points,licence and insureance and human rights
Discussion
Ok all you legaly monded peeple out there.
If I rob a bank and get caught serve my sentence fair and square. Then I am deemed to have been punished and it can't be held against me any more (Am I right about that?)
But If i get caught speeding and get a fine and 3 points on my licence Insurance companies can still punish me for it 5 years after even though they come off my licence after 3!
surely this is a breach of my human rights?
ps I have 6 points on my licence (3 are just about to come off) but only ever had one claim and that was for attemted theft in 15 years of driving! but Insurance costs me a fortune.
If I rob a bank and get caught serve my sentence fair and square. Then I am deemed to have been punished and it can't be held against me any more (Am I right about that?)
But If i get caught speeding and get a fine and 3 points on my licence Insurance companies can still punish me for it 5 years after even though they come off my licence after 3!
surely this is a breach of my human rights?
ps I have 6 points on my licence (3 are just about to come off) but only ever had one claim and that was for attemted theft in 15 years of driving! but Insurance costs me a fortune.
Don't forget that you will have a criminal record if you rob a bank. That record will eventually "expire" just like driving points, but I think if you spend time in prison then it takes even longer to expire.
You may not be punished in direct monetary terms (ala insurance going up) but I'd guess it would be harder to earn money with a criminal record.
You may not be punished in direct monetary terms (ala insurance going up) but I'd guess it would be harder to earn money with a criminal record.
It's an interesting question.. I'm a bit squeamish about crying human rights because it's all to often played as a get out of "jail free card" by people called Scrote.
In the simplest terms, insurers seem to be at liberty to use almost any means to discriminate against various of their 'customers' using arbitrary and arcane measures of what sort of 'risk' you pose.
Insurers are able to offer preference based on gender and age. In all likelyhood they'll soon be able to discriminate based on an analysis of your genetic makeup.
I recall 'hearing' once that homosexual men are considered a higher risk for the purposes of some life assurance and healthcare policies because of a supposedly higher risk of HIV. Perhaps one of our pink PHers will be able to confirm or deny this and if I'm right, say something about the ethics of such discrimination.
The forms of discrimination employed by insurers that I have mentioned so far all discriminate on the basis of who and what you are - immutable aspects of your being. For that reason, IMO, there are human rights implications regarding all of these.
It's interesting, for example, that insurers can give preference based on gender when employers and public establishments are forbidden from doing so in spite of statistical evidence showing men 'innately' more suited to some tasks and women to others.
Apparent statistical causal links suggesting that different races showed different mean levels of intellect (The Bell Curve, Herrnstein) have been attacked fiercely because they postulated that people of different races really do have discernibly different levels of natural ability. There are reasons why some of their evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but the idea that they might 'have something there' was frowned upon by the politically correct lobby as telling us something we didn't want to knwo so everyone stuck their fingers in their ears and went, "la la la la la" .. anyway I digress. I wouldn't be surprised if insurers discriminate based on race for some sorts of cover.
The point being that normal rules don't seem to apply to insurance companies - they seem at liberty to assess based on anything that can be discerned, rather than much of the rest of the universe where potentially unpleasant and unfair forms of discrimination are criminal.
The matter you're presenting, however, has no human rights implications as far as I'm concerned because it is discrimination on the basis not of what you are but what you have done - or what you have been caught doing. Matters of choice and levels of competence.
So, while there may be reasons why the insurers practice you outlined may be unsound in some ethical respect, to me grasping at human rights straws is just another way of stamping your feet and crying "it's not fair, mummy."
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 12th May 23:03
In the simplest terms, insurers seem to be at liberty to use almost any means to discriminate against various of their 'customers' using arbitrary and arcane measures of what sort of 'risk' you pose.
Insurers are able to offer preference based on gender and age. In all likelyhood they'll soon be able to discriminate based on an analysis of your genetic makeup.
I recall 'hearing' once that homosexual men are considered a higher risk for the purposes of some life assurance and healthcare policies because of a supposedly higher risk of HIV. Perhaps one of our pink PHers will be able to confirm or deny this and if I'm right, say something about the ethics of such discrimination.
The forms of discrimination employed by insurers that I have mentioned so far all discriminate on the basis of who and what you are - immutable aspects of your being. For that reason, IMO, there are human rights implications regarding all of these.
It's interesting, for example, that insurers can give preference based on gender when employers and public establishments are forbidden from doing so in spite of statistical evidence showing men 'innately' more suited to some tasks and women to others.
Apparent statistical causal links suggesting that different races showed different mean levels of intellect (The Bell Curve, Herrnstein) have been attacked fiercely because they postulated that people of different races really do have discernibly different levels of natural ability. There are reasons why some of their evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but the idea that they might 'have something there' was frowned upon by the politically correct lobby as telling us something we didn't want to knwo so everyone stuck their fingers in their ears and went, "la la la la la" .. anyway I digress. I wouldn't be surprised if insurers discriminate based on race for some sorts of cover.
The point being that normal rules don't seem to apply to insurance companies - they seem at liberty to assess based on anything that can be discerned, rather than much of the rest of the universe where potentially unpleasant and unfair forms of discrimination are criminal.
The matter you're presenting, however, has no human rights implications as far as I'm concerned because it is discrimination on the basis not of what you are but what you have done - or what you have been caught doing. Matters of choice and levels of competence.
So, while there may be reasons why the insurers practice you outlined may be unsound in some ethical respect, to me grasping at human rights straws is just another way of stamping your feet and crying "it's not fair, mummy."
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 12th May 23:03
CarZee said: It's an interesting question.. I'm a bit squeamish about crying human rights because it's all to often played as a get out of "jail free card" by people called Scrote.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 12th May 23:03
Exactly thats where i got the idea from ! fed up of all sorts of people getting away with murder...
But my main point I suppose is that how can I be considered a high risk because of speeding when I have never had a crash?
Also its not the 3 points its the 5 years that really gets my goat when even the Police arn't bothered after 3 years. That has to be a legal grey area surley.
like you say they seem to operate to different rules!
Thanks for the reply
Don't forget that you have broken the law (albeit one that is highly unpopular here 
) and, in a way, the consequences are similar.
If you apply for a job and have to supply details of a criminal record you can ignore any that happened more than 5 years ago (see JohnL above), the same time limits apply for insurance.
It seems that your argument is more "Should driving offences be treated the same as other law-breaking".
I'm can't talk too much myself, sitting here with points on my license (only another 5 months and they're gone
).
) and, in a way, the consequences are similar. If you apply for a job and have to supply details of a criminal record you can ignore any that happened more than 5 years ago (see JohnL above), the same time limits apply for insurance.
It seems that your argument is more "Should driving offences be treated the same as other law-breaking".
I'm can't talk too much myself, sitting here with points on my license (only another 5 months and they're gone
).
pesty said:But my main point I suppose is that how can I be considered a high risk because of speeding when I have never had a crash?
Ah, but don't forget that 78% of all accidents are caused by speed.
Apparently
Basically, as has been posted by many people many times before, car insurance is just a legalised form of extortion.
If you were to take all possible precautions against having your car stolen, your insurance would cost you £xxx. Then, against all the odds, some scroat manages to nick your pride and joy. Insurer pays up and next year your policy is £yyy, all else being the same, including the risk of theft. So why does the policy go up? Barstewards.
Surely it's the other way around - it's only with insurance companies that normal rules apply, it's the rest of 'em that are
CarZee said:
The point being that normal rules don't seem to apply to insurance companies - they seem at liberty to assess based on anything that can be discerned
ed up in a do-gooder liberal fashion! It's all to do with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974).
You and the insurance company agree a contract, and part of their conditions are that you tell them about any motoring convictions.
Under the above act, speeding offenses are 'spent' after 5 years, and you are entitled legally to behave as if they had not occurred. Since this is the case, insurance companies only ask about offenses in the last 5 years.
Re. human rights of insurance, this is very tricky territory. The whole point of insurance is to take an unknown risk, and spread the cost over a large number of people. This benefits those who actually have a higher risk.
Insurance companies then, where you can start to quantify the factors in the 'unknwon' risk, and where they are legally entitled to, increase the premium for those with higher risk, and decrease it for those with lower risk.
Taking this to extremes, if you could genuinely identify the real risk on an individual basis, you would end up with no insurance because you were zero risk and didn't need it, or no insurance because you were a certain risk, and were uninsurable.
The genetic tests come into this realm since they can clearly identify predisposition to certain risks. But whose rights are being infringed if this is followed - those with the risk, since they are uninsurable, or those without the risk, who are being asked to finance those who could be shown to be at high risk?
Translate into motoring terms - if you could genuinely show who were the higher risk drivers, but you weren't allowed to impose the test because it would infringe their rights and they wouldn't get insurance, would you be happy to pay a flat premium to cover those risks? In the name of human rights?
You and the insurance company agree a contract, and part of their conditions are that you tell them about any motoring convictions.
Under the above act, speeding offenses are 'spent' after 5 years, and you are entitled legally to behave as if they had not occurred. Since this is the case, insurance companies only ask about offenses in the last 5 years.
Re. human rights of insurance, this is very tricky territory. The whole point of insurance is to take an unknown risk, and spread the cost over a large number of people. This benefits those who actually have a higher risk.
Insurance companies then, where you can start to quantify the factors in the 'unknwon' risk, and where they are legally entitled to, increase the premium for those with higher risk, and decrease it for those with lower risk.
Taking this to extremes, if you could genuinely identify the real risk on an individual basis, you would end up with no insurance because you were zero risk and didn't need it, or no insurance because you were a certain risk, and were uninsurable.
The genetic tests come into this realm since they can clearly identify predisposition to certain risks. But whose rights are being infringed if this is followed - those with the risk, since they are uninsurable, or those without the risk, who are being asked to finance those who could be shown to be at high risk?
Translate into motoring terms - if you could genuinely show who were the higher risk drivers, but you weren't allowed to impose the test because it would infringe their rights and they wouldn't get insurance, would you be happy to pay a flat premium to cover those risks? In the name of human rights?
Yes,I believe it all comes under the "rehabilitation of Offenders act".Depending on the offence and therefore the time after conviction you no longer have a legal obligation to disclose.I believe that in some cases insurance companies may ask for disclosure when in fact they have no right to.You can ignore these requests and be perfectly within your rights.You must however be sure of the time frames otherwise you may be considered to be acting fraudulently.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff