Is this really enough to cover the serious risks to others posed by
talking while driving?

"Motorists caught using their mobile phones at the wheel may have to
pay hundreds of pounds more for car insurance.

Leading insurers now consider the offence as serious as unsafe driving
and could make guilty drivers pay up to 30 per cent more.

Companies such as Norwich Union, Zurich, Alliance and Leicester,
Churchill and Allianz ask drivers if they have a conviction for using
their mobile phone and take it into account when calculating quotes.

Many insurers said they beefed up their policies after penalties for
the offence were increased in February. The original £30 fine was
raised to £60 and drivers also receive three points on their
licence..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026934/200-insurance-rise-drivers-phone.html

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 17 Jun, 07:48, Doug  wrote:
> Is this really enough to cover the serious risks to others posed by
> talking while driving?
>
> "Motorists caught using their mobile phones at the wheel may have to
> pay hundreds of pounds more for car insurance.

<snip>

Good morning both types of Doug.

Thank you for your daily cut and paste.

Good idea, my mate and his pillion rider got wiped out on the way to
work by a wanker rabbiting on the dog, luckily they werte not killed
just hospitalised for a while.

NM

Doug wrote:
> Is this really enough to cover the serious risks to others posed by
> talking while driving?

Insurance companies are expert in risk otherwise they wouldn't be in 
business. So if they say a £200 increase is the right amount to cover 
the risk then that's what it is.

-- 
Abo

Doug wrote:
> Is this really enough to cover the serious risks to others posed by
> talking while driving?
>
Oh look, another car thread from Doug (who may or may not be Bollen) who 
claims never to start car threads but does so several times a day.

NM  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Good idea, my mate and his pillion rider got wiped out on the way to
> work by a wanker rabbiting on the dog

Could have been worse. It could have been a rabbit wanking on the dog.
Or, indeed, a dogger wanking on a rabbit.

In article <af67ba4b-68cc-455d-b0e3-
620f6cc1e9fa@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> Is this really enough to cover the serious risks to others posed by
> talking while driving?
> 
> "Motorists caught using their mobile phones at the wheel may have to
> pay hundreds of pounds more for car insurance.
> 
> Leading insurers now consider the offence as serious as unsafe driving
> and could make guilty drivers pay up to 30 per cent more.
> 
> Companies such as Norwich Union, Zurich, Alliance and Leicester,
> Churchill and Allianz ask drivers if they have a conviction for using
> their mobile phone and take it into account when calculating quotes.
> 
And TBH, anyone using any of the above, needs their heads testing as 
they're the priciest on the market in the first place.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Doug  wrote:

> Is this really enough to cover the serious risks to others posed by
> talking while driving?

The insurers think so, and they are the ones who will lose out if they
have calculated the risks incorrectly. Why don't you go ask an actuary
who will know the basis of the calculation rather than asking a random
group of people on usenet?

Conor  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> Companies such as Norwich Union, Zurich, Alliance and Leicester,
>> Churchill and Allianz ask drivers if they have a conviction for using
>> their mobile phone and take it into account when calculating quotes.

> And TBH, anyone using any of the above, needs their heads testing as
> they're the priciest on the market in the first place.

I challenge any driver to find a single insurance company that DOESN'T 
ask for details of any and all licence endorsements, then "take them into 
account" when quoting...

In article <g38arj$i14$2@registered.motzarella.org>, Adrian says...

> I challenge any driver to find a single insurance company that DOESN'T 
> ask for details of any and all licence endorsements, then "take them into 
> account" when quoting...
> 
Indeed. Therefore the only real difference is in the loading of the 
policy and it doesn't surprise me if the dinosaurs above are the 
heaviest loaders for this type of offence.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On 17 Jun, 08:22, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Is this really enough to cover the serious risks to others posed by
> > talking while driving?
>
> Insurance companies are expert in risk otherwise they wouldn't be in
> business. So if they say a £200 increase is the right amount to cover
> the risk then that's what it is.
>
Yes but that is just their financial risk and they are experts at
blaming the vulnerable victim to avoid compensation.

What about the heartbreak of the families of the victims killed?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 08:22, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Is this really enough to cover the serious risks to others posed by
>>> talking while driving?
>> Insurance companies are expert in risk otherwise they wouldn't be in
>> business. So if they say a £200 increase is the right amount to cover
>> the risk then that's what it is.
>>
> Yes but that is just their financial risk and they are experts at
> blaming the vulnerable victim to avoid compensation.
> 
> What about the heartbreak of the families of the victims killed?
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
> 

Your thread was about insurance, you have had an answer, don't try to 
twist the question.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

In article <b960008a-cc42-42cd-a4fd-6ce529e55582
@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> On 17 Jun, 08:22, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > Is this really enough to cover the serious risks to others posed by
> > > talking while driving?
> >
> > Insurance companies are expert in risk otherwise they wouldn't be in
> > business. So if they say a £200 increase is the right amount to cover
> > the risk then that's what it is.
> >
> Yes but that is just their financial risk and they are experts at
> blaming the vulnerable victim to avoid compensation.
> 
> What about the heartbreak of the families of the victims killed?
> 
Irrelevent.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams