Speeding ticket / next actions advice

[Saracen]

But then surely as you've had 'further education' and won't have the ability to attend it again within the next 3 years and go straight to points, you'd be a safer risk as you're thinking twice about all your actions.
So the premium should stay the same or have a slight decrease.

Oh yes, that's not how the blood sucking vultures in the insurance industry tend to work

You are making the assumption that attending such a course makes you a lesser risk than those that haven't. Conversely, though, it may be that it indicates a proclivity for speeding. Not having attended one is pretty likely to include both those not inclined to speed in the first place, and those that just haven't yet been caught.

What we don't know is what insurance company actuaries are telling them about incident rates, or claims numbers/values, between those that have attended such courses and those that haven't. And that, of course, determines risk.

But we, and the insurance companies, both know that IF you attended such a course, it was because you committed the same offence that, but for such a course, would have got you points and/or fine, so they're entitled to treat that information the way they do, and react accordingly. It's the nature of insurance that those offering it determine risk, and therefore premium required.

[DanceswithUnix]

You are making the assumption that attending such a course makes you a lesser risk than those that haven't.

Well the police have been claiming that the reoffending rates are far better with a speed course than a fine by a factor of about three. The AA who I believe run courses as well as sell insurance seem very pro-course and are against an insurance hit:

http://www.theaa.com/newsroom/news-2...s-courses.html

[DanceswithUnix]

Interesting thing here says that details on the NIP should be correct, although simple typos don't count.

http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/cha...ding-fine.html

[Saracen]

Well the police have been claiming that the reoffending rates are far better with a speed course than a fine by a factor of about three. The AA who I believe run courses as well as sell insurance seem very pro-course and are against an insurance hit:

http://www.theaa.com/newsroom/news-2...s-courses.html

But that's comparing re-offending of those taking a course against re-offending by those with a fine, and sure, the course may be more effective. In insurance terms, perhaps that's reflected by a lesser increase for courses than fines, but still an increase.

With the question about having taken a course, the insurers are looking at those that have been caught speeding, whether they got a course or paid a fine/ticket (which already had to be declared) against those not having done either.

My point was that the "neither" camp provides a baseline. It indicates that those in it either don't speed, or have been lucky enough never to have been caught. On the assumption that for any given mile on a given road, we all face the same likelihood of getting caught, anyone in that group is either not speeding, speeding less than those getting caught, or very lucky.

As I said earlier, after 40+ years of never having any driving convictions, yet refusing to say I've never, ever speeded, I'd suggest that indicates I don't speed MUCH, and my personal practice has been that while I might pinch a bit on motorways, or on quiet country roads in good conditions, I do try, quite hard, never to speed in built-up areas. I'm no goody-two-shoes. It's merely pragmatic self-interest. Rarely am I in that much of a hurry that the fine and/or points is worth the risk. There are times when I could get caught, but they're few and far between, requiring a cop/camera to be in precisely the right place and time, and even then, if they catch me it won't be by much, and it will be a momentary lapse. I'd suggest, therefore, that on average, those caught, whether fine or awareness course, are a greater risk than those never caught, be they deliberately not speeding or just plain lucky. And for the latter category .... keep it up, and the luck will run out.

Essentially, what I'm saying is insurers are entitled to ask that question. They absolutely are entitled to know. That much is implicit in insurance contracts. In fact, they should be notified by policy holders and applicants, without having to ask. Clearly, that isn't always happening, or this wouldn't even be an issue.

And, with that information, they're entitled to factor it in to the risk calculations their claims statistics give them. That what insurance actuaries do.

[DanceswithUnix]

In insurance terms, perhaps that's reflected by a lesser increase for courses than fines, but still an increase.

Reportedly a course and a fixed penalty were being treated with the same increase. I can't find anything more up to date to say if that is still the case.

And, with that information, they're entitled to factor it in to the risk calculations their claims statistics give them. That what insurance actuaries do.

But in doing so they are pushing people away from courses, and hence pushing up the overall road mortality rates compared to what they could be if more people took the course. if they are going to influence driver behaviour, I would rather it was for the better.

[peterb]

And, with that information, they're entitled to factor it in to the risk calculations their claims statistics give them. That what insurance actuaries do.

Except of course when the EU steps in and decides that insurance risks for young drivers should not be gender specific, and thus discriminating against girls whose risk is smaller, but who now have to pay the same premiums as boys.

[OilSheikh]

OP, what did you get for speeding ? 3 points and a course in Cambridge ?
Curious in case it happens to me in the future

[GoNz0]

I understood Cambridge do not operate the 10% +2 mph policy so you need to check what the policy is in the area, if it is 10% +2 then you should not have a ticket and fact alone that they got the details wrong points to one of those jumped up 3rd party privateer speed vans so I would go find a solicitor who specialises in this and get the free consultation.
the 10% is in place because no car speedo is accurate and also the tyres you have on can cause this to drift out as well.

me, I would be knee deep into the fight by now just for them getting it wrong, I won when some copper with a grudge did me for parking against a solid white line, I went to court with pictures showing it was faded and broken, walked out a winner with an apology and compensation for my wasted time.

[stevie lee]

me, I would be knee deep into the fight by now just for them getting it wrong, I won when some copper with a grudge did me for parking against a solid white line, I went to court with pictures showing it was faded and broken, walked out a winner with an apology and compensation for my wasted time.

I watched 'parking mad' on the BBC this week, where someone used a similar excuse of 'broken line', they lost. The rules have changed recently regarding the line painting.
basically, if the car is parked on the line and the broken/unpainted part is not near the vehicle, then all relevant parking restrictions apply. and if its obvious that there's a line, 1 foot unpainted in part of it doesn't invalidate the line being there. so you cant just park on the broken bits either.


In all cases, get some proper help from proper lawyers and don't rely on information on the internet as it may be completely irrelevant in your case, out of date, or just wrong, or based on other peoples experiences and they may have misremembered something or have a mitigating factor that doesn't apply to you whatsoever and they haven't mentioned it.

[Disturbedguy]

Sorry for the delay in replying, been waiting on the offer coming back to me (I sent my reply 2 / 3 weeks ago) which I got today

I've ended up with a £100 fine and 3 points - no course as I was 3mph over the course limit.

I've seen the picture and there's not a chance in hell it wasn't me (would recognise my ugly mug anywhere ) so there was no point trying to fight it.

Has it made me a slower driver? Yup
Made me safer? I'd like to think I was pretty safe anyway (although yes my speeding ticket says otherwise). I didn't speed everywhere, made sure I planned ahead and always signaled when changing lanes etc. But it's certainly made me more weary and cautious...

[MotorTechy]

OP, what did you get for speeding ? 3 points and a course in Cambridge ?
Curious in case it happens to me in the future

So Cambs run a zero tolerance policy then? 31 and your done?

[Macman]

http://www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com/

Highly Recommended - Should anyone need advice or guidance.

Recommended me I should wait out my Fixed Penalty then go back to courthouse on the last day before the deadline. (I think you are required to pay fine in 7 days or 14 days?)

What was happening in my case, I was being done for speeding, rec'd a fixed penalty, at the same time I was due points back from my first conviction. The courthouse was not able to apply the fixed penalty due to:-

Do we:-

Apply fixed penalty against current record?

OR

Deduct penalty from first conviction then apply fixed penalty?

It had to go higher up (like the lawyer advised me - guidance was free aswell), in the end. I was given my 4 points back from first conviction then 3 was applied to my license from the fixed penalty.

I now have a clean license

[scaryjim]

... I've ended up with a £100 fine and 3 points - no course as I was 3mph over the course limit.

I've seen the picture and there's not a chance in hell it wasn't me (would recognise my ugly mug anywhere ) so there was no point trying to fight it.

Does that mean you were in the 40mph zone when you were caught then? I'd be surprised if the course limit was only 53mph in a 50 limit...

[Disturbedguy]

Does that mean you were in the 40mph zone when you were caught then? I'd be surprised if the course limit was only 53mph in a 50 limit...

Yeah I was in a 40mph zone

[Butcher]

So Cambs run a zero tolerance policy then? 31 and your done?

Don't think so? OP was caught at 53 in a 40, not exactly in the zero tolerance zone.

[MotorTechy]

Except of course when the EU steps in and decides that insurance risks for young drivers should not be gender specific, and thus discriminating against girls whose risk is smaller, but who now have to pay the same premiums as boys.

bit like when insurance companies charge more for the unemployed!https://www.jenningsforddirect.co.uk...insurance/899/