Insurance companies taking a harder line.
Discussion
Don't know if everyone has seen this, but it is worth bearing in mind.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a...
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a...
Basically don't use your phone whilst driving GazzaB copy as below 
Car insurers are refusing to cover motorists caught using a mobile phone at the wheel – even first-time offenders.
The AA conducted a survey of eight insurers and discovered that half wouldn’t even quote for a driver awarded three points for the CU80 offence, while the other half would impose a premium hike of nearly 20 per cent.
And Auto Express has found that some insurers will increase policy prices for offenders even more. A spokesman for Adrian Flux told us: “Rises would vary from insurer to insurer, but could be anywhere from 15 per cent to 50 per cent or even a refusal.”
This tough stance extends to other offences, too. Our table (below) spells out the AA’s findings, and as you can see, even a minor speeding violation – an SP30 – will send premiums soaring. Seven of the eight cover providers contacted by the AA admitted that would be enough for a premium rise, and one wouldn’t even offer a quote.
Auto Express’s own research suggests that premium hikes for speeders can be far higher than even the 9.3 per cent quoted by the AA. A spokesman for LV said: “Typically, if a new customer had a speeding conviction in the last year, then their premium could rise by 10-20 per cent.”
The news will surprise many drivers, as traditionally insurers have opted not to penalise those with three points on their licence. A similar AA survey in 2009 found that 50 per cent of insurers would overlook a minor speeding offence.
So we asked companies why motorists’ premiums are now being hiked for this. An AA spokeswoman explained: “When speed cameras were first introduced, everyone was getting caught and insurers took a more lenient view. But now motorists are used to cameras, insurers won’t ignore three points.”
Direct Line said it was down to stats, with a spokesman adding: “Drivers with motoring convictions are 40 per cent more likely to claim than those with no convictions.”
An Association of British Insurers (ABI) spokesman said providers were hardening their view. “With the rising costs of claims, insurers hike premiums even in response to a motorist’s first three points,” he explained.
We also asked why motorists caught using their phone at the wheel were penalised more harshly than speeders, even though three points are dished out for both offences. An AA spokesman said: “Anecdotal evidence suggests motorists caught using a mobile are twice as likely to make a claim than with other offences.”
And Simon Douglas, director of AA Insurance, added: “Using a mobile phone while driving is a deliberate act. Many drivers may accidentally drift over a 30mph limit without realising. But no one accidentally makes or answers a call or text.”
How convicted drivers are being hit in pocket
The AA obtained quotes from eight unnamed insurers on its panel to see the effect of different offences on premiums. It based the figures on a 40-year-old man driving a Ford Mondeo.
Offence assumptions:
SP30 (speeding) – three points and £60 fine
CU80 (handheld phone) – three points and £60 fine
CD10 (careless driving) – six points and £100 fine
Insurer Clean 1 x SP30 (3pts) 2 x SP30 (6pts) 1 x CU80 (3pts) 1 x CD10 (6pts)
A £298.15 £332.73 No quote No quote No quote
B £312.79 £344.07 No quote No quote No quote
C £331.33 £366.2 £398.92 £376.72 £423.44
D £378.2 £395.98 £509.06 £499.22 £504.52
E £391.5 £441.22 £491.33 No quote No quote
F £491.28 £508.63 £532.55 £563.99 £588.55
G £434.17 £466.73 £494.95 £495.39 £505.81
H £434.44 No quote No quote No quote No quote
Avg increase 9.3% 23.6% 18.5% 24.4%
Read more: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/...
Car insurers are refusing to cover motorists caught using a mobile phone at the wheel – even first-time offenders.
The AA conducted a survey of eight insurers and discovered that half wouldn’t even quote for a driver awarded three points for the CU80 offence, while the other half would impose a premium hike of nearly 20 per cent.
And Auto Express has found that some insurers will increase policy prices for offenders even more. A spokesman for Adrian Flux told us: “Rises would vary from insurer to insurer, but could be anywhere from 15 per cent to 50 per cent or even a refusal.”
This tough stance extends to other offences, too. Our table (below) spells out the AA’s findings, and as you can see, even a minor speeding violation – an SP30 – will send premiums soaring. Seven of the eight cover providers contacted by the AA admitted that would be enough for a premium rise, and one wouldn’t even offer a quote.
Auto Express’s own research suggests that premium hikes for speeders can be far higher than even the 9.3 per cent quoted by the AA. A spokesman for LV said: “Typically, if a new customer had a speeding conviction in the last year, then their premium could rise by 10-20 per cent.”
The news will surprise many drivers, as traditionally insurers have opted not to penalise those with three points on their licence. A similar AA survey in 2009 found that 50 per cent of insurers would overlook a minor speeding offence.
So we asked companies why motorists’ premiums are now being hiked for this. An AA spokeswoman explained: “When speed cameras were first introduced, everyone was getting caught and insurers took a more lenient view. But now motorists are used to cameras, insurers won’t ignore three points.”
Direct Line said it was down to stats, with a spokesman adding: “Drivers with motoring convictions are 40 per cent more likely to claim than those with no convictions.”
An Association of British Insurers (ABI) spokesman said providers were hardening their view. “With the rising costs of claims, insurers hike premiums even in response to a motorist’s first three points,” he explained.
We also asked why motorists caught using their phone at the wheel were penalised more harshly than speeders, even though three points are dished out for both offences. An AA spokesman said: “Anecdotal evidence suggests motorists caught using a mobile are twice as likely to make a claim than with other offences.”
And Simon Douglas, director of AA Insurance, added: “Using a mobile phone while driving is a deliberate act. Many drivers may accidentally drift over a 30mph limit without realising. But no one accidentally makes or answers a call or text.”
How convicted drivers are being hit in pocket
The AA obtained quotes from eight unnamed insurers on its panel to see the effect of different offences on premiums. It based the figures on a 40-year-old man driving a Ford Mondeo.
Offence assumptions:
SP30 (speeding) – three points and £60 fine
CU80 (handheld phone) – three points and £60 fine
CD10 (careless driving) – six points and £100 fine
Insurer Clean 1 x SP30 (3pts) 2 x SP30 (6pts) 1 x CU80 (3pts) 1 x CD10 (6pts)
A £298.15 £332.73 No quote No quote No quote
B £312.79 £344.07 No quote No quote No quote
C £331.33 £366.2 £398.92 £376.72 £423.44
D £378.2 £395.98 £509.06 £499.22 £504.52
E £391.5 £441.22 £491.33 No quote No quote
F £491.28 £508.63 £532.55 £563.99 £588.55
G £434.17 £466.73 £494.95 £495.39 £505.81
H £434.44 No quote No quote No quote No quote
Avg increase 9.3% 23.6% 18.5% 24.4%
Read more: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/...
k me if i tried to use my phone and drive with one hand whist using my Tuscan i would be in the nearest ditch the way it tramlines 
I sometimes struggle with my HTC when its in both hands and it has my full attention, I coudltn use it whilst driving and people who do piss me off royally.
Was going down the A34 bypass in Cheshire and happened upon a Punto doing 35 mph int he outside lane, didnt notice the noisy red thing in the mirror, I got annoyed and took my leave up the inside and the girl driving was there with a phone held "Apprentice style" in front of her face yattering away, she looked across and I just shook my head at her and off I went, she should pay more insurance than me, I may have been goign faster but I had my full attention ont he job in hand, not what my mates were doing that evening.
Was going down the A34 bypass in Cheshire and happened upon a Punto doing 35 mph int he outside lane, didnt notice the noisy red thing in the mirror, I got annoyed and took my leave up the inside and the girl driving was there with a phone held "Apprentice style" in front of her face yattering away, she looked across and I just shook my head at her and off I went, she should pay more insurance than me, I may have been goign faster but I had my full attention ont he job in hand, not what my mates were doing that evening.
The Crack Fox said:
- yawn*
I used to do 60k miles a year as a sales-reptile, phone glued to my ear all day where safe to do so, never once had an accident, or points or anything. I don't do it now of course, but, paying due care and attention I doubt anyone would die if I did pick up the phone.
If cops properly enforced 'driving without due care and attention' then this wouldn't be an issue.
There's some knee-jerk drivel spouted on this subject. Texting, fair enough, but being on the phone in many circumstances can be perfectly safe. This is why the old "due care" offence was a better catchall than a specific offence.
C'mon people. The ONLY party this favours is the fracking insurance companies!!!
There are a host of bad practices in the insurance industry which as a whole needs cleaning up like the banking industry due to improper profiteering at the consumers ultimate expense!
I ask myself how can the insurance industry be working properly when a 39 year old man with 1 claim in 10 years (albeit in the last 2 years) gets these figures:
1. £385 fully comp on a 4.5 V8 TVR Cerbera (5k per year), with an insured value of £15k.
2. £609 fully comp on a 2.0tdi Landrover Freelander (10k per year), with an insured value of £2.5k
Ok, so one might argue I'll take more care to avoid accidents in a "classic" car, but crikey, I'd argue that I'm personally far more likely to write it off or cause major costly damage than the Freelander, which is built like a tank.
Aside from the fact that the Freelander is worth 1/6th the value of the Cerbera....
Where is the logic in this?
There are a host of bad practices in the insurance industry which as a whole needs cleaning up like the banking industry due to improper profiteering at the consumers ultimate expense!
I ask myself how can the insurance industry be working properly when a 39 year old man with 1 claim in 10 years (albeit in the last 2 years) gets these figures:
1. £385 fully comp on a 4.5 V8 TVR Cerbera (5k per year), with an insured value of £15k.
2. £609 fully comp on a 2.0tdi Landrover Freelander (10k per year), with an insured value of £2.5k
Ok, so one might argue I'll take more care to avoid accidents in a "classic" car, but crikey, I'd argue that I'm personally far more likely to write it off or cause major costly damage than the Freelander, which is built like a tank.
Aside from the fact that the Freelander is worth 1/6th the value of the Cerbera....
Where is the logic in this?
I would imagine it's because insurers now have figures that show people with a conviction for using a phone whilst driving are X times more likely to be involved in a claim. The risk looks like it's less than that for someone convicted for Careless Driving (though by its nature, people convicted of that are quite likely to have been involved in an accident) and more than someone who's got a single SP30.
It looks fairly straightforward.
It looks fairly straightforward.
The Crack Fox said:
- yawn*
What about motorists with speeding points on their licences? Surely doing 55mph in the town centre is more dangerous than using a mobile phone stationary at traffic lights? Thats my main issue with this, the mobile phone law is a tabloid law and a bad law. You can receive one of these penalties just for holding it in your hand, yet you wouldnt get one if you drove along with a frying pan in your hand. Insurance companies will treat a real offender the same as someone who checked the time on their phone when parked at the side of the road.
martin84 said:
What about motorists with speeding points on their licences? Surely doing 55mph in the town centre is more dangerous than using a mobile phone stationary at traffic lights? Thats my main issue with this, the mobile phone law is a tabloid law and a bad law. You can receive one of these penalties just for holding it in your hand, yet you wouldnt get one if you drove along with a frying pan in your hand. Insurance companies will treat a real offender the same as someone who checked the time on their phone when parked at the side of the road.
If the increase in premiums is based upon insurers' own analysis of payouts against offence codes, what you've written above is wholly irrelevant. They are not penalising you because you've done something illegal (though the offence and it's code does give the an indication of what type of driver you are), they are penalising you because you are then proven to be in a higher risk group.Insurers are entitled to use statistics to assign levels of risk. Offence codes accumulated by a driver in the preceding 5 years is a fair way to collate statistics and judge risk accordingly.
Irrespective of whether you like the law or not, insurers have found that people with the phone offence code on their licence are more likely to cost them money, so they increase premiums accordingly.
What is wrong with that?
10 Pence Short said:
If the increase in premiums is based upon insurers' own analysis of payouts against offence codes, what you've written above is wholly irrelevant. They are not penalising you because you've done something illegal (though the offence and it's code does give the an indication of what type of driver you are), they are penalising you because you are then proven to be in a higher risk group.
Insurers are entitled to use statistics to assign levels of risk. Offence codes accumulated by a driver in the preceding 5 years is a fair way to collate statistics and judge risk accordingly.
Irrespective of whether you like the law or not, insurers have found that people with the phone offence code on their licence are more likely to cost them money, so they increase premiums accordingly.
What is wrong with that?
I take issue with the idea they've 'proven' to be a higher risk group, we already know the majority of insurers statistics are either skewed, bogus or purely made up anyway. One insurance companies statistics are nothing to be relied upon and certainly not capable of providing any concrete conclusions about anything in a wider context, they only matter to the individual company. They dont prove anything. Insurers make the schoolboy error of equating correlation with cause, even if somebody did get an offence code and later cost them money, the insurance company has no evidence to prove the two are linked and this can lead to a double prejudice because another driver might cost them the same but had no offence codes and was paying a lower premium as a result of that. Essentially statistics can be made to say whatever the collater wants them to.Insurers are entitled to use statistics to assign levels of risk. Offence codes accumulated by a driver in the preceding 5 years is a fair way to collate statistics and judge risk accordingly.
Irrespective of whether you like the law or not, insurers have found that people with the phone offence code on their licence are more likely to cost them money, so they increase premiums accordingly.
What is wrong with that?
My point is theres millions of motorists without this offence code who could (and often do) cost their insurers a lot more money, yet some insurers are specifically focusing on this particular offence eyeing the side effect value of good PR. They're not going to do themselves out of business or risk missing out on a large base of lucrative customers so any boycott on motorists with phone-points must mean that base of customers is small enough to risk missing out on. I'm sure insurers pay out millions every year in cases where the motorist had no prior driving offences or convictions, but because they make up the majority they wouldnt refuse to insure them would they?! This move may get spun well but ultimately its been based on the insurance company concluding mathematically that they can afford to look good by doing this. If insuring murderers would lead them to miss out on money, they wouldnt stop insuring them.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff