Discussion
i've thought about doing an advanced driving course for a while, have read the books and try and apply some of the less anal tecniques (sp?). so i know its the wrong reason for doing it but does it make a difference to insurance and if so how much ?(i currently pay well over £1k and expect to be paying roughly double that soon, 5pts, no claims!).
cheers
francis
cheers
francis
How old are you?
I'm 24 and drive an Elise. I did the IAM, they gave me the book and said 'these are the people that give you between 10 and 20% discount for being an IAM member.
So...quick rule of thumb for you
£5000 - 10% > £1200
£6000 - 20% > £1200
basically, unless your 60years old and drive a Micra, it doesn't make much difference (can you see any bitterness in there from me? No? I must try harder
)
I'm 24 and drive an Elise. I did the IAM, they gave me the book and said 'these are the people that give you between 10 and 20% discount for being an IAM member.
So...quick rule of thumb for you
£5000 - 10% > £1200
£6000 - 20% > £1200
basically, unless your 60years old and drive a Micra, it doesn't make much difference (can you see any bitterness in there from me? No? I must try harder
)You'll find that whilst some of the deals are ok, most aren't so good. If you have anything out of the ordinary, you're up the creek. They refused to insure my Scooby (wouldn't even quote!) and that was a UK Spec, not JDM.
The only insurer which even references IAM is elephant, where you can select "IAM Full UK" from the dropdown box...
The IAM course is great, but I have seen so many associates come along for cheap insurance, and only a few actually manage it, which is a shame TBH
The only insurer which even references IAM is elephant, where you can select "IAM Full UK" from the dropdown box...
The IAM course is great, but I have seen so many associates come along for cheap insurance, and only a few actually manage it, which is a shame TBH
m3 conv said:
What about if you hold a racing license? Surely theres specialist companies out there who give insurance reductions for this?
Anyone any ideas if this is the case, and if so what % discount is generally offered?
I think you need to look at it from the insurer's point of view. How relevant is a racing license when it comes to road driving?
Would an insurer be really interested in a driver who knew the quickest route through a corner but could potentially place them and others in unnecessary danger.
People who take advanced driving course for financial reasons alone (insurance costs) aren't, in my view, doing it for the right reasons.
I always mention it when getting quotes - some take account, others don't.
On the IAM stand at NEC Motorshow, we were asked the 'does it decrease your insurance' question more than any other - we generally replied along the lines of some insurers do take it into account, but the main benefit will be less chance of losing your no claims bonus through a fault accident...
On the IAM stand at NEC Motorshow, we were asked the 'does it decrease your insurance' question more than any other - we generally replied along the lines of some insurers do take it into account, but the main benefit will be less chance of losing your no claims bonus through a fault accident...
tonyhetherington said:
How old are you?
I'm 24 and drive an Elise. I did the IAM, they gave me the book and said 'these are the people that give you between 10 and 20% discount for being an IAM member.
So...quick rule of thumb for you
£5000 - 10% > £1200
£6000 - 20% > £1200
basically, unless your 60years old and drive a Micra, it doesn't make much difference (can you see any bitterness in there from me? No? I must try harder
Age has its merits, I am a youngish 59, paying £180 fully comp for my Volvo 2.5 turbo......
I am not at all sure about the IPT suggestion.
And the idea of increasing it is hardly a good one - everyone else pays more so advanced drivers have more of a saving? Seems very unfair to me! (I speak as a RoSPA Gold member.) Plus, I think IPT is a flat rate across all general insurance, so an increase for motor would impact most else besides. (I stand to be corrected.)
I tend to the view that premium reductions may be available where insurers either wish to tap into a group of people to gain business or where they have the evidence to support a reduce risk profile for advanced drivers.
I have come across discount schemes in the past, but few are long lived as commercial interests will generally override deals for what, after all, is a very small minority of drivers.
I would also tend to believe that if the IAM were to introduce compulsory re-testing, this may have an impact. They have a lot more members that RoSPA (although that would probably change of course if re-testing came in - vicious circle!), and I can believe that accident records would show a marked differential from the norm. if all advanced drivers were "current" in their training and standards. This might finally make insurers across the board take notice. Would others agree (at the not insigificant risk of re-opening the old debate about re-testing!)?
