Admiral now penalize drivers on speeding awareness courses.

[compo]

I have an unspent conviction from 1972. They still load my car insurance even though I have been clean ever since.
Thankfully next year the Rehabilitation of Offenders is changing the criteria and after 40 years my sentence will become "spent" and I will no longer have to declare it for most purposes. It will be interesting to see if my insurance premiums reduce. I doubt it!

 

[400bhp]

Insurers have a phrase "uberrima fides" which means "utmost good faith." What they mean by that is you need to disclose anything that might be relevant and they will decide whether to charge you extra or not. If you dont disclose then that is where they will weasel out of paying.

I once bought a Kia Sedona on ebay. I arranged my insurance, collected and paid for it and it had stainless steel bullbars fitted. I drove it for a few weeks, but it was niggling me, so I phoned my insurer. They promptly said it would cost another £400 in premiums. I advised they were fitted already, but I wasn't prepared to pay the extra, so they gave me 24 hours to remove them. If I hadn't told them, and then had an accident they would have been entitled to walk away. It ended okay and I got about £100 on Ebay for them, but I wonder if the new owner told his/her insurer?

You're broadly right, but whether they can walk away from paying out isn't black and white. It would depend on the insurance terms and the nature of the accident. For example, I would agrue that if someone drove into your side then the bullhorns have no effect on the claim. Yes, there is an effect on the premium you should have paid and they could argue to use averaging.

You can always go to the Insurance Ombudsman if you are unhappy wiith an insurer too and I suspect this option isn't used

 

[oldfatfool]

Insurers have a phrase "uberrima fides" which means "utmost good faith." What they mean by that is you need to disclose anything that might be relevant and they will decide whether to charge you extra or not. If you dont disclose then that is where they will weasel out of paying.

No doubt, but I maintain there isn't a driver on here or anywhere else that never exceeds the speed limit.

 

[400bhp]

No doubt, but I maintain there isn't a driver on here or anywhere else that never exceeds the speed limit.

Your point being what exactly?

 

[oldfatfool]

Your point being what exactly?

Well are you going to disclose that fact in good faith to your insurers? What differance does it make to your liability if you have been caught by a hidden camera or not?

 

[Boris Bajic]

I have an unspent conviction from 1972. They still load my car insurance even though I have been clean ever since.
Thankfully next year the Rehabilitation of Offenders is changing the criteria and after 40 years my sentence will become "spent" and I will no longer have to declare it for most purposes. It will be interesting to see if my insurance premiums reduce. I doubt it!

Wow!

I was banned and given two of the old-fashioned 'endorsements (on a license I didn't yet qualify for) at 16 for driving under-age and without insurance.

My insurers have shown no interest in that for over 25 years... I do tell them, but they don't care.

Without wanting to pry, I do wonder what offence they're still asking you to cough up for after 40 years.

 

[Matthew_T]

I was banned and given two of the old-fashioned 'endorsements (on a license I didn't yet qualify for) at 16 for driving under-age and without insurance.

Thats something which has always bewildered me.

They say "You will get 3 points on your license when you get it". What if you never get a license?

Also, I heard a while ago that if you commited a crime whilst cycling (RLJ or ride on pavement) that you could receive points on your driving license for it. A considerable amount of cyclists dont have licenses so how would that work?

 

[compo]

Thats something which has always bewildered me.

They say "You will get 3 points on your license when you get it". What if you never get a license?

Also, I heard a while ago that if you commited a crime whilst cycling (RLJ or ride on pavement) that you could receive points on your driving license for it. A considerable amount of cyclists dont have licenses so how would that work?

If you never get a license it doesn't matter.

You cannot receive penalty points for cycling offences.

 

[400bhp]

Well are you going to disclose that fact in good faith to your insurers? What differance does it make to your liability if you have been caught by a hidden camera or not?

Those who have been caught by a camera are statistically more likely to have an accident than those that don't. We can speculate why that is but the most obvious reasons are because they are perpetual speeders and because they are less attentive drivers.

 

[400bhp]

Oh, and yes I will disclose it if asked.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Insurers have a phrase "uberrima fides" which means "utmost good faith." What they mean by that is you need to disclose anything that might be relevant and they will decide whether to charge you extra or not. If you dont disclose then that is where they will weasel out of paying.

I once bought a Kia Sedona on ebay. I arranged my insurance, collected and paid for it and it had stainless steel bullbars fitted. I drove it for a few weeks, but it was niggling me, so I phoned my insurer. They promptly said it would cost another £400 in premiums. I advised they were fitted already, but I wasn't prepared to pay the extra, so they gave me 24 hours to remove them. If I hadn't told them, and then had an accident they would have been entitled to walk away. It ended okay and I got about £100 on Ebay for them, but I wonder if the new owner told his/her insurer?

With the odd exception, these should be illegal to have on a public road in the first place...

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Those who have been caught by a camera are statistically more likely to have an accident than those that don't. We can speculate why that is but the most obvious reasons are because they are perpetual speeders and because they are less attentive drivers.

As I understand it, the basic speed awareness courses are only offered to drivers that are caught exceeding the limit by no more than 10% + 3mph. (ie no more than 36 in a 30, or 80 on a motorway etc) and if you have no unspent convictions/haven't been on one for 3 years. Not sticking up for speeding motorists, but these are the ones caught at the lower end of the speeding scale, and not serial offenders. Combine that with the argument that such courses possibly have an effect, and you could argue that drivers that have attended the course could pose less of a threat than the average...

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Insurers have a phrase "uberrima fides" which means "utmost good faith."

Are you sure it doesn't mean "Shaft our customers at every opportunity" Insurance companies are SCUM only surmounted by the misspelt bankers.

Alan...

 

[roadrash]

i got a speeding ticket six weeks ago ..i cane home ant told mrs roadrash that i had been given a speeding ticket for having bad eyes,,,,,bad eyes she said "how does that work ...they cant give you a speeding ticket for having bad eyes" i said they can ,,,,i never saw tha bstsrd behind the trees...the response from her was painfull ....ah well you can pay the fine with the money you were saving for your new lights........ OWCH

 

[simon.r]

As I understand it, the basic speed awareness courses are only offered to drivers that are caught exceeding the limit by no more than 10% + 3mph. (ie no more than 36 in a 30, or 80 on a motorway etc) and if you have no unspent convictions/haven't been on one for 3 years.

That was my experience in Leicestershire, but I think it may vary between counties. I was told that the camera doesn't go off at less than limit + 10% + 2mph, so 35mph = not caught, 36mph = option of course, 37mph = fine and points.

I was given the option of a £60 fine and 3 points or a £60 charge to attend a course. IMO the course was worthwhile and a punishment of sorts. This is obviously not going to convince those who think I should have been banned from driving for life and publicly humilated in some heinous manner, but the time off work, the travel costs of attending the course and the £60 certainly felt like a mild punishment. The course was aimed at stopping me speeding in the future, which presumabably is what most people want the outcome to be?

The only reason I took the course option was so that I didn't have to declare it to my insurer. I think the move to make people declare these (and therefore see their premiums increase) will mean that virtually no-one will attend them. This may, depending on your opinion, be a good thing in that it will punish drivers more, but if you really want to stop people speeding you need more than a big stick - a bit of education and reasoning certainly doesn't do any harm.