Courtcase, ban, retest, insurance renewal

[iluvmercs]

I'm currently serving a 3 month driving ban for a speeding offence. After this ban, I have been ordered to retake my driving test.

I do have a couple of questions though. By the time I come to renew my insurance, I will be back on the road (assuming I pass my retest). I have been driving 4 years and have done an advanced driving course.

Various online insurance quoters ask about previous convictions, but don't ask if you have been asked to take a retest.
So, come to renewal time, will I need to inform them of this extra punishment?
Furthermore, will my advanced driving course still be valid?

Many thanks for clearing these matters up for me

Regards,

Darren

[WildCat]

iluvmercs said:

I'm currently serving a 3 month driving ban for a speeding offence. After this ban, I have been ordered to retake my driving test.

I do have a couple of questions though. By the time I come to renew my insurance, I will be back on the road (assuming I pass my retest). I have been driving 4 years and have done an advanced driving course.

Various online insurance quoters ask about previous convictions, but don't ask if you have been asked to take a retest.
So, come to renewal time, will I need to inform them of this extra punishment?
Furthermore, will my advanced driving course still be valid?

Many thanks for clearing these matters up for me

Difficult.. never been in situation.. OK .. based on stuff I have read..

1. You need to declare the ban..for 5 years at least .... If the on-line do not give option as to whether you did re-test .. go to broker und see what they can offer.

2. The re-test - I do not think this should really be issue as you have taken another test und had skills re-assessed. Ist not the same as being a novice without experience .. und you have not claimed or pranged anyone ? This test would probably be more rigorous than the standard one as well.. May be an idea to disclose for some quotes und not for others.just to get a measure for information und learning curve.. .. but all the same ..


ist probably best to declare in any case. I am not sure how they'd load or even if they would do so as am led to believe this test ist a bit more involved than standard

3. I would mention the advanced training..in the box on the form too.

4. Shop around off und on line.. und directly to the sharks (sorry insurers.. )

[sean5302]

Forgive my noseyness, but I'm fascinated to know why you got such a large penalty.
Had you been convicted of speeding before, or were you caught at a "low-flying" speed?
Assuming you didn't crash, it seems a heinous penalty for a victimless crime.

[slowly slowly]

sean5302 said:

it seems a heinous penalty for a victimless crime.

Speeding is not the only victimless crime, It happens all the time in Salford, young kids going round carrying firearms.
I mean it's not like they have killed anyone.

[HarryW]

slowly slowly said:

sean5302 said:

it seems a heinous penalty for a victimless crime.

Speeding is not the only victimless crime, It happens all the time in Salford, young kids going round carrying firearms.
I mean it's not like they have killed anyone.

Not exactly a fair or valid comparason there me thinks...........You'll be telling us that all men are rapists next.............

[Parrot of Doom]

sean5302 said:

Forgive my noseyness, but I'm fascinated to know why you got such a large penalty.
Had you been convicted of speeding before, or were you caught at a "low-flying" speed?
Assuming you didn't crash, it seems a heinous penalty for a victimless crime.

www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=324245

[slowly slowly]

HarryW said:

slowly slowly said:

sean5302 said:

it seems a heinous penalty for a victimless crime.

Speeding is not the only victimless crime, It happens all the time in Salford, young kids going round carrying firearms.
I mean it's not like they have killed anyone.

Not exactly a fair or valid comparason there me thinks...........You'll be telling us that all men are rapists next.............

You could make a long list of victimless crime, such as.
Not wearing a seat belt.
Not wearing a crash helmet.
Faulty rear number plate light.
Using your mobile phone while driving.

And many more.

[mechsympathy]

slowly slowly said:

HarryW said:

slowly slowly said:

sean5302 said:

it seems a heinous penalty for a victimless crime.

Speeding is not the only victimless crime, It happens all the time in Salford, young kids going round carrying firearms.
I mean it's not like they have killed anyone.

Not exactly a fair or valid comparason there me thinks...........You'll be telling us that all men are rapists next.............

You could make a long list of victimless crime, such as.
Not wearing a seat belt.
Not wearing a crash helmet.
Faulty rear number plate light.
Using your mobile phone while driving.

And many more.

I'd be pretty upset to get a ban and large fine for any of those too.

[slowly slowly]

mechsympathy said:

slowly slowly said:

HarryW said:

slowly slowly said:

sean5302 said:

it seems a heinous penalty for a victimless crime.

Speeding is not the only victimless crime, It happens all the time in Salford, young kids going round carrying firearms.
I mean it's not like they have killed anyone.

Not exactly a fair or valid comparason there me thinks...........You'll be telling us that all men are rapists next.............

You could make a long list of victimless crime, such as.
Not wearing a seat belt.
Not wearing a crash helmet.
Faulty rear number plate light.
Using your mobile phone while driving.

And many more.

I'd be pretty upset to get a ban and large fine for any of those too.

The guy was doing 120mph in a 70mph zone.

[iluvmercs]

sean5302 said:

Forgive my noseyness, but I'm fascinated to know why you got such a large penalty.
Had you been convicted of speeding before, or were you caught at a "low-flying" speed?
Assuming you didn't crash, it seems a heinous penalty for a victimless crime.

Not being nosey of you at all! Its no secret, as I've posted about it on in teh East Anglia forum and asked about what to expect in SPL

It was 120mph in a 70, so I actually got off very lightly!

Darren

[ean218]

Don't most insurance companies ask when you took your test or how long you have had a licence?

If you only tell them about your first test, or neglect to mention that you have only just got a current licence through taking your test again, then making a claim later might get interesting...

[Flintstone]

slowly slowly said:

mechsympathy said:

slowly slowly said:

HarryW said:

slowly slowly said:

sean5302 said:

it seems a heinous penalty for a victimless crime.

Speeding is not the only victimless crime, It happens all the time in Salford, young kids going round carrying firearms.
I mean it's not like they have killed anyone.

Not exactly a fair or valid comparason there me thinks...........You'll be telling us that all men are rapists next.............

You could make a long list of victimless crime, such as.
Not wearing a seat belt.
Not wearing a crash helmet.
Faulty rear number plate light.
Using your mobile phone while driving.

And many more.

I'd be pretty upset to get a ban and large fine for any of those too.

The guy was doing 120mph in a 70mph zone.

And perhaps that 70mph zone was a long, straight stretch of empty motorway at 3am in perfect conditions.

I say 'perhaps' because I, like you, do not know the full circumstances. The difference though is that I prefer to reserve judgement until such time as I know more rather than adopt a knee jerk reflex and wail "Think of the children" etc, etc.

[slowly slowly]

Flintstone said:

slowly slowly said:

The guy was doing 120mph in a 70mph zone.

And perhaps that 70mph zone was a long, straight stretch of empty motorway at 3am in perfect conditions.

I say 'perhaps' because I, like you, do not know the full circumstances. The difference though is that I prefer to reserve judgement until such time as I know more rather than adopt a knee jerk reflex and wail "Think of the children" etc, etc.

What do you think it was I said, I only responded to the comment "Victimless crime".

[k50 del]

Flintstone said:

slowly slowly said:

mechsympathy said:

slowly slowly said:

HarryW said:

slowly slowly said:

sean5302 said:

it seems a heinous penalty for a victimless crime.

Speeding is not the only victimless crime, It happens all the time in Salford, young kids going round carrying firearms.
I mean it's not like they have killed anyone.

Not exactly a fair or valid comparason there me thinks...........You'll be telling us that all men are rapists next.............

You could make a long list of victimless crime, such as.
Not wearing a seat belt.
Not wearing a crash helmet.
Faulty rear number plate light.
Using your mobile phone while driving.

And many more.

I'd be pretty upset to get a ban and large fine for any of those too.

The guy was doing 120mph in a 70mph zone.

And perhaps that 70mph zone was a long, straight stretch of empty motorway at 3am in perfect conditions.

I say 'perhaps' because I, like you, do not know the full circumstances. The difference though is that I prefer to reserve judgement until such time as I know more rather than adopt a knee jerk reflex and wail "Think of the children" etc, etc.

Well said that man, at 3am, on a clear stretch of road, in a modern well maintained car, with a driver who's used to the vehicle, 120mph is less dangerous than a newly qualified numpty sat in the middle lane at 65mph in rush hour....... yet the fast driver always seems to get prosecuted.....

[Mad Dave]

In a vehicle designed to do that speed, it's not necessarily dangerous! My motorcycle is safer travelling, and braking, at 120mph than my Skoda Felicia is at 70mph.

[iluvmercs]

Ok a bit of a debate has broken out here.

Yes it was a bit of foolish thing to do.

I can actually confirm the conditions of the road, were dry and very clear at the time I was clocked. The time was around 2pm on a Saturday, however (like I say) the road was clear at the time.
The car was a Mercedes, so yes designed its to do those speeds and I'm certainly used to the car
Also, I wasn't some 17 year old who's just passed and driving like a tit. Although I've been driving 4 years, I have driven some 85,000 miles in that time (55,000 in my old Mercedes, and 30,000 in my current Mercedes) and have completed an advanced driving course.

So maybe these things helped my case - bearing in mind my last point, its a bit of a joke I've been told to take my test again. However my ban is alot less than everyone was thinking. I was told to prepare myself for 6, 12 or even 18 months.

Would the aforementioned advanced driving course still be valid?
Thanks for the input so far

And let the debate continue!

Darren

Edited by iluvmercs on Wednesday 22 November 18:11

[heebeegeetee]

Sorry to hear about your hassles...

My advice would be to tell the insurance companies...

and then you'll get hammered, I reckon. Sorry.

I reckon you'll have to do some right shopping around. Do report back and let us know your experiences (and let us have a laugh at the quotes. )

Sorry.

[combemarshal]

iluvmercs said:

Ok a bit of a debate has broken out here.

Yes it was a bit of foolish thing to do.

I can actually confirm the conditions of the road, were dry and very clear at the time I was clocked. The time was around 2pm on a Saturday, however (like I say) the road was clear at the time.
The car was a Mercedes, so yes designed its to do those speeds and I'm certainly used to the car
Also, I wasn't some 17 year old who's just passed and driving like a tit. Although I've been driving 4 years, I have driven some 85,000 miles in that time (55,000 in my old Mercedes, and 30,000 in my current Mercedes) and have completed an advanced driving course.

So maybe these things helped my case - bearing in mind my last point, its a bit of a joke I've been told to take my test again. However my ban is alot less than everyone was thinking. I was told to prepare myself for 6, 12 or even 18 months.

Would the aforementioned advanced driving course still be valid?
Thanks for the input so far

And let the debate continue!

Darren

Edited by iluvmercs on Wednesday 22 November 18:11

Obviously they weren't clear, The police car got you, if your by yourself fair enough, but you were not!!
And saying a car is perfectly safe at 120 is far from true, bit's can go wrong or fall off, Or like round here, things can be thrown off bridges, Deer can dart across the road, or probably the most 'fun' moment I've had, a huge length of metal chain (you know, the big bloody stuff they use to move small planets!) had fallen off a lorry and spread itself all over the carriage way, hitting it at 70 would have wrote off most cars, at 120 they would have never have found the car!
When speeding, don't just think about the car and yourself being indestructible, I seen many immaculate cars go wrong!

[slowly slowly]

iluvmercs said:

Yes it was a bit of foolish thing to do.

It seems to me that you where given enough warnings that if you carried on with your style of driving you would eventually get banned, even after you got pulled in June you didn't slow down much.
Losing your licence was inevitable, a set pattern was emerging, get one of these when you get your licence back.

[MrsMiggins]

Insurance is a contract of the utmost good faith. You should declare any facts you think they might want/need to know about it. Asking on here suggests that you think they might...

If you fail to declare it and then try to make a claim they might use that failure to refuse to pay out.