Insurance for your driving licence.

[barryj]

I hope.

I don't get caught speeding now I have said all that...............................sorry but you just keep asking for it.

 

[andy_k]

well, this is fun

Not only are some people happy to pay the stupidity tax that the cameras are there to collect but now it turns out they are also happy to pay an insurance policy incase they are too thick to learn the lesson the first, second or even the third time

Barry, may I ask you a couple of really simple questions?

1, did you manage to stick to the speed limit on your driving test?

2, if you are being followed by a police car can you stick to the speed limit?

I don't get this obsession with speed limits. They are hardly new and they were in force when you got your licence - you accepted them at that point why are they less important now?

If you genuinely disagree with them and the way they are enforced try campaining against them rather than just ignoring them.

Sorry barryj but your arguments are as silly as paying insurance because you are too daft/arrogant to stick to speed limits.

I wonder if you would encourage people to take out insurance that paid for a chauffeur if they lost their licence due to drink driving?

Andy

 

[R2e]

Andy, I'm really glad you have the ability to keep to the speed limit at all times, but please accept the fact that there are others among us who, unless we keep our sight glued to the speedo, tend to travel at the speed of the traffic or maybe creep over the limit because we are distracted or maybe even get carried away because we are in a hurry for some appointment for which we dare not be late. This is not to condone speeding, only to explain the circumstances in which people transgress without necessarily intending to break the law. Add to this the stupidity of a speed camera that insists on 30mph in deserted streets at the dead of night because there is a school in the vicinity, and many more examples, and you end up with a situation where anyone can end up with points on their licence.

I'm fortunate in that I've never been caught speeding. That is not to say I am innocent of the offence. Speeding is a crime without a victim, if you disregard the person speeding, in certainly most cases (obviously I don't refer to circumstances where speeding contributes to an accident, simply the act of passing a speed camera at a speed a little in excess of that defined by the law). This I think is why the majority of motorists speed when they think they can get away with it.

I'm in two minds about the insurance. I'm tempted to take it out as I know that without really trying I could be banned for a number of offences along the same road at the same time, despite having no conscious intention to speed, and it really would kill my business if I could not travel to client's offices. On the other hand, I've been lucky so far, I try to be careful, and I hate giving money to insurance companies.

 

[fredfloggle]

I wouldn't need that insurance as I haven't been caught and have a clean license - note - I haven't been caught , not I am on God's right side and do nothing wrong .

If I relied on my license and did millions of miles then I would go for it .



I have to laugh at some people - " I never speed and never will" - that doesn't necessarily mean we have a safe driver though . I also don't have much time for people who bleat about getting snapped - pay up and shut up , the rest of us have enough in our lives without listening to gibbers - unless of course you really weren't speeding then let it go to court .

What sort of premium is involved ? I assume that it is based upon the current state of the DL ?

 

[timskemp]

You can lose your license for lots more than just speeding though. And the cover only applies to certain penalty codes - those with a DD, DR, MS etc are not covered, or if you've contested and been hammered with more than 3 points on one offence then you're not covered either.

Speeding is mostly avoidable - a good GPS will bong at you if you're speeding near a known camera site or siting. Problem really is losing your license due to any other offence.

 

[Rory]

I think it's foolish to claim to be perfect in any aspect of life, and in relation to speed limits it's always possible to creep over a limit or to find yourself in an unfamiliar area and be uncertain of the limit.
I personally know someone who got done when his car was manufactured with the wrong speedo drive gear (Ford wrote a letter to court admitting it) and someone else who got done when the Police Officer simply lied in court.
There are all sorts of cases where people have been done, only for it to come out later (perhaps after drivers have been banned, lost jobs etc) that the cases where invalid because the signing was wrong.

I take the view that being caught now and again is an occupational hazard - marginally exceeding the limit isn't even a crime anymore, that's why you get a penalty, not a fine. I use an insurance company who don't care either (they don't even require to be told). As long as I don't drive too far over the limit, and don't get caught out more than once a year, then I'll be fine.

 

[barryj]

I think that anyone who says they never speed would struggle to look you in the eye and say it and mean it, just my opinion. The argument with Recycled took a personal route that it shouldnt but the points are valid.

You wont get banned for 30.5 in a 30, I of course know that but are we arguing that we always stick to the legal speed limit or we stick to a speed at which we think we wont get done?

As has been said its a dangerous and foolish thing to claim that you are perfect in anything, also unbelievable when it comes to speeding. I don't know where all the non-speeders live but when I am sat on the motorway at 70mph (despite the slant some people have put on this, I have never said I drive everywhere at 200mph hour with my hair on fire, just that I am not so perfect that I always stick to the exact speed limit) everyone is tearing past me in everything from 1 litre Micra's to mercedes sprinter vans and the rest..................

Andy, we are going to have to agree to disagree because I simply dont believe that you have never broken a speed limit. Sorry.

 

[andy_k]

I have said this before, at times we all stray slightly over the limit but that doesn't get you caught by cameras - it's not hard to keep to limits though and these days I really do try and stick to them - driving faster seldom gets you there any earlier, it just increases stress levels

Speed limits are just that. A limit. They state the maximum speed you are allowed to drive at on that stretch of road. That doesn't mean you have to go that fast it just means you can't go any faster

What I find utterly unbelievable and yet nobody has come up with a valid counter argument to is how on earth can you get caught speeding by a big yellow box on top of a pole in an area where there are signposts warning you about speed cameras?

Surely a warning sign should be enough to to make you want to check your speed?

If your spatial awareness is so poor you fail to see the signs, the camera or the speedo then I'm sorry you shouldn't even be driving

Andy

 

[barryj]

I have never been caught speeding by a static speed camera so cannot comment, and given that then your final comment does not apply to me.

I think what is being missed is that I am not trying to justify the fact that I do not always stick exactly to speen limits. My points are:

1) I do not believe the people on here who say that they never break a speed limit.
2) If you are preeching about speeding then 30.5 is as bad as 34, otherwise your argument holds no water.
3) I have assesed the likelyhood of losing my ability to drive against the cost of the insurance and my income and decided that it is a sensible solution to a possible issue.
4) I looked into speed camera detectors but as I had never been caught speeding by a fixed device decided that this was not the option for me.

Thats it!!

 

[recycled]

Without being personal or reffering to anyone, our drivers at work have to submit their licences for evaluation. we have close to 250 or there abouts and i have to ensure the database is accurate. Now only 7 have 3 points on their licence and one was due to parking on zigzags or some other stuff.
Now i am not saying people do not stray over the speed limit for one reason or another. I am certainly not insinuating that anyone is perfect but i am saying if 200+ drivers have a clean licence for 10+ years and more, they must be doing something right.
Now i do not know about any indiviual cases on this forum but insurance to me is supposed to be for the unexpected mishaps in life.
E.g If my car is going to be in a lock up from the day i buy it to the day i sell it, i would not take insurance for 10k miles a year as i am so sure i would not drive it , if i can see into the future
Like wise if i can predict the future and i know for certainty my house will never get flooded or have any problems i will not insure it.
But i do not know this things that is why you take insurance for the unexpected stuff.
If the government goes on to ban detectors as they are proposing as it encourages speeding then this insurance should be in line as well.
How many people here will take insurance against getting crashed into by
Ayrton senna?

Like i said i do not want to be seen as perfect at all but as i know, to get done there is an error margin plus your speedo margin so 30.5 does not count.

Let us just agree to be civil and disagree about this case.

 

[MBManInKen]

My driving strategy is to stick to speed limits. Does this mean that I have never exceeded them? Of course not, we all make mistakes, I certainly do.

That is however not the point at all. If you have a strategy of sticking to the limit, the calculated probability of eventually losing your licence as a result of points accumulated for speeding offenses are extremely low.

This is not an insurance against getting points on your licence. It is an insurance against racking up enough points to lose your licence as a result of a very limited set of offenses.

People like myself have argued that we have an alternative strategy for dealing with that possibility other than this insurance. This strategy is to decide to stick to the rules. Nowhere does this imply perfection in achieving that strategy (and perfection is not needed for the strategy to work) or some form of self-righteousness. I'm getting a bit tired of people labelling "self-righteous" anyone who happens to believe that the law is there for everyone to obey, it is a fairly gratuitous and meaningless comment and it certainly does not add any facts to the debate.

Even taking into account that there are a few other penalties that are covered by this insurance, comparing those odds against the cost of the insurance means that for me the insurance would be a waste of money. My strategy of sticking to the rules seems to me therefore the cheaper one.

I have currently no points on my licence (and never had any). Let's hope I can keep it that way (and of course now that I've said it something will come my way ), but even if I had say 3 points, the probability of racking up enough points to lose my licence would require some pretty appalling driving, and I probably should not be on the roads in that case at all.

That was the point that recycled seemed to make originally and an opinion to which he was entitled. For barryj to refer to that opinion as "daft" was both inappropriate and impolite. What works for me might for good reasons not work for someone else, but it is unnecessary to label their opinions daft.

And finally, I use Speedtronic as a great aid to help me stick to the limits. As I have said on other occasions, it's a great feature.

 

[Benzowner]

This thread took off with a bang But my question to all, why do you drive at the maximum limit not sat 2mph under it, so if you do stray you sat within the limit. That is said very tongue in cheek. But I am at a loss why an insurance company would provide an insurance for people habitually breaking the law. It does seem a bit like a burgalar insuring himself against loss of income should he get caught. I am totally against it. Do they also insure for increases in insurance premium?

 

[BTB 500]

Do they also insure for increases in insurance premium?

All insurance companies do that - NCD protection

 

[crockers]

Well this has been an enlightening thread.... the pious versus the righteous...lol...come on - loosen up and just use your speedtronic settings .....(unless you haven't got it)....:bannana: -- or it goes beep beep "drive to the workshop"...ooeer...

 

[Rory]

What I find utterly unbelievable and yet nobody has come up with a valid counter argument to is how on earth can you get caught speeding by a big yellow box on top of a pole in an area where there are signposts warning you about speed cameras?

I would be mortified if I allowed myself to be caught by a fixed camera, especially in a built up area.

However, speed camera warning signs are everywhere, often without cameras. It's possible to not realise the speed limit - as I said earlier, it's fine in an area you know, but get to another part of the country (where often quite a lot of signing, road marking etc is different) and it's not always obvious. Look what happens at speed cameras on de-restricted dual carraigeways - drivers brake because they think the limit is 60. There's another near me where a dual carraigeway merges into one lane in what looks like a 30, but is in fact 40. It causes all sorts of problems as the traffic is merging togther and someone at the front panics and brakes.

I've been caught twice - once by an unmarked Police car and once by a mobile laser. I was very miffed about the second one, where the operator was hiding in dark clothing way off to the side and above the road. Completely breaches ACPO guidlines, but there you go.

 

[jaymanek]

this has been discussed before but cannot find the original thread.... it was a long time ago..

 

[hawk20]

Surely it is cheaper to just make sure you do not lose your licence

Would that even the wisest in the land knew how to do that. If there was a prize for the smuggest, most self-satisfied, and most unhelpful remark, I guess you would be in there with an excellent chance.

 

[ceejaySL]

Would that even the wisest in the land knew how to do that. If there was a prize for the smuggest, most self-satisfied, and most unhelpful remark, I guess you would be in there with an excellent chance.

It is pretty easy really! For your benefit:

1) Don't drink and drive
2) Don't drive under the influence of drugs
3) Drive whilst paying attention (including traffic instruction signs such as speed limits)
4) Follow the Highway Code....like everyone who has a licence was taught to.

Nothing clever about that is there?

and I do not think your sleight at recycled is appropriate. He was just stating the bleeding obvious.

 

[Rory]

It is pretty easy really! For your benefit:

1) Don't drink and drive
2) Don't drive under the influence of drugs
3) Drive whilst paying attention (including traffic instruction signs such as speed limits)
4) Follow the Highway Code....like everyone who has a licence was taught to.

Presumeably you only have 3rd party insurance - fully comp would be wasted on you as you'll never have an accident?

 

[andy_k]

Presumeably you only have 3rd party insurance - fully comp would be wasted on you as you'll never have an accident?

Another ridiculous comment defending the undefendable

Why because someone decides to stick to the rules are they treated with scorn?

now here's some "statistics" from one of these insurance sites

"Speed Cameras will ban 91% of drivers
One day soon we’ll all get a speed ban
It is a formula to infuriate. A leading statistician has warned there are now enough speed cameras to ensure the average driver can expect to face three driving bans in their motoring career, writes Jonathan Leake.
The study found that a typical driver — someone who normally obeys the rules but occasionally lapses — should now see occasional bans as almost inevitable.

In a research paper published in Mathematics Today
Rose Baker, Professor of Statistics at Salford University, has calculated that the infestation of speed cameras on Britain's roads means that the average driver can now expect to be banned thrice during their lifetime.
She is not talking about reckless drivers but all drivers who stray a few miles per hour over the speed limit because they are looking where they are going rather than gorping at their speedometer.
Whether or not you are caught depends not on your driving, but on sheer bad luck — whether you happen to stray over the limit in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The average driver will face a ban every 15 years.
25% of drivers will be banned every 7 years.
Only 9% of drivers will never be banned. "


if you are happy to buy insurance based on those figures then please drop me a line. I have all sorts of investment opportunities (mostly in Africa)and products at very reasonable prices you may be interested in ranging from Snake Oil to plots of land on the moon

Andy