Best Insurance for Penalty Points

Mr-Marty

Howdy all,
I am a bit of an eejit who racked up 8 penalty points in 2yrs, 4 through the speed vans on 2 separate occasions (both only 10km/h over speed limit) and 4 points and 3 month ban for driving with a hangover. (Only have my full license 1yr so was judged as if I was a prov driver and my alcohol limit was lower so I failed, had I my Full License 2yrs I would have passed).

Anyways thats just my story but now that my ban is over, I need to get insurance again and all I am getting is quotes of 1800-2000 and sometimes more. Do any of you have similar experience in dealing with insurance companies and who is the best to go with in this case.

djimi

Keep ringing around, but honestly I would suggest that quotes of €1800 after a ban and with 8 points on your license isnt actually all that bad.

jimgoose

After that performance you're doing alright to be getting quotes at all.

Mr-Marty

I thought it might be a bit lower considering a full license and I am 25 now. I got set up with Chill.ie through Asgard on 3rd Party F&T for €1580. It was the best I could get.

djimi

Thats quite a decent price. Age and license type are largely irrelevant here; you are coming off the back of a ban and have a large number of penalty points, you are considered to be a very high risk for insurers and any quote that you get will be priced as such.

CiniO

Mr-Marty wrote: »

and 4 points and 3 month ban for driving with a hangover.

That's a brilliant way of saying you were caught over the legal alcohol limit

Mr-Marty

Yeah apparently I am a danger to myself and the road I just accepted my insurance is gonna be extraordinary for the next 2-3yrs and bought it.

Also "driving with a hangover" is the only way I can accept what I done. You get nicer looks when you say that rather than I am drunken knacker

CiniO

Mr-Marty wrote: »

Yeah apparently I am a danger to myself and the road I just accepted my insurance is gonna be extraordinary for the next 2-3yrs and bought it.

I actually still can't understand why someone with penalty points or who had a driving ban, is considered higher risk for insurance company.
If speed cameras were operating in area I mostly drive, and I kept driving like I do, I'd probably collected over 100 penalty points in last month.
But I didn't, because there is no speed vans here.
My insurance company is happy that I'm perfectly safe driver with 15 years no accident driving history and my premium is quite low.
Would having 10 penalty points on my account change the way I drive, and make me more liable to crash - of course not.
And if I had one pint too much and was caught and got a year ban.
Would I be more dangerous driver after that? Of course not.
That's why I think all this is one big bullsh1t what insurers are doing.

OP - you are just a victim of unfair insurance market we have in Ireland.

Also "driving with a hangover" is the only way I can accept what I done. You get nicer looks when you say that rather than I am drunken knacker

That's what I said - very smart way of saying you were driving drunk ;P

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

I actually still can't understand why someone with penalty points or who had a driving ban, is considered higher risk for insurance company.

You cant understand why somebody who has a conviction for drink driving and has racked up 8 penalty points might be seen as a high risk? Really?

Insurance works on statistics. Statistically the OP is a very high risk. Ergo policy is priced accordingly.

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

You cant understand why somebody who has a conviction for drink driving and has racked up 8 penalty points might be seen as a high risk? Really?

Yes.
Really.
Are there any statistics showing that people with higher amount of penalty points cause more accidents?
I'm absolutely serious here.

Insurance works on statistics. Statistically the OP is a very high risk. Ergo policy is priced accordingly.

When I was living in Poland I used to collect a lot of penalty points.
I once even exceeded the limit, and had to pass my driving test again.
Did it make me more dangerous driver? I don't think so?
My insurer didn't think so as well, as they were not interested in my penalty points.
What they were interested was if I was causing any accidents. I wasn't.
And because of that I gathered high NCB and my police was cheap.
They were happy, and I was happy.

djimi

Im not even going to bother retorting to that one. If you need it explained to you why someone who has a history of repeatedly offending is going to be seen as a higher risk than someone who has a perfectly clean license then its really not worth the debate.

Reg'stoy

CiniO wrote: »

I actually still can't understand why someone with penalty points or who had a driving ban, is considered higher risk for insurance company.
If speed cameras were operating in area I mostly drive, and I kept driving like I do, I'd probably collected over 100 penalty points in last month.
But I didn't, because there is no speed vans here.
My insurance company is happy that I'm perfectly safe driver with 15 years no accident driving history and my premium is quite low.
Would having 10 penalty points on my account change the way I drive, and make me more liable to crash - of course not.
And if I had one pint too much and was caught and got a year ban.
Would I be more dangerous driver after that? Of course not.
That's why I think all this is one big bullsh1t what insurers are doing.

OP - you are just a victim of unfair insurance market we have in Ireland.



That's what I said - very smart way of saying you were driving drunk ;P

Strange statement, I would hope that someone who had X amount of points would yes be more aware of their driving, the fact you would have ten points would in the insurers eyes make you a greater risk (why would it not?). As for one pint too much; well my views are one pint is too much, but that's for a different thread.
As for the cost of insurance the OP is lucky he getting a reasonable quote. Considering he's built up more points on his licence (deserved or not) is an indication of his lack of awareness, be it limits or being in a speed enforcement area and so yes may well be a greater insurance risk.
Speaking for myself any one and I'm paraphrasing you, who has tens points and doesn't amend their driving and on occasion drinks one pint too many and drives; is a greater risk on the roads and so rightly would pay increased insurance.

zarquon

CiniO wrote: »

Yes.
Really.
Are there any statistics showing that people with higher amount of penalty points cause more accidents?
I'm absolutely serious here.



When I was living in Poland I used to collect a lot of penalty points.
I once even exceeded the limit, and had to pass my driving test again.
Did it make me more dangerous driver? I don't think so?
My insurer didn't think so as well, as they were not interested in my penalty points.
What they were interested was if I was causing any accidents. I wasn't.
And because of that I gathered high NCB and my police was cheap.
They were happy, and I was happy.

Seriously, someone with 8 points and a 3 month drink driving ban in a year and you are trying to defend them by arguing that this does not prove they are a high risk driver. Your ultimate proof is that you accumulated enough points to have your license revoked also and therefore this does not make one a high risk or bad driver.

NEWS FLASH - The OP is a high risk driver and i'm only sorry that his insurance isn't higher - The driving with a hangover argument is nonsense! Secondly you are also a dangerous driver if you rack up the points continually despite your own delusions that you and the OP are such wonderful drivers that penalty points means nothing.

I would love to know your age range - Usually it's young inexperienced male drivers who think they are infallible drivers on the road capable of break neck speeds whilst under the influence.

kirving

To be fair though, there shouldn't be an arbitrary time limit from when someone receives their license to their allowable drink drive limit. You've either passed the test or you haven't, end of story. After that point, your driving ability does not depend on the amount of time that has passed, nor does how alcohol effects your driving ability. I've driven 1000km in the past week, I know people who wouldn't do that in a year. I'm all for reducing the limit, but it has to be based on evidence rather than picking a number out of the sky.

ProudDUB

CiniO wrote: »

I actually still can't understand why someone with penalty points or who had a driving ban, is considered higher risk for insurance company.
If speed cameras were operating in area I mostly drive, and I kept driving like I do, I'd probably collected over 100 penalty points in last month.
But I didn't, because there is no speed vans here.
My insurance company is happy that I'm perfectly safe driver with 15 years no accident driving history and my premium is quite low.
Would having 10 penalty points on my account change the way I drive, and make me more liable to crash - of course not.
And if I had one pint too much and was caught and got a year ban.
Would I be more dangerous driver after that? Of course not.

Just because you haven't been caught doing what you do, doesn't mean that you aren't a crap driver. Just because your insurance company don't know that you drive the way that you do, doesn't mean that you aren't a crap driver. Just because luck has been on your side SO FAR, doesn't mean that you aren't a crap driver. Just because you haven't killed someone yet, doesn't mean that you won't some day, due to your crap driving

Guess what? Crap drivers cause far, far more accidents than the good ones do.

The End.

CiniO

ProudDUB wrote: »

Just because you haven't been caught doing what you do, doesn't mean that you aren't a crap driver. Just because your insurance company don't know that you drive the way that you do, doesn't mean that you aren't a crap driver. Just because luck has been on your side SO FAR, doesn't mean that you aren't a crap driver. Just because you haven't killed someone yet, doesn't mean that you won't some day, due to your crap driving

Guess what? Crap drivers cause far, far more accidents than the good ones do.

The End.

I agree with statement in bold.
But I don't consider myself a crap driver. Reason for that is that over last 15 years I travelled about 600 - 700k kilometres, and I was always able to get where I wanted without causing any danger or crashing. For me that's kind of a proof that I'm not a crap driver. And my insurance company believes me in that.
However if I had penalty points, they probably wouldn't believe that I drive safely, while at the same time, those penalty points wouldn't change the way I drive, so also they wouldn't change the risk, would they?

CiniO

Kevin Irving wrote: »

To be fair though, there shouldn't be an arbitrary time limit from when someone receives their license to their allowable drink drive limit. You've either passed the test or you haven't, end of story. After that point, your driving ability does not depend on the amount of time that has passed, nor does how alcohol effects your driving ability. I've driven 1000km in the past week, I know people who wouldn't do that in a year. I'm all for reducing the limit, but it has to be based on evidence rather than picking a number out of the sky.

Oh come on. It makes sense.
It was proven that driver with short experience needs to focus more than one with more experience. Therefore amount of alcohol which wouldn't affect someone experiences, might affect someone less experienced.
Also lower limits apply to professional drivers, as full focus on what they are doing is always required.
I'm not saying that normal drivers don't need to focus when driving. I'm saying that having two limits is good thing, and I consider Irish alcohol limits allright.

zarquon

CiniO wrote: »

I agree with statement in bold.
But I don't consider myself a crap driver. Reason for that is that over last 15 years I travelled about 600 - 700k kilometres, and I was always able to get where I wanted without causing any danger or crashing. For me that's kind of a proof that I'm not a crap driver. And my insurance company believes me in that.
However if I had penalty points, they probably wouldn't believe that I drive safely, while at the same time, those penalty points wouldn't change the way I drive, so also they wouldn't change the risk, would they?

You had your license revoked and had to resit your driving test and you still think you are a good driver????

It's not necessarily bad drivers who are the biggest danger on the road, it is bad drivers who think they are excellent drivers who are the biggest danger

wotzgoingon

I'm suprised OP you are even getting quotes off insurance companys as when you get a ban you get three years endorsement on your licence, and very few insurance companys will take you on.

CiniO

zarquon wrote: »

Seriously, someone with 8 points and a 3 month drink driving ban in a year and you are trying to defend them by arguing that this does not prove they are a high risk driver. Your ultimate proof is that you accumulated enough points to have your license revoked also and therefore this does not make one a high risk or bad driver.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.
Amount of point or previous bans on your licence, doesn't make you safe or not safe driver.

NEWS FLASH - The OP is a high risk driver and i'm only sorry that his insurance isn't higher - The driving with a hangover argument is nonsense! Secondly you are also a dangerous driver if you rack up the points continually despite your own delusions that you and the OP are such wonderful drivers that penalty points means nothing.

I don't have any penalty points at the moment if you're asking.
Hardly I can have one, as there is no road checkes or speed vans in the area I mostly drive.

Penalty point mean that someone got caught on committing road offence.
In Ireland most likely it was speeding.

So no - I don't think drivers who commit speeding are less safe from those who don't.

I would love to know your age range - Usually it's young inexperienced male drivers who think they are infallible drivers on the road capable of break neck speeds whilst under the influence.

I'm 32, and I've never drove over the legal limit.
However if I did (f.e. decided to drive back home from the pub on rainy night), how would this affect my everyday driving for the future?
Only moment when I could be more dangerous would be that night when I decide to drive drunk.
If I crashed, insurer wouldn't pay anyway, as I was drank.
So how come suddenly it's bigger risk for them?

CiniO

zarquon wrote: »

You had your license revoked and had to resit your driving test and you still think you are a good driver????

I haven't had my licence revoked.
I exceeded legal limit of penalty points in Poland (when I lived there) and I had to resit the driving test.
If I failed the test, my licence would be revoked until I pass.
But I passed.

And yes - I still think that penalty points has nothing to do with how good or bad driver you are.

wotzgoingon

CiniO wrote: »

Penalty point mean that someone got caught on committing road offence.
In Ireland most likely it was speeding.

Not really I ranked up a few penalty points for no seat belt. Thankfully they are all gone now. Still don't wear my seat belt.

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

However if I did (f.e. decided to drive back home from the pub on rainy night), how would this affect my everyday driving for the future?

Because if you have proven that you are stupid enough to do it once then in the eyes of those who assess risk its entirely probable that you are stupid enough to do it again. Thats the way that it works. What the insurance company doesnt know they cant prove, however if you give them an indication as to your driving habits (ie speeding fines, drink driving bans etc) then you are giving them reason to load your policy on the basis of you being an increased risk.

I dont really understand how this is a hard concept to understand?

Reg'stoy

Kevin Irving wrote: »

To be fair though, there shouldn't be an arbitrary time limit from when someone receives their license to their allowable drink drive limit. You've either passed the test or you haven't, end of story. After that point, your driving ability does not depend on the amount of time that has passed, nor does how alcohol effects your driving ability. I've driven 1000km in the past week, I know people who wouldn't do that in a year. I'm all for reducing the limit, but it has to be based on evidence rather than picking a number out of the sky.

I've no problem with the limits and considering some jurisdictions not too far away from us recognise that learning doesn't finish once the lessons stop, neither should we. Experience gained by time driving in different situations improves the driver, not just doing mile after mile on motorways.

I find it quite reasonable that professional drivers along with newly qualified drivers, have to think twice about how much they can or cannot have to drink.

I dislike the whole 'driving while hungover' attitude of the OP. I may have said it before, but if you while meeting your surgeon prior to laser eye surgury realised he was hung over, would you accept his explanation that he had a couple of hours sleep and his last drink was at two in the morning. I doubt many would lie down on the operating table but some would reckon he'd be unlucky if was to blow over while on the way to work.

slimjimmc

CiniO wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.
Amount of point or previous bans on your licence, doesn't make you safe or not safe driver.



I don't have any penalty points at the moment if you're asking.
Hardly I can have one, as there is no road checkes or speed vans in the area I mostly drive.

Penalty point mean that someone got caught on committing road offence.
In Ireland most likely it was speeding.

So no - I don't think drivers who commit speeding are less safe from those who don't.


I'm 32, and I've never drove over the legal limit.
However if I did (f.e. decided to drive back home from the pub on rainy night), how would this affect my everyday driving for the future?
Only moment when I could be more dangerous would be that night when I decide to drive drunk.
If I crashed, insurer wouldn't pay anyway, as I was drank.
So how come suddenly it's bigger risk for them?

If you crashed into someone else or damaged their property your insurance would still be compelled to pay the 3rd party cover. The insurer could take a civil suit against you personally to recover the payout but how would they feasibly get paid if you don't have the ability to pay.
For example, if you seriously injured somebody the payout could potentially run into millions for a lifetime of treatment; do you have that sort of money to pay back your insurer?

ProudDUB

CiniO wrote: »

I agree with statement in bold.
But I don't consider myself a crap driver. Reason for that is that over last 15 years I travelled about 600 - 700k kilometres, and I was always able to get where I wanted without causing any danger or crashing. For me that's kind of a proof that I'm not a crap driver. And my insurance company believes me in that.
However if I had penalty points, they probably wouldn't believe that I drive safely, while at the same time, those penalty points wouldn't change the way I drive, so also they wouldn't change the risk, would they?

You said in your previous post that if speed cameras existed where you drive, that you would have racked up 100 points in a month. They are your own words. 100 points in one month is pretty excessive. That says to me, that you speed pretty much every where that you know you won't get caught. So you are a crap driver. And a very dangerous one too.

Sooner or later, you WILL have an accident, where you will kill/injure yourself or someone else. I don't care whether or not you regularly drive to Timbucktoo without incident. If you speed that often, you ARE a crap driver. Sooner or later, it WILL catch up with you. Unfortunately, thanks to your recklessness and stupidity, it will probably catch up with someone else too, who didn't do a damm thing wrong. And that is the really sad part.

CiniO

ProudDUB wrote: »

You said in your previous post that if speed cameras existed where you drive, that you would have racked up 100 points in a month. They are your own words. 100 points in one month is pretty excessive. That says to me, that you speed pretty much every where that you know you won't get caught. So you are a crap driver. And a very dangerous one too.

Sooner or later, you WILL have an accident, where you will kill/injure yourself or someone else. I don't care whether or not you regularly drive to Timbucktoo without incident. If you speed that often, you ARE a crap driver. Sooner or later, it WILL catch up with you. Unfortunately, thanks to your recklessness and stupidity, it will probably catch up with someone else too, who didn't do a damm thing wrong. And that is the really sad part.

What you are pretty much saying here, is that drivers who exceed posted speed limit are crap drivers, and sooner or later they will kill someone or themselves (or both), while those who don't exceed posted speed limit, are safe drivers and have nothing to worry about.

Sorry, but I'm using my right not to agree with you. My opinion is totally different.
Safe drivers are those who drive safely. Crap drivers are those who drive unsafely. Speeding has nothing to do with it.

zarquon

CiniO wrote: »

What you are pretty much saying here, is that drivers who exceed posted speed limit are crap drivers, and sooner or later they will kill someone or themselves (or both), while those who don't exceed posted speed limit, are safe drivers and have nothing to worry about.

Sorry, but I'm using my right not to agree with you. My opinion is totally different.
Safe drivers are those who drive safely. Crap drivers are those who drive unsafely. Speeding has nothing to do with it.

So you believe that drivers who consistently speed are safe drivers? It's drivers like you that keep premiums higher for the rest of us :rolleyes:

You may or may not be a crap driver but you most certainly are a dangerous driver.

CiniO

zarquon wrote: »

So you believe that drivers who consistently speed are safe drivers?

I believe, speeding has nothing to do with driving safely or not.
You can either drive within speed limits unsafely, as well as above speed limits safely.

It's drivers like you that keep premiums higher for the rest of us :rolleyes:

How do I keep premiums high for others? I never caused any accident.

You may or may not be a crap driver but you most certainly are a dangerous driver.

I don't think so.

zarquon

CiniO wrote: »

I believe, speeding has nothing to do with driving safely or not.
You can either drive within speed limits unsafely, as well as above speed limits safely.

The RSA, Gardai and most of the rest of the world (at least those with half a brain) disagree with you. You are entitled to your opinion unfortunately most dangerous drivers are of the opinion that they are Michael schumacher. I suppose you are the deluded type who thinks a few beers does not affect your driving ability either?

ProudDUB

CiniO wrote: »

What you are pretty much saying here, is that drivers who exceed posted speed limit are crap drivers, and sooner or later they will kill someone or themselves (or both), while those who don't exceed posted speed limit, are safe drivers and have nothing to worry about.

Sorry, but I'm using my right not to agree with you. My opinion is totally different.
Safe drivers are those who drive safely. Crap drivers are those who drive unsafely. Speeding has nothing to do with it.

You don't seem to think that excessive amounts of speeding has anything to do with being a crap or an unsafe driver? By your logic, a person can be a good and safe driver, even though they do an excessive amounts of speeding? Seriously? If you really think that, then I am done here. There is no point in engaging with some one who is that obtuse.

You may possess all the technical driving skill in the world. You may execute roundabouts and lane changes and hill starts flawlessly. You may be able do a three point turn that would make Jeremy Clarkson cry. But if you speed a lot, then yes, you are a crap driver and an unsafe one.

Renegade Mechanic

CiniO wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.
Amount of point or previous bans on your licence, doesn't make you safe or not safe driver.



I don't have any penalty points at the moment if you're asking.
Hardly I can have one, as there is no road checkes or speed vans in the area I mostly drive.

Penalty point mean that someone got caught on committing road offence.
In Ireland most likely it was speeding.

So no - I don't think drivers who commit speeding are less safe from those who don't.


I'm 32, and I've never drove over the legal limit.
However if I did (f.e. decided to drive back home from the pub on rainy night), how would this affect my everyday driving for the future?
Only moment when I could be more dangerous would be that night when I decide to drive drunk.
If I crashed, insurer wouldn't pay anyway, as I was drank.
So how come suddenly it's bigger risk for them?

Actually, just on that bolded bit. Despite insurance companies looking for ways out of paying (and finding more than people might be comfortable knowing), If a drunkard causes, say, 200K of damage to someome then that someone will claim, if not from the drunkards insurance, then from the central insurance beurau- A sort of massive kitty, paid into by all Insurance companies. Typically used to compensate people hit by uninsured drivers. And if they have to put more into the kitty for claim payouts , theyll take it from their customers in the form of premium hikes that will maintain their profit margins.

While I agree that having penalty points on a Licence doesnt necessarily make a bad driver (There is a difference between marginally breaking the speed limit and driving dangerously. Having a drink from a water bottle does not in fact make you a rampant serial killer) having a history of driving over the legal alcohol limit is not something that cannot* just be overlooked.

What everyone seems to miss about driving "the morning after" isnt actually the blood alcohol level.
Its the Hangover.
Ive done it, driven to work on a hangover. And it SUCKED. The pounding headache, the sick stomac, the severe irritability towards the bumpy road youll be spending the next half hour on and may god have mercy on your dammed to hell soul if you have to drive facing the sun!!! That crap makes it very hard to focus on driving properly. You arent drunk, youre not weaving but youre not fully focusing on the task at hand either. Youre driving impaired and thats what theyre out to get. The alcohol is at a detectable level still, indeed. But its... dead, for want of a better word, its just a toxin now that your body is busy booting out but its the after effects mentioned that cause trouble in the mornings.


(* Edit. Originally said can )

CiniO

zarquon wrote: »

The RSA, Gardai and most of the rest of the world (at least those with half a brain) disagree with you. You are entitled to your opinion unfortunately most dangerous drivers are of the opinion that they are Michael schumacher.

I think you misinterpreted me.

I suppose you are the deluded type who thinks a few beers does not affect your driving ability either?[/QUOTE]

And you can stay in this belief if you wish.

CiniO

ProudDUB wrote: »

You don't seem to think that excessive amounts of speeding has anything to do with being a crap or an unsafe driver? By your logic, a person can be a good and safe driver, even though they do an excessive amounts of speeding? Seriously? If you really think that, then I am done here. There is no point in engaging with some one who is that obtuse.

You may possess all the technical driving skill in the world. You may execute roundabouts and lane changes and hill starts flawlessly. You may be able do a three point turn that would make Jeremy Clarkson cry. But if you speed a lot, then yes, you are a crap driver and an unsafe one.

The key is to speed in places where it's safe.
And drive even under speed limit, in places where it would be unsafe to stick to the limit.
It's not easy thing to do.

CiniO

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Actually, just on that bolded bit. Despite insurance companies looking for ways out of paying (and finding more than people might be comfortable knowing), If a drunkard causes, say, 200K of damage to someome then that someone will claim, if not from the drunkards insurance, then from the central insurance beurau- A sort of massive kitty, paid into by all Insurance companies. Typically used to compensate people hit by uninsured drivers. And if they have to put more into the kitty for claim payouts , theyll take it from their customers in the form of premium hikes that will maintain their profit margins.

ALl right.
You convinced me.
Even if insurance company don't pay themselves, we all loose out on drunken drivers, so they should be charged more.

While I agree that having penalty points on a Licence doesnt necessarily make a bad driver (There is a difference between marginally breaking the speed limit and driving dangerously. Having a drink from a water bottle does not in fact make you a rampant serial killer) having a history of driving over the legal alcohol limit is not something that can just be overlooked.

What everyone seems to miss about driving "the morning after" isnt actually the blood alcohol level.
Its the Hangover.
Ive done it, driven to work on a hangover. And it SUCKED. The pounding headache, the sick stomac, the severe irritability towards the bumpy road youll be spending the next half hour on and may god have mercy on your dammed to hell soul if you have to drive facing the sun!!! That crap makes it very hard to focus on driving properly. You arent drunk, youre not weaving but youre not fully focusing on the task at hand either. Youre driving impaired and thats what theyre out to get. The alcohol is at a detectable level still, indeed. But its... dead, for want of a better word, its just a toxin now that your body is busy booting out but its the after effects mentioned that cause trouble in the mornings.

From what I've heard the peak of hangover is when your blood alcohol concentration is already gone.
So driving on hangover might not actually be illegal, but surely very dangerous.

kirving

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I've no problem with the limits and considering some jurisdictions not too far away from us recognise that learning doesn't finish once the lessons stop, neither should we. Experience gained by time driving in different situations improves the driver, not just doing mile after mile on motorways.

I find it quite reasonable that professional drivers along with newly qualified drivers, have to think twice about how much they can or cannot have to drink.

I completely agree with that, but what I'm saying is that short of putting a black box in everyones car, there's absolutely no way to equate how experienced a driver is versus how long they've held their license. Time behind the wheel in different situations plays a role, but time ticking by on a clock does not.

Have varying limits, sure, but apply them in a measured, scientific manner rather than just allowing people who might have passed their test years ago but do 5km week to drink more.

michael999999

Has anyone actually answered the Ops question yet?

slimjimmc

michael999999 wrote: »

Has anyone actually answered the Ops question yet?

No one has named a specific insurer but post #2 is probably the next best answer. If he can't get better after a lot of shopping around then I guess it's unlikely he can get better.

kermitpwee

CiniO wrote: »

What you are pretty much saying here, is that drivers who exceed posted speed limit are crap drivers, and sooner or later they will kill someone or themselves (or both), while those who don't exceed posted speed limit, are safe drivers and have nothing to worry about.

Sorry, but I'm using my right not to agree with you. My opinion is totally different.
Safe drivers are those who drive safely. Crap drivers are those who drive unsafely. Speeding has nothing to do with it.

What if someone else makes a mistake on the road while you are breaking the speed limit?? If you are driving at the speed limit or below it will give you more time to react to the other persons mistake and reduce the chances of an accident. Being a good driver is not solely about not causing accidents its also about having time to react to other peoples mistakes. Until you understand this you are a poor driver.

CiniO

kermitpwee wrote: »

What if someone else makes a mistake on the road while you are breaking the speed limit?? If you are driving at the speed limit or below it will give you more time to react to the other persons mistake and reduce the chances of an accident. Being a good driver is not solely about not causing accidents its also about having time to react to other peoples mistakes. Until you understand this you are a poor driver.

I understand this very well.

One of the first book I read about driving was titled "safe speed" and was written by one of the best rally drivers in Europe in 60's.

His idea is that everyone should always drive with the safe speed.
Safe speed depends on plenty of factors, including road condition, amount of traffic, weather conditions, driver skills, driver tiredness, vehicle condition, visibility, and plenty others - impossible to list.

For one driver safe speed in certain spot at certain time might be 120km/h while for other driver in different car at different time in the same spot might be 30km/h.

Safe speed has nothing to do with speed limits - might be lower or might be higher.
If you are keeping within safe speed, you are driving safely.

So always I tried to adhere to it, and it works for me.

kermitpwee

CiniO wrote: »

I understand this very well.

One of the first book I read about driving was titled "safe speed" and was written by one of the best rally drivers in Europe in 60's.

His idea is that everyone should always drive with the safe speed.
Safe speed depends on plenty of factors, including road condition, amount of traffic, weather conditions, driver skills, driver tiredness, vehicle condition, visibility, and plenty others - impossible to list.

For one driver safe speed in certain spot at certain time might be 120km/h while for other driver in different car at different time in the same spot might be 30km/h.

Safe speed has nothing to do with speed limits - might be lower or might be higher.
If you are keeping within safe speed, you are driving safely.

So always I tried to adhere to it, and it works for me.

You are fooling yourself and if you wish to do that then thats your right. If you stick to the speed limit of say 100km/h then you will have more time to stop if someone makes a mistake than if you are driving at 120km/h. It doesn't matter about these 'safe speed's. Answer this question for me. Which speed can you react better at 100km/h or 120km/h?
We as drivers share the roads, we have a duty of care to other road users to drive as well as we can. Breaking the speed limits is not driving as good as you can. On another thread you said that most people would help a broken down motorist so I know you are a good guy. Do me and everyone else a favour and stop breaking speed limits and endangering your fellow road users, you have a duty of care to me to react as good as you can to my mistakes and I to you. Lets have respect for others on the road.
Safe driving buddy.
Yours in allowing for other road users mistakes
kermitpwee

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

I understand this very well.

One of the first book I read about driving was titled "safe speed" and was written by one of the best rally drivers in Europe in 60's.

His idea is that everyone should always drive with the safe speed.
Safe speed depends on plenty of factors, including road condition, amount of traffic, weather conditions, driver skills, driver tiredness, vehicle condition, visibility, and plenty others - impossible to list.

For one driver safe speed in certain spot at certain time might be 120km/h while for other driver in different car at different time in the same spot might be 30km/h.

Safe speed has nothing to do with speed limits - might be lower or might be higher.
If you are keeping within safe speed, you are driving safely.

So always I tried to adhere to it, and it works for me.

You have been on here before bragging about driving at high speeds down country roads. When I asked you how you planned to respond if something were to unexpectedly run out in front of you your response was along the lines of "ah sure thatll never happen".

Based on what you have said on this forum, you are not as safe a driver as you think you are.

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

You have been on here before bragging about driving at high speeds down country roads. When I asked you how you planned to respond if something were to unexpectedly run out in front of you your response was along the lines of "ah sure thatll never happen".

Based on what you have said on this forum, you are not as safe a driver as you think you are.

I don't believe I could have said something like that.
What I could have said probably was: "It will never happen, as I don't drive fast in places where it can happen".
That's a different thing.

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

I don't believe I could have said something like that.
What I could have said probably was: "It will never happen, as I don't drive fast in places where it can happen".
That's a different thing.

You even went so far as to post a picture of the country road on which you admitted speeding along. I asked what would happen if something were to run onto the road from the ditch and you dismissed it as if it could never happen.

CiniO

kermitpwee wrote: »

You are fooling yourself and if you wish to do that then thats your right. If you stick to the speed limit of say 100km/h then you will have more time to stop if someone makes a mistake than if you are driving at 120km/h.

Obviously that's true.
But if I drive at 80km/h instead of 100km/h I'll have even more time.
If I drive at 60km/h instead of 80km/h - again the same - plenty of time to react.
Eventually when I'll be crawling at 10km/h I'll be 100% sure I'll do no harm to anyone.
But that's not what cars were invented for.

It doesn't matter about these 'safe speed's. Answer this question for me. Which speed can you react better at 100km/h or 120km/h?

Speed limits (especially in Ireland) are generally set without too much consideration.
I know N roads with 100km/h speed limit, where width of lane is minimal, it's narrow, tight bends, and houses around with kids playing nearby.
It's definitely not safe to do 100km/h even in best weather conditions.
And I know R roads with 80km/h, where there is absolutely nothing around, and it's perfectly safe to do even 160km/h or more - which I often do.

We as drivers share the roads, we have a duty of care to other road users to drive as well as we can. Breaking the speed limits is not driving as good as you can. On another thread you said that most people would help a broken down motorist so I know you are a good guy. Do me and everyone else a favour and stop breaking speed limits and endangering your fellow road users, you have a duty of care to me to react as good as you can to my mistakes and I to you. Lets have respect for others on the road.
Safe driving buddy.
Yours in allowing for other road users mistakes
kermitpwee

Trust me - I do account for other road users to make mistakes. If I didn't - I wouldn't have crash free driving for last 15 years.

Also what I haven't said here yet - I think I was only caught speeding twice in my life. And I was not much above the limit.
That proves that I speed only in places I'm sure it's safe to do it.

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

You even went so far as to post a picture of the country road on which you admitted speeding along. I asked what would happen if something were to run onto the road from the ditch and you dismissed it as if it could never happen.

I must admit I can't remember posting up the picture.
But I can imagine which road it was.

If you are talking about animals - indeed they can run suddenly - something like fox or rabbit.
Not much we can do about it.
Doing 50km/h gives you about the same change of hitting a cat of fox as doing 150km/h. They can literally run in the last moment.

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

I must admit I can't remember posting up the picture.
But I can imagine which road it was.

If you are talking about animals - indeed they can run suddenly - something like fox or rabbit.
Not much we can do about it.
Doing 50km/h gives you about the same change of hitting a cat of fox as doing 150km/h. They can literally run in the last moment.

Youre joking yeah? Driving at appropriate speeds gives you time to react. It also lessens the potential mess if you are unable to avoid them (Im sure you can work out the difference between hitting a ditch/tree at 30mph and hitting the same at 90mph?)

I have been living and driving in the countryside for maybe 12 years. In that time I have had only a handful of times where I have needed to avoid an animal on the road. However, had I been speeding any of those times, I have little doubt that I would have had a fairly serious accident. It only takes that one time. If you think you are invincible then you are only fooling yourself.

kermitpwee

CiniO wrote: »

Obviously that's true.
But if I drive at 80km/h instead of 100km/h I'll have even more time.
If I drive at 60km/h instead of 80km/h - again the same - plenty of time to react.
Eventually when I'll be crawling at 10km/h I'll be 100% sure I'll do no harm to anyone.
But that's not what cars were invented for.



Speed limits (especially in Ireland) are generally set without too much consideration.
I know N roads with 100km/h speed limit, where width of lane is minimal, it's narrow, tight bends, and houses around with kids playing nearby.
It's definitely not safe to do 100km/h even in best weather conditions.
And I know R roads with 80km/h, where there is absolutely nothing around, and it's perfectly safe to do even 160km/h or more - which I often do.





Trust me - I do account for other road users to make mistakes. If I didn't - I wouldn't have crash free driving for last 15 years.

Also what I haven't said here yet - I think I was only caught speeding twice in my life. And I was not much above the limit.
That proves that I speed only in places I'm sure it's safe to do it.

Its so sad to see you lying to yourself, I used have great respect for your posts and found you a very informative poster in the motors section. I cannot bare your lies anymore, you disgust me with your wreck less attitude to my safety and the safety of other road users. I can only put it down to immaturity on your part as the other option would be to conclude you are an arsehole.

Nonoperational

CiniO wrote: »

Yes.
Really.
Are there any statistics showing that people with higher amount of penalty points cause more accidents?
I'm absolutely serious here.



When I was living in Poland I used to collect a lot of penalty points.
I once even exceeded the limit, and had to pass my driving test again.
Did it make me more dangerous driver? I don't think so?
My insurer didn't think so as well, as they were not interested in my penalty points.
What they were interested was if I was causing any accidents. I wasn't.
And because of that I gathered high NCB and my police was cheap.
They were happy, and I was happy.

Possibly one of the craziest posts I've read on this forum, and that's saying something.

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

Youre joking yeah? Driving at appropriate speeds gives you time to react.

I agree fully - driving at appropriate speed give you time to react.
The thing is, driving at appropriate speed very often has nothing to do with speed limit.

It also lessens the potential mess if you are unable to avoid them (Im sure you can work out the difference between hitting a ditch/tree at 30mph and hitting the same at 90mph?)

Why would I need to hit the ditch or tree?
If I decide it's safe to drive at 90mph, then there shouldn't be an option that I'll need to avoid something.

I have been living and driving in the countryside for maybe 12 years. In that time I have had only a handful of times where I have needed to avoid an animal on the road. However, had I been speeding any of those times, I have little doubt that I would have had a fairly serious accident.

What kind of animals are we talking about?

Have a look at the video - however it's not the nicest.
I hit a cat.
I was way below speed limit (probably doing about 60km/h on 90km/h limit).
This didn't help at all in avoiding the cat
If animal jumps in last moment, no matter what speed you are doing, there's nothing you can do.
In the video there was nothing I could do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcrTpYXkk-Q

It only takes that one time. If you think you are invincible then you are only fooling yourself.

I don't think I'm invincible.
I just think that my experience behind the wheel is enough to judge what speed is safe in given circumstances.

CiniO

Nonoperational wrote: »

Possibly one of the craziest posts I've read on this forum, and that's saying something.

What is it saying?