Safe Speed Forums

Swinton Motor Insurance issued the following PR this morning:

SWINTON SETTING NEW STANDARD FOR PENALTY POINTED DRIVERS

Drivers with six points or more on their license looking for insurance could soon be viewed as 'standard' rather than 'non-standard' says Swinton, the UK's largest high street
insurance broker.

Pointed drivers are no longer automatically penalised at Swinton as a result of the increase in the number of motorists now saddled with penalty points. And the move reflects a
change in attitude by the insurance industry as the estimated number of pointed motorists tops 6 million*.

With the 6,000 speed cameras on our roads already catching over 2 million speeders each year, and driving whilst using a mobile phone now costing the driver three points, an
unblemished license is becoming rare.

Swinton announced it had seen a 12% increase in the number of drivers with points looking for insurance during 2006 - and as a result has set up a dedicated unit to deal with this
rising demand. Swinton Specialist was launched earlier this year for drivers of imported, modified and high performance motors. The division is now also handling drivers with
penalty points, and is already experiencing a high volume of calls.
.
Neil Ackinclose, head of Swinton Specialist, explained: "Over the last few years we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of drivers with penalty points requesting
insurance. 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.

"A 2006 YouGov survey estimated that 16% of drivers now have points on their license. As that figure continues to grow - with some estimating the actual number of pointed drivers
to be in the region of 10 million - insurance providers are having to accept that points alone can no longer be used as a yardstick for driver evaluation.

"Here at Swinton we have set up Swinton Specialist - a dedicated unit to deal with non-standard motor insurance - where drivers with any number of points are treated as
individuals. We look at full driving history and aim find a value policy to suit each car owner, whatever the vehicle."

Any driver interested in talking to Swinton Specialist should call 0800 781 8400.

- Ends -

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 10:45 this morning:

PR483: Essential penalty points system 'broken' by speed camera madness

news: for immediate release

In news today from Swinton Insurance, driving licence points will no longer
automatically contribute towards insurance premium calculation.

The Swinton PR includes: "Pointed drivers are no longer automatically penalised
at Swinton as a result of the increase in the number of motorists now saddled
with penalty points. And the move reflects a change in attitude by the
insurance industry as the estimated number of pointed motorists tops 6
million."

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "Insurance companies are in the
business of calculating risk to set their premiums. This announcement is all
the proof we need to know that driving licence points no longer indicate risky
drivers. The vast majority of licence points are for speeding offences detected
by camera. Department for Transport's needless and ineffective obsession with
speed cameras has therefore seriously damaged the penalty points system."

"Damage to the penalty points system is just one negative side effect of the
speed camera programme. Safe Speed recently published a report listing 40
negative side effects."

"Clearly the Swinton announcement means that we are giving out fines and points
to drivers at random. If we gave fines only to risky drivers then the risk
would be clear in insurance company's crash statistics.

"The penalty points system has been of very significant importance to road
safety."

"It just goes to prove that speed camera fines are pointless."

<ends>

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

Some of the first "proof" of what many have considered to be the case for some time.

With so many people on points market forces had to come into play and the old idea that someone with points was higher risk was no longer true.

I suspect that the truly high risk people are still (if bothering with insurance) paying the higher premium, but not necessarily getting the points.

I believe there was an on-line discussion about this a few years ago, either on here or on SP&L over on PH, where one partnership employee was insistent that the middle age, medium to high mileage, experienced driver they were catching was a higher risk than those that insurance companies loaded, must see if I can dig it up.

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

What is interesting here is that insurance premiums are calculated on the basis of proven risk and established measurement of risk. Unlike the application of speed cameras which is based on 'knee-jerk' reaction, little or no research, 'spin', obfuscation and outright lies.
Locally we have a current issue with the new SPECS cameras on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon which shows this in its true light. After spending £2,500,000 on this installion, one local councillor has discovered that out of 400 accidents on this stretch over the last 4 year, only FOUR, I'll say again, FOUR of those accidents were listed by the Police as related to the breaking of the 70 mph limit (i.e.: 1%).
The local paper is doing a bit on it this week and the feeling is that the SPECS were decided upon without any proper reseach at all into the root causes of this problem. Anyone with one brain cell working could see that the high number of entry/exit points, the merging of A14 with M11, the reduction of the 4 into 3 into 2 lanes over about 1.5 miles, short exit run-offs, short acceleration lanes, etc., are the real cause but, hay, don't research this, just install SPECS!
So now the insurers are onto it. Good

Yes, it is good - but just look at the enormous amount of money being wasted on totally ineffective schemes like the SPECS one you described, and think how many times this nonsense is being repeated in many parts of the country. It's absolutely sickening.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

. . . . . . Should this read "It just goes to prove that speed camera fines should be pointless !!! "

We must see what the accident rate is over the first year with the SPECS system on the A14.

Does anyone know the spacing of the SPECS cameras, so it is possible to use a stopwatch to avoid getting a ticket when speeding up to make up for the delay caused by the congested traffic.

Which local paper were you refering to. Do you have a link to the article.

The paper is 'The Town Crier' and it covers Huntingdon, S.Neots and St.Ives. I don't have a link, but I'll try to get one. The reporter seemed very anti-SPECS and extremely 'anti' the waste of £2,500,000 which could have been better spent helping the aged of our region or in cleaning-up Hinchingbroke Hospital.
On the comment about making back up to the allowable average, in my letter I pointed out that if one were delayed by two trucks, one overtaking the other (a common sight on that part of A14) for, say, one mile of a 3-mile monitored section, after passing the truck, one could do 93 mph for the remaining 2 miles and still just average 70 for the 3 miles. Since a lot of vehicles have trip computers, all you need to do is zero the average speed reading at each camera post and stay at the 70 average. The actual speed doesn't matter in real terms, it's just the average which is important. Another metric for the driver to monitor in an already 'high-work-load' section of road.
The 4 accidents reported as involving vehicles breaking the speed limit doesn't classify the type of vehicle involved. One might suspect that at least one involved a motorcycle, which is, of course, SPECS immune and, maybe, one a foreign vehicle as the A14 is the major route to Harwich from the Midlands. Again, foreign vehicles are immune.
No doubt we'll get the usual clap-trap from the Highways Agency and the local Pratnership about how fantastic these cameras will be (at addressing 1% of a problem!).

It would be wonderful to actually get to 70mph on that road. In the rush hour 7mph is more normal! Most of the rest of the time you are stuck behind elephant racing trucks.

Safe Speed issued a further PR at 14:55 this afternoon:

PR484: COLLATERAL DAMAGE - The speed camera strikes again.

news: for immediate release

The new that Swinton Insurance can no longer rely on driving licence penalty
points to identify risky drivers is the latest blow to the failed speed camera
programme. Speed cameras have caused wide ranging COLLATERAL DAMAGE' to many
areas of our subtle and complex road safety system.

Examples of COLLATERAL DAMAGE include:

- We have learned today that the penalty points system can no longer be trusted
to identify risky drivers. [1]

- The is well known ongoing damage to the Police / public relationship.

- Safe Speed analysis points the finger for declining driving standards firmly
at 'bad road safety policy' which in turn is founded on speed cameras.
Declining driving standards are cited by TRL (formerly Transport Research
Laboratory) as the main reason for road deaths not falling. Safe Speed agrees.

- Safe Speed recently published a report detailing 40 negative side effects
resulting from speed camera policy. [2]


But, earlier this year, Department for Transport cancelled their research into
speed camera side effects. [3]

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "Speed cameras have caused
massive COLLATERAL DAMAGE to driver quality, road safety planning, the Police /
public relationship. The latest damage is to the driving licence penalty points
system, which, according to Swinton Insurance, cannot any longer be trusted to
identify risky drivers."

"Speed cameras are to road safety what a hammer is to watch repair. Road safety
is subtle and complex, and is founded in human psychology. Speed cameras are
'bad psychology' and have a wide range of damaging side effects. They are the
hammer that is damaging road safety."

"This is truly a case of 'the cure is worse than the disease'. We must SCRAP
SPEED CAMERAS now to limit the damage. That's why our 10 Downing Street
petition to scrap speed cameras has gathered 23,000 signatures See:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scrapcam ."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

[1] See Safe Speed PR483:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/343

[2] http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf

[3] See Safe Speed PR456:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/314

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

The PR approach is excellent, well done, Paul.
The tide is indeed turning, look how TPTB must wriggle all the time while SafeSpeed is consistently and structurally correct.

Now all we want is even more mainstream recognition.

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

YES, the nice thing about the insurance companies is that there's no spin or other bulsh1t. If they think they're going to make more money than they're going to loose, they'll take on the risk. Obviously they're starting to realise that there isn't necessarily any greater risk associated with 6 points - despite the fact that the government, Brunstrom et al would have us believe that these people are homicidal maniacs leaving a trail of death and destruction in their wakes.

If a blemished licence is "the norm", and as an "average" could be considered the best insurance risk, then will a clean licence become suspect? perhaps you're a inherantly dangerous 20mph everywhere driver or you do something illegal to cheat the system?

I'm 29, drive as part of my job yet have a clean licence, how long till an insurance company considers me "possibly too good to be true" and loads my premium? Can I show all my parking fine taxes in mitgation?

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

i am with you, i drive for a living take great pride to say i have a clean licence, take great care to notice my surroundings with the threat of cameras, yet every year my premium goes up, oh and i get protected NCB at another premium

should i be rewarded

Can't say i do take pride anymore, I think the standard of my drivings gone down.... being issued with many parking fines while witnessing general lawlessness does that to you.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I suggest you should get yourself ready for some points on your licence. Start saving up to get a good solicitor.

Keeping you clean licence is only a matter of luck, which will run out in due course.

As

(a) somebody who insures with Swinton
(b) somebody who has 3 points for doing 35 on a deserted road in Anglesey

I would agree that SP30s should not be taken into account when determining premiums. Swinton agree, as my premiun has not been loaded as a result.

However to say that penalty points should not be taken into account, period, is simple minded. There are far more serious offences (such as jumping a red light) that also attract 3 points. I'm sure that Swinton will have taken this into account.

Now tell this to Direct Line, who (unless they have recently changed their policy) automatically add 10% to the premium for an SP30. I speak from bitter experience. (Well maybe not bitter. I got an alternative quote that was 10% less than Direct Line had quoted before I mentioned the SP30.)

_________________
Brian

SWINTON is owned by two sisters - one of whom was jailed for perverting the course of justice, in the Nick Freeman/Lefton case.

Absolutely no connection, I am sure, just sound business sense.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

They were talking about this on BBC Breakfast this morning. They had Quentin Wilson, and a woman from Roadpeace.

She started out with the usual Speed Kills spiel, then Quentin said that was rubbish and that we needed to overhaul the system and tackle the unlicensed, uninsured and drunk drivers. She agreed.

She even conceded that being caught by a speed camera did not automatically mean you were a dangerous driver.