Diary Of An ADI

A reader has sent me this link to an article on WalletPopUK. It claims that speed cameras have been “revealed as dangerous money-spinners”.

Personally, I don’t have an issue with speed cameras, nor does the mere presence of one make me want to drive into the back (or front) of another car, mow down several dozen pedestrians, or otherwise behave in a dangerous and illogical manner.

The way I look at it is that if you don’t break the speed limit in the first place, you don’t need to keep a lookout for speed cameras, and therefore the chances of a two-page spread about you in The Sun is unlikely.

WalletPopUK sees it differently. Figures released by the DfT (Department for Transport) allegedly prove that every other motorist on the road becomes a homicidal maniac – through no fault of their own, of course – whenever they come within a 50 mile radius of a speed camera.

The [DfT] called on councils to publish full data of revenue and accidents for cameras in their area. A huge number refused. We cannot of course read anything into this…

they say – obviously reading plenty into it, as they follow up with:

…or it may be too embarrassing – who knows?

It cites the installation of a camera in Oxfordshire where there had not been a single accident in five years, but after its installation there were five. It argues that this is not “coincidence”.

It cites another in Cambridgeshire, where there had been five minor accidents in five years prior to installation, but seven (two serious) last year – and 1,027 people caught speeding.

So, just two examples. We will just have to assume that the road layouts hadn’t changed, or speed limits reduced, or that increasing road use, deteriorating driving standards, and the mere passage of time were not involved. Because WalletPopUK doesn’t consider those things as relevant. And naturally, being interested in the actual nature of the collisions and the speeds involved is just being silly.

The problem, motorists have always argued, is that it’s safer for drivers to consistently slightly exceed the speed limit, than for them to exceed the speed limit most of the time and then brake heavily for the cameras.

Right. So being hit by someone doing 35mph in a 30mph zone is going to do you less damage than someone braking for the camera? I mean, come on! What planet are people on?

WalletPopUK appears to be a MoneyExpert wannabe. It puts saving money above all else, and of course those nasty speed cameras cost people a lot of money… if they break the speed limit in front of one.

Channel 4 News is somewhat more sensible about the story. And unlike WalletPopUK, which appears to want to convey it’s own spin rather than allow people to judge properly for themselves, Channel 4 also links to the DfT data . The Channel 4 story also notes:

Activists cautioned against using the figures that have been published so far to draw firm conclusions about how well speed cameras work.

The numbers show that casualty rates at some accident black spots have got worse since speed cameras were installed there, although the low numbers of incidents and short time scales involved may make it difficult to draw robust statistical conclusions.

Some camera partnerships have reported overall reductions in accidents and injuries after cameras were installed.

So WalletPopUK just took the bad bits out and reported on those. Prematurely, as well.

Anyone who thinks forcing people to drive slower doesn’t reduce KSIs (Killed or Seriously Injured incidents) is nuts. If cameras – and it is only some of them – really do increase the accident rate, then the problem is surely not with the camera but with the prat driving the car which skids out of control as it slams on the brakes so as not to get caught?

My opinion, of course.

The Daily Mail must have been running short of news judging by this article.

I wrote about the same story back in July. That was based on an article in This is Plymouth (a local online newspaper), which in turn was spawned by some newly-released DSA figures about test centre pass rates. I have put those pass rates on this site.

The Mail merrily plagiarises the Plymouth story, prattling on about how Mallaig is the “best place” to take your test because the pass rate is so high. Of course, it then has to mention Wanstead and Bradford for being the worst.

The Mail adds its own spin, by quoting a Wanstead driving instructor, who claims:

The road layout can be quite tricky.

Drivers can be aggressive, they go for gaps that aren’t there, overtake and generally take no prisoners.

But there is another issue that people aren’t considering. These places with low pass rates also tend to have a higher proportion of candidates who take their tests before they are ready. They want to spend as little as possible, or are convinced that their driving is already top-notch and they’ll pass with ease first time.

The driving test isn’t really that hard, and frighteningly many do pass – even though they aren’t necessarily good drivers. Worse still, these same low-pass areas are also ones where people are more likely to drive uninsured, or are deprived in a way that other forms of crime are more common. With that as a baseline, is it any wonder that “drivers can be aggressive”?

So the ADI’s quote above becomes self-fulfilling. You put crap on the roads, it drives badly and makes it difficult for everyone else.

Further to that last story about the correct definition of insurance fronting, I was reading this article from Zurich Insurance.

The corroborating evidence at the bottom of the story makes especially interesting reading.

Topline statistics:

• 9 per cent of parents and grandparents who have helped a child or grandchild buy a car surveyed have it insured in their own name
• 13 per cent have done so in the past
• 59 per cent of people surveyed who have helped their child or grandchild buy a car do not realise fronting is against the law
• 39 per cent believe fronting is legal
• 68 per cent of parents and grandparents surveyed who have fronted have done so to help their child reduce insurance premiums
• 19 per cent believe the car should be insured in their name as they are the registered as the owner
• 46 per cent of those who have helped their child or grandchild buy a car think that the person on the insurance policy could be fined, while 24 per cent realise that it would be the driver who would be fined
• 30 per cent believe that it is the policyholder who could stand to receive penalty points, while just 22 per cent realise it would be their driver.

Penalties for fronting:

• A policy may be cancelled
• A claim may be refused
• Driver may be given a fine
• Driver may receive penalty points
• Driver may have to re-sit their driving test

It’s quite shocking, isn’t it? And yet it is these same people who would ignorantly and aggressively defend their actions right up until the time they realise they don’t have anywhere else to go, and feign “shock and surprise” at what was probably clear to them all along.

Also, on the forum I mentioned in the previous article, someone has identified several cases where people who were fronting had policies voided by their insurers. However, the Ombudsman decided in their favour on appeal.

As you can imagine, this is likely to be seen as evidence that fronting isn’t wrong by those who openly advocate it, or who try to convince themselves that they aren’t really doing it by repeatedly denying it. However, there are two aspects of the Ombudsman’s findings that need to be remembered:

• the three test cases date from 2001-2005
• the findings relate solely to having not had the issue of fronting made clear at the time the policy was taken out

So reading between the lines, in the three cases the insured person kicked up a stink and managed to persuade the Ombudsman that they didn’t know about fronting and that it wasn’t explained to them when they took the policy out. You can believe as much or as little of that as you want – but the Ombudsman obviously did. The bottom line is that they got off on technicalities – they were still deliberately trying to get lower insurance premiums.

So, with the most recent test case being 6 years ago, and with fronting being an increasingly serious problem during the last two years, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that anyone found to be fronting now would be far less likely to convince anyone that they “didn’t know”. Furthermore, with companies like Tesco now having the guts to include specific wording describing what they would consider to be fronting, people would have even less chance of convincing anyone that they “didn’t know”.

Tesco Says:

We understand that it can sometimes be unclear who the main driver of a car is so we have provided clarification below to explain situations in which we would treat the young driver as the ‘main driver’.

• If a young driver regularly uses a car to drive to or from work / place of education then they should be the registered main driver.
• If a young driver uses the car on a daily basis, then they should be the registered main driver.
• If the car is maintained by the young driver, then they should be the main driver.

The sooner other insurance companies pull their fingers out and do something similar, the sooner the problem is likely to be brought under control.

For anyone who thinks fronting is OK, just think what it means to you when the very group of people who you really want to have valid insurance (due to the number of accidents it has) is the same group actively engaged in fronting.

You are basically driving alongside high-risk drivers who are effectively uninsured.

A forum (frequented by learners) has yet another thread on the go, with people giving illegal, dangerous, and misleading advice about getting “cheap insurance”. It makes you wonder how – with so many A* grades being handed out like confetti, and all the University places being massively oversubscribed – people can be so stupid or naïve.

Let’s just look again at what “fronting” is.

I originally mentioned it last summer in this article. A BBC news story suggested that 41% of parents deliberately lie on their insurance forms to get cheaper cover for their kids. The implication is that somewhat more of them don’t even realise they are in the wrong when they try to get premiums down.

I wrote another article this year, based on further statistics concerning the problem. This time, 25% of young drivers had lied, and 70% of those claimed they didn’t realise they were doing it. The source material says that “over half of the 17-21 year old respondents” had admitted to “fronting”.

“Fronting” doesn’t have an absolutely rigid definition. The best one I have seen is this:

Fronting, is simply where a parent/more experienced driver/(anyone likely to get a lower premium when named as policyholder than the named driver would get) [puts themselves down as the main driver].

So for example,

You insure a car as the policyholder, therefore the main user, but your son is the named driver – if he uses the vehicle more than occasionally, he could be classed as the main user, which would create a huge premium compared to the one offered.

I like this one because it covers the grey areas. Particularly that phrase I have highlighted.

There is a misconception that if Mr X (the daddy) insures the car in his name, and drives it for 51% of the time, and his son drives it the other 49%, then there isn’t a problem. Unfortunately, there probably is, meaning that the policy could easily be void if a claim had to be made.

I have spoken with one insurance company, who say that if someone is found to be fronting then they will not pay out in the event of a claim. They say that if the policyholder uses the car 90% of the time, and the named driver 10%, then there isn’t a problem – but if it’s the other way round then there is.

When I asked them about what happens when car use is around 50:50 between the policyholder and the named driver they were a little less certain. They admit that there are grey areas, and that there are various factors that have to be taken into account, but if a driver is using the car that much then they really ought to have their own insurance. They made it clear that they can find out using various investigative techniques.

Tesco is much clearer on the topic. On its website, it says this:

We understand that it can sometimes be unclear who the main driver of a car is so we have provided clarification below to explain situations in which we would treat the young driver as the ‘main driver’.

• If a young driver regularly uses a car to drive to or from work / place of education then they should be the registered main driver.
• If a young driver uses the car on a daily basis, then they should be the registered main driver.
• If the car is maintained by the young driver, then they should be the main driver.

That one is crystal clear. It isn’t just about who uses the car the most. It’s also about who uses the car regularly, and especially if they use it for getting to work or their place of education.

That means anyone taking a car to University had better be bloody careful if they’ve got mum or dad down as the main driver. If Tesco sees it like this, even the company I mentioned above who were less specific could see it that way if a claim were made and they didn’t like what they saw.

On the forum I mentioned, one clown is arguing that “they can’t prove anything”. Well, if mummy and daddy live in Kent, and little Johnny is at Uni in Leeds, it’s going to be pretty damned obvious that little Johnny is more than just a named driver in the event of any claim up in Leeds. So the insurance company won’t really have much to do by way of proof, will it?

In actual fact, Tesco is the only insurer I can find whose definition is so clear. Recent statistics have been widely covered in media reports, but although these reports talk of the shock and horror parents feel when given “an accurate definition of fronting”, the actual definition isn’t actually given anywhere. All these reporters do is trot out the bit about “main driver” and “named driver” – they simply don’t cover the grey areas.

Remember that if the problem is as acute as is being claimed, more and more insurers are going to seek to apply more rigid interpretations as more and more people get themselves put down as “named drivers” to save money, even though they are major users of the insured vehicle.

An interesting article on the AutomotiveBlog about insurance cover. The recession is apparently pushing a lot of drivers into trying to cut insurance costs – without realising that it means they’re not covered.

Personally, I think that’s being a bit generous – a lot of them know full well that what they’re doing is illegal, but they still do it (to be fair, a point that is made in the article a little later).

The most interesting bit, though, is the “Top Misconceptions” list at the end:

Myth: You’re automatically insured to drive other cars if you have a comprehensive policy.

Truth: This is not always the case, as it can depend on your age or occupation. It is always best to check your policy beforehand.

---

Myth: You’re fully covered with a comprehensive policy if you have an accident whilst driving another person’s car.

Truth: A comprehensive policy will often only cover the damage to the car or object you hit, not the damage to the car you are driving. Always check the level of insurance your policy provides.

---

Myth: Third-party cover is cheaper than comprehensive.

Truth: Not true. Some insurers have raised rates for third-party because of the number of high-risk drivers who apply.

---

Myth: Non-fault claims won’t affect your insurance premium.

Truth: Even if you didn’t cause the accident, your premium can still rise.

---

Myth: You don’t need to inform your insurance company if you have less than six points on your licence.

Truth: All points have to be declared, even for previous offences, regardless of how long ago.

---

Myth: You’re always guaranteed a courtesy car if you have an accident.

Truth: Not true. These are normally subject to availability, and in most cases only offered if your car is repairable and taken to the insurer’s approved repairer.

That one about 3rd party insurance not being cheaper should be an eye-opener to a lot of people.

This article in Racing + Waiting raises questions about the driving test. It seems the author has a thing about this (in his own words). He argues that the test should include motorway driving, skid pan training, and some sort of continuing assessment for new drivers.

The article is based on a survey by Ford and the DIA – so it’s basically a publicity thing by a large car manufacturer, and an organisation which would find fault with anything the DSA did just on principle. The survey says that around 70% of current drivers “doubt their own abilities if they were to be re-tested”,

Let’s just look at some facts.

To start with, Racing + Waiting has selected a tiny part of the actual survey – more detail is given here. And even more detail here on the AutoEvolution site. The issue of the driving test is far from being the main thrust of the survey.

Next, most accidents involving young (or new) drivers occur on rural and twisting roads, at night, and with a car full of mates. Motorway accidents come way down the list.

And skid pan training? The author cites localised flood alerts, snow last winter, grease on the roads, punctures, and so on as reason for introducing this. But we need to be realistic about what skid pan training really amounts to.

Unless your job pays for it, almost no one could afford proper skid pan training – at best they’d get 10 minutes of playing around (and that’s assuming that there are more than a handful in the country to start with). And even if they got a whole day on the damned thing, what on earth makes the author feel that a new (young) driver is any more likely to remember that training than the stuff they supposedly forget that puts them in that 70% of people who doubt their own abilities?

In all honesty, the fact that the article leads with a photo similar to the one above says a lot more about the problem than the author might imagine. Accidents happen because of the mismatch between the brains of chimpanzees and the bodies of men – the two don’t mix. A 17-year old who drools over pictures like this, and who wets himself when Top Gear comes on, is a loaded gun when out on the roads.

A couple of years ago I was tail-gated down a single track road by a pratmobile as it was getting dark. I pulled into a farm gateway to make a phonecall, and the driver sped off with a spin of wheels. I heard him again in the distance and thought no more of it – well, I actually thought “wanker”, but you know what I mean. About 10 minutes later I almost shit myself when a voice out of the darkness said “can you help us?”

The screech I’d heard was him spinning off the road and into a ditch. When I got there his car was upside down in a nettle-filled ditch – I’d have missed it if I’d have driven by, it was so well hidden.

He didn’t end up in the ditch because he hadn’t had any motorway training. He didn’t end up in it because he hadn’t been on a skid pan.

He ended up in the ditch because he was a twat. That’s where the problem is – not with the test or their training.

I saw this story on the BBC website. An 85-year old driver got on the wrong side of the A3 dual carriageway and collided with two other cars.

On a related note, I was with a pupil on a lesson today and had to use the dual controls as an elderly (he must have been 70+) driver came towards us off a bend on a narrow country lane on the wrong side of the road. In this case, he was making no attempt to move back. The cars behind him couldn’t believe what they saw, judging from their expressions.

It really is time our society stopped playing games and started to acknowledge the fact that as people get older, they tend towards being greater and greater risks to themselves and everyone else. They need to be assessed regularly – and harshly.

There has to come a time in everyone’s life when the decision has to be made about whether they should be allowed on the road anymore before someone innocent gets killed.