FBD - changes to cover

Anan1

Looking over my mother's renewal quote from FBD - from now on they won't cover loss or damage to the insured vehicle if the driver has alcohol or drug levels above the legal limit. Has anyone heard of any other insurance companies bringing this in?

si_guru

I have seen this before - I think it was on my bike policy in the UK. It seems reasonable to me anyway. Why should we all pay to repair someone's car who never should have been driving?

Wudyaquit

I'd imagine this would have always been the case regardless of whether it was explicitly detailed in the policy. It'd be crazy for any insurance company to pay a person's own costs in a situation like this.
The third party is still covered from the phrasing you've given.

Anan1

Wudyaquit wrote: »

I'd imagine this would have always been the case regardless of whether it was explicitly detailed in the policy. It'd be crazy for any insurance company to pay a person's own costs in a situation like this.
The third party is still covered from the phrasing you've given.

I can't see how an insurance company could avoid paying out without a specific exclusion in the policy? TP is of course unaffected.

mathepac

Anan1 wrote: »

... - from now on they won't cover loss or damage to the insured vehicle if the driver has alcohol or drug levels above the legal limit. ...

Excellent idea. I wish they'd all implement it and I wish the government would hurry up with implementing some reliable form of roadside drug-testing. I thought the roadside pupil / co-ordination tests were to start this month but have heard nothing extra since this

Anan1

mathepac wrote: »

and I wish the government would hurry up with implementing some reliable form of roadside drug-testing. I thought the roadside pupil / co-ordination tests were to start this month but have heard nothing extra since this

As I understand it, unlike alcohol, most recreational drugs remain detectable in the bloodstream long after the effects have faded. A driver could test positive for cannabis a week after having taken the drug. How can it therefore be proven by the simple presence of drugs in the bloodstream that someone was driving under the influence of drugs?

mathepac

Anan1 wrote: »

As I understand it, unlike alcohol, most recreational drugs remain detectable in the bloodstream long after the effects have faded. ...

Your understanding is incorrect and the half-lives of drugs vary widely, depending on the drug.

I assume by "recreational drugs" you mean illicit substances or prescribed substances taken by someone who does not have a valid prescription.

However my issue is not solely with so-called "recreational drugs" but also with prescription drugs (anxiolytics / tranquilisers, sleepers, etc.) which can and do impair driving ability.

Anan1 wrote: »

... A driver could test positive for cannabis a week after having taken the drug. ...

A regular cannabis user can test positive for cannabis metabolites for a number of weeks after last using the drug, particularly with the advent of "skunk", etc.

Anan1 wrote: »

... How can it therefore be proven by the simple presence of drugs in the bloodstream that someone was driving under the influence of drugs?

This is a complex area.

With alcohol, there is a measurable limit above which it is illegal to drive.
With illegal substances, including prescription meds taken without a prescription, my own view is that their mere presence should be sufficient grounds for a prosecution with consequences in line with our current drink-driving laws.

With prescription meds it becomes more complex. There may be a number of choices, for example :

• Set daily / weekly / monthly dosage limits above which it illegal to drive
• Make it illegal to drive while taking a particular drug or group of drugs or drug combination
• Set blood levels above which it is illegal to drive
• Reduce the measurable BAC to zero where certain prescribed meds are being taken.

There are no simple answers here, but the work needs to commence soon to help reduce the carnage on our roads.

The predictable response here is "How do you know that drugged drivers are causing carnage on our roads?", and of course the answer is I don't, but until we can measure it we won't know and can't change it.

The moves from FBD and any other insurance companies I welcome wholeheartedly

Anan1

mathepac wrote: »

With alcohol, there is a measurable limit above which it is illegal to drive.
With illegal substances, including prescription meds taken without a prescription, my own view is that their mere presence should be sufficient grounds for a prosecution with consequences in line with our current drink-driving laws.

That's not going to stand up in a court of law though, is it? It would be much like trying to pin a drink driving conviction on someone on the basis that they had at some time during the past week consumed an undetermined amount of alcohol.

Wudyaquit

Anan1 wrote: »

I can't see how an insurance company could avoid paying out without a specific exclusion in the policy? TP is of course unaffected.

If you're not driving legally you're not covered. Policy holders have a duty of reasonable care. The insurance co don't need to explicitly list every possible thing they won't cover

Anan1

Wudyaquit wrote: »

If you're not driving legally you're not covered. Policy holders have a duty of reasonable care. The insurance co don't need to explicitly list every possible thing they won't cover

Yes, you do have a duty of reasonable care. On the other hand, speeding doesn't void comprehensive cover in this country, nor do careless or dangerous driving. If it didn't represent a change then I doubt FBD would have headed the letter with 'CHANGES TO YOUR PRIVATE MOTOR INSURANCE POLICY
Product Alteration';)

Wudyaquit

Speeding and dangerous driving can exempt the insurance company from paying out actually. Perhaps fbd lost a specific claim where someones drink was spiked or something - I've no idea why they decided to put it in as a new clause - but no insurance company is going to give someone money for getting pissed and heading for a spin.

mathepac

Anan1 wrote: »

... It would be much like trying to pin a drink driving conviction on someone on the basis that they had at some time during the past week consumed an undetermined amount of alcohol.

No it wouldn't because the substances are not alcohol, but their consumption is illegal (either generally or for that person) and their presence in blood/urine/breath samples should form the basis for a prosecution, without having to establish a level.

Establishing "safe" driving or even consumption levels for illegal substances is fraught with legal and moral difficulties, therefore IMHO the detectable presence alone should constitute grounds for a prosecution and suspension or amendment of motor insurance cover.

Once drivers are notified in advance of the changes, they have the choice of using these substances or not; the potential legal consequences are clear.

Anan1

mathepac wrote: »

No it wouldn't because the substances are not alcohol, but their consumption is illegal (either generally or for that person) and their presence in blood/urine/breath samples should form the basis for a prosecution, without having to establish a level.

Establishing "safe" driving or even consumption levels for illegal substances is fraught with legal and moral difficulties, therefore IMHO the detectable presence alone should constitute grounds for a prosecution and suspension or amendment of motor insurance cover.

Once drivers are notified in advance of the changes, they have the choice of using these substances or not; the potential legal consequences are clear.

Are you suggesting that drivers be penalised under the RTA for the past use of illegal substances? Because it would appear that past use is all a drug test can prove?

mathepac

Anan1 wrote: »

... Because it would appear that past use is all a drug test can prove?

Correct, as is the case currently with alcohol. The driver does not need to have an open bottle of whiskey in his hand or to his mouth to be suspected of drink-driving. In a lot of jurisdictions where drink or drug driving is illegal, the breath / urine / blood tests can only be administered after a minimum period has elapsed since consumption took place, so there is no contradiction there IMHO; measurements are taken post facto.

The reason for this is that substances which are eaten, smoked or drunk may not have time to be metabolised sufficiently to show up in blood or urine and give false lows, but may give erroneously high readings if measured from breath. This may not be a problem where substances are injected, sniffed, sorted or inhaled.

If you are not happy with my suggestions, do you have any of your own to contribute?

Anan1

mathepac wrote: »

Correct, as is the case currently with alcohol. The driver does not need to have an open bottle of whiskey in his hand or to his mouth to be suspected of drink-driving. In a lot of jurisdictions where drink or drug driving is illegal, the breath / urine / blood tests can only be administered after a minimum period has elapsed since consumption took place, so there is no contradiction there IMHO; measurements are taken post facto.

The reason for this is that substances which are eaten, smoked or drunk may not have time to be metabolised sufficiently to show up in blood or urine and give false lows, but may give erroneously high readings if measured from breath. This may not be a problem where substances are injected, sniffed, sorted or inhaled.

It is impossible to fail a blood test for alcohol without being inebriated to the point where ones ability to drive is impaired. The same should be true of a drug test.

mathepac wrote: »

If you are not happy with my suggestions, do you have any of your own to contribute?

Sure I do: 1. Determine the quantity in which the presence of each drug in the bloodstream will impair the ability to drive. 2. Devise a reliable test to show whether this level has been exceeded. 3. Apply the same penalties as per drink driving.

mathepac

Anan1 wrote: »

It is impossible to fail a blood test for alcohol without being inebriated to the point where ones ability to drive is impaired. ...

I disagree totally. In this country it is still possible to be under the current BAC level for a drunk-driving prosecution and be incapable of driving safely. We are one of only a tiny minority of countries (3 or 4 the last time I looked) with this scandalously negligent attitude to intoxicated driving / drivers.

Anan1 wrote: »

... 1. Determine the quantity in which the presence of each drug in the bloodstream will impair the ability to drive. ...

As I pointed out above, I see legal and moral difficulties in administering progressively stronger doses of illicit substances to human "guinea-pigs" and measuring the levels in their breath / blood / urine while testing the "guinea-pigs' " driving abilities / levels of intoxication. I may be in a minority in having this view, but I'd be surprised if I was alone.

Thinking about now it there are also substantial but merely technical difficulties in establishing the effects of drug-drug interactions and the resultant levels of intoxication, damage, etc.

My simple but immediately and easily implemented solution is a zero-tolerance approach to illicit substance use for drivers.

There is of course another possibility and that is for the insurance industry to implement requirements of their own when providing cover.

Anan1

mathepac wrote: »

I disagree totally. In this country it is still possible to be under the current BAC level for a drunk-driving prosecution and be incapable of driving safely. We are one of only a tiny minority of countries (3 or 4 the last time I looked) with this scandalously negligent attitude to intoxicated driving / drivers.

You disagree with what, exactly? Nowhere did I say that BAC levels under the current legal limit did not impair the ability to drive.

mathepac wrote: »

As I pointed out above, I see legal and moral difficulties in administering progressively stronger doses of illicit substances to human "guinea-pigs" and measuring the levels in their breath / blood / urine while testing the "guinea-pigs' " driving abilities / levels of intoxication. I may be in a minority in having this view, but I'd be surprised if I was alone.

Thinking about now it there are also substantial but merely technical difficulties in establishing the effects of drug-drug interactions and the resultant levels of intoxication, damage, etc.

I think you'll find that all the required research is already available.

mathepac wrote: »

My simple but immediately and easily implemented solution is a zero-tolerance approach to illicit substance use for drivers.

Do you understand that you are advocating punishing drivers who have not driven while under the influence of drugs?

mathepac wrote: »

There is of course another possibility and that is for the insurance industry to implement requirements of their own when providing cover.

As things stand, and for the reasons I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't be holding my breath for a successful drug driving prosecution.