Are SACs effective (as a safety improvement measure)?
Discussion
No, not according to ADMIRAL.
You may recall that Admiral charge more for your insurance if you have been on a Speed Awareness Course, and I have long questioned as to the success of attending a course, and why they charge more if you have been on one.
I pointed out that if (as claimed) SACs lead to you becoming a better and safer driver, you should get a discount on your premium, not a surcharge.
Well at long last Admiral have revealed WHY they charge drivers more if they admit to having been on a course.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/21/admi...
Meanwhile, one SAC graduate has come up with a reason why HE felt he benefited from going on a course...
http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/21/people-are-hooking-u...
With TWO courses under his belt, and the revelations from Admiral, one has to question whether the courses are anything other than a means of channelling money into local authorities pockets instead of fines that go to the treasury!
You may recall that Admiral charge more for your insurance if you have been on a Speed Awareness Course, and I have long questioned as to the success of attending a course, and why they charge more if you have been on one.
I pointed out that if (as claimed) SACs lead to you becoming a better and safer driver, you should get a discount on your premium, not a surcharge.
Well at long last Admiral have revealed WHY they charge drivers more if they admit to having been on a course.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/21/admi...
Admiral in The Guardian said:
Admiral says its data shows that drivers who attend a speed awareness course are more likely to have an accident in the following 12 months than those who committed no offence. “A speed awareness course will impact the premium, but shouldn’t impact it as much as a speeding endorsement,” it says.
Perhaps this is due to the distraction of paying more attention to your actual recorded speed rather than other issues on the road ahead?Meanwhile, one SAC graduate has come up with a reason why HE felt he benefited from going on a course...
http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/21/people-are-hooking-u...
With TWO courses under his belt, and the revelations from Admiral, one has to question whether the courses are anything other than a means of channelling money into local authorities pockets instead of fines that go to the treasury!
Err, it seems pretty obvious.
"People who have been caught committing a motoring offence are more likely to be involved in an accident over the following 12 months"
The SAC only shows that they have been caught. Some of those people will have been caught for a silly reason (80mph on a clear motorway) but others will have been doing worse - and all of them failed to spot the camera/van/police car so statistically their observation is less than average.
I doubt the SAC itself makes much of an impact either way.
"People who have been caught committing a motoring offence are more likely to be involved in an accident over the following 12 months"
The SAC only shows that they have been caught. Some of those people will have been caught for a silly reason (80mph on a clear motorway) but others will have been doing worse - and all of them failed to spot the camera/van/police car so statistically their observation is less than average.
I doubt the SAC itself makes much of an impact either way.
a said:
...and all of them failed to spot the camera/van/police car so statistically their observation is less than average.
Not necessarily so. They can catch your speed before you can decelerate sufficiently even if you know where the van sometimes is, spot them instantly and have your foot covering the brake pedal.As said already the SAC is mostly irrelevant because like any training you get as much or as little out of it as you're prepared to put in.
What the SAC does show - to Admiral at least - is that you were caught doing something that were it not for the fact that SACs exist you would've got points for.
So as far as they're concerned the fact that the Police were prepared to offer an alternative to points is academic from a risk perspective. This makes sense somewhat since the primary disincentive from getting points is not raised insurance premiums, it's the knowledge that you have a finite number of points before you are disqualified.
What the SAC does show - to Admiral at least - is that you were caught doing something that were it not for the fact that SACs exist you would've got points for.
So as far as they're concerned the fact that the Police were prepared to offer an alternative to points is academic from a risk perspective. This makes sense somewhat since the primary disincentive from getting points is not raised insurance premiums, it's the knowledge that you have a finite number of points before you are disqualified.
Mill Wheel said:
No, not according to ADMIRAL.
I pointed out that if (as claimed) SACs lead to you becoming a better and safer driver, you should get a discount on your premium, not a surcharge.
This is a completely flawed argument.I pointed out that if (as claimed) SACs lead to you becoming a better and safer driver, you should get a discount on your premium, not a surcharge.
Should someone who has had a heart attack, and had a stent fitted, get a lower life insurance premium than someone who has never had a heart attack? Of course not. Maybe they should get a lower premium than someone who had a heart attack and hasn't had a stent fitted. I suppose it would depend on what the statistics showed re future heart attacks of those 3 groups.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
This is a completely flawed argument.
Should someone who has had a heart attack, and had a stent fitted, get a lower life insurance premium than someone who has never had a heart attack? Of course not. Maybe they should get a lower premium than someone who had a heart attack and hasn't had a stent fitted. I suppose it would depend on what the statistics showed re future heart attacks of those 3 groups.
Yes, they shouldShould someone who has had a heart attack, and had a stent fitted, get a lower life insurance premium than someone who has never had a heart attack? Of course not. Maybe they should get a lower premium than someone who had a heart attack and hasn't had a stent fitted. I suppose it would depend on what the statistics showed re future heart attacks of those 3 groups.
The only benefit I could see, was making the drivers who attended the course more aware of stupidly and sometimes dangerously parked bright coloured vans.
We were talking at the Weekend about the safety aspect of getting caught doing 80mph on an empty motorway at 05.30hr in the morning compared to perfectly legal tractors or combined harvesters driving at 20mph on the main roads. Ironically this was a couple of minutes before we joined the mile long moving traffic jam on the A1 (main road from Newcastle to Edingburgh) for a second time that day. Watching cars and lorries moving in and out waiting for opportunities to overtake is heart stopping. Makes you wonder what the SAC take on this would be...
We were talking at the Weekend about the safety aspect of getting caught doing 80mph on an empty motorway at 05.30hr in the morning compared to perfectly legal tractors or combined harvesters driving at 20mph on the main roads. Ironically this was a couple of minutes before we joined the mile long moving traffic jam on the A1 (main road from Newcastle to Edingburgh) for a second time that day. Watching cars and lorries moving in and out waiting for opportunities to overtake is heart stopping. Makes you wonder what the SAC take on this would be...
SantaBarbara said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
This is a completely flawed argument.
Should someone who has had a heart attack, and had a stent fitted, get a lower life insurance premium than someone who has never had a heart attack? Of course not. Maybe they should get a lower premium than someone who had a heart attack and hasn't had a stent fitted. I suppose it would depend on what the statistics showed re future heart attacks of those 3 groups.
Yes, they shouldShould someone who has had a heart attack, and had a stent fitted, get a lower life insurance premium than someone who has never had a heart attack? Of course not. Maybe they should get a lower premium than someone who had a heart attack and hasn't had a stent fitted. I suppose it would depend on what the statistics showed re future heart attacks of those 3 groups.
How many times can you post the same old stuff about SACs? Anyone would think you have an issue with local councils as well.
As I said last time, if you do t like them, then don't go on one if offered. Leave the option there for the rest of us though, as I like the idea of a "free pass". Please don't say it isn't free, it is, as I'd pay the same or more if I accepted an FPN.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
This poor effort about taxis awareness courses
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
What's the betting we now get pages and pages of the same old arguments?
As I said last time, if you do t like them, then don't go on one if offered. Leave the option there for the rest of us though, as I like the idea of a "free pass". Please don't say it isn't free, it is, as I'd pay the same or more if I accepted an FPN.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
This poor effort about taxis awareness courses
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
What's the betting we now get pages and pages of the same old arguments?
a said:
Err, it seems pretty obvious.
"People who have been caught committing a motoring offence are more likely to be involved in an accident over the following 12 months"
The SAC only shows that they have been caught. Some of those people will have been caught for a silly reason (80mph on a clear motorway) but others will have been doing worse - and all of them failed to spot the camera/van/police car so statistically their observation is less than average.
I doubt the SAC itself makes much of an impact either way.
Lol you assume the camera/van/police car follow guidelines are actually visible to an oncoming driver..."People who have been caught committing a motoring offence are more likely to be involved in an accident over the following 12 months"
The SAC only shows that they have been caught. Some of those people will have been caught for a silly reason (80mph on a clear motorway) but others will have been doing worse - and all of them failed to spot the camera/van/police car so statistically their observation is less than average.
I doubt the SAC itself makes much of an impact either way.
It's not unknown for a Camera van to park on the opposite side of a dual carriageway and film traffic travelling away in the opposite carriageway through a gap in the foliage that has grown in the central reservation....the only time you will ever see a van parked like that is well after you have gone by and happen to glance in your mirrors...
As regards SAC effectiveness it probably does help some people... but for me when I attended one it highlighted the complete and utter lack of road craft knowledge by the vast majority of drivers, including one HGV driver who did not know what the various speed limits were for the HGV he drove for a living as well as most of the attendees being unable to differentiate a single carriageway from a dual carriageway...
GreatGranny said:
When I went on my SAC 5-6 years ago the instructor guy said there would be no record of you attending the course, no record of the speeding offence so I didn't inform my IC when I came to renew my insurance.
Nothing happened.
AFAIK only the Admiral Group companies make discosure of an SAC mandatory before they will offer cover. No problem if the policy is not with one of them, but if it is then the policyholder is in breach by failing to do so. I'm not sure how the insurer would find out but is it worth the risk? No, imo.Nothing happened.
singlecoil said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mill Wheel said:
No, not according to ADMIRAL.
I pointed out that if (as claimed) SACs lead to you becoming a better and safer driver, you should get a discount on your premium, not a surcharge.
This is a completely flawed argument... I pointed out that if (as claimed) SACs lead to you becoming a better and safer driver, you should get a discount on your premium, not a surcharge.
Maybe if you keep getting caught speeding by the same big yellow camera it shows some form of mental incapacity or disability. The linked subjects above demonstrate OCD perhaps.
Admiral are hardly the arbiter of effectiveness of speed awareness courses; it is far more likely that someone in their boardroom came up with the idea that people caught speeding were a greater risk than those who did not so a course indicates to Admiral that they would like to take a bigger premium from them. Good business if you can persuade people to both divulge the fact and remain with such a company. Unless the premium is the same or less than other insurance companies offers then anyone who stays with Admiral is not only a greater risk on the road but is also a F**king idiot.
Red Devil said:
GreatGranny said:
When I went on my SAC 5-6 years ago the instructor guy said there would be no record of you attending the course, no record of the speeding offence so I didn't inform my IC when I came to renew my insurance.
Nothing happened.
AFAIK only the Admiral Group companies make discosure of an SAC mandatory before they will offer cover. No problem if the policy is not with one of them, but if it is then the policyholder is in breach by failing to do so. I'm not sure how the insurer would find out but is it worth the risk? No, imo.Nothing happened.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff