Discussion
Dave
In my local IAM group, if people want observed runs then they go on the list. When someone is available, then they get their run(s) out.
With more people coming through, existing observers would be more motivated and I am sure they will feel that they are making a real contribution to road safety.
It would be really nice to have to worry about how to deal with the problem of overworked examiners, wouldn't it? Let's fix that problem when it occurs.
In my local IAM group, if people want observed runs then they go on the list. When someone is available, then they get their run(s) out.
With more people coming through, existing observers would be more motivated and I am sure they will feel that they are making a real contribution to road safety.
It would be really nice to have to worry about how to deal with the problem of overworked examiners, wouldn't it? Let's fix that problem when it occurs.
volvos70t5 said:
In my local IAM group, if people want observed runs then they go on the list. When someone is available, then they get their run(s) out.
And the waiting list is how long now? And how much longer would it be if another 100 people suddenly appeared? I could imagine quite a long list of people if there was the incentive of saving a few hundred quid for the outlay of £85.
volvos70t5 said:
With more people coming through, existing observers would be more motivated and I am sure they will feel that they are making a real contribution to road safety.
And would they also have more free time in order to train more associates? The problem with the current system (if you could call it a problem) is that the observers are unpaid volunteers who give up their free time out of the goodness of their heart to help bring on the next generation of members. You can't expect these people to give up even more of their free time... (divorce and adoption - the life choices of an IAM/RoADA observer!
) To go back to the IPT point, I am still unsure why you think it is ok for the tax payer to pick up this cost. (And surely passing legislation to make a small group of advanced drivers exempt is actually, as I've said before, unrealistic.)
If you are proposing, however, that the insurance company pays the IPT on behalf of the individual, I could see that working. But why would that be any different from the insurers cutting premiums? It still cuts into the profts of the insurance company. I accept, however, just as with Citroen's VAT free "discount", it is easy to market and articulate, and has merit in this regard.
Insurance companies are of course there to make money. But motor insurance is vastly competitive. In reality the profits companies make are down to their investment returns, not underwriting returns (which are frequently negative). Given this competition, you could see insurers being motivated to develop a differential product to gain market share (size is everything in motor insurance), if and only if the addressable market for the product was large enough. Sadly it probably isn't, hence the rather sporadic existence of advanced driving relation premium discounts. If there were a competitive advantage to be gained, I am sure the insurance companies would exploit it.
Going back to what will make a difference, you rightly champion local groups and initiatives. But I would suggest that these will only ever have a limited impact. As StressedDave points out, these are generally voluntary organisations. What is needed is political clout. Regrettably we know that the Government's "lowest common denominator" or "we will do your thinking for you" approach is anathema to encouraging intelligent, thinking drivers.
Appologies for probably wandering off topic!
Steve
>> Edited by stefan1 on Friday 21st October 15:27
If you are proposing, however, that the insurance company pays the IPT on behalf of the individual, I could see that working. But why would that be any different from the insurers cutting premiums? It still cuts into the profts of the insurance company. I accept, however, just as with Citroen's VAT free "discount", it is easy to market and articulate, and has merit in this regard.
Insurance companies are of course there to make money. But motor insurance is vastly competitive. In reality the profits companies make are down to their investment returns, not underwriting returns (which are frequently negative). Given this competition, you could see insurers being motivated to develop a differential product to gain market share (size is everything in motor insurance), if and only if the addressable market for the product was large enough. Sadly it probably isn't, hence the rather sporadic existence of advanced driving relation premium discounts. If there were a competitive advantage to be gained, I am sure the insurance companies would exploit it.
Going back to what will make a difference, you rightly champion local groups and initiatives. But I would suggest that these will only ever have a limited impact. As StressedDave points out, these are generally voluntary organisations. What is needed is political clout. Regrettably we know that the Government's "lowest common denominator" or "we will do your thinking for you" approach is anathema to encouraging intelligent, thinking drivers.
Appologies for probably wandering off topic!
Steve
>> Edited by stefan1 on Friday 21st October 15:27
Dave
In my experience (not opinion, experience) volunteers are more motiviated when they are able to play an active part in the organiation they are a part of.
Sadly many organisations (some voluntary, some not so) seem to have very little idea on how to motivate such people.
Steve
The Government uses all sorts of sticks and carrots to persuade people to do some things and stop doing other things. I see no reason why that shouldn't be applied to advanced driving.
SWMBO isn't an advanced driver and I would gladly pay her premium inclusive of IPT at, say, 10% if it meant some people were persuaded to take the RoADA course.
Is your objection that you do not feel that it is the Governments place to impose taxes on us willy-nilly? I'd certainly agree with that sentiment but since I beleive this would be a positive step in the right direction, I believe we should consider it.
In my experience (not opinion, experience) volunteers are more motiviated when they are able to play an active part in the organiation they are a part of.
Sadly many organisations (some voluntary, some not so) seem to have very little idea on how to motivate such people.
Steve
The Government uses all sorts of sticks and carrots to persuade people to do some things and stop doing other things. I see no reason why that shouldn't be applied to advanced driving.
SWMBO isn't an advanced driver and I would gladly pay her premium inclusive of IPT at, say, 10% if it meant some people were persuaded to take the RoADA course.
Is your objection that you do not feel that it is the Governments place to impose taxes on us willy-nilly? I'd certainly agree with that sentiment but since I beleive this would be a positive step in the right direction, I believe we should consider it.
What does the Government have to do with this? As with most areas of life, Govt is doing far to much already (at our expense, thanks) and should butt out.[/politics]
Everyone agrees that the insurance market is competitive with profits whittled away to investment returns. Aren't these companies already keen enough to find cheaper sources of money (ie drivers who won't claim). If RoSPA Gold is so good at reducing accidents, why aren't they already discounting. (Or why isn't one sweeping up this cheap money and leaving the others behind?).
I suspect that actually the identifiable groups of low-claiming drivers are too undifferentiated from their demographic group, or too small to go after. By which I mean if you are a pipe-smoking old man, you already get most of the discount without going to get your RoSPA quialification.
Conversely - there are only a few teenage boys who are good enough to got RoSPA gold and aren't really worth the effort.
So much for the market? Well, if you want to do something, then collect together several thousand safer drivers and propose some form of fleet insurance which you manage and arbitrage the insurers "stupidity".
Dave - and when you do, make sure it covers "kit cars", would you? D'oh.
Everyone agrees that the insurance market is competitive with profits whittled away to investment returns. Aren't these companies already keen enough to find cheaper sources of money (ie drivers who won't claim). If RoSPA Gold is so good at reducing accidents, why aren't they already discounting. (Or why isn't one sweeping up this cheap money and leaving the others behind?).
I suspect that actually the identifiable groups of low-claiming drivers are too undifferentiated from their demographic group, or too small to go after. By which I mean if you are a pipe-smoking old man, you already get most of the discount without going to get your RoSPA quialification.
Conversely - there are only a few teenage boys who are good enough to got RoSPA gold and aren't really worth the effort.
So much for the market? Well, if you want to do something, then collect together several thousand safer drivers and propose some form of fleet insurance which you manage and arbitrage the insurers "stupidity".
Dave - and when you do, make sure it covers "kit cars", would you? D'oh.
volvos70t5 said:
Dave
In my experience (not opinion, experience) volunteers are more motiviated when they are able to play an active part in the organiation they are a part of.
Sadly many organisations (some voluntary, some not so) seem to have very little idea on how to motivate such people.
No argument from me there - the point I was trying to make was that no matter how motivated these guys and gals are - and IME most of the observers are incredibly motivated already - you cannot magically create time for them to observe a potentially huge influx of people who are only interested in getting the insurance discount. Occasionally the other items further down the hierarchy of needs have to take precedence.
>> Edited by StressedDave on Friday 21st October 16:36
volvos70t5 said:
If we need to devise a financial incentive for that to happen, then I see nothing wrong with it.
Would that include the state charging accident victims for hospital care where blame was decided? This might be an insurable risk which would make young people even more expensive to insure. That would probably further reduce the number of them on the road, and certainly increase the incentive to get anything to show they were safer drivers. Fewer fatalities, produced through a financial incentive. Is that what you meant?
Sounds doubly good to me, as it might cover some more of the costs created by poor driving, and have fewer of those passed on to the tax payer.
Or were you thinking carrot rather than stick?
In the US, I got a discount on my insurance for having a good grade in my degree. Apparently swots are less likely to crash.
7db
Not sure if your comment about "what has the Government to do with it" was in relation to my last post. If so, to clarify, I was suggesting that it really requires political will to make a difference to encourage new drivers to take more training. It was not related to the insurance discussion.
And I could not agree more that Gvmt does too much already - or should I say too many of the wrong things. That said, I would support any Gvmt which set out clear policies for driver training, encouraging self improvement, and attracting younger drivers to take advanced training.
Regards
Steve
Not sure if your comment about "what has the Government to do with it" was in relation to my last post. If so, to clarify, I was suggesting that it really requires political will to make a difference to encourage new drivers to take more training. It was not related to the insurance discussion.
And I could not agree more that Gvmt does too much already - or should I say too many of the wrong things. That said, I would support any Gvmt which set out clear policies for driver training, encouraging self improvement, and attracting younger drivers to take advanced training.
Regards
Steve
One major reason for offering cheaper insurance is to gain new customers.
Firstly, there are too few advanced car drivers for it to be worth the effort of offering a discount to them. Under 1% of vehicle drivers have ever had any post-test training (source: RoSPA). Whereas around 10% or bikers have had some post-test training, if you include Bikesafe and the like (source: Bike magazine poll).
Secondly, very few people (including people working in insurance) really know much about advanced driving.
Thirdly, insufficient studies have been done about the value of advanced driving in reducing accident risk. I'm talking about well-designed studies with large cohort sizes, suitably adjusted for relevant confounding factors. So the weight of evidence isn't there.
They are for motorcyclists. Most bike insurers knock off 10% or more off an advanced biker's annual insurance.
Firstly, there are too few advanced car drivers for it to be worth the effort of offering a discount to them. Under 1% of vehicle drivers have ever had any post-test training (source: RoSPA). Whereas around 10% or bikers have had some post-test training, if you include Bikesafe and the like (source: Bike magazine poll).
Secondly, very few people (including people working in insurance) really know much about advanced driving.
Thirdly, insufficient studies have been done about the value of advanced driving in reducing accident risk. I'm talking about well-designed studies with large cohort sizes, suitably adjusted for relevant confounding factors. So the weight of evidence isn't there.
7db said:
If RoSPA Gold is so good at reducing accidents, why aren't they already discounting.
They are for motorcyclists. Most bike insurers knock off 10% or more off an advanced biker's annual insurance.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff