There was an expose by the telegraph on how a speed awareness course, could invalidate your insurance.

 

"New questions raised over police links to companies offering speed awareness courses, as it emerges motorists could be risking huge problems if they fail to tell insurers about courses" The article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11980318/Speed-awareness-courses-could-invalidate-insurance.html

 

 

I guess the catch here is, if you have a bump and your history is checked, your insurer sees a speeding course, they could say 'You didn't inform us of this, you're not covered'

 

 

Of course telling them will likely bump your premium. Have you had a course and not told your insurer?

 

What are your thoughts on this?

As the charge against you is voided if you take the course are you not entitled to say you don't have any driving convictions? I thought that was pretty clear.

 

If they directly ask you if you have attended a SAC you of course cannot lie. I wonder if they are referring more to this. People are asked and because they've been told its not a conviction, they say say no.

I wasn't offered a course :') but then again the 3 points and £100 fine means I'm not going to court.

As with anything, you should tell your insurer IMHO

I attended a Speed Awareness course on Monday.  It was specifically stated at the end of the course that there was no obligation to inform your insurance company.  It was also stated that there is no record that insurance companies can access to check whether a driver has attended a Speed Awareness course.  On completion of the course all records are deleted except Date and Place of the course plus Driver number are held on a database only accessible by police forces.  This is held so that if the driver commits another offence (even in a different county) then the police can check if  there has been attendance on a Speed Awareness course.  In theory if you have attended a course in the last three years another offence will result in  points/fine with no option to take another course.  However, one person on my course was adamant that it was the third course he had attended within 2½ years.

 

If your insurance company specifically ask whether you have attended a Speed Awareness course then you have to decide whether to answer truthfully.  However, it seems they have no way of verifying your answer.

 

Attendance on a Speed Awareness course is actually further driver training and how many drivers can say they had that!

However, one person on my course was adamant that it was the third course he had attended within 2½ years.

Clearly it is working.

 

 

If your insurance company specifically ask whether you have attended a Speed Awareness course then you have to decide whether to answer truthfully.  However, it seems they have no way of verifying your answer.

This is not wise advice. If they have sufficient need, they will find out. I have a feeling they deliberately do no research before you take out the policy specifically so they can nail you later.

Insurance companies have to ask you, they cannot decide later that they want to charge extra for a SAC

... However, one person on my course was adamant that it was the third course he had attended within 2½ years.

 

There are a few different courses that you can get for different offences. Speeding is one, another is wearing a seatbelt (which I believe is a course you complete at home online) and then there are a couple of catch all courses for driving attitude and lack of skill. You can have each of the different courses once within a three year period. So, for example, you completed the speed course recently so if you were stopped within the next three years for say going through a red light you would still be eligible for the skill course. However, if you were stopped speeding again you couldn't get another speed course and would either get an offer of a fixed penalty or summons.

 

My understanding is that if you get caught speeding in Cheshire and complete a course there you could also be offered a course if subsequently caught in Hampshire. I tend to believe this is true because police IT is still stuck in the 1970's and things far more important that whether you've completed a speed awareness course still can't be shared between forces.

This Chartered Insurance Institute report titled 'Speed Awareness Courses - The implications for insurance' is well worth reading and arguably has more meaningful information than the Daily Telegraph article.

http://www.cii.co.uk/media/4048082/cii_new_generation_uw_group_-_speed_awareness_courses_-_the_implications_for_insurance.pdf

Edited 10 November, 201510 yr by DGW

Wow didn't take them long to realize theirs potential for even more money to be made. Parasites.

There are a few different courses that you can get for different offences. Speeding is one, another is wearing a seatbelt (which I believe is a course you complete at home online) and then there are a couple of catch all courses for driving attitude and lack of skill.

 

My brother got one for wheelie-ing

Clearly it is working.

 

 

This is not wise advice. If they have sufficient need, they will find out. I have a feeling they deliberately do no research before you take out the policy specifically so they can nail you later.

I did not give any advice - I just commented that a person should make up there own mind whether or not to tell their insurance company.

 

According to the presenters on the course I took there is no way that an insurance company can know if you have taken such a course except if you tell them.  The only record is date, place and driver number (not name) stored on a closed database only accessible by the police.

Wow didn't take them long to realize theirs potential for even more money to be made. Parasites.

Admiral group of insurers have been asking the question about speed awareness courses for at least 18 months and are as far as I am aware the only insurance group to ask the specific question, so that Admiral, Bell etc.

I'll take the points as this is just another "con" for the insurers to have a go..............

 

Also I gather the nearest speed course is in England as Scotland does not offer them.............

I don't see the whole con thing in the article personally. Penalty points were not and are not invented for the purpose of making insurance more expensive for people with them. The points system on a licence is to record/control the number and type of offences on a persons record against their continued or not privilege to hold a valid licence and drive. Insurance companies use them as just one of the hundreds of variable risk indicators when calculating a premium and I am sure it made things a lot easier / more profitable for them upon their introduction. They are used as a handy method of explaining your conviction types and frequency. No points for a speed awareness course is more about not loosing your licence / getting the bus, regardless of what people associate them with. A person who attends such a course is still guilty by their own admission of committing the same offence for which the normal licence endorsement would give, thus the person has still been detected driving in a manor which it's fair to expect an insurance company to associate increased risk with regardless of if a conviction has taken place. It's merely an alternative offer from the Police on how to deal with it under certain circumstances, but a driver and their insurance is a private matter between the driver and their insurer, not the Police or court systems concern in this light. As has been said above, if they want to know, they need to be asking the specific question. 

Edited 16 November, 201510 yr by FUBAR

Of course absolutely no one will be "running around uninsured" since, by law, the third party aspect of insurance cannot be invalidated unless, of course, the policy is cancelled in advance.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I see the SAC as a poor attempt at implementing tiering for speeding offences. Many other countries have different fines/points for speeding by different amounts, which is consistent and easy to work with. I find it ludicrous that you get exactly the same penalty for doing 31 in a 30 as doing 59 in one, when clearly the two are quite far apart in risk and intent. Why is it always 3 points? Why not 1 point for being only just over the limit? I imagine this is also why the ACPO guidelines were created too, because it is over the top to hammer someone for doing just 1 mph over the limit. The system should be reworked properly, rather than just bodged. It would at least remove this inconsistency and confusion.

I see the SAC as a poor attempt at implementing tiering for speeding offences. Many other countries have different fines/points for speeding by different amounts, which is consistent and easy to work with. I find it ludicrous that you get exactly the same penalty for doing 31 in a 30 as doing 59 in one, when clearly the two are quite far apart in risk and intent. Why is it always 3 points? Why not 1 point for being only just over the limit? I imagine this is also why the ACPO guidelines were created too, because it is over the top to hammer someone for doing just 1 mph over the limit. The system should be reworked properly, rather than just bodged. It would at least remove this inconsistency and confusion.

 

 

I have said the exact same thing on here many times, our points system is primitive and lazy in comparison to all others who adopt it! The Dutch system is very good indeed. Points system is broadly similar to yours, but is only applicable to the first 5 years from passing driving test for a new driver, beyond that the system reverts back to just fines as fixed penalties and court for the more serious offences. 

I don't see the whole con thing in the article personally. Penalty points were not and are not invented for the purpose of making insurance more expensive for people with them. The points system on a licence is to record/control the number and type of offences on a persons record against their continued or not privilege to hold a valid licence and drive. Insurance companies use them as just one of the hundreds of variable risk indicators when calculating a premium and I am sure it made things a lot easier / more profitable for them upon their introduction. They are used as a handy method of explaining your conviction types and frequency. No points for a speed awareness course is more about not loosing your licence / getting the bus, regardless of what people associate them with. A person who attends such a course is still guilty by their own admission of committing the same offence for which the normal licence endorsement would give, thus the person has still been detected driving in a manor which it's fair to expect an insurance company to associate increased risk with regardless of if a conviction has taken place. It's merely an alternative offer from the Police on how to deal with it under certain circumstances, but a driver and their insurance is a private matter between the driver and their insurer, not the Police or court systems concern in this light. As has been said above, if they want to know, they need to be asking the specific question. 

Given that the same in-sewer-ants company will also claim that you are a "higher risk" because someone drove into the back of you after you had been stationary at a red traffic light for 30s, I think your defence may be correct in some respects, but you'll understand why I have little or no sympathy for in-sewer-ers.

Of course absolutely no one will be "running around uninsured" since, by law, the third party aspect of insurance cannot be invalidated unless, of course, the policy is cancelled in advance.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I believe they will have to deal with the first claim, but then they will cancel your policy and you will have to declare that for all eternity (why is there no time limit on that?)

Given that thwer-ants company will also claim that you are a "higher risk" because someone drove into the back of you after you had been stationary at a red traffic light for 30s, I think your defence may be correct in some respects, but you'll understand why I have little or no sympathy for in-sewer-ers.

Insurers have a licence to print money with their risk calculations, always have and always will. I was commenting on the article which suggests the Police are conning people somehow when it's merely an alternative option a driver might be offered in the interest of keeping their licence and insurance is basically not their problem, a person is still free to select from what they are offered.

I see the SAC as a poor attempt at implementing tiering for speeding offences. Many other countries have different fines/points for speeding by different amounts, which is consistent and easy to work with. I find it ludicrous that you get exactly the same penalty for doing 31 in a 30 as doing 59 in one, when clearly the two are quite far apart in risk and intent. Why is it always 3 points? Why not 1 point for being only just over the limit? I imagine this is also why the ACPO guidelines were created too, because it is over the top to hammer someone for doing just 1 mph over the limit. The system should be reworked properly, rather than just bodged. It would at least remove this inconsistency and confusion.

The penalty for doing 31mph and 59mph in a 30mph limit are unlikely to be the same.  50mph and above is a summons. The reason for that is that the police can only offer a fixed penalty of 3 points and £100, and that speed warrants a higher penalty, most likely 6 points but possibly disqualification. Of course its for the court to decide which.

 

Speeding boils down to one of two causes. Either the attitude of the driver ('I'm a brilliant driver' or the mistaken belief that in their modern car they can stop easier and so can drive faster), or it's a lack of driving skill on their part. The courses aim to address both of those causes without the need to fine a person, in the belief that education is better than purely punitive measures. I guess it works differently for different people. I've seen comments on this forum from people who have taken the course, found it useful and changed their driving habits as a result. Others see it as another way to 'get away with it' like every other area of the criminal justice system in this country where there are not real consequences for your actions. 

I'm going to start this with a "there but for the grace of God go I."  I havent been on a speed awareness course, but was asked if I had by the insurance company when I renewed.

 

While its not a conviction, it is something in your knowledge and a material fact that should be disclosed to the insurance company.  Whether they choose to do anything with that information is a matter for them, but at least if the wheel does come off (literally or metaphorically) - you're covered.

 

When you take out insurance, you are entering in to a contract.  They provide a service/cover based on information which you provide them and the price is based on the risk.  Surely it would be better to just get it all off your chest, tell them everything, and that way there's no worrying when you need the service they offer?

All insurance contracts are governed by the principle of Uberrimae Fidei (utmost good faith).

As above. Disclosure of any material facts is expected.

Non disclosure may invalidate the contract.

"You pays your money........"

Edited 28 November, 201510 yr by kevberlin

My brother got one for wheelie-ing

 

Did they teach him to use the clutch or just do it on the throttle?

The only difference between drivers who have been on a speed awareness course. or fined and given points, and those that haven't is whether they have actually been caught driving at above the posted speed limit.  ALL drivers regularly break speed limits, even if only by 1 or 2 miles per hour.  Insurance companies claim that those that are caught or a greater risk than those who aren't.

 

In over 45 years and 1,000,000 miles of driving I have been caught speeding 7 times - only once since 2002.  Never in a 30 limit and only once in a 40 (open road) - other 5 times in 70 limits on motorway or dual-carriageways.  I have never had an at-fault accident and the 3 no-fault accidents (sorry, Road Traffic Incidents) were other drivers hitting the back of my car when I had been stopped for periods of time varying from 3 -10 seconds (according to witnesses).

 

The whole 'speed over the speed limit is the main cause of accidents' peddled on the Speed Awareness course that I attended is a nonsense.  Road Safety Research report number 87 states in figure 5.5 that the following was recorded as ONE of the causes (not the only cause) of investigated RTIs: 

 

'Exceeding speed limit = 2% for age 26+, and 7% for age 17-19'

'Travelling too fast for conditions = 4% for age 26+ and 13% for age 17-19'

 

Of course only the first category is detected by speed cameras.

 

The previous steady drop in the figures of Killed and Seriously Injured due to RTIs has flattened out in recent years.  The concentration on speed (easy to measure) has prevented the real cause of RTIs being addressed - poor driving.  As my science teacher used to say - "Measure what is important; don't make important what is easy to measure".