| British police allow drivers to keep speeding tickets off their records in return for an extra fee. Now some insurance company has caught on and spoiled the fun
|Showing 1-31 of 31 comments|
On this side of the pond, it's called a bribe.
| Kumana Wanalaia
If you're in my state and I pull you over, you give me $50 and you're good to go.
Sounds like their version of traffic school.
lenfromak: On this side of the pond, it's called a bribe.
It's called a deferrment and it's legal, at least in Indiana. I got a ticket a couple years ago and kept it off my record. As long as you're willing to pay a few extra bucks, have a clean record for a certain amount of time previously, and don't get anymore tickets for the next six months, the points stay off your license
FIRST LINE OF TFA: Drivers who attend a speed awareness course instead of taking a fine and points on their licence may see their insurance premiums increase
flamemitter: British police allow drivers to keep speeding tickets off their records in return for an extra fee
leevis: lenfromak: On this side of the pond, it's called a bribe.
In California, you can take a driving school (in person or online) to keep most minor tickets off your record. You can do it only once every 18 months though.
Does subby know the difference between road safety course and bribe?
In Illinois it's known as "Court Supervision". When I was a teenager (20 years ago) it only required an additional fee and was imposed for 3-6 months. About 10 or so years ago they added the need for a "Safe driving class". As long as you didn't have another moving violation during that time, the conviction was never sent to the Secretary of State office and there for not on your driving record. If you received a moving violation during this "supervision" then both convictions were sent to the Sec. of State's office and then you took it in the shorts from you insurance IF you were dumb enough to cause them to pull your record... i.e. get into an accident you were at fault for.
Each county kept it's own records for this. Which is where it could get interesting if you drove in more then one county. I MAY have at one time had court supervision in the 3 counties at the same time, because I MAY have got 3 speeding tickets in 3 counties with in 4 days of each other. I was young and dumb... and after that I was young, not quite as dumb, poor (3 moving violations @ $150 each) and drove slower at after that.
"The insurance group says its statistics (that they pulled out of their ass) show that drivers who have attended a course, pose a higher risk."
I took a driving course last year because it saves you 10% on insurance, and I haven't so much as spoken to a cop in well over a decade.
| The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men
In the UK speeding laws are mainly enforced by huge box shaped cameras, painted in reflective yellow, mounted in fixed and highly visible locations on the side of the road, with special and very distinctive road markings in the camera's detection zone with warning signs shortly before the camera location. Even then they only go off when you're ~ 10% + 2mph*. If you're paying so little attention to everything around you that you miss all that then you deserve a ticket for lack of due care and attention, and probably are a high risk driver.
* e.g in a 50 zone the camera will go off at 50 + 5 + 2 = 57. If this has changed recently I'd welcome a correction.
The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Note:
Also, many cars have speedometers up to 10% off (like mine) so i'd have to be showing 62 in a 50 to get flashed.
Look, if you self-report something to the insurance company it will affect you. Perhaps they will raise your rates, perhaps they will opt to non-renew your contract at the end of the current policy year. What the police need to say is that they do not report attendees to the insurance companies, unlike speeding violations which they do. And seal that portion of their legal record so that the companies can't get at it.
Without ironclad agreements with all insurers, the police should not suggest that anything would not impact insurance rates.
As a non-driver, I am OK with this.
I can totally see the insurance industry's point. From the industry's point of view, letting bad drivers off without charging them points or fines is "noise" in the system they use to assess risk of insuring drivers.
The insurance companies will thus be obliged to pay for more accidents (and incidentally, so will the public be at risk from those same accidents and higher insurance costs to cover them).
The insurance companies are making bets against the drivers, and the police and courts are queering the odds and payouts. The insurance companies are like bookies, taking bets against horse. If the police and courts let lame horses "win", count horses that pass the finish line without their jockeys, and so forth, it costs the insurance companies big money--and profits.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I hate insurance companies. They are bastards. But I like the way they think.
If the police and courts let people off cheap, the insurance companies pay. They also lose by there being a lot more bad drivers on the road. So do we all. So it is natural for insurance companies to be willing to invest in safety features, safety training, safety awareness, and so forth. A little money spent reforming a drunk driver or a smoker is money in the bank, or would be if they weren't investing it directly themselves.
Insurance companies in many ways are the for-profit guardians of the public. They want us to be safe, not because they love us, but because we are cash cows. It's a bad master who abuses his livestock and slaves.
So insurance companies are among the best-informed risk managers in the world. They want to know what the real odds are so they can profit from the difference between what we risk and what we are willing to pay to avoid risk.
Here is one of the most telling truths about climate change: insurance companies are against it. They have stopped insuring properities on sandbars and flood plains. They have stopped insuring a lot of buildings and people in places where climate change will produce worse storms, hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornados, etc.
Although the Government insists on making insurance companies pay out to people who insist on re-buildng over and over again in disaster-prone places, they are paying the difference to keep the stupid safe and happy. They are paying for all sorts of expensive life-saving and property-defending measures and they are basically providing the insurance companies with re-insurance against the very threats they are denying in public.
Follow the insurance money, and you find the truth: risks rise with population and the property put at state, but they are also rising with climate change. It is fossil fuel companies, asbestos, and tobacco that are filling our heads with denialist nonsense. The Pentagon, the insurance companies, and even a few of the more progressive, go-ahead companies in other fields, even fossil fuel research and development heavy corporations, are acknowledging the risks. AND THEY PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE, or rather, their mouths where the money comes from. Kiss. Kiss.
We have this in AZ. Every 24 months you can take a class that wipes speeding tickets if you were less than 20mph over. NJ has a non moving violation you can plea bargain for that costs more than a speeding ticket. Courts like it because the insurance points are the reason most people show up in court to contest it and speeding tickets are just revenue generation.
Sucks for the UK folks and I hope this doesn't catch on in the US.
| Nick Nostril
The fact that this is Ol' Blighty (motto: the Nanny State's Nanny State) aside: the fact they allow you to pay an extra fee for no points seems a bit like extortion.
lenfromak: On this side of the pond, it's called a bribe.
I can think of a few things that are worth bribing someone for.
| dready zim
You are under no legal obligation to inform your insurers you have been on a speed awareness course.
| Jon iz teh kewl
PAULA PAUL here!!
St. Louis used to have a thriving ticket plea bargain industry.
Get a ticket? No problem. Pay about $100 to hire a traffic lawyer who will turn your $80 speeding ticket which is a moving violation into a $120 ticket for excessive muffler noise and your insurance company is none the wiser.
We have a bribe system in Jersey. If you get a speeding ticket that is 1 - 9 mph over, you can pay an extra like 250 to not have it show up on your driving record.
In most counties in Kansas you can pay double the fine to have your moving violation reduced to a parking infraction or some other non-moving violation. What is odd is that some counties will let you represent yourself when you do this, but other counties absolutely will not make the deal unless you have an attorney handle the case for you. Luckily my brother is an attorney so I just tell him whenever I get a ticket and it goes away.
The system probably isn't "fair" to the poor, who can't afford attorneys or double fines, but then end up with points on their record that make their insurance go even higher than the amount they could have paid up front.
The system is good for the state and counties though. It brings in twice the revenue immediately into the coffers and helps keep more people in the county insured.
brantgoose: I can totally see the insurance industry's point. From the industry's point of view, letting bad drivers off without charging them points or fines is "noise" in the system they use to assess risk of insuring drivers.
The trouble with this line of reasoning is that speed has fark all to do with accident-prone. They're orthogonal - some speeders are also reckless, some aren't; some of the reckless speed, some don't. (Using the "flow of traffic" metric, often within 10% of the limit, rather than absolute speed limits.) I've driven all over the country and I've seen far more reckless drivers who don't speed, mainly because far more people don't speed than do. Yet speeding is by far the top prosecuted traffic crime, and because cops are far too lazy to chase down real reckless drivers, insurance companies have no choice but to assign a weight to speeding and throw it into the mix whether or not they'll ever correspond to accidents. (My personal history: I rarely sped but caused a few accidents my first year. Then I sped everywhere for 10 years so far and haven't caused one accident above 5mph since. Then again, I keep my eyes on the road at all times.)
Plus, bookies all have prejudices and a notoriously conservative outlook, overriding computerized odds with gut feelings, and insurance companies are no different. If they didn't, the stock market would be very steady and a near-perfect predictor of future profitability, instead of continually peaking and bottoming out after every bit of news. Plus they know that they can easily demonize a minority group, just like they used to penalize blacks and Jews, whereas they have to take their lumps from majority and well-loved groups, like seniors. The AARP completely prevents market-based pricing on senior driving.
Anyway, unsafe speeders will manifest themselves in actual accidents quickly enough anyway. It seems like it's hardly worth punishing the entire class.
TheGreatGazoo: St. Louis used to have a thriving ticket plea bargain industry.
Ever since the economy tanked, moving violations jumped to $300-$1000 or so before misdemeanor status kicks in, but lawyers have shot up to $600+ and don't want to handle anything less than a DUI, so it's become a better deal to personally plead with the arraignment judge and take your lumps. You'll be farked either way.
in belgium- if you pay the ticket and plead guilty...they don't tell your insurance. you can fight the ticket. you will go to court where you will pay court costs, be found guilty, pay the fine, and then they will tell your insurance.
my wife got one when we lived there and she was pissed. our belgian friends told us that the commune where she got stopped (sterrebeck) was having money problems. this was common and understood amongst the locals. of course the day my wife got pulled over, it was with three other similarly tagged (diplomatic) vehicles. our embassy just told me that traffic violations were my own responsibility. we couldn't get out of them.
They're all driving on the wrong side of the road! Does it really matter how fast they're doing it?
The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Note:
They have speed guns as well, which are a lot trickier to avoid, so not everyone that gets caught is done in by the speed cameras.
Kumana Wanalaia: If you're in my state and I pull you over, you give me $50 and you're good to go.
i thnk we met in Vriginia or New York or Illinois or Florida
soj4life: We have a bribe system in Jersey. If you get a speeding ticket that is 1 - 9 mph over, you can pay an extra like 250 to not have it show up on your driving record.
42 DDs are also appreciated as a bribe.
Back seat action for exceeding the speed limit by 50 or great mphs. :)
Duke_leto_Atredes: Kumana Wanalaia: If you're in my state and I pull you over, you give me $50 and you're good to go.
DC or Texas?
SnyderCat: Duke_leto_Atredes: Kumana Wanalaia: If you're in my state and I pull you over, you give me $50 and you're good to go.
you kin pay that raachere boy
Duke_leto_Atredes: SnyderCat: Duke_leto_Atredes: Kumana Wanalaia: If you're in my state and I pull you over, you give me $50 and you're good to go.
|Showing 1-31 of 31 comments|
| This thread is closed to new comments.|