Regards
Steve
And the idea of increasing it is hardly a good one - everyone else pays more so advanced drivers have more of a saving? Seems very unfair to me! (I speak as a RoSPA Gold member.) Plus, I think IPT is a flat rate across all general insurance, so an increase for motor would impact most else besides. (I stand to be corrected.)
I tend to the view that premium reductions may be available where insurers either wish to tap into a group of people to gain business or where they have the evidence to support a reduce risk profile for advanced drivers.
I have come across discount schemes in the past, but few are long lived as commercial interests will generally override deals for what, after all, is a very small minority of drivers.
I would also tend to believe that if the IAM were to introduce compulsory re-testing, this may have an impact. They have a lot more members that RoSPA (although that would probably change of course if re-testing came in - vicious circle!), and I can believe that accident records would show a marked differential from the norm. if all advanced drivers were "current" in their training and standards. This might finally make insurers across the board take notice. Would others agree (at the not insigificant risk of re-opening the old debate about re-testing!)?
Regards
Steve
Steve
How else would you target young drivers? My 19 year old nephew is desperate to get his hands on my Skoda Octavia vRS. If he had to spend < £100 and take 6-9 hourly lessons to get a good, proper grounding in Roadcraft in order to save, say, 15% of his insurance, do you think he would?
What ideas do you have to encourage young drivers to get involved with advanced driving organsations?
I discount IAM simply because of the lack of retesting.
How else would you target young drivers? My 19 year old nephew is desperate to get his hands on my Skoda Octavia vRS. If he had to spend < £100 and take 6-9 hourly lessons to get a good, proper grounding in Roadcraft in order to save, say, 15% of his insurance, do you think he would?
What ideas do you have to encourage young drivers to get involved with advanced driving organsations?
I discount IAM simply because of the lack of retesting.
Of course not paying IPT if you passed, say, RoSPA Gold would be appealing to many people. And 5% off a big premium for a young driver would mean a lot. I am not disputing that.
But why should the tax payer cover this cost?
BTW, as I think again about your suggestion of raising IPT to make the differential wider, I am minded to think you should be an advisor to our dearly beloved Chancellor on matters of stealth taxes
.
The whole argument is surely that it is the insurers (and I will exagerate to make the point) that are making a mint from advanced drivers because their accident rate is so much lower. So it is the insurers who should be offering lower premiums, not the Government.
As to your challenge, as you know the Club, of which we are both a member, is doing what it can to encourage younger drivers, and I will personally be giving up time to promote and take part in this.
But more broadly, I feel that much can be done (and much is done already). IAM and RoSPA could redouble their efforts to sponsor young driver initiatives. Automotive magazines can continue to expand driving competitions. The Government should engage with the insurance community to see if products can be structured better for younger drivers who take extra training and reach a demonstrable standard. Manufacturers could offer free insurance to purchaser's with an advanced driving certificate.
The list is no doubt endless.
Kind regards
Steve
>> Edited by stefan1 on Thursday 20th October 22:37
But why should the tax payer cover this cost?
BTW, as I think again about your suggestion of raising IPT to make the differential wider, I am minded to think you should be an advisor to our dearly beloved Chancellor on matters of stealth taxes
. The whole argument is surely that it is the insurers (and I will exagerate to make the point) that are making a mint from advanced drivers because their accident rate is so much lower. So it is the insurers who should be offering lower premiums, not the Government.
As to your challenge, as you know the Club, of which we are both a member, is doing what it can to encourage younger drivers, and I will personally be giving up time to promote and take part in this.
But more broadly, I feel that much can be done (and much is done already). IAM and RoSPA could redouble their efforts to sponsor young driver initiatives. Automotive magazines can continue to expand driving competitions. The Government should engage with the insurance community to see if products can be structured better for younger drivers who take extra training and reach a demonstrable standard. Manufacturers could offer free insurance to purchaser's with an advanced driving certificate.
The list is no doubt endless.
Kind regards
Steve
>> Edited by stefan1 on Thursday 20th October 22:37
Nothing to do with tax credits is easy! Witness the Government's shambolic tax credit system.
Whilst, as I say, I can see why the idea would have appeal, it is surely impractical.
As for the young drivers' event the High Performance Club is running, details can be found on the Club's public website at www.hpc.org.uk.
Regards
Steve
Whilst, as I say, I can see why the idea would have appeal, it is surely impractical.
As for the young drivers' event the High Performance Club is running, details can be found on the Club's public website at www.hpc.org.uk.
Regards
Steve
It would be just as easy for insurance companies to drop their premiums by the difference between a quote with and without IPT. This wouldn't require any change in the law.
Any why RoSPA Gold only? I'm not a member of said organisation yet allegedly I'm an OK driver. A lot of HPC members (for example) haven't come via IAM/RoADA, although many have backfilled afterwards - would you deny them the same benefits because they haven't ticked the right boxes.
Many groups can't cope with the influx of associates they have at present (SWMBO was quoted a six-month wait for an observer) and the payment for administering tests as an examiner certainly doesn't cover costs for the examiners involved - with a potential large influx of people trying to get that elusive qualification the system would fall over rapidly. I'd also have some qualms about how rigid the Gold standard would be enforced if there was a lot of cash riding on it - certainly my boss has removed quite a lot of Golds on retest - if the examiners knew that there was something other than a badge involved would they mark differently?
I'm in no way against trying to improve the standards of general driving out there, and if someone could come up with a suitable system given the resources out there at present, they'd have my support. But I don't think knocking some cash off an insurance scheme is the way.
Case in point - I had an underwriting director for a very large insurance company as a client a little while back. This particular company offered a discount for new drivers who took the Pass Plus scheme administered by the DSA (and obviously this is driving to a higher level than the 'Safe Driving for Life' that the DSA consider the test pass to be). Result - absolutely no difference in the claim rate and because they didn't drag in as much in premiums, they made an overall net loss on the scheme. (AIUI the current ratio of claim to premium is around 103%, so insurance companies only make cash by investing your premiums).
Any why RoSPA Gold only? I'm not a member of said organisation yet allegedly I'm an OK driver. A lot of HPC members (for example) haven't come via IAM/RoADA, although many have backfilled afterwards - would you deny them the same benefits because they haven't ticked the right boxes.
Many groups can't cope with the influx of associates they have at present (SWMBO was quoted a six-month wait for an observer) and the payment for administering tests as an examiner certainly doesn't cover costs for the examiners involved - with a potential large influx of people trying to get that elusive qualification the system would fall over rapidly. I'd also have some qualms about how rigid the Gold standard would be enforced if there was a lot of cash riding on it - certainly my boss has removed quite a lot of Golds on retest - if the examiners knew that there was something other than a badge involved would they mark differently?
I'm in no way against trying to improve the standards of general driving out there, and if someone could come up with a suitable system given the resources out there at present, they'd have my support. But I don't think knocking some cash off an insurance scheme is the way.
Case in point - I had an underwriting director for a very large insurance company as a client a little while back. This particular company offered a discount for new drivers who took the Pass Plus scheme administered by the DSA (and obviously this is driving to a higher level than the 'Safe Driving for Life' that the DSA consider the test pass to be). Result - absolutely no difference in the claim rate and because they didn't drag in as much in premiums, they made an overall net loss on the scheme. (AIUI the current ratio of claim to premium is around 103%, so insurance companies only make cash by investing your premiums).
Steve
All it would take to prove exemption would be a copy of the RoADA report. That could be sent in with proof of no-claims. It is hardly complicated or similar to the tax credit system.
Is there still space for the Young Driver Day? DT said that there was little point opening it up to the wider masses given that it was very nearly full and that was quite a few weeks ago.
All it would take to prove exemption would be a copy of the RoADA report. That could be sent in with proof of no-claims. It is hardly complicated or similar to the tax credit system.
Is there still space for the Young Driver Day? DT said that there was little point opening it up to the wider masses given that it was very nearly full and that was quite a few weeks ago.
Dave
Insurance companies aren't in it for any other reason than to make money. They will charge for premiums what the market will tolerate.
OK, maybe any RoSPA pass rather than just Gold.
If non-RoADA members want the benefits of RoADA membership, then it is self evident what they need to do, isn't it?
I'm suprised SWMBO was looking at RoADA when she has access to your good self.
I hope examiners aren't in it simply for the money, that really would be a sad situation.
Why would standards need to slip?
To be effective and to make a real difference to the casualty numbers, we have to encourage as many people as possible to get involved with the concept of advanced driving.
I'm involved with quite a few different clubs/fora and there seems to be this belief that advanced driving is the preserve of the middle classes (or even upper middle classes).
While kids from council estates are killing themselves (and others) while blatting around in Saxos, I think we need to do more to widen the appeal of advanced driving.
I'm not sure what your case in point shows - Perhaps that pass plus is not that effective a course?
Insurance companies aren't in it for any other reason than to make money. They will charge for premiums what the market will tolerate.
OK, maybe any RoSPA pass rather than just Gold.
If non-RoADA members want the benefits of RoADA membership, then it is self evident what they need to do, isn't it?
I'm suprised SWMBO was looking at RoADA when she has access to your good self.
I hope examiners aren't in it simply for the money, that really would be a sad situation.
Why would standards need to slip?
To be effective and to make a real difference to the casualty numbers, we have to encourage as many people as possible to get involved with the concept of advanced driving.
I'm involved with quite a few different clubs/fora and there seems to be this belief that advanced driving is the preserve of the middle classes (or even upper middle classes).
While kids from council estates are killing themselves (and others) while blatting around in Saxos, I think we need to do more to widen the appeal of advanced driving.
I'm not sure what your case in point shows - Perhaps that pass plus is not that effective a course?
volvos70t5 said:
Insurance companies aren't in it for any other reason than to make money. They will charge for premiums what the market will tolerate.
OK, maybe any RoSPA pass rather than just Gold.
If non-RoADA members want the benefits of RoADA membership, then it is self evident what they need to do, isn't it?
Absolutely, but if your local group suddenly had an influx of 50 new associates all wanting the training NOW, could it cope - I daresay most couldn't
volvos70t5 said:
I'm suprised SWMBO was looking at RoADA when she has access to your good self.
Have you ever heard the phrase "You can tell someone they're crap at s*x, but criticise their driving..."? We're probably a little too close for me to do the teaching and at the time I wasn't where I am now so paying Hugh for regular training wasn't an option.
volvos70t5 said:
I hope examiners aren't in it simply for the money, that really would be a sad situation.
Why would standards need to slip?
At the moment they aren't but if there was a large influx, they'd need to be paid more because examining would be a full time job. As for the standards issue, at present there is no pressure on the examiner other than to do a good job. When there is potentially a fair chunk of money riding on the result, there would be more subliminal pressure on the examiner to let small things slip. Again the DSA is a case in point - there is an 'office average' and no examiner should deviate from that average by more than 10%, and this is measured weekly. So if you want a fair test of your abilities, then you should take it on a Monday and if you don't, take it at other times.
volvos70t5 said:
To be effective and to make a real difference to the casualty numbers, we have to encourage as many people as possible to get involved with the concept of advanced driving.
I don't disagree, it's just that the infrastructure isn't in place - it's a bit like the problems the BiB are having. It would take around ten years to ramp up the number of Traf Pol to their previous levels - there just aren't enough good drivers out there.
volvos70t5 said:
I'm involved with quite a few different clubs/fora and there seems to be this belief that advanced driving is the preserve of the middle classes (or even upper middle classes).
While kids from council estates are killing themselves (and others) while blatting around in Saxos, I think we need to do more to widen the appeal of advanced driving.
Thank you - I'm from a council estate myself - and trust me there isn't a lower common denominator than me
I spend a lot of my time around the Saxo brigade as I try to teach them engineering. There really isn't the interest in making themselves safe - at they age they're immature and invulnerable - a few are receptive to the concept of advanced driving (and they're the ones you can capture through whatever initiative you see fit) but most can't see the effects of their actions on others. volvos70t5 said:
I'm not sure what your case in point shows - Perhaps that pass plus is not that effective a course?
Shh! Don't say that - the DSA might be listening. I went through the DSA mill last year and to my trained eye, the 'System' is actually taught at the novice level and Pass Plus is designed to build on that with modules such as night/adverse weather driving, motorway driving etc. The problem is not with the skills with which new drivers are equipped (ignoring the effects of that 'office average' policy above), but the temperament with which those skills are employed. I do virtually no real skills training with clients - most of my work is changing their attitude to how they drive and then enabling them to let their natural skills and abilities work with that new attitude.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff