#1
|
|||
|
|||
Words fail me..
... and it's not often that happens :-(
See http://tinyurl.com/r4h0 "Norfolk firm insures against speed cams STEVE COX October 16, 2003 07:35 Flash drivers, who lose their licences after getting snapped by speed cameras, will get their taxi, bus and train fares paid under a policy launched by a Norfolk insurance firm. The Flashguard policy pays up to £6000 for alternative transport costs, but has prompted words of caution from Norfolk Police and the Automobile Association. Adrian Flux Insurance, of East Winch Hall, near King's Lynn, which employs 230 people, has created the policy in response to the increasing number of automatic speed cameras which mean even careful drivers can get caught out. But a word of caution was sounded by Ian Crowder, of AA personal finance, who said: "Policies of this sort could encourage people owning such a policy to be less careful than they otherwise would be. "It has been introduced as a response to the growing plethora of speed cameras – these cameras are in place to help control excessive speed and reduce the likelihood of accidents." That view was echoed by a Norfolk Police spokesman, who said: "Norfolk Constabulary would take the opportunity to remind drivers that speed limits are in place to make our roads safer and must be complied with at all times." Gerry Bucke, of Adrian Flux Insurance, said: "Flashguard does not condone stupidity or dangerous driving, but we can all make mistakes. This policy means careful drivers who are convicted of speeding can carry on with their lives, albeit more slowly." The premium for the policy is £50 a year, or £40 if taken out before Christmas. In order to qualify for the scheme, drivers must have no more than six points current or pending and they must not have been disqualified for any offence during the previous 12 months. Drink and drugs-related convictions are not covered, nor are those directly associated with dangerous or reckless driving convictions. The firm's quoteline is on 08700 777888." Apparently all those poor drivers who break the law speeding and are caught out by those nasty speed cameras are really careful, law-abing citizens, and if it wasn't for those nasty cameras... AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Cheers, helen s This is an invalid email adress to thwart spammers To get my correct email remove the dependency on fame & fortune from h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o* *l.c**$*$om$$ Any speeling mistakes are as a result of cats on the keybrrrdd |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Words fail me..
"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" wrote in
message ... .. and it's not often that happens :-( See http://tinyurl.com/r4h0 "Norfolk firm insures against speed cams Not a new idea. I think I remember the main dealer in this sort of thing a few years ago introducing the exclusion clause for drunk driving bans - which they previously used to cover. cheers, clive |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Words fail me..
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
Gerry Bucke, of Adrian Flux Insurance, said: "Flashguard does not condone stupidity or dangerous driving, but we can all make mistakes. This policy means careful drivers who are convicted of speeding can carry on with their lives, albeit more slowly." I like the careful drivers bit here - surely if they are careful drivers then they won't be speeding and hence won't get caught by the camera? And four mistakes in a three year period to get them banned doesn't sound like careful either. -- Regards Tony Hogarty (take out garbage to reply, any mail to this account over 3k in size is deleted at the server) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Words fail me..
Re Speeding ban insurance.
Look on the bright side Helen. It means persistant speeders will be less bothered about a ban and therefore may get banned all the sooner and will be effectively removed from the roads. I bet they can only do this a few times before being refused cover and their normal insurance premiums may rise astronomically. Pete |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Words fail me..
I like the careful drivers bit here - surely if they are careful drivers
then they won't be speeding and hence won't get caught by the camera? And four mistakes in a three year period to get them banned doesn't sound like careful either. Quite. I distinctly remember that when being taught to drive, the intructor pointed out this thing on the dashboard called a speedometer. He told me that the the number the needle was pointing to told me how fast I was driving. He also stressed the importance of speed limits and how it was (perhaps it really is past tense...) important not to break the speed limit on any given road. This also formed part of the driving test which I managed to pass, so it can't be that difficult. The way I look at it, if one of those new-fangled speed camera thinggies catches me speeding then I have no-one to blame but myself as I won't have been driving carefully or paying attention as I break the law! Cheers, helen s This is an invalid email adress to thwart spammers To get my correct email remove the dependency on fame & fortune from h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o* *l.c**$*$om$$ Any speeling mistakes are as a result of cats on the keybrrrdd |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Words fail me..
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
Apparently all those poor drivers who break the law speeding and are caught out by those nasty speed cameras are really careful, law-abing citizens, and if it wasn't for those nasty cameras... AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Don't get too upset about it. Surely the insurance company doesn't intend to make a loss on this, so gullible drivers will end up paying even more. Andy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Words fail me..
"Andy Koppe" a n d y @ d c s . e d . a c . u k wrote in message ... dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote: Apparently all those poor drivers who break the law speeding and are caught out by those nasty speed cameras are really careful, law-abing citizens, and if it wasn't for those nasty cameras... AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Don't get too upset about it. Surely the insurance company doesn't intend to make a loss on this, so gullible drivers will end up paying even more. Andy If my memory serves me correctly this policy is rather like the St Christopher and Chaufeurplan policies that were around in the 1970s - the cover was for a driver to be provided for you in the event of a drink driving ban ..... pretty clever, eh? BUT I think that they were outlawed by the government and/or the insurance regulatory bodies, i.e. made illegal to sell. Perhaps this latest aberration will go the same way - it certainly seems a bit rich to insure oneself against committing a crime.... ...... so watch your mailboxes for the "Murder your wife and get away with it policy" - at a dodgy broker near you, real soon! Rob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Words fail me..
"Clive George" typed
"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" wrote in message ... .. and it's not often that happens :-( See http://tinyurl.com/r4h0 "Norfolk firm insures against speed cams Not a new idea. I think I remember the main dealer in this sort of thing a few years ago introducing the exclusion clause for drunk driving bans - which they previously used to cover. cheers, clive St Christopher's, wasn't it? ISTR such schemes were eventually outlawed. -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Words fail me..
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
..... even careful drivers can get caught out. This is making me seeth, I usually try to avoid commenting on things not relating to cycling but this is nagging me. Warning signs must be provided when speed cameras are in use, there have been two cases around here where convictions by camera have been quoshed because 1) the signs were the wrong design/colour or 2) Mobile equipement was bening used and no signs were in place. Drivers who do not see signs, for speed limits, for speed cameras, then fail to look at their speedos and fail to drive in a manner appropriate to the conditions are not careful drivers. -- The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Words fail me..
MSeries wrote:
This is making me seeth, I usually try to avoid commenting on things not relating to cycling but this is nagging me. Warning signs must be provided when speed cameras are in use, there have been two cases around here where convictions by camera have been quoshed because 1) the signs were the wrong design/colour or 2) Mobile equipement was bening used and no signs were in place. Drivers who do not see signs, for speed limits, for speed cameras, then fail to look at their speedos and fail to drive in a manner appropriate to the conditions are not careful drivers. If I can put the other side these days there is a plethora of speed limits and I often find myself trying to remember what the actual speed limit is. One stretch of road that I travel on frequently goes from 50 down to 30 then back up to 40 then down to 30 again then back up to 50 before a 40 and then derestricted! Since I'm reaching that age where, as a friend describes it, you find yourself standing in the loo wondering what you went in there for, I also find myself wondering which the current speed limit is on that stretch of road. I always try to respect the speed limit but sometimes I do make a mistake with this confusion over what the current speed limit is. On the warning signs I have twice recently passed mobile speed cameras where no signs were up and we have a sign near here which is hidden by the branches of a tree in summer. I have no problem with any of them because I'm within the speed limit but it would be wrong to assume that not seeing signs for speed cameras is always a driver problem. Tony |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An open letter to Lance Armstrong | DiabloScott | Racing | 19 | August 2nd 04 01:16 AM |
Didn't you fail E-Check? | William Blum | General | 2 | September 12th 03 03:10 PM |