Safe Speed Forums

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 94,00.html

An interesting article. There is a chart showing the average premium paid versus the number of penalty points, broken down by age and gender. In most cases you would have to accumulate 9 points before there is a major increase in premium. Interestingly 21 year old females with three points would appear to pay less for TPFT insurance than those with no penalty points, and 40 year old males would have to accumulate 9 points before the TPFT premium was increased at all.

Brian

hoorah for swiftcover. At last, somebody is getting it.

This is far worse news for the cameras than is obvious. Safe Speed issued the following PR at 12:30 this afternoon:

PR245: Speed cameras penalise safe drivers

news: for immediate release

The Times today reveals that drivers with speed camera points now face only
token increases in insurance premiums. Safe Speed says this is clear and
dramatic evidence of speed camera policy failure.

If speed cameras identified drivers with higher than average crash risks, then
the very sophisticated risk assessment systems that insurance companies use
would clearly detect risk differences.

But it's far worse than that because at the very least we would have expected
speeding convictions to represent an 'exposure proxy'. People who drive higher
mileages are more exposed to the risk of crashes and more exposed to speeding
convictions. We'd expect to see a substantial increase in insurance premiums
for drivers with speeding convictions due to this effect alone.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The Times figures almost certainly show that the
average driver with speeding convictions pays less insurance per mile driven
than the average driver with a clean licence. That's exactly the opposite of
the message we're getting from government."

"The government is dangerously wrong. Speed cameras are the wrong road safety
policy and we have to get them off our roads right now. If we had put the same
resources into real road safety policies instead of speed cameras we'd now
have over 1,000 fewer road deaths each year."

"We're penalising millions of safe drivers and it's making the roads more
dangerous - everyone is concentrating on the wrong safety factor."

<ends>

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

Times article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 94,00.html

Safe Speed page on the deadly loss of trend in the most important road safety
indicator of all:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html

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

What is disconcerting is the attitude of the "road safety" groups.

Road safety groups said that the financial consequences of being caught speeding were now so low that the fine should be at least doubled to £120 to maintain the deterrent effect.

Could this be a mouthpiece for the pratnerships to boost their falling fortunes.

What next - bring back the stocks for speeding motorists??

No - there's no money in stocks

Cheers
Peter

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

Could be if you're a greengrocer- pete
On second thoughts , who'd want to throw a green, throw up ,perhaps

Would the green grocer then be subject to the 'netting off' of his 'profits'?

Or would he have to be fully signed up as a 'partner'?

With the pie shop perhaps??

I thought this part of the bill had been deleted.

With an accuracy of +/-2mph(without slip effect) how can they apply a sliding scale. If the threshold is 39 and you get clocked at 40 who's to say you weren't actualy doing 39 or even 38.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills