The downside is not declaring you've attended a course to your insurer may invalidate your insurance, especially if you should you need to claim at some point.
declaring it may well have the exact same negative effect on your premium as three points.
It varies according to the insurer. AFAIK only Admiral actively penalises drivers that have attended courses. Direct Line does not - it specifically states this in their online FAQ. I checked as I did the 'What's Driving Us' course earlier this year. Same with my motorcycle insurer (Carole Nash).
Also, you only have to declare you've been on a course if you are specifically asked by your insurer. Attending the course is not a conviction for an offence.
I've since found this, so my first source of information may not have been strictly correct,NDOR say there is no obligation whatsoever on a driver who has completed an NDORS course to disclose this to their insurers. But note what they say at the end of this quote,However, as always, the detail is in the small print. And I'm sure we all know about small print and insurers penchant to avoid paying out if at all possible
Edited by ekka on 11/10/2018 at 13:13
|
|
|
When I came to renew my insurance with Admiral after a speed awareness course I volunteered that I had attended the course. I have worked in insurance and the doctrine of utmost good faith is taken very seriously so I wanted to be safe rather than sorry. It did increase my premium and I noticed that in subsequent renewals they have asked about speed awareness courses expressly.
I didn’t learn it from my insurance days, but it seems to me that motor insurers in particular look for issues on which to base increases in premiums. Matters that count towards risk these days would never have been considered years ago. And then, one by one, other insurers follow suit.
That said, however, if you study the small print there are still differences in approach that can sometimes be material. I save my son a wad on his premium by including his car in our multi-car policy, even though he doesn’t live with us. Admiral are the only multi-car policy insurer I can find who don’t insist that all cars reside at the same address.
|
It did increase my premium and I noticed that in subsequent renewals they have asked about speed awareness courses expressly.
Do you know that is why your premium increased? They usually do that anyway?
|
|
I think Admiral and its sister companies are the only big ones who expressly ask about SACs.
I asked my insurer whether they needed to know about a SAC (in about 2012) and they said no. The same insurer also told me that 3 points for speeding doesn't normally increase a premium. I think it might have been LV, but I wouldn't swear to it.
|
|
|
|
I always renegotiate my car insurance premium every year when it comes up for renewal, anyway.
This year I went on a price comparison site and, going to the same company for exactly the same insurance cover, it came out £42 cheaper! I actually paid less than I had done so in the previous year.
The insurance company matched this price and just renewed my existing policy.
|
|
I hesitate to comment on this (as on many threads) and am not sure whether to comment here or on the original thread.
I declare an interest. I was an Old Bill for 30 years (although not a Traffic specialist) and during that time undertook many driving courses and assessments. They were never easy but I feel (and hope) that I still benefit from them today, i.e. that I still utilise the lessons I learned.
There has been considerable discussion on the 'due care and attention' issue. Personally, I witness on a daily basis examples of this, some of which in days gone by would have resulted in drivers being pulled up and given 'words of advice' at the least. But, for whatever reasons, those days have passed. Blockheads drive like blockheads, and when they're involved in RTAs (they don't call them that any more) the insurance companies sort them out to the financial detriment of all of us.
In this particular instance what is more relevant is driving without due consideration for other road users. Same section, same offence. The Highway Code while not law sets out what are acceptable standards of driving - what a competent driver would do and is expected to do. Driving to Highway Code standards is - or should be - the norm. Fall below that and you are liable to prosecution. The right to drive is a privilege, not a right. And, as many here can probably testify, standards set by IAM and the PCV/HGV tests are somewhat higher than (what should be) the basics of the Highway Code.
Ask yourself - how much clearance would you give a pedestrian? A person pushing a pram? A horse and rider? Bear in mind that the nearside 18-24" of the road is largely unuseable for a cyclist because of drains etc. Now imagine old Mrs Dodkins wobbling her way home from the village school on her bike with a bag of spuds on her handlebars. (yes, that really used o happen). It doesn't take much to indicate and move over to the other side of the road just to be sure.
I've looked at the video posted. Arguments about lens capability etc. notwithstanding, and taking into account the cyclist's immediate reaction, and based on what I've said above, I agree with the decision to prosecute (however that route goes). I think that the OP is lucky to have been offered a course, and I hope he takes it and benefits from it.
|
|
Joe,
The posted video is NOT the one relating to the OP. It is a separate event (more dangerous according to the OP), where the police DID NOT prosecute the driver.
|
Joe,
The posted video is NOT the one relating to the OP. It is a separate event (more dangerous according to the OP), where the police DID NOT prosecute the driver.
