Cookie policy
Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Car insurance

A single driving fine will cost you a fortune in rising premiums

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 24 April 2012  |  Comments 18 comments

Fines for minor motoring offences could send your car insurance premium shooting skywards for years!

A single driving fine will cost you a fortune in rising premiums

The 'rules of the road', as laid down in the Highway Code and motoring legislation, are designed to protect drivers, passengers, cyclists, other road users and pedestrians. When we break them, we expect to be punished by the authorities.

But a new survey from The AA suggests that being fined for motoring offences is only the beginning. In some cases, the subsequent rise in your car insurance premiums can leave you nursing a bill four times as big as the original fine.

A quadruple whammy

The AA's latest research found that a motorist's first speeding offence can cost four times the typical £60 fine, thanks to higher insurance premiums for the next three years. Apologetic drivers who instead agree to take a speed-awareness course can keep their clean driving licences and reduce the total cost of their offences.

Drivers caught using a handheld device to phone, text or email while driving can expect a steeper fine, as well as a sharp increase at their next insurance renewal. In some cases, offenders may be refused renewal by their existing insurers and be forced to seek cover elsewhere.

Leave your phone alone

Drivers who deny using their phones while driving can easily be caught out, as police can and do check phone records if they suspect a driver of using a handheld phone at the time of an accident.

To demonstrate how harshly insurers treat this offence, the AