MW10 - Contravention of special roads regulations (not inc. speeding) - why so harsh on insurance? [Archive] - SV650.org

Paul the 6th

09-03-11, 03:07 PM

Just wondering if anyone can explain to me why I am getting such horrific anal rapage on the insurance front with this particular endorsement on my license. This isn't a rant about getting caught or the police, I'm just simply trying to get my head around why the MW10 is making my insurance so much more expensive..

The background:
I was joining the m62 motorway in west yorkshire after work one evening. The sliproad has 2 lanes going up onto the motorway, but as they start to merge with the m'way, the left most lane splits off and acts as a 'crawler lane' for slower vehicles, while the lane on the right just joins onto the motorway normally over maybe 150-200 yards. At the point where these 2 lanes split, they're bordered by a solid white line.

I was in the right hand lane trying to get on but there was some nugget in a car (austin metro/old skoda fabia from 1961 etc.) who was driving at 40mph in the slow lane/lane 1 of the motorway. 6 inches behind him was an articulated lorry who obviously thought he could persuade said driver to pick up his speed a little bit by getting so close.

Blocked from getting on I checked my rearview mirror, nearside mirror and then physically over my shoulder into the nearside blindspot - no vehicles within 300 yards of me in that lane, so I nipped over the white line into this lane to avoid making the lorry have to change direction or brake. I knew it was illegal to cross a solid white line but it seemed a better option than trying to squeeze my car in a gap which even tinkerbell would have trouble flying through.

The police traffic car sat behind the lorry already on the motorway nipped in behind me and promptly gave me a ticket despite explaining not wanting to make the lorry "change direction or brake". 3 points, £60 fine. No bad attitude, politely answered all the questions they asked with as much information as possible. I know a fair few people in the police and they're all down to earth individuals - there's only one I know of who's a real life nobber but he's a friend of a friend who's quite high up in north yorkshire's traffic section. The rest of them are regular humans.

Fair enough, Thanks for your time guys and sorry to have given you reason to have stopped me. I've managed 7 years of driving without any points and everyone says that 3 points doesn't affect your insurance too much anyway......

WRONG

Each time I've done a quote online with and without this MW10 endorsement the following quotes have calculated:

Audi S4 F.C. with 8 years NCB (admittedly a group 20 car with a reputation for being nicked twice a week before being used in ram-raids across the midlands)
without points: around £750
with points: approx £1000 was the cheapest quote I managed to get (33% extra)

VW Camper worth about £4k and capable of 100mph with tail wind
without points: £520
with points: £780 (50% more - for a friggin van? with a cooker and a bed in the back? Do they think I'm gonna do a drive by B&B jobbie on someone? "Have a bacon sandwich you slag!!!" Bosch!" *Drives off slowly*)

I genuinely wouldn't mind if it was maybe £100 or even £150 extra for crossing a solid white line on a carriageway where all the traffic is travelling in the same direction, I understand that rules are rules, and they're there for a reason, but I can't work out why I'm getting such a shafting for an endorsement which sounds so trivial when you read it off of the counterpart - in comparison to say - TWOC, drink driving, driving while disqualified or 'motor racing on the highway' (MS50 if you're interested)..

"MW10 - contravention of special roads regulations (not inc. speeding)" - as taken from the direct-gov site.

........so, is there any reason why MW10 would carry such a penalty which feels like it's on a par with having drink drive points on my license?

All advice greatly appreciated.

Owenski

09-03-11, 03:18 PM

I'd wager its one of those endorcements which covers a wide range of things, ie you were only crossing a white line which you deemed safe to do but for someone else they may recieve the same thing for going the wrong way around a round about. Insurance company dont know which one you've been booked for so assume the worst case and more importantly you pay more them more ;)

Similar one on my licence in case I've not made the above clear enough flower pot is my LC20 - Driving otherwise in accordance with the licence. I picked those up for not having 'L' plates on the DT, but thats the same code as people get who are caught driving a car when they dont have a licence. (What gutted me is there is such thing as a PL10 (failure to display L plates) doesnt effect insurance half as much so dunno why I wasnt given one of those :(

Viney

09-03-11, 03:22 PM

I would imagine that certain codes carry a stigma. Like a TS10, basically jumping a red light.
My friend rolled through a red light then stopped and she received a TS10. It was genuine mistake and knowing the junction, didn't cause any danger to herself or the other traffic, yet she gets done the same as if she hammered through it at 50mph making cars crash etc.

Sadly, its just the way it is im afraid. I got 2 speeding convictions within a year of each other and its amazing the difference that caused on my insurance. Insurance will use any excuse to get some more hard earned off you.

Paul the 6th

09-03-11, 03:22 PM

I did wonder if it was a bit of a blanket term or if historically it has a high degree of damage/injuries/danger associated with it..

Not trying to make out that what I did was ok or that it was 'safe' as my judgement of 'safe' doesn't come into it where the law is concerned. Rules is rules. Just wanted to try and find out if I'd have been better asking him to put it down as 'DCK-HD10 - driving like a cockhead' - might have sounded worse but atleast I wouldn't be as skint as a result

454697819

09-03-11, 03:37 PM

Paul the 6th

09-03-11, 04:03 PM

why didnt you take it to court?

ps... sorry bout the fricking insurance?

most years it wouldn't make a difference but this year any reason to shaft they are.. mine went up by 50 % as a named driver because someone ran into my car and their insurance payed out?

how very dangerous of you alex... you should have been more responsible, left the car at home and walked everywhere so as not to risk anybody driving into you. And was that with protected NCB? :( sorry mate..

I can understand with the s4 rocket of doom, but a flippin van which can stop from 60 quicker than it can power itself to 60, designed for leisurely drives through the country, bit of mountain biking, bbq's and watersports etc... the insurance on that is 50% extra?

In retrospect I wish I had maybe taken it to court but at the time I was thinking "3 points and £60 fine never hurt anybodies' insurance. Whats the point of risking a more severe penalty, court costs and time off work explaining to some judge why I didn't try and put myself under a truck, when I could just sign the form, get off home and live happily ever after......."

Hey ho.. Tried playing the insurance game by putting Dani as named driver with me as a 2nd driver. LOL £1100+ as she's only just 21. Best combo seems to be me as main driver her as 2nd driver as it's basically the same price for just me, or me and her.

Owenski

09-03-11, 04:35 PM

Whats the point of risking a more severe penalty, court costs and time off work explaining to some judge .....

Yeah cos your boss is right *****

davepreston

09-03-11, 04:43 PM

maybe the insurance companies have seen your driving ;)

AndyBrad

09-03-11, 05:00 PM

I can understand with the s4 rocket of doom, but a flippin van which can stop from 60 quicker than it can power itself to 60, designed for leisurely drives through the country, bit of mountain biking, bbq's and watersports etc... the insurance on that is 50% extra?
.

I DIDNT THINK SHE WAS THAT KIND OF GIRL!

Doh caps

anyhoo same boat chap. there just going to screw you over whatever now. Wanna buy a focus im going to start using the bus/bike 100% now as its costing too much for a group6 car!

dirtydog

09-03-11, 05:05 PM

Do they think I'm gonna do a drive by B&B jobbie on someone? "Have a bacon sandwich you slag!!!" Bosch!" *Drives off slowly*

.

Can't help with why it's such a big price hike for that offence but that bit did make me laugh

Paul the 6th

10-03-11, 08:41 AM

maybe the insurance companies have seen your driving ;)

I accidentally told them I sometimes ride with you :) tirty tree and a tird percent extra?!

Dicky Ticker

10-03-11, 10:33 AM

Nobody forced you to take the fixed penalty and points,if you felt it was excessive you could have gone to court and explained the circumsstances and the comments of the police .
Alternatively you could have waited behind the slower vehicle.
BUT---As you accepted the fixed penalty which stated the offence you must have realised what you did was wrong and now have to suffer the consequences,where as if you felt you did no wrong you could have refused it
Should you feel that the code is wrong you can appeal to the court to have it changed.
Everybody gets loaded for point accumulation on there license and it is just the offence coding that may make a bigger difference,and unfortunately you now have to live with it.Some insurance companies will not load your premium for a lesser offence if they know your driving record due to you being a customer for an extended period i.e. one SP30 in a five year period,but it varies from company to company

Roberrrrt

10-03-11, 02:04 PM

More importantly Paul, when are you going to reply to me RE that print work?!

mikerj

10-03-11, 03:05 PM

Nobody forced you to take the fixed penalty and points,if you felt it was excessive you could have gone to court and explained the circumsstances and the comments of the police .

What a highly useful comment :rolleyes:

The OP was hardly in a position to know what impact this would have on his insurance at the time he accepted the FPN. 3 points for speeding tends to have minimal effect on premiums, like him I would probably have thought that this would have had similar consequences.

BaP

10-03-11, 03:16 PM

Be interested to see what it'd be with an MS50 compared to yours...

3 points for a minor offence puts you up 33%...what about a serious one?

Dicky Ticker

10-03-11, 04:25 PM

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought there was a time lapse between getting issued with a FPN and having to conform with the notice during which time you can research the offence and the consequences.

Never take things for-granted,thinking you know and finding out and actually knowing can be two different things,

yorkie_chris

10-03-11, 05:16 PM

It's all a lot of b*llocks really, I don't agree with this whole thing of punishing people 10 times for the same bloody thing, proof that the "justice" system isn't working.

For example I get caught doing 130mph, it's plausible that I could get a long ban and forced to take an extended retest as well as a large fine.

So, ban, fine, retest to make sure I'm safe back on the road (obviously BS too, if you can drive at 130 you'll be fine at 30...) Say £500 fine
Then you get d*cked on the extended retest(s) because it's ridiculously expensive and you'll probably fail since the examiners are prejudiced against you as they know you've been naughty. £500 again?
Then you get d*cked when you come to insure something again if you declare it. As we see here, £1000 extra? More?

All for something that may well have been completely safe in the first place. With the ridiculous cynicism to punish you for doing it right! With that extra £2000 you could just buy something faster, not like the punishment is much worse when they can't catch you at 180mph. It's just mentally predisposed to make you commit MORE offences not less!

And DT, how bloody patronising do you want to be? If you really put some effort in you might get off the scale...
you must have realised what you did was wrong and now have to suffer the consequences
You want him to stand in corner for a while?

FFS. If he'd gone to court chances are he would have got more points and a bigger fine. What he did was not wrong, in knowing this junction the line was put in place by a mong. It was not "wrong", simply illegal, and some c*** of a cop decided to write him up for it.

Paul the 6th

11-03-11, 08:26 AM

cheers YC I did think dicky was maybe a bit grumpy that day so decided the energy saved by ignoring him would be better spent re-arranging the tins in my pantry.

As stated in OP, it's so much a rant that I got caught - I knew it was wrong, I know the rules are there for a reason.... I was just wondering why my insurance was giving me a financial kicking which I thought would have been more in line with somebody who's got 6 or 9 points, or something more serious like drink/drug driving? (but then those things merit a ban and I would have probably been refused insurance altogether)..

Anywho, I've got me s4 and I'm gonna get a camper - they're not gonna stop me. Come and get me rozzers!

Berlin

11-03-11, 09:12 AM

You have a pantry? oooohhhhh Get you!

:)

Electro

11-03-11, 09:19 AM

The law is crap when it comes to this. Accept it and you get the points and fine, go to court, win and you leave happy, lose and the points, fine and other punishment increase for some reason or other because you ask a Magistrate to take other circumstances into consideration. There should be a no worries way of going to court to seek clarification of the why`s and the hows but you get punished more for daring to question the law.

Yes your honour, i did do exactly what i have been charged with but...... Sorry, you are now being punished more for daring to open your mouth.

Dicky Ticker

11-03-11, 10:25 AM

Patronising I maybe but what I said is fact. Yes you do get stuffed and if you haven't learned your lesson more fool you
Ignorance is no excuse and bleating about the punishment when caught doesn't wash in my book.
If I have understood the facts of the original post regarding the offence it could quite easily been Driving without Due Care which is another one up on the scale.

We all make mistakes sometimes and I am no exception,I've had points, fines and bans in my nearly 50 years of riding/driving but I never winged as they were all due to my own stupidity,nobody forced me to do it and like everybody else it cost me bucks in more ways than one

You are not being made a special case Paul it has happened to me as well,that's life-----------sorry but true

yorkie_chris

11-03-11, 10:31 AM

So what's that got to do with the OP? He's asking why this particular offence code is getting him such a bumming, not having a whinge about it. You were the one whinging other day because a thread did not meet your quotient of speed triple content...

Although the combination of a proper c*nt of a copper, some retarded white lines and absolutely no risk to the general public means that it is well and truly an "offence" worth whinging about.

AndyBrad

11-03-11, 10:46 AM

While i sympathise with paul (and btw can i borrow your van when you get one J) the fact is there are some real numpties on he roads these days. These people are not only a hazard to themselves but other people. They stick white lines on the road to stop these prats moving over and cutting you up especially at decent speeds. I think its something worth enforcing really. However i do think the copper should have seen the situation and let you off with it. Having been on the other end of the “you should have let me off with it” and ending up with 6 points and an in10 i feel your pain (try doubling of insurance as a minimum!) The penalties are there to suit the potential of the offence. Unfortunatly its also come at a time when youve got a nice motor, are young and insurance on a shopping trolley could have been a house deposit. It sucks man, now if only the scote that got a 150 quid fine for driving without insurance in a nicked motor over the same white lines at 130mph got the same punishment hey and not a slap on the wrist!

yorkie_chris

11-03-11, 11:20 AM

That's the thing, the scrote only gets punished once for it. A generally law abiding person gets punished multiple times for it :(

Dicky Ticker

11-03-11, 04:04 PM

Sorry YC I haven't derailed his thread, but I thought he was complaining about his insurance being hiked due to his motoring offence,or was Paul just after a bit of sympathy
Complaining,objecting to,unhappy with,what ever you want to call it instead of the word whinging
If my facts or anything I have said is wrong I give my unreserved apology,but if not I stand by what I have said.
Everybody seems to be a "c**t" in your book and the rest of the world idiots
You definitely have a downer with regard to the police doing their job and seem to think that you should get away anything that doesn't involve an accident but just think about the original post.Do you think it was a safe thing to do,especially with a police car there,perhaps they, the police, thought he was being a bit cheeky doing it in front of them
I agreed that you get persecuted by insurance for motoring offences and not just in the court so what is your problem?
I don't give a toss what you think about me and regard your comments as misplaced due to your youth and having a different attitude to society than me so carry on berating me as it is water off a ducks back.

Paul the 6th

11-03-11, 04:17 PM

Sorry YC I haven't derailed his thread, but I thought he was complaining about his insurance being hiked due to his motoring offence,or was Paul just after a bit of sympathy

No. Allow me, if you will, to draw your attention to post 1, article 1, sentence 1, with which I opened this thread:
Just wondering if anyone can explain to me why I am getting such horrific anal rapage on the insurance front with this particular endorsement on my license.

Please also allow me to point out that:

This isn't a rant about getting caught or the police,

It's also worth taking into consideration, post 1, article 3, subsection 2 of sentence 2:
I'm just simply trying to get my head around why the MW10 is making my insurance so much more expensive..

Complaining,objecting to,unhappy with,what ever you want to call it instead of the word whinging

Still no complaining from me, even down at paragraph 6, subsection 1, here we note that:

Fair enough, Thanks for your time guys and sorry to have given you reason to have stopped me. I've managed 7 years of driving without any points and everyone says that 3 points doesn't affect your insurance too much anyway......

WRONG

So with the issue of me 'whinging, moaning, complaining, chasing sympathy etc. whatever it is you're trying to get at (rather than maybe advising about MW10 and why it's so antagonistic to insurers)

At this point, we can begin with some complaining:
Each time I've done a quote online with and without this MW10 endorsement the following quotes have calculated:

Audi S4 F.C. with 8 years NCB (admittedly a group 20 car with a reputation for being nicked twice a week before being used in ram-raids across the midlands)
without points: around £750
with points: approx £1000 was the cheapest quote I managed to get (33% extra)

VW Camper worth about £4k and capable of 100mph with tail wind
without points: £520
with points: £780 (50% more - for a friggin van? with a cooker and a bed in the back? Do they think I'm gonna do a drive by B&B jobbie on someone? "Have a bacon sandwich you slag!!!" Bosch!" *Drives off slowly*)

It's worth highlighting that there was some humour in that last bit to reinforce the the fact I'm not in tears or marching outside a police station with a plackard demanding that the rules be changed because I'm a special case...

But then, for all those of you who weren't paying full attention from the start (or bothered to read the entire OP) I bring it back to the main reason for posting, kind of a circular narrative, as I didn't want to distract the reader with too much of the background info section (I've put it in red here so that you don't miss it)...

I genuinely wouldn't mind if it was maybe £100 or even £150 extra for crossing a solid white line on a carriageway where all the traffic is travelling in the same direction, I understand that rules are rules, and they're there for a reason, but I can't work out why I'm getting such a shafting for an endorsement which sounds so trivial when you read it off of the counterpart - in comparison to say - TWOC, drink driving, driving while disqualified or 'motor racing on the highway' (MS50 if you're interested)..

"MW10 - contravention of special roads regulations (not inc. speeding)" - as taken from the direct-gov site.

And then, just in case, to make absolute certain, to guarantee, to be 100% sure that I'm not coming across as having a whinge, I've gone back to my original question as detailed in post 1, article 1, sentence 1, with which I opened this thread:

........so, is there any reason why MW10 would carry such a penalty which feels like it's on a par with having drink drive points on my license?

All advice greatly appreciated.

Not sure if that sounds a bit patronising but then I can be a bit of a c*** sometimes. :smt069

tom-k6

11-03-11, 04:34 PM

speaking of trivial-ness, i here-in enclose a word for word copy of my Charge Sheet from the Police when larking about with friends and a packet of Mint Imperials.

" 1 RT88042 - Causing danger by causing item to be on/over road.
On 16/03/2009 at Birmingham in the county of West Midlands, intentionally and without authority or reasonable cause, caused SWEETS to be on a road, namely Lancaster Circus, in such circumstances that it would have been obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous. contrary to section 2 (1)(a) of the road traffic act 1988."

anyone would like to guess exactly what i was doing with 2 friends that got me this charge sheet, a £50 fine, 4 months on electronic tagging device with an 8pm til 6am curfew and go to a community group session every saturday morning for 6months. please be aware that this is my first offence, first time ever in a situation with police and first time being known to the police apart from when i nearly got my first bike nicked.

so any guessers there??

yorkie_chris

11-03-11, 04:49 PM

You definitely have a downer with regard to the police doing their job and seem to think that you should get away anything that doesn't involve an accident but just think about the original post.Do you think it was a safe thing to do

I'd say the job of a policeman is to promote road safety. Secondary to that but nonetheless important is a good relationship with the public. I reckon they've failed on both counts there as less enlightened people would take away from this that all policemen are jobsworths more interested in handing out tickets for everything instead of catching real criminals.

I personally know this junction and I do not consider it a dangerous thing to do.

Paul the 6th

11-03-11, 04:54 PM

I'd say the job of a policeman is to promote road safety. Secondary to that but nonetheless important is a good relationship with the public. I reckon they've failed on both counts there as less enlightened people would take away from this that all policemen are jobsworths more interested in handing out tickets for everything instead of catching real criminals.

I personally know this junction and I do not consider it a dangerous thing to do.

To be fair he had a rookie traffic cop sat in the front seat 'cos he kept showing him what he'd written & where... I think he just wanted to demonstrate writing out the ticket hence why he asked for my reasons, then basically blanked me when I gave him the reasons.

But so as not to derail this thread - I now know that MW10 is a blanket endorsement which can apply to far worse examples of driving.. I would have thought that crossing a solid white line would have had it's own specific endorsement code since it's literally a black & white offence.

Anywho, tomk6 - were you having a competition to see who could throw mint imperials at the cats eyes on the road? You imbecile, you should have atleast had a suspended sentence for that :razz:

tom-k6

11-03-11, 05:11 PM

nope, we were throwing them at eachother to see who could cause a bruise, happend to be near the road, and some ROLLED into the road, police said we were seen on CCTV which fair enough, we
could have been throwing ninja death stars at eachother, but you would think, the police would turn up and go "oh its sweeties, well eat them and stop throwing them at eachother you hoodlums"

davepreston

11-03-11, 05:17 PM

paul i dont mean to upset you but as you know i was banned for drink driving (i was a nob and have learned my lesson btw readers)
i got a dr10, my insurance was betwen 30% and 50% more when run against quotes with no dr10 on licence (i wanted to see what my stupidity cost me) bear in mind i had zero no claims at the time as i just got my licence back. so i am a bit shocked by the qoutes your getting with your offence

points of note
this was 5 years ago (dont have to declare it now wooohooo), and give swinton a phone they just gave me a blinding deal on a multibike policy today hth

dave

mikerj

11-03-11, 06:42 PM

nope, we were throwing them at eachother to see who could cause a bruise, happend to be near the road, and some ROLLED into the road,

I remembered the case as soon as I read your post, but I thought you said the mints fell out of your pocket (http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2009/May/may1509-tagged-for-dropping-sweets/)? ;)

irons

11-03-11, 10:48 PM

Just wondering if anyone can explain to me why I am getting such horrific anal rapage on the insurance front with this particular endorsement on my license.

any endorsement shows an insurance company you are a higher risk. The fact you got the 3 points shows poor driving, if you cant pull on a motorway from a slip road it does not inspire confidence in your driving. Thats why you pay more

mikerj

11-03-11, 10:51 PM

irons

11-03-11, 10:59 PM

Someone else who seems to have missed the point.

sorry i think my answer is more than relevant to the question asked in the quote above it?

But if there is a point ive missed feel free to enlighten me?

The Idle Biker

11-03-11, 11:10 PM

I think I've missed the point, but I'd like to add that I admire Paul's 6th's restraint. If I'd been booked in those circumstances I would have been bloody furious. Sounds like he moved to a safer road position, just like when you occasionally have to speed to get out of a situation. Sounds fine to me. OB should have used some common sense, remind him of the rules or whatever and got back in his car to get some real idiots instead. In my opinion.
As for the case with the mints, jeez unbelievable.

mikerj

11-03-11, 11:12 PM

sorry i think my answer is more than relevant to the question asked in the quote above it?

But if there is a point ive missed feel free to enlighten me?

Read Pauls response (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=2499468&postcount=26)to the other guy, should clarify things. That said I thought the opening post was perfectly clear.

irons

11-03-11, 11:24 PM

Read Pauls response (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=2499468&postcount=26)to the other guy, should clarify things. That said I thought the opening post was perfectly clear.

any endorsement shows an insurance company you are a higher risk. The fact you got the 3 points shows poor driving, if you cant pull on a motorway from a slip road it does not inspire confidence in your driving. Thats why you pay more

No sorry i still dont appear to get it, i thought he was asking why a mw10 has been so harsh on this insurance?

Opening line of my response.......ANY ENDORSEMENT SHOWS AN INSURANCE COMPANY YOU ARE A HIGHER RISK

and i missed the point? amazing!

Electro

11-03-11, 11:36 PM

sorry i think my answer is more than relevant to the question asked in the quote above it?

But if there is a point ive missed feel free to enlighten me?

Its not relevant because you cant have read and absorbed the information on the op fully and correctly.

You must have no points on your licence and drive like a real saddo. Never got stuck in a box junction, gone through a changing light a little later than you should have, driven above the stated speed limit on a road or any other minor offence that can put point on your licence or been in a position where you have had to take action because of something else that you have no control over like another person, vehicle or what have you?

irons

11-03-11, 11:54 PM

Its not relevant because you cant have read and absorbed the information on the op fully and correctly.

You must have no points on your licence and drive like a real saddo. Never got stuck in a box junction, gone through a changing light a little later than you should have, driven above the stated speed limit on a road or any other minor offence that can put point on your licence or been in a position where you have had to take action because of something else that you have no control over like another person, vehicle or what have you?

Ok i just need to be clear on this, the op and in fact title of this thread is asking why the endorsement mw10 is so harsh on insurance??? please correct me if i have misunderstood that.
I replied stating that any endorsement says to an insurance company that you are a higher risk. That is not the view i would take altho i do think the example in the op is poor driving.

My licence is now clean but i still have to declare a ts10 and a ts50 to my insurance company. both of which were poor driving on my part but i decided to take the risk.

Explain the point to me if you think i am missing it

Electro

12-03-11, 12:08 AM

any endorsement shows an insurance company you are a higher risk. The fact you got the 3 points shows poor driving, if you cant pull on a motorway from a slip road it does not inspire confidence in your driving. Thats why you pay more

Its the bold underlined text that misses it by a mile. If you were to cross a solid white line to continue on your way without having to slow to a crawl on an on slip and there are no other vehicles around that you were going to hamper by your manouver, would you deem it poor driving?

Dont know what your codes are for so cant comment on them but if you got caught doing the most trivial of illegal manouvers, you have to admit you would be a bit gutted and not immediately start rabbiting on about your poor driving.

irons

12-03-11, 12:21 AM

Its the bold underlined text that misses it by a mile. If you were to cross a solid white line to continue on your way without having to slow to a crawl on an on slip and there are no other vehicles around that you were going to hamper by your manouver, would you deem it poor driving?

Dont know what your codes are for so cant comment on them but if you got caught doing the most trivial of illegal manouvers, you have to admit you would be a bit gutted and not immediately start rabbiting on about your poor driving.

if you read it in context its from an insurance point of view. points on your licence to them shows poor driving.

Some people do get hit unfairly altho lets be honest you have either committed the offence or you haven't. In the case of the op its not the most dangerous piece of driving you will come across during the normal day out on the roads but it is poor driving. A slip road is long enough to be able to plan your merge to the motorway.first car was doing i think he said 40mph? well floor it to get on infront of him?? if you think that will be unsafe then hold back. Its a case of not planning until the last minute which is poor driving. Lets be honest unless the inside lane is bumper to bumper traffic how hard is it to merge ?
Does not mean the op is a crap driver it means he made a mistake which we all do, he was just unlucky he got caught. That day he was lucky as there was nothing on his inside but what if there was?

mine was jumping a red light and going through a no entry

orose

12-03-11, 07:48 AM

I think the issue is that there is this common perception that 3 or 6 points aren't too bad for insurance, because there was a spate of people getting SP30s from cameras. As a result, insurers may have been willing to show a bit of goodwill towards SP30s, so they can grab this business. It would appear that other offence codes still show the loadings that would have normally been given, which has obviously given Paul a bit of a shock.

dizzyblonde

12-03-11, 08:21 AM

Paul the 6th

12-03-11, 09:27 AM

f*** off dizzee.... :razz: only joking... Think Oli hit the nail on the head, atleast I know the insurers haven't made a mistake by increasing my premiums to the same level as someone with DR10... They could have atleast used some vaselline or olive oil but hey ho :)

yorkie_chris

12-03-11, 10:09 AM

Take your toys and calm down fellas:D

In all fairness, you have to remember that at 63 years of age, and a retired police officer, DT only speaks from experience....from both sides of the coin. He hasn't been on the road for over 40 years to not rack up something along the way.

YC..calm the language or I may have to stop your cake supply:smt080 You are as opinionated as Dicky, and at 20 odd years old ...you know feck all in the grand scheme of things. Argue with me, call me what you will, but be like you are here in life and slowly people will become alientated., I prefer to have the less abusive debate with you like at home.

TA...grumpy mare ;)

I don't care who anyone is or what they have done, if their attitude is patronising then they will get short shrift from me and told exactly what I think about it.

By bringing age into it you've just shot your own argument right in the tits. You cannot say I know feck all and then call my arguments abusive, that's rich.

If you are too grumpy to bring facts to table and discuss like a grown up then probably best to leave the internet forums alone hey?

irons

12-03-11, 10:21 AM

I don't care who anyone is or what they have done, if their attitude is patronising then they will get short shrift from me and told exactly what I think about it.

By bringing age into it you've just shot your own argument right in the tits. You cannot say I know feck all and then call my arguments abusive, that's rich.

If you are too grumpy to bring facts to table and discuss like a grown up then probably best to leave the internet forums alone hey?

That last line is also very grown up! I wouldn't say you know feck all but you do seem to have a closed mind on most things. Nothing wrong with that its your opinion, its just not always right

Dicky Ticker

12-03-11, 10:50 AM

Irons, You are a tad more diplomatic than I intended to be

Paul the 6th

12-03-11, 11:04 AM

anywho, whinging and moaning asside, atleast now I know that "3 points won't really affect you too much" only really applies to 'run of the mill' type stuff like sp30's etc. as oli mentioned.

In the meantime I'll just have to do everything I can to try and bring insurance down... Car based IAM? Eeeek... I'll get my flatcap, pipe and slippers :)

-Ralph-

12-03-11, 11:09 AM

Just subscribing so I can read this later

http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww77/Tuarisbucket/Smileys/male29-male-theater-cinema-smiley-e.gif

Dicky Ticker

12-03-11, 11:47 AM

Kind sir,are you prechance extracting the urine:D

Paul the 6th

12-03-11, 01:04 PM

Just subscribing so I can read this later

http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww77/Tuarisbucket/Smileys/male29-male-theater-cinema-smiley-e.gif

tis quite informative, funny and contraversial in places col :D

Electro

12-03-11, 01:36 PM

if you read it in context its from an insurance point of view. points on your licence to them shows poor driving.

The fact you got the 3 points shows poor driving,

Your words and not an insurance underwriters.

Points dont give any evidence of poor driving. Looks like you enjoy sticking in your opinion and thats it. When you can post factual statements that would stand up i`ll bother to read them. Till then i`ll leave u to carry on talking like the contents of a pair of budgie smugglers.

Paul the 6th

12-03-11, 01:40 PM

I'm off to butterfly world :) toodle pip

Electro

12-03-11, 01:43 PM

Just dont cross a swl on the way!!

dizzyblonde

12-03-11, 08:27 PM

I don't care who anyone is or what they have done, if their attitude is patronising then they will get short shrift from me and told exactly what I think about it.

By bringing age into it you've just shot your own argument right in the tits. You cannot say I know feck all and then call my arguments abusive, that's rich.

If you are too grumpy to bring facts to table and discuss like a grown up then probably best to leave the internet forums alone hey?

So I got out of the wrong side of the bed, thought seeing as though everyone else was being grumpy, opinionated and self righteous, then so can I!:smt016

Obviously hit a nerve then:rolleyes::jocolor:
WTF should I leave a forum alone...kinda like it here :(

Paul the 6th

12-03-11, 08:56 PM

Just dont cross a swl on the way!!

nah there was a guy in a vectra right up my chuff all along the a64 from leeds to the a1m... Looked like he was gunning for me to overtake the articulated lorry on solid white lines all the way but waited for dual carriageway..

Shoulda seen his face when I took off :D (just had it re-mapped to 320-ish bhp) "That s-reg audi A4 just broke the sound barrier?!"

Paul the 6th

12-03-11, 09:01 PM

oh and the butterflies were mint btw - enjoyed the meerkats more though :)

-Ralph-

12-03-11, 09:04 PM

lose and the points, fine and other punishment increase for some reason or other because you ask a Magistrate to take other circumstances into consideration. There should be a no worries way of going to court to seek clarification of the why`s and the hows but you get punished more for daring to question the law

No you don't, IN THEORY!

I have walked away from court with 3 points and 60 quid, and the sheriff all but announced to the court that the fact I was there was the result of a speed camera partnership wasting the courts time instead of just issuing a fixed penalty. Although I was more than 50% over the limit (64 in a 40), I was within the ACPO guidelines for an FPN, not a court apperance, therefore it should have been dealt with in that manner. Now I realise that me being summonsed to court, is different to me asking to go to court, but it SHOULDN'T matter, the punishment IN THEORY should still fit the crime.

It SHOULD be the case that you only get more points and a bigger fine, if actually the copper was letting you off lightly by giving you an FPN, and by taking it to court you opened yourself up to a bigger fine and more points, that being appropriate for the offence you committed.

If you took 80 mph on a motorway to court because you disagreed with the speed you were alleged to be doing, but the charge was upheld and you lost, you still SHOULDN'T be getting more than the standard 3 points and 60 quid that you would expect for that offence.

No. Allow me, if you will, to draw your attention to post 1, article 1, sentence 1, with which I opened this thread:

Please also allow me to point out that:

It's also worth taking into consideration, post 1, article 3, subsection 2 of sentence 2:

Still no complaining from me, even down at paragraph 6, subsection 1, here we note that:

And then, just in case, to make absolute certain, to guarantee, to be 100% sure that I'm not coming across as having a whinge, I've gone back to my original question as detailed in post 1, article 1, sentence 1, with which I opened this thread

Firkin lost me mate :smt101

But so as not to derail this thread - I now know that MW10 is a blanket endorsement which can apply to far worse examples of driving

I had an MW10 for speeding!

I was in a 50 limit roadworks on the M5 (in 1998, long before the days of average speed cameras) which I went through at about 75mph, then as I hit the national speed limit sign I hit the the cruise control 'resume' button, which was set to 95mph. I got pulled about 2 miles further up the motorway by an unmarked Rover 800 that had VASCAR'd me (these 20yr olds only been on the road for 3 yrs will need to google that, they know nothing ;) ).

Got in the back of the cop car and he asked if I knew what speed I was doing, realising I was done for I said "yep, the cruise control was set to 95", he nodded and said, "OK, you realise how serious 95mph is through roadworks with a 50 limit, but since you've been straight with me, I'm going to give you a fixed penalty", I thought "I wasn't doing 95 though the 50 limit", but I realised I was getting an FPN, deserved the FPN for 95 in a 70 anyway, so there was no point arguing with the guy about whether or not it was through the roadworks, just take the ticket and run.

When the license came back it was MW10. I was expecting an SP offence code so I looked it up and found it was "Contravening motorway regulations", so I thought it was just 'cos the guy had booked me for speeding in the temporary 50 limit.

It was only recently I looked at a list of offence codes for another reason and saw the "except speeding" bit. Whether it was just a screw up that I got one, or whether "except speeding" is something added since I don't know.

and a retired police officer, DT only speaks from experience....from both sides of the coin.

Really? Don't think you ever told me that one DT. I thought you'd been on the trucks most of your days. Even if you had told me, I have a memory like a sieve. One to accompany the next bottle of malt!

Kind sir,are you prechance extracting the urine:D

I wasn't, I just saw a few posts from a few users who are almost as notorious as me and thought "hmmm, this should be interesting". But now I've read it, yes, urine taking is indeed in order....

...Are yer bunions geein ye jip? 'Cos yer geein it some backjaw the day, ye grumpy auld mither! ;)

Points dont give any evidence of poor driving.

+1, how many roads that have been perfectly safe for 30 years at 60 mph, have had the limits dropped to 50 or even 40 mph? Points mean feck all.

Geodude

12-03-11, 09:22 PM

oh and the butterflies were mint btw - enjoyed the meerkats more though :)
Preston park butterfly world? meercats are mint also. Derail over

irons

13-03-11, 12:11 AM

The fact you got the 3 points shows poor driving,

Your words and not an insurance underwriters.

Points dont give any evidence of poor driving. Looks like you enjoy sticking in your opinion and thats it. When you can post factual statements that would stand up i`ll bother to read them. Till then i`ll leave u to carry on talking like the contents of a pair of budgie smugglers.

are forums not about opinions? Another member who only likes his way of thinking. My view is that in most case's and please note i said MOST case's points on your licence does show poor driving. By poor i mean, reckless, stupid, dangerous,etc etc just something that could cause an accident and so on. Now you get points on your licence only by doing things you should not be doing on a public road..correct? In simple terms something illegal? Now the law's are there for a reason and right there is the problem, some on here believe many of the law's are stupid and not needed. No problem with that as its their opinion. i Believe 95% of them are needed as the standard of driving i see day in day out is beyond bad.
So i believe (and its only my opinion) that to get points, in most case's you would of demonstrated a degree of poor driving by breaking one of the law's. You may disagree and thats cool but it does not make you right same as my opinion does not make me right!

Now you want facts (already stated them but here goes) An insurance company will deem you a higher risk if you have points for most things. (FACT just look at the op) Now they dont deem you a higher risk because points show good driving do they? they deem you a higher risk because to them you breaking the law shows you are more likely to be reckless, dangerous, stupid etc which as i said above i consider as poor driving.

-Ralph-

13-03-11, 12:40 AM

My view is that in most case's and please note i said MOST case's points on your licence does show poor driving. By poor i mean, reckless, stupid, dangerous,etc etc

Nonsense. I am a high mileage driver. In 30's, 40's and most 50's (unless until recently it was perfectly safe as a 60) I always stick to the speed limits, or at least to within 10% of them. In 60's and 70's I don't. I never have a clean license. Do high mileage and break the speed limits and the occasional ticket goes with the territory, so long as you don't get 4 tickets in a 3 year period all is tickety boo. In my 19 years of driving and riding, I have had two years spent on 9 points where I had to be a very good boy. I have never got points in a situation where I was reckless, stupid, or dangerous. Only got caught speeding on an open road, in dry conditions, with clear visibility

MOST cases of points, across the board are for speeding. Not tailgating, not undertaking, not without due care, not drunk driving. MOST points are for speeding and MOST are fixed penalty tickets for a speed that is within the ACPO guideline for a court apperance (the speed at which the authorities consider it becomes inherently dangerous, not just illegal). MOST points are an SP offence code which is largely ignored by insurance companies as they don't consider it reckless, stupid, or dangerous.

MOST points do not mean "poor" driving under your definition of "reckless, stupid, or dangerous".

MOST points are ordinary people who slipped a few miles per hour over the speed limit.

We have the explosion of speed cameras and the constant cut backs in the number of police traffic patrols to thank for this. I'd love to go back to the days where you had to keep your eyes peeled for coppers if you were speeding. There would be more points issued for reckless, stupid, or dangerous driving if that were the case. Nowadays you can speed with relative impunity so long as you know where the cameras are likely to be. But you can perform dangerous manoeuvres such as tailgating, undertaking, crossing SWL on bends or blind dips, with almost complete impunity. Which is why, "the standard of driving [you] see day in day out is beyond bad", there is nobody to correct, educate and where necessary punish this kind of driving.

Electro

13-03-11, 10:06 AM

are forums not about opinions? Another member who only likes his way of thinking.

It has nothing to do with my way of thinking. It has everything to do with your thinking is so far off the mark. The only one who only likes his way of thinking is you. Thats the reason i posted and quoted you. You seem to have a high opinion of yourself judging by comments made on a few other posts, well lucky you coz my opinion of you is slightly different.

-Ralph-

13-03-11, 10:24 AM

Although I was more than 50% over the limit (64 in a 40)

In 30's, 40's and most 50's (unless until recently it was perfectly safe as a 60) I always stick to the speed limits, or at least to within 10% of them

Just before Iron's jumps on this and makes a big thing about it, which he would, I was caught at 64mph by a scamera van on the horizon as I crossed these speed limit signs.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=edinburgh&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=21.172589,57.084961&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Edinburgh,+City+of+Edinburgh,+United+Kingdom&ll=55.971565,-3.329158&spn=0.008814,0.055747&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=55.971561,-3.329132&panoid=zyNLmYGvj6la_DB8gpWQxQ&cbp=11,124.12,,0,7.84

That section of dual carriageway has been 70mph since speed limits were introduced and has no particular history of accidents, but some tit sitting in an office decided it had to be a 40 limit. I was braking down to 40 at the time and was at 40 long before I reached the scamera van and long before reaching the start of the urban area, one mile later, where the 40 limit used to begin.

The sheriff (the equivalent of a Magistrate in England, but a paid professional), said in court that he has nearly been caught on that section himself and through the sheer numbers of people he sees in court in front of him as a result of that scamera van, he realises that the limit is ridiculous.

irons

13-03-11, 10:58 AM

It has nothing to do with my way of thinking. It has everything to do with your thinking is so far off the mark. The only one who only likes his way of thinking is you. Thats the reason i posted and quoted you. You seem to have a high opinion of yourself judging by comments made on a few other posts, well lucky you coz my opinion of you is slightly different.

of course your way of thinking is correct, how dare anyone question it

irons

13-03-11, 11:11 AM

Just before Iron's jumps on this and makes a big thing about it, which he would, I was caught at 64mph by a scamera van on the horizon as I crossed these speed limit signs.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=edinburgh&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=21.172589,57.084961&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Edinburgh,+City+of+Edinburgh,+United+Kingdom&ll=55.971565,-3.329158&spn=0.008814,0.055747&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=55.971561,-3.329132&panoid=zyNLmYGvj6la_DB8gpWQxQ&cbp=11,124.12,,0,7.84

That section of dual carriageway has been 70mph since speed limits were introduced and has no particular history of accidents, but some tit sitting in an office decided it had to be a 40 limit. I was braking down to 40 at the time and was at 40 long before I reached the scamera van and long before reaching the start of the urban area, one mile later, where the 40 limit used to begin.

The sheriff (the equivalent of a Magistrate in England, but a paid professional), said in court that he has nearly been caught on that section himself and through the sheer numbers of people he sees in court in front of him as a result of that scamera van, he realises that the limit is ridiculous.

Ralph i cant be bothered to as you say "jump on this" Your reply is not worth it, for example you state that most points are only people going a few miles an hour over the speed limit. Thats your guess, dont state it as fact. The stretch of road you are going on about i dont know at all but in just under 5 minutes i found the reason for the speed limit's and if true they are called for imo Do some research on it.

The point i was making when i first posted was that your premium on insurance will go up with points as they deem you a higher risk. (Higher risk because your a better driver or poorer driver?) That is fact. Everything else is my opinion, if you dont agree with it i really dont care but i just dont understand why you and others like electro want to argue an opinion. if i was stating it as fact then fine go ahead and shoot me down and say im wrong.

You need to grow up, this forum is not just about you and your mates

Electro

13-03-11, 11:45 AM

You need to grow up, this forum is not just about you and your mates

Seems the only one who needs to grow up is you. More than one person thinks you are incorrect in your facts yet you seem to think that you have to state the same thing on and on and on.

Bored of reading the same over and over from you.

Mates on the forum, not many know me but the majority on here are friends through a passion for what the org stands for.

You like to throw the little daggers about and get the digs in. Glad u aint in my area so i dont have the unfortunate chance of you being in my local rides as you would probably have something to to moan about if you were.

irons

13-03-11, 12:07 PM

Seems the only one who needs to grow up is you. More than one person thinks you are incorrect in your facts yet you seem to think that you have to state the same thing on and on and on.

Bored of reading the same over and over from you.

Mates on the forum, not many know me but the majority on here are friends through a passion for what the org stands for.

You like to throw the little daggers about and get the digs in. Glad u aint in my area so i dont have the unfortunate chance of you being in my local rides as you would probably have something to to moan about if you were.

Your either not reading my post's or just taking what you want from them. "more than one person thinks you are incorrect in your facts" As i have already said my post only has one fact in it and the rest is my opinion. The fact i have stated is correct and backed up by any insurance quote and the op for that matter.
Have not until my last post thrown any daggers around or had any digs, maybe not at your own post's and see the amount of digs you like to dish out.
None of my post's have been moaning, im expressing an opinion which you dont agree with. Where is the problem? i Dont have an issue with you, Ralph or anyone else until for some reason to take extreme exception to my view and want an argument about it. Funny how its the same people this happens with.

I dont agree with you but i dont start picking at you, your entilted to have your say and must have reasons as to why you hold the views you do, its no big deal. so why is it when i post??
Look through all of my posts and its only on a couple of threads it gets into a huge debate so i think you have me all wrong but as i said no big deal.
why dont you just ignore what i say if you dont agree??? Maybe because you like to get your point across as much as anyone else?
Id love to be on a ride out with you one day ...sure it would be fun:rolleyes:

Dicky Ticker

13-03-11, 01:11 PM

I think we should remember that insurance is a risk factor business and a gamble on their part.They do not look at an individual when assessing these risks but look at the general spectrum and unfortunately if you fall into that category of offense you are tarred with the same brush.
Offense codes are another matter completely and I personally have been convicted of an offense under the wrong code which increased my insurance premium.
On making an appeal to the court I had it reduced to a lesser coding,all by writing a simple letter,which in turn had the loading on my insurance removed.
People comprehension of what is dangerous varies from individual to individual but in general terms the law or rules are put there for a reason and it is up to you to know the consequences if you break them
Should you decide to break the laws or rules cameras only show what they see,where as a police officer can use his discretion as he has more information than the camera,but they are human and can make mistakes as we all can.
Some may care to habitually flaunt the rules others take it on themselves to try and not make the same mistake again,but that is up to the individual to decide.
What the insurance companies and the courts think is a different thing,hence the toting up procedure with the ultimate being a ban for minor offences
Different offenses stay on your license for varying times,the more common ones between 4-11years but each time you are convicted it stays on court records for 11years and most insurance companies rate your premium over the past five years,all taken into consideration on repeat offenses.
I am not saying it is right or wrong but that is as it is and we all have to live with it
just or unjust what ever your opinion.

-Ralph-

13-03-11, 05:51 PM

Ralph i cant be bothered to as you say "jump on this" Your reply is not worth it

The stretch of road you are going on about i dont know at all but in just under 5 minutes i found the reason for the speed limit's and if true they are called for imo

Can't be bothered to jump on it, but did 5 minutes of research? Fair enough, I don't give 5 minutes to things on the forum I can't be bothered with, but I suppose it all depends on how much spare time you have.

Please enlighten us with your research, as the local police and local sheriffs were baffled by it. I know what excuses were given for that 40 limit, but there were certainly not considered as any more than excuses for a cash cow.

for example you state that most points are only people going a few miles an hour over the speed limit. Thats your guess, dont state it as fact.

Well it really depends upon how you define "a few" doesn't it? For the purposes of putting some credible science behind this, I'm going to say someone who was issued with an offer of fixed penalty for speeding committed a minor offence, a "few" mph over the speed limit. If over the ACPO guideline for a court appearance (and below it in many cases of scamera partnerships) most authorities do not issue a COFP, but pass it to the courts to be summonsed.

"In the UK the number of fixed penalties issued to speeding has grown massively over the last 10 years, but the number of people disqualified from driving has remained relatively stable" - European Transport Safety Council

"In 2005 1.92 million fixed penalty tickets were issued for speeding, up from 712,000 in 1997. By 2007 this had dropped to 1.46 million, it is thought that motorists had become accustomed to slowing down for the cameras - The Home Office

Approx 30 million cars on the road and 14% of drivers have been ticketed for speeding in the last 5 years.

It's not my guess, it is fact. I suggest you do your research.

-Ralph-

13-03-11, 06:11 PM

i Dont have an issue with you, Ralph or anyone else

Why exactly am I quoted in your signature then? Not that I'm bothered in the slightest, just curious, my opinion on your trolling in that thread available in the thread for anyone to read, doesn't make any difference if it is repeated in your signature.

You keep it as your signature if I mean that much to you darling! ;) :lol:

Specialone

13-03-11, 06:21 PM

Just a side note, three points hasn't made the slightest difference to my policies since I picked them up in 2007.

Every insurance quote I've had, they have told me 3 points doesn't affect the quote, but more than 3 does apparently.
But just because insurance sees that as a risk doesn't mean squat, they also happen to think that even a non fault accident can affect your premiums as statistically speaking you're more likely to have another accident.

That really annoys me as I had a wagon reverse into my van at slow speed while parked and I wasn't even in it, yet according to statistics I'm more likely to have another accident, WTF? Crock of ****, I've had two accidents in 22 years of driving and 2x 3 points in that time also, I'm a low risk yet my premiums dont reflect this.

Bluepete

13-03-11, 07:28 PM

irons

13-03-11, 07:39 PM

Can't be bothered to jump on it, but did 5 minutes of research? Fair enough, I don't give 5 minutes to things on the forum I can't be bothered with, but I suppose it all depends on how much spare time you have.

Please enlighten us with your research, as the local police and local sheriffs were baffled by it. I know what excuses were given for that 40 limit, but there were certainly not considered as any more than excuses for a cash cow.

Well it really depends upon how you define "a few" doesn't it? For the purposes of putting some credible science behind this, I'm going to say someone who was issued with an offer of fixed penalty for speeding committed a minor offence, a "few" mph over the speed limit. If over the ACPO guideline for a court appearance (and below it in many cases of scamera partnerships) most authorities do not issue a COFP, but pass it to the courts to be summonsed.

"In the UK the number of fixed penalties issued to speeding has grown massively over the last 10 years, but the number of people disqualified from driving has remained relatively stable" - European Transport Safety Council

"In 2005 1.92 million fixed penalty tickets were issued for speeding, up from 712,000 in 1997. By 2007 this had dropped to 1.46 million, it is thought that motorists had become accustomed to slowing down for the cameras - The Home Office

Approx 30 million cars on the road and 14% of drivers have been ticketed for speeding in the last 5 years.

It's not my guess, it is fact. I suggest you do your research.

How many of the 14% got a ticket for going a "few" miles an hour over the limit? Defining few is like less than 4/5 but more than 1. (normally people would define a few as 3) And how many got them for poor driving, e.g a 20mph limit outside a school and the driver is doing 30-35mph? Acpo guideline is a fixed penalty for that btw! (not a few mph over tho is it?)
How many tickets are issued in accordance with the guidelines set out?
Answer is you dont know so unless you can break them stats up with that kind of information they mean nothing and the statement of "most points come from drivers doing a few mph over the limit" is still just your guess!

doh (must do better)
and your quote is my signature not because i have an issue with you but just because i find it funny that its what you think.

-Ralph-

13-03-11, 07:51 PM

What? No research on the 40 limit in Edinburgh?

normally people would define a few as 3

Can you back that up with statistics? That's just your guess! Don't post it as fact.

MOST points are ordinary people who slipped a few miles per hour over the speed limit

I've had quite a few hot dinners in my time. There's a fair few people think the gulf war was all about the oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

:rolleyes:

-Ralph-

13-03-11, 08:05 PM

Paul the 6th

13-03-11, 08:08 PM

Am I sad and drive like an old man?

I have never had an endorsement on my licence and I've been driving for over twenty years. Those that ride with me know that I don't exactly hang about!

Paul, I can't explain why that endorsement is loading your policy so much, however, if your Audi has been remapped to a higher power, does the modification, which I'm sure you have disclosed, increase your premium?

Pete ;)

Already sorted that with my insurer before going for the re-map pete :) Because I got the s4 2 weeks before I was 25, all the main stream insurers wouldn't touch me (even directline who I've been with forever couldn't future date the quote to my 25th birthday to tell me how much it would be), so I had to go with a specialist (and sponsor of the SRS forums) who did quote competitively and are also mod friendly, so the cat-back system and re-map have only required a one off payment which included an admin charge. The smiles per mile are absolutely worth every penny..

Paul :D (there's that smile again lol)

Bluepete

13-03-11, 08:16 PM

Already sorted that with my insurer before going for the re-map pete :) Because I got the s4 2 weeks before I was 25, all the main stream insurers wouldn't touch me (even directline who I've been with forever couldn't future date the quote to my 25th birthday to tell me how much it would be), so I had to go with a specialist (and sponsor of the SRS forums) who did quote competitively and are also mod friendly, so the cat-back system and re-map have only required a one off payment which included an admin charge. The smiles per mile are absolutely worth every penny..

Paul :D (there's that smile again lol)

Want to be shown how to drive it properly?

Pete ;)

irons

13-03-11, 08:30 PM

It really doesn't matter how much I yank your chain and lead you into making daft arguments about what 'a few' means, nor does it matter what we can back up with statistics. Everyone reading this knows that the majority of points on peoples licenses were the result of a COFP for speeding, and that the majority do not automatically show that person is a poor, reckless, stupid, or dangerous driver. That's just the reality of it and unless someone lives in some sort of isolated bubble, or just likes arguing every little point for fun, or just can't stand to admit that something they wrote previously was bolox, they wouldn't try to argue otherwise.

i consider speeding as dangerous (look how many people are killed on our roads as a direct result of speeding each year)

Not saying i dont speed but i consider it not good safe driving. As ive stated many times that is just my opinion and you want to argue someone's opinion all the time which says more about you than it does me. your not even arguing the correct thing. I said an insurance company deem points as a higher risk driver..higher risk drivers are not good drivers..they are?? (in their eyes) not mine. READ THE POST'S. That is backed up in higher premiums.

Anyway Ralph with you i cant be fecked as this will just keep going and going. You excuse me of trolling yet i see you in so many heated debates on this forum always thinking your point is 100% correct. I am not always right (far from it) and neither do i try to be but im allowed to have an opinion on something without a muppet like you crying over every word i say and wetting your knickers

You dont have to agree as i dont with you but really...get over yourself mate. i will leave you to argue with your keyboard now

-Ralph-

13-03-11, 08:42 PM

your not even arguing the correct thing. I said an insurance company deem points as a higher risk driver..higher risk drivers are not good drivers..they are?? (in their eyes) not mine. READ THE POST'S. That is backed up in higher premiums.

You still banging on the same points over and over?

Anyway Ralph with you i cant be fecked as this will just keep going and going. You excuse me of trolling yet i see you in so many heated debates on this forum always thinking your point is 100% correct. I am not always right (far from it) and neither do i try to be but im allowed to have an opinion on something without a muppet like you crying over every word i say and wetting your knickers

You dont have to agree as i dont with you but really...get over yourself mate. i will leave you to argue with your keyboard now

Tut. You're such a spoilsport. Please don't go, the telly's crap this evening :smt043

The Idle Biker

13-03-11, 08:42 PM

Well I'm a newbie to the org, but for what it's it's worth, I think a few people should get out on their bikes a bit more often and enoy themselves. Anyway, what do I know it took me 20 years to get back on the bike. I feel quiet chilled now. 300 miles of back roads in 2 days kind of gets you that way.

Bloody Hell Mr Irons you get me sympathising with Mr Ralph and I never saw that coming.

yorkie_chris

13-03-11, 08:42 PM

(look how many people are killed on our roads as a direct result of speeding each year)

I suggest you look at the figures and the meaning of the wording used before presenting that as a fact.

If inappropriate speed is given as a reason that does NOT imply that the person was breaking the speed limit, simply that their speed contributed to the accident. Whether that be doing 30mph or 60mph, both are plausibly legal and both could be well over the safe conditions for the road, thus contributing to a crash.

-Ralph-

13-03-11, 09:02 PM

Bloody Hell Mr Irons you get me sympathising with Mr Ralph and I never saw that coming.

Awww, thanks mate! But, don't worry about me, as someone who saw Irons arguing with folk again, then came into the thread like this

Just subscribing so I can read this later

http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww77/Tuarisbucket/Smileys/male29-male-theater-cinema-smiley-e.gif

I probably shouldn't be getting too much sympathy, if you know what I mean ;)

Specialone

13-03-11, 10:53 PM

Personally i dont care what the stats say, i would bet if you analised all the KSi's involving bikes, a lot would be lack of concentration or skill, speed is the sticky plaster fix to everything.
Just because a number has been plucked out the air, who's to say that speed limit is correct?
Speed limits in this country are so inconsistent, one road in a built up area can be 40+, another in a less built will be 30, there are laods of these about.

So, just because some mongs (i have pinched YC's phrase there) deemed it right to lower that speed limit on one particular road and you speed down it a bit over, doesnt make you an unsafe rider, speed limits are a croc of poo, its the standard of riding to the conditions that make you a good safe rider, not sticking to limits that some prat come up with 35 years ago.

yorkie_chris

13-03-11, 10:57 PM

Personally i dont care what the stats say, i would bet if you analised all the KSi's involving bikes, a lot would be lack of concentration or skill, speed is the sticky plaster fix to everything.
Just because a number has been plucked out the air, who's to say that speed limit is correct?

A lot are inappropriate speed for the bend considering the riders skill level.

There's a DfT report stating as much in several case studies, where the rider (below the speed limit...) failed to make a bend which was well within the performance envelope of the bike, the tyres and conditions.

Yet another thing which irons and the scamera partnerships and dribbling spastics in charge are happy to take completely out of context in using to justify reducing speed limits and/or generate revenue, oh I mean "enforce" them.

Paul the 6th

13-03-11, 11:51 PM

Want to be shown how to drive it properly?

Pete ;)

I actually would ya know lol - want me to give you a shout next time I'm over manchester way? It absolutely flies now :D

mikerj

14-03-11, 09:16 AM

No sorry i still dont appear to get it, i thought he was asking why a mw10 has been so harsh on this insurance?

Opening line of my response.......ANY ENDORSEMENT SHOWS AN INSURANCE COMPANY YOU ARE A HIGHER RISK

and i missed the point? amazing!

Yep, amazingly you managed miss it yet again. Follow closely, read slowly:

1) OP gets an FPN for an MW10 offence code and 3 points.
2) OP's insurance premium gets increased significantly.
3) OP asks why 3 points for an MW10 attracts such a large insurance premium increase, when 3 points for an SP30 results in either no increase or very small increase.

If, as you suggest "ANY ENDORSEMENT SHOWS AN INSURANCE COMPANY YOU ARE A HIGHER RISK", then please explain why does an SP30 not reflect the alleged increase in risk? Reading the thread carefully will reveal the reason behind this, and it's not a generic "you are a useless, child killing maniac" type response either.

Owenski

14-03-11, 02:49 PM

WOW - Did not see this thread taking that turn!

Put me down for a +1 on the "Speeding doesnt constitute dangerous driving" argument, my basis of theory is that if it did then Police, Ambulance, Fire etc would all be required to remain within those set limits because to breach them would be too dangerous.

Dicky Ticker

14-03-11, 05:09 PM

Luckypants

14-03-11, 05:37 PM

Want to be shown how to drive it properly?

Pete ;)

I actually would ya know lol - want me to give you a shout next time I'm over manchester way? It absolutely flies now :D
Bring it over here and show me too :D (I'll just skive, so work won't mess this one up!)

Paul the 6th

15-03-11, 09:58 AM

Bring it over here and show me too :D (I'll just skive, so work won't mess this one up!)

Can you get PC Lucy Evans to attend again? :D I'll give ya a shout if I'm gonna be in north wales any time soon mike - everyone should drive an s4 atleast once

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icwales2/mar2011/1/7/lucy-evans-760530420.jpg

Owenski

15-03-11, 10:04 AM

Before we go down the Police,Ambulance and Fire route please remember these vehicles are fitted with blues and twos. Its a long time ago now but you went through quite a comprehensive driving course to get your Police Class 1 license so maybe a bit unfair to compare one of the emergency services travelling at speed to what could otherwise be considered
"Driving at a Speed Dangerous".They still have to observe the rights of other road users and do get prosecuted if something goes wrong.

Perfect mate, thats the exact (sortof) responce I was hoping for - you've just proved my point. Dangerous driving for joe bloggs is not dangerous for those with the correct skill set. So police etc are all trained, thats irrelevent the training just gives them the skills which prove driving fast isnt dangerous, its those who dont know how to do it properly who make it dangerous.

Dicky Ticker

15-03-11, 10:13 AM

But how many have been trained and examined to that skill level is the question,or how many think they are gods gift to driving/riding----------subtle difference
I grew up on a farm and could drive a tractor at ten years old but till I was examined and of age I wasn't deemed fit to drive on the public highway EVEN THOUGH I THOUGHT I WAS GOOD ENOUGH and this is where a major problem arises,people thinking they are good enough
I am not saying the a gifted rider or driver may be lesser but as originally pointed out apart from the speed factor every other aspect of law applies

Owenski

15-03-11, 10:45 AM

But how many have been trained and examined to that skill level is the question,or how many think they are gods gift to driving/riding----------subtle difference
I am not saying the a gifted rider or driver may be lesser but as originally pointed out apart from the speed factor every other aspect of law applies

Oh I totally agree, sorry that wasnt very clear from my previous posts. I wasnt saying that anyone who "thinks" they can drive well is therefore safe to drive faster than the posted limits. I was emphasising the point that speed doesnt instantly = danger. If you have the skills it IS possible to drive fast safely even on open public roads.

A further note, I agree the problems come from people who think they have this skill but actually dont, for these people when they drive/ride fast its only a matter of time and luck until something goes wrong. Which I think in fairness we agree on.

A note on the blues&twos, IMO there purpose is to raise awareness / clear the road and I'd be assuming for a civilian to be driving fast the road would already be clear so my argument is purely based on rider/driver ability for handling thier vehicle on open public roads, I wouldnt have made the comparrison if this wasnt such a theoretical discussion.

-Ralph-

15-03-11, 11:51 AM

The argument of skill level is valid, but I would still maintain that "speeding" is not inherently dangerous for the average Joe Bloggs who has had no further training. It's speed appropriate and safe for the road, conditions and level of driver skill that is important, not whether you are below or above some number on a red ring road sign.

Points on a license do not mean a driver was driving in an undesirable manner, which is exactly why most insurance companies DON'T hike premiums as a result of an SP offence code. It ONLY means that the driver was caught exceeding the posted speed limit.

"Speeding" is defined by the speed limit. Lets take Warwickshire or the Peak District, where limits have been reduced from 60mph to 50mph or even 40mph almost across the board. Does this now mean that it's now inherently dangerous to drive on those same roads at 60mph? Have accident levels dropped in those areas as a result? Are counties who haven't swept in a lower limit allowing their 60mph roads to be dangerous?

Or the example of the motorway, 3 or 4 lane motorways in this country have a 70 limit. 2 lane Autoroutes in France have an 82 mph limit. Just because 82mph on a dual carriageway in the UK would be speeding, with identical geography, in identical conditions, does that mean it would be dangerous? Does this mean the French government have implemented a dangerous speed limit nationwide?

I think everyone except Irons is agreed on that point anyway. The argument that points on your license shows poor driving in most cases is just pure bolox.