Thanks for the clarification. My mistake, shows the dangers of the internet. I apologise.
Deffo would have recommended prosecution in that one.
I can only assume that not prosecuting - like not investigating crimes - is the easier and less paperwork-producing option. I can only say that back in the day (assuming grumpy old Old Bill persona) we seemed to manage OK.
|
|
"It's comforting to know however people can be reformed, as one organization STILL has a former high ranking officer that was banned from driving for doing 103mph in a 60 mph zone as a top advisor on road safety to the police, I wonder if he went on a course, but that's a different matter of course"
Reference/sources, please?
I've driven at 120 mph in 60 mph limits (quite legally) and been a passenger at 140 mph (quite legally).
|
"It's comforting to know however people can be reformed, as one organization STILL has a former high ranking officer that was banned from driving for doing 103mph in a 60 mph zone as a top advisor on road safety to the police, I wonder if he went on a course, but that's a different matter of course"
Reference/sources, please?
I've driven at 120 mph in 60 mph limits (quite legally) and been a passenger at 140 mph (quite legally).
"It's comforting to know however people can be reformed, as one organization STILL has a former high ranking officer that was banned from driving for doing 103mph in a 60 mph zone as a top advisor on road safety to the police, I wonder if he went on a course, but that's a different matter of course"
Reference/sources, please?
I've driven at 120 mph in 60 mph limits (quite legally) and been a passenger at 140 mph (quite legally).
I'm sure we'd all love to know how you managed that ? the legal bit I mean, try it a private car and see how you get on, in my book anyone that drives at that speed needs locking up, yes including so called specially trained drivers if indeed they are allowed to do so, a blow out at those sorts of speed will be catastrophic, not that I'd have much sympathy if the only person that was damaged was you.
As for references / sources try a google search, in fact the bloke had been "done" a total of three times according to reports, and yet still sits as an advisor to the police as an advisor, a bit like leaving the Fox in charge of the Hen house.
Edited by ekka on 11/10/2018 at 18:44
|
|
|
|
The right to drive is a privilege, not a right.
I agree absolutely. Unfortunately that situation is a throwback to the early days of motoring, itself presumably inherited from horse-and-carriage, when only a small (moneyed) section of the community owned transport, and congestion was almost unknown except on the streets of Edwardian London.
Today's problem is that a large proportion of the working population see driving as a 'right' which enables them to get to a place of work. From that point of view it is hard to see a route back to the original way of thinking. In fact it is often a mitigating circumstance in an offender's defence when he might otherwise be banned from driving.
|
|
I agree.
The driving test is getting harder (rightly). When I took mine there were no traffic lights in this county. Later I took my motorcycle test elsewhere, but it was my police driving courses that really woke me up.
Now, I think, more than ever, 'defensive driving' is crucial. I don't know if it's taught to learners (it should be) but it was always a feature of police driving courses and it applies at whatever speed you're driving.
To bring it back to point, 'defensive driving' dictates providing at least adequate space for obstacles being passed.
|
Now, I think, more than ever, 'defensive driving' is crucial. I don't know if it's taught to learners (it should be) but it was always a feature of police driving courses and it applies at whatever speed you're driving.
To bring it back to point, 'defensive driving' dictates providing at least adequate space for obstacles being passed.
Exactly. As an IAM member for 33 years, I wish more drivers of all ages would drive defensively.
One just has to watch dashcam footage on YouTube featuring UK drivers to see that few drivers have the skills to anticipate the actions of others.
Certainly in many cases, the footage shows poor driving, but more observation, anticipation and courtesey on the part of the dashcam car would render this footage as non-incidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rang in response to the renewal invitation to discuss renewing the policy. The call handler asked if anything about my circumstances had changed - for example, any changes to my vehicle, any speeding fines etc etc. I said that whilst I had no speeding fines I had attended a speed awareness course. He said that unfortunately it would result in a premium increase. I don’t remember the exact amount as it was 5 years ago but each year it is repeated in my details on the policy schedule that I attended a SAC in 2013.
|
|
|
|
When I came to renew my insurance with Admiral after a speed awareness course I volunteered that I had attended the course. I have worked in insurance and the doctrine of utmost good faith is taken very seriously so I wanted to be safe rather than sorry.
The guiding principle is no longer "utmost good faith". "Fair presentation" is now the standard, as governed by section 3 of the insurance act 2015.
|
|
But when I made my declaration to Admiral it was 2013, so the utmost good faith standard still applied. I retired in 2014, so the 2015 Act was after my time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
