British insurer says speed cameras are killing the points rating system
Britain's installation of more speed cameras and the swap to digital means they'll catch even more speeders. That's good for the treasury. According to British insurer Swinton, it isn't good for the points system that insurance companies use to set premiums -- there are too many people getting more and more points to make it a useful criteria. So Swinton says it will no longer automatically raise premiums if drivers get points due to speed cameras, saying "points alone can no longer be used as a yardstick for driver evaluation." Currently in Britain, getting 12 points means losing your license. With 6,000 cameras nabbing two million speeders annually, and mobile phone infractions earning three points, Swinton says "a few years ago insurers might have assumed that a motorist with six or more points on their license was a reckless driver, but that is no longer necessarily the case." With the suggestion that drivers with 6 points could be viewed as "standard," six could become the new zero. We can't wait for that kind of sense to make it this way. Allstate? You listening?
[Source: Daily Mail]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
josh_cali 5:36PM (5/28/2007)
In other news, "Obeying the Law is No Longer Important".
Reply
Viv 5:47PM (5/28/2007)
There is obeying the goverment and then there is the same big brother stealing every penny you are worth from you.
Dissident 5:01PM (5/29/2007)
in other news, YOUR the guy holding up traffic in the fast lane in Cali! The laws are supopsed to reflect the will of the people; the fact that nobody follows the speed limit proves that the laws are not what they should be. And people do not exist for the purpose of supporting government, which is what the tax (cause that's what it is) of speeding tickets does.
fadetowhite 6:45PM (5/28/2007)
Wow. Just... wow. People are breaking the law and endangering lives by speeding, and now the insurance company wants to ignore that, and the set the bar even lower? It's just kind of sad.
At what point does it hit you that speeding is breaking the law, and you don't really NEED to go 20 over the speed limit? How many accidents caused by speed and reckless driving have to occur before people finally realize "hey, maybe I shouldn't be speeding either...?" Connect the dots, people. Slow the eff down, even if the insurance companies are being lenient.
First we have Indiana taking a step in the right direction with higher fines, and then across the pond a British company starts negating bad driving behaviour. Bah.
Reply
Viv 6:52PM (5/28/2007)
Indiana is taking a step in the right direction? After yesterday's news i will make Indiana economy doesn't receive one penny from my pocket.
rip 12:43AM (5/29/2007)
Speeding doesn't kill. Poor driving skills and inattentiveness do.
Thinking that speeding kills, is a naive view, without knowledge of the facts. It's simply a slogan devised by the government and safety nazi's and brainwashed into people.
If your so concerned about safety on the roads, how about this; improve driver education, and ban eating and cell phone use (including headsets) while driving. And no video game nav systems/ dvd players to distract drivers. Oh and how about enforcing the law to wear seatbelts. Of course, there's a lot less money in those things than writing speeding tickets...
Those simple things, would do a lot more to protect lives than often silly speeding laws.
Some links that disprove the myth that speed kills, using hard data from the NHTSA:
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irre0.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/081wysxg.asp
Dave 6:49PM (5/28/2007)
Theyre using modern technology to enforce speed limits that were enacted when cars had four wheel manual drum brakes, armstrong steering, and bias ply tires. Hmmmm......
Reply
fadetowhite 7:19PM (5/28/2007)
You won't support the Indiana economy because you think people who speed should not be punished? High five!
Ken 7:41PM (5/28/2007)
"With 6,000 cameras nabbing two million speeders annually"
here is your proof! speeding DOES NOT cause accident, bad drivers DOES! 2 millions speeders annually, do we have 2 millions accident annually? Speed limits is just another way goverments rob your money! I ticketed for going 80mph on a 65mph, is 80mph really that fast?
another time i got ticketed for going 38mph on a 25mph street, is 38mph really that fast?
Viv 8:32PM (5/28/2007)
If you think these cameras are about safety and not money grab i have water from the moon that will cure all diseases that i would like to sell to you.
HotRodzNKustoms 7:35PM (5/28/2007)
This makes sense because with more drivers getting even more tickets the insurers will be forced to price themselves out of the market.
Reply
dan 7:40PM (5/28/2007)
When a real live officer is making the stops, they aren't about speed at all - speed is an excuse to stop suspicious vehicles (e.g., minority or teen driver, older car, out of state plates, etc.) and hopefully turn up some outstanding warrants and drugs.
Camera issued tickets takes away those safety aspects and reduces it to a simple driving tax - split between the politicians and some politically connected private company administering it.
I make it a point to visit businesses on streets with these robotic thieves and let the owners know I will no longer be shopping there while the camera is up.
Reply
Drewboy 8:01PM (5/28/2007)
Speeding may not change the FREQUENCY of accidents, but in accidents where it is a factor it DOES increase the SEVERITY! Just an FYI from someone in the insurance industry.
psarhjinian 8:13PM (5/28/2007)
Is 38 in a 25 zone too fast? Yes. That's likely residential, where people and animals can rush into traffic without much warning. In a residential zone, I go 10km/h under the limit for exactly that reason. My s/o was struck as a pedestrian and the difference between 25 and 38 might mean a trip to hospital versus a trip to the morgue.
I'm all for raising the highway limits to, well, whatever, as long as lane discipline is enforced. Heck, I'm all for making the fines at highway speeds less of an issue (really, how much worse is 120 or 130km/h than 100?) Residential limits, though, can stay right where they are.
FC RX7 Driver 8:15PM (5/28/2007)
Texas took a step in the right direction by banning speed cameras. Cameras cannot prove WHO was speeding, just punish the person who owns the car, and tarnish their record. Families with only one car and multiple dirvers come to mind, why should a husband or wife be blammed for the other's speeding? What about you taking points because junior went 5 mph over the limit?
The speed limits are archaic, new research needs to be conducted to establish safe limits, not these arbitrary limits. I also believe that this little more than a road tax.
Reply
naggs 8:36PM (5/28/2007)
if they ever put up speed cameras in my town i would have fun comming up with creative ways of destroying them. maybe drill a hole in the top of the box and fill it with cement?
or just shoot the fin things, 30x06 will get the job done.
people in england are screwed, the government took your guns and now has you on camera everytime you leave the house. if that ever happens here i am gonna have to overthrow the government. hey there is another thing that is more difficult to do if the government takes away your guns.
Reply
MikeW 8:55PM (5/28/2007)
It would be nice to have a national 100mph daytime and 80mph night (until ECE headlights replace SAE crap, and then no differentiation would be needed) speed limits on two lane interstates. Think of I-80. Higher for wider, please.
But it really depends on how far you have to go, and the sound exposure. [you want to protect you inner ear] and the mileage (cost) drop out, say 30mpg@75 vs 20mpg@100mph vs 10mpg@150mph.
http://www.geocities.com/midimagic@sbcglobal.net/spldose.htm
Not everyone wants to drive with earplugs or active anti-noise headsets.
anyone know how loud a Bugatti Veyron is at 235mph?
Reply
Zain 11:30PM (5/28/2007)
I think you'd be pleasantly surprised to know that the Veyron is uber-quiet at high speeds. Check out the Top Gear Veyron speed test on Youtube.
Dieselhead 3:54AM (5/29/2007)
If newer cars are getting safer and safer, shouldn't speed limits be rising as well?
Reply
IZBK 12:28PM (5/29/2007)
I'd like to see SUV's and other light trucks forced to stay out of the innermost lane on 3-lane-per-side roads, and limited to a lower speed, much like large trucks and vehicles pulling trailers are in many states.
There is no reason why the speed limits can't be raised, so long as the increased limit doesn't apply to what are essentially modified junk-haulers on the road. And yes, I drive an SUV. It doesn't handle like a well heeled sedan, coupe, or sports car, and should be held to a higher safety standard.
On the topic of driver education, let me toss a few more in there. There should be a GVWR listing on your license. You are only allowed to drive a vehicle at/below the GVWR of the vehicle in which you took your test, the test should be more involved (parallel parking, backing into parking spaces, three-point-turns in crowded parking lots, maneuvering between obstacles that allow only 1 foot of clearance on each side, etc.), and a there should be a mandatory retest every 5-10 years... a real, in the car with an instructor on real traffic test.
I'd also make drunk driving laws progressive in nature. There's no reason why cruising along at BAC .081 should result in the same penalties as BAC .25!
Ah, to be king for a day!!!
Reply