• May 28th 2007 at 5:11PM
  • 17

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]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 8 Years Ago
      This kind of stuff really makes me doubt the democratic process. Every thinking person realizes this is just a big money grab yet we do nothing about it. Is that because we can't or don't care? I for one know that any politician that allows these cameras isn't going to get any vote of mine.
      • 8 Years Ago
      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.
        • 8 Years Ago
        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.
      • 8 Years Ago
      Apparently, if some of you WERE king for a day, you would be allowed to speed because, of course, you are safe drivers and you deserve to be able to. There are many unsafe drivers out there, and the vast majority of them think they drive just fine, much like most of you who are commenting. Who should decide who is allowed to speed and who isn't? Is 15mph over the limit too fast? Well, it's OVER THE LIMIT, so apparently it is thought that it is too fast.

      Raising speed limits because cars are 'safer,' is a little ridiculous. Cars keep getting safer so that hopefully fewer and fewer people get killed or injured each year. Let's not negate that by raising speed limits just so people can drive even faster, and waste even more gas.

      The laws exist to keep people as safe as possible. If that means that we all have to watch our speed, driving habits, and our alcohol intake, then so be it. The automated system may be a cash cow, but it is also there in hopes that people do drive just a bit slower...

      "Speed doesn't kill people, blah, blah, blah..." Speed alone does not kill, obviously, but pair that with a shorter time to react, road conditions, driving habits, driving habits of others on the road, etc., and speed becomes an all-too-important factor in many accidents.
      • 8 Years Ago
      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.
      • 8 Years Ago
      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......
      • 8 Years Ago
      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.


      Not everyone wants to drive with earplugs or active anti-noise headsets.

      anyone know how loud a Bugatti Veyron is at 235mph?
        • 8 Years Ago
        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.
      • 8 Years Ago
      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!!!
      • 8 Years Ago
      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.
      • 8 Years Ago
      If newer cars are getting safer and safer, shouldn't speed limits be rising as well?
      • 8 Years Ago
      This makes sense because with more drivers getting even more tickets the insurers will be forced to price themselves out of the market.
      • 8 Years Ago
      In other news, "Obeying the Law is No Longer Important".
        • 8 Years Ago
        There is obeying the goverment and then there is the same big brother stealing every penny you are worth from you.
        • 8 Years Ago
        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.
    • Load More Comments