Car insurers start penalising speed awareness courses

"Drivers who attend a speed awareness course instead of taking a fine and points on their licence may see their insurance premiums increase.

The BBC has learned that Admiral is treating it as if it were a conviction, even though the police do not."

I would have thought that a speed awareness course would make a person less of a risk?  I went on one and came out knowing a lot more than when I went in.

this has been around for at least a year.....they tell you on the speed awe#reness course that some insurers still ask to be informed and will charge extra

I was told that I did not have to tell my insurance company, but if I did then it could reduce my premium.

Not everyone that goes on a driver's awareness course has been caught speeding.  Some companies send all of their staff on them as they feel that ti helps make them better drivers and reduces accidents on business travel.

Well, it is up to the courts to penalise drivers, not insurance companies.

If the Police or a local council deem an offence suitable for dealing with by a speed awareness course, you still pay the cost of a fine, so you are penalised.

You don't get points, because that Authority (the one that catches you and decides your penalty) thinks the course makes for better drivers in the long run.

In fact, most insurers won't load a premium for three points anyway, so it's even more of a rip off.

i think that's fair enough.

If you have been sent on a speed awareness course, then obviously you have been caught speeding. you are an increased risk. Hence the increased premium.

Just another excuse for them to up your premium. I got 3 point & a fine for motorway speeding ages ago & it made virtually no difference to my premuim. Time to get yourself a new insurer!

Jason Wintin wrote (see)

 
Speed kills........fact

If you actually look at the (official) figures, fatal accidents caused by exceeding the speed limit are actually fewer in number than deaths from falling down the stairs.

If it were possible to strip out the deaths caused by 'idiot driving at double the speed limit or more because they think they're Lewis Hamilton they discover they're not because they're suddenly decelerated by a tree', there would be remarkably few deaths in the '34 in a 30 zone/85 in a 70' category.

The biggest cause of road death is people not paying attention.

Before anyone goes all emotional on me and tells me I'm wrong, go google the statistics (you'll end up on the national archive site) then look at mortality stats by cause then think for yourself.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that road deaths aren't tragic, it's just that if it happens to you, you've been statistically very unlucky, been driving like a bell end, or a passenger in teh car of someone else driving like a bell end.

I don;t have much sympathy for people who speed, BUT I don't think this is fair enough. Just seems like the insurance companies finding yet another way to make money off drivers.

Speed does not kill, inappropriate driving kills

Yep Speed doesn't kill. Hitting  things kills

not one of those people who kills someone because they were going too fast thought that they were going too fast at the time...they believed they were in control of the car...until they found they could not stop fast enough

people often think that they know better than the everyone else....

the same with drunk drivers....even if they can hardly stand they would still beleive that they are totally capable of driving safely..which is why we have limits..

I got caught a few years ago for speeding, turned onto a dual carriageway, sped up and got caught by a speed camera because the speed limit on that stretch of road was 30. Fair enough, my fault for not being aware of the limit there.

I got offered the chance to do the speed awareness course and I'm glad that I took up the chance.
The chap leading the course asked some general questions at the start about how long people had been driving, whether they thought they were good drivers and how long it had been since they'd read the Highway Code. Nobody had read the Highway Code properly since they'd passed their tests, which is some cases were quite some time ago.
The thing about doing the course was that I got up to date with the various speed restrictions that now apply on the roads. I actually think that it would be a good thing for all drivers to have to go on one of these courses every so often, perhaps it should be part of renewing your driving licence.

...but statistically it's less dangerous than staircases, yet we don't have 'hold the handrail' campaign or camera vans from 'stair safety partnerships'. My point is that it's disproportionate.

2000 road deaths a year in a population of 60+M is insignificant from a statistical point of view (I accept you have the right to be very angry if a loved one is killed by an idiot)

120000 deaths from smoking related illnesses; smoking is entirely legal; 2000 road deaths, about 500 involving inappropriate use of speed (not necessarily speeding, it can be driving too fast for the conditons, yet entirely legal) and speeding is outlawed. This demonstrates that the government has no perception of risk, yet is in charge of setting measures for my safety; how can they possibly 'know best'?

We do have a 'hold the handrail' campaign in work. 

I don't know of anyone who's died falling down stairs - but I do know of 2 members of my cycling club killed on the roads. 

I thought that insurers were doing this because they had statistics that showed people who had been on a speed awareness course were a higher risk than those who hadn't   been caught speeding.    

That's how insurance works - if you are in a high risk group you pay more - what is the problem ?   It's fairer than say charging the young more - you can't choose not to be 18 but you can choose not to break the speed limit in the first place.    Personally I'm all for charging people who drive like idiots more.

Guns don't kill people.

People kill people