Best Insurance for Penalty Points

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?

CiniO

kermitpwee wrote: »

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.

I'm not lying to myself.
I just present my opinion on speed limits and speeding.

zarquon

CiniO wrote: »

I'm not lying to myself.
I just present my opinion on speed limits and speeding.

You're not lying? You said you accumulated too many points in Poland and had to resit your driving test but then said you only got nabbed twice in 15 years of driving for speeding.

I'm calling shenanigans unless your points were for other acts of stupid or dangerous driving. You boast about your driving ability and insist you are a safe driver so i'd be interested to know how many offenses you were actually caught for and what they were for.

Either way you are caught out and are lying about some facet of your ability and history

michael999999

And the bull****ter of the year award goes to....

zarquon

According to this you need to exceed 21 points in one year to have to resit a test in poland which means Cinio commited at least 3 offenses and if it was the minimum 3 offenses they would have been at the upper tier of dangerous driving offenses. 3 serious driving offenses in 1 year constitutes a dangerous driver. More than 3 lesser offenses in less than a year still constitutes a dangerous driver.

http://2008.fit-to-drive.com/downloads/12_19062008_Justyna%20Wacowska-Slezak.pdf

Cinio is a deluded spoofer of the highest order.

CiniO

zarquon wrote: »

You're not lying? You said you accumulated too many points in Poland and had to resit your driving test but then said you only got nabbed twice in 15 years of driving for speeding.

That's exactly what I said, because that's true.

I'm calling shenanigans unless your points were for other acts of stupid or dangerous driving. You boast about your driving ability and insist you are a safe driver so i'd be interested to know how many offenses you were actually caught for and what they were for.

If you are really interested - sure - that's what I remember. It was 12 years ago.

1. They pulled me over, and my fire extinguisher (which is obligatory there) was out of date.
2. I got a new car, wasn't fully used to switches, and accidentally drove with fog-light during the daytime hours.
3. I remember I got one for skidding on snow on big empty supermarket parking at night.
4. I got one for parking on street which was one way street. Middle of the night, no vehicles around, so I reversed 10 metres into one way street in wrong direction. I was visiting my friend. His neighbour had it recoreded on camera and he notified the police.
5. And eventually there was one for speeding.

Possibly something else I can't remember exactly. That way I exceeded penalty points limit.

Either way you are caught out and are lying about some facet of your ability and history

I'm not laying. Why would I?

CiniO

zarquon wrote: »

According to this you need to exceed 21 points in one year to have to resit a test in poland

That's not right. 24 points is the limit.
I accumulated 28.

which means Cinio commited at least 3 offenses and if it was the minimum 3 offenses they would have been at the upper tier of dangerous driving offenses.

Was way more than 3.

3 serious driving offenses in 1 year constitutes a dangerous driver. More than 3 lesser offenses in less than a year still constitutes a dangerous driver.

I don't agree.
Virtually none of things I was caught on was dangerous.

Cinio is a deluded spoofer of the highest order.

You wish.

zarquon

CiniO wrote: »

1. They pulled me over, and my fire extinguisher (which is obligatory there) was out of date.
2. I got a new car, wasn't fully used to switches, and accidentally drove with fog-light during the daytime hours.
3. I remember I got one for skidding on snow on big empty supermarket parking at night.
4. I got one for parking on street which was one way street. Middle of the night, no vehicles around, so I reversed 10 metres into one way street in wrong direction. I was visiting my friend. His neighbour had it recoreded on camera and he notified the police.
5. And eventually there was one for speeding.

Possibly something else I can't remember exactly. That way I exceeded penalty points limit.

I'm not laying. Why would I?

Well the above would confirm that you are a bad driver and a dangerous one at that therefore you are a liar when you boast about your driving ability.

I have been driving 11 years and have never gotten a single penalty point. I assume you will still argue that you are a better and safer driver than me!

zarquon

CiniO wrote: »

That's not right. 24 points is the limit.
I accumulated 28.


Was way more than 3.


I don't agree.
Virtually none of things I was caught on was dangerous.


You wish.

If you don't agree that they were dangerous then you need to admit they were bad driving. Seriously! Daytime fogs on and reversing the wrong way on a way way street and you think this is neither bad driving nor dangerous. If i said what i really thought about your driving and atitude i'd get an infraction so i'll leave it to the other sensible posters on this forum to judge you.

kermitpwee

CiniO wrote: »

I'm not lying to myself.
I just present my opinion on speed limits and speeding.

You have to be lying I don't see how you could be that stupid tbh

CiniO

zarquon wrote: »

Well the above would confirm that you are a bad driver and a dangerous one at that therefore you are a liar when you boast about your driving ability.

Yes - sure.
Having out of date fire extinguisher is dangerous as hell.
As well as using fog lights at day.
Reversing into empty estate lane at night - absolutely dangerous.
Come on. You are just trying to say something that is not true.

I have been driving 11 years and have never gotten a single penalty point.

Compare comparable things.
You can not compare getting penalty point in Poland and Ireland.
I've been driving in Ireland for the last 7 years, and also never gotten a single penalty point.

I assume you will still argue that you are a better and safer driver than me!

I never compared you and me.
I have no clue how you drive.
Talking about how good driver someone is on the forum in nonsense. You just have to see someone's driving to find out.