah easy pickings now I understand..... if only I knew about pepioo then.
Nck.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff