Money grabbing Bar Stewarts

[Dieselman]

Is there anything to prevent a motorist who just wants to improve his driving ( has NOT been caught speeding ) from applying to go on one of these courses ?

You can't chose to attend, you are invited to as a result of being caught speeding.

 

[renault12ts]

Is there anything to prevent a motorist who just wants to improve his driving ( has NOT been caught speeding ) from applying to go on one of these courses ?

Such a person could then find themselves being penalised just for trying to better themselves !

I'm not sure you could do this. But the circumstances would be different and you wouldn't be declaring that you "had to" attend the course.

 

[219]

You can't chose to attend, you are invited to as a result of being caught speeding.

I know that is how it works .

However , unlikely as it might be , if a member of public phoned up and offered to pay the £90 , or whatever , course fee - do you really think they would refuse ?

If people were willing to pay , I reckon some of them would accept their money .

Since the question the insurers ask is likely to be ' Have you attended one of these courses ? ' then you could potentially be penalised for trying to better yourself .

 

[markjay]

I know of someone who - following a lengthy period of hospitalisation at a mental health unit - has a certificate saying he is a sane person (or words to that effect). I do not posses such document. Which is the safer person?

 

[Deleted member 55947]

Who makes money from speed awareness courses?

Speed cameras are coming back - Telegraph

 

[flango]

I get asked all the time to be the instructor on SAC and I won't do it, these courses are not about making people safer drivers or imparting driving wisdom on offenders, they are purely about making money. I've yet to meet anyone who has been on one who considers attending it has made them a better driver. Please do not get these courses confused with IAM or RoSPA advanced driver training. I've seen various companies course material and it is a joke going through scenario after scenario and the possible consequences when they don't have a clue themselves.

What they should do is a session watching the Police Training Video Roadcraft and then run an interactive session on this, then get the offenders in the simulator and throw some scenarios at them, it would be far more beneficial than the current preach and teach.

 

[st4]

I've been on one of the courses, Ian.

It wasn't too preachy, but it didn't impart anything that wasn't in the highway code or you shouldn't know already...BUT things like street lights no repeaters hardly anyone knew that meant 30mph and that was the reason they were there.

I was done for doing 71 in a 60. I was overtaking and pulled in and before I could get the brakes to get the speed back to 60, it flashed as I was losing speed. I maybe hit 90 as I did pass a lorry on a car (A69 was the road).

My fault, but it's a speeding offense and if I were caught doing that on camera in say, Aberdeenshire, I would not be offered the course, I would have six points and I would have a higher premium. How is that fair on someone done speeding in Aberdeenshire?

 

[Dieselman]

I get asked all the time to be the instructor on SAC and I won't do it, these courses are not about making people safer drivers or imparting driving wisdom on offenders, they are purely about making money.

No they aren't. You would be amazed at the lack of knowledge the general motoring public has regarding speed limits and road markings.

Some of the comments made are laughable and some of the information passed on is useful.

These aren't coursed to make people rally drivers, these are to impart basic knowledge and thought about road safety.

 

[flango]

I was done for doing 71 in a 60

A mate of mine has just been caught at 127 mph in a 70 mph limit suspect he won't get a SAC for that Pulled by an unmarked Renault Megane parked in a lay-by hidden between lorries at 4am in the morning on a deserted DCW, now that's not playing the game

 

[st4]

Ian, your mates off to court....

Not playing the game, but 127mph is proper fast...LOL

 

[flango]

No they aren't. You would be amazed at the lack of knowledge the general motoring public has regarding speed limits and road markings.

Some of the comments made are laughable and some of the information passed on is useful.

These aren't coursed to make people rally drivers, these are to impart basic knowledge and thought about road safety.

Yes they are I'm afraid money making commercial enterprises skimming the system of cash under guidelines set by the home office. If they were run by police officers or ex/retired police officers I would support them. The hourly rate the Instructors get is obscene and far more than the attendees pay to be on there.

The lack of knowledge by the general motoring public never fails to amaze me and is why I am in favour of retesting or refresher training.

I know they are not designed to make people advanced drivers but the basic wisdom is imparted by people that don't have a clue themselves, usually ADI's who again need a rocket up their backsides in order to up their game and teach people how to drive and not how to pass a test.

I realise i'm generalising but SAC are just jobs for the boys

 

[lxi]

It would have to be Admiral - the most obnoxious insurance company bar none.

My policy (with them - never again) provides the following in the event of a claim: Repair of my car (costs them) and courtesy car (costs them)
both provided at no extra costs to me in the event I drive into a wall.

But - my car has been in dealer. Dealer lends me a car but I have to insure it - fair enough. I call Admiral and have to pay £24 for the cover for a week. This is not an admin fee according to Admiral - it's to cover the "additional risk". I contest because (a) I can only drive one car at a time and (b) if my car fell off a ramp at the dealers, would Admiral pay out? I think not.

I then have to extend the cover for another week (contiguous, no gap). They charge me a further £24.

I made my views very (very) clear to them & as a "goodwill gesture" they credited the second charge.

All insurance companies (including warranty companies) are a combination liars, cheats, thieves to some degree or other, but Admiral are top of the charts in my book and to charge more for for a SAC is a step too far if the police do not class it as a conviction

 

[Dieselman]

But - my car has been in dealer. Dealer lends me a car but I have to insure it - fair enough. I call Admiral and have to pay £24 for the cover for a week. This is not an admin fee according to Admiral - it's to cover the "additional risk". I contest because (a) I can only drive one car at a time and (b) if my car fell off a ramp at the dealers, would Admiral pay out? I think not.

Surely, the dealers insurance would pay if they damaged your car while in their care, however if your car caused damage at the dealers due to say, igniting, you would expect your insurance company to accept the liability. If not, you might have a rather large bill.

So, you want to insure a second car (the loan car) and don't expect to pay for it....or did you just want to have a rant?
To only have cover for the dealers car you would need to transfer your policy over.

 

[markjay]

Odd, that. I believe that my Aviva policy includes automatic cover for use of courtesy car supplied by a garage.

 

[Moonie]

It would have to be Admiral - the most obnoxious insurance company bar none.

My policy (with them - never again) provides the following in the event of a claim: Repair of my car (costs them) and courtesy car (costs them)
both provided at no extra costs to me in the event I drive into a wall.

But - my car has been in dealer. Dealer lends me a car but I have to insure it - fair enough. I call Admiral and have to pay £24 for the cover for a week. This is not an admin fee according to Admiral - it's to cover the "additional risk". I contest because (a) I can only drive one car at a time and (b) if my car fell off a ramp at the dealers, would Admiral pay out? I think not.

I then have to extend the cover for another week (contiguous, no gap). They charge me a further £24.

I made my views very (very) clear to them & as a "goodwill gesture" they credited the second charge.

All insurance companies (including warranty companies) are a combination liars, cheats, thieves to some degree or other, but Admiral are top of the charts in my book and to charge more for for a SAC is a step too far if the police do not class it as a conviction

I'm with you there, this is my first and last policy with them. I'm sure their confused.com sold details of my claims history to a bunch of accident recovery shysters.

 

[lxi]

Surely, the dealers insurance would pay if they damaged your car while in their care,

Precisely the point I was making

however if your car caused damage at the dealers due to say, igniting, you would expect your insurance company to accept the liability. If not, you might have a rather large bill.

As my car was in the garage undergoing repairs then the absurd hypothesis above makes no sense and as I do not believe spontaneous combustion is likely, any such event would have been addressed under the dealership's policy as it occurred when the car was in their professional care, so for the record, I would not expect my insurance company to accept any liability whatsoever.

So, you want to insure a second car (the loan car) and don't expect to pay for it....or did you just want to have a rant?

Yes to the first and no to the second. Read my post properly.

To only have cover for the dealers car you would need to transfer your policy over.

I did not say "only for the dealer's car" - I tried to explain (and obviously failed) that there is zero - as in none whatsoever - risk of any claim on my own car whilst it is with the dealer. Some companies do include cover for a loan car within the policy on the preceding basis of logic.

 

[Dieselman]

I did not say "only for the dealer's car" - I tried to explain (and obviously failed) that there is zero - as in none whatsoever - risk of any claim on my own car whilst it is with the dealer. Some companies do include cover for a loan car within the policy on the preceding basis of logic.

For which they charge more premium to cover that.

You presumably bought the policy on price as opposed to a more expensive policy that covers loan cars.

I've had policies that offer both situations, but find it's reflected in the premium price.

As far as your car still needing cover. What if it was parked in the dealer carpark after you delivered it and it set fire?

The dealer hasn't touched it so would probably not accept any liability. You would like to hope your own insurance would.

 

[Dieselman]

Odd, that. I believe that my Aviva policy includes automatic cover for use of courtesy car supplied by a garage.

Mine did, but at a higher premium cost.

 

[Spin_bowler]

Slightly OT but I've just done a 'Go Compare' for my renewal. Down by four hundred quid to £250 for the year ahead. Happy days.

 

[Dieselman]

Slightly OT but I've just done a 'Go Compare' for my renewal. Down by four hundred quid to £250 for the year ahead. Happy days.

But would the £150 saving make up for having to spend a few £ on loan car cover?