Safe Speed Forums

I just checked the text of m new insurance policy.

I am not covered if I exceed a posted speed limit, drink drive or disobey a traffic sign!

Maybe that's why my insurance is 60% cheaper than any other company?

So if I now get caught speeding, they can prosecute me for No Insurance as well. Not fair...

_________________
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Mahatma Gandhi

who is that with?

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

I've been expecting this one, although I must say, I am surprised at how soon it has happened and the form it has taken. I expected it to eventually become illegal for firms to provide fully comprehensive insurance to people with convictions. That is because financial compensation for an accident you cause is not an incentive to drive safely.

This policy is even more restrictive, although I reckon the 3rd party component would still be valid even if you are not driving lawfully.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Now that's a non-sequitur if ever I saw one.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

If compensation for an accident you cause is not an incentive to drive safely, it can only either have no effect at all, or it is in some cases an incentive to drive less safely.

For example, do you think for a moment that the possibility of financial cost is not a factor in the way people behave? If so, then why do people buy fully comprehensive insurance at all?

But there are other ways to mitigate risk, and one way is to drive more safely. By loading the full cost of an accident directly on the bad driver, you provide a direct incentive to improve. You don't know what a non-sequitur is!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Main Entry: non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation: 'nän-'se-kw&-t&r also -"tur
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said

It does not follow that a driver will cause (or even have) an accident simply because they have a conviction. And neither does the converse to this follow.

Happy?

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Presumably it's only own damage that is not covered - your insurers will still pay for third party claims.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Biker Paul - Peter has it right. Your company would have to insure you third party and pay for damage to the third party - but not you would have to foot your own repair bills if you infringed the agreement.

Insurance - major problem. Have to say - lot of the kids we stop and find they are uninusured tell us about the unaffordable premium costs - which led them to risk a reputation.

This scheme appears a double edged sword - encourages take-out of a policy. Agree with the drink/drug clause as this would deter - but think the speed issue should at least have some element of discretion and if you should stray over and get copped - decision should be based on speed recorded and perhaps circumstances. After all - you can still be involved in an accident whilst driving within a speed limit - and you may even be legal and still not at a safe speed for the actual condition.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Can you please let me have full details (email, Pm or whatever). I need company, company address, policy type, broker (if any), date of issue, exact wording of exclusion clause. Does the exclusion appear on the certificate of insurance, or is it only within the policy?

I will write to them and explain that no driver can guarantee to comply with the speed limit at all times without error, therefore their exclusion is dangerous and unreasonable.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I can't believe this one.

So if some one is injured and the other party was speeding you cannot claim agains their insurance.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

No, as I and In Gear said, it's only insurance for own damage that is not covered. Otherwise third parties would go uncompensated. Still a seriously bad idea, but we need to get the facts straight.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Ok

I recently rented a bike in the US. Got full cover (everything available)

The only get-out clause I was worried about was "contributary negligence" Not sure what that meant but maybe it is the same thing.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Two reasons spring to mind immediately:

1. even if you spend every second behind the wheel doing your utmost to avoid causing or getting involved in an accident, you can't account for every single possibility - having fully comp insurance gives you that extra peace of mind that, if the unthinkable happens and it all goes pear shaped despite your best efforts to avoid it, you won't be left footing a huge bill.

2. some combinations of driver, postcode, profession, existing NCB and/or vehicle make it difficult/impossible to find any insurer willing to offer anything less than a fully comp. policy.

What if the bad, should that be at fault, driver has no insurance?

I buy fully comp because I don't want to spend the best part of 3 months pissing about writing letters, arguing the toss, and having to provide my own photographic evidence & the like in the event that I do have to make a claim.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

If the policy holder causes the accident - pays in higher premium - and loses a no claims bonus. There is no "compensation" as you call it. The only thing =- they either repair the car and write-off depends on car value/depreciation/market value - and you could be no better off - if not worse off. You need to lean a bit more about insurance - my old chum.

Even if the person did not cause the accident and is a VICTIM - I know what vicious strokes they try to pull to get out of paying anything out. Took a few years to sort it all out and get the required compo - already posted the story in all gory details once. .

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

An incentive to drive less safely? Er... basingwerk mate, have you heard of the word "excess" in the context of car insurance? As long as there is an excess there is a financial disincentive to take risks as any collision will cost money on top of the risk of injury, damage to car, inconvenience, possible arguing with insurers and possible poice investigation (taken in any order you please).

We're not short of incentives to drive safely, or perhaps disincentives to drive dangerously, so the idea of refusing full cover for a self inflicted claim really doesn't add anything much. And in the big picture is it really as fair as you think? What about knock-on effects? No cover can mean no more car for some unless they replace it with a dodgy and possibly unsafe old nail. It may even mean people lose livelihoods due to a momentary lapse or error that doesn't even necessarily involve anyone else but themselves (e.g. reversing into the garage and then attempting to reverse out of it ). That's one purpose of having fully comp insurance - to insure against the possibility of making an error that deprives you of your car. And it's got so bloody expensive now that it's most affordable to people with full NCB, and therefore are less prone to making such errors.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Good luck with that.

Hope your insurers are better than those I have had dealings with.

They really couldn't give a **** about fighting the case and were more interested in a 50:50 settlement which meant both insurance companies could rake back their NCD.

My wife bought a new car a few weeks ago. We took fully comp insurance because the car was financed.

The told us we should spend an additional £300 on "top up inurance"...

This is because there could be a shortfall in the amount the insurance payed out and the value of the car in the event of a write-off

WTF......is that not what fully comp is. Apparantly not.

It is getting stupid, you need insurance to cover the insurance........

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

That's just a scam carried out by motor dealers - you're very unlikely to have to call on it, and in terms of value for money it's on a par with Dixons extended warranties. Hopefully you ignored it

Quite a lot of insurers now say they'll pay for a brand-new car if yours is written off within the first year.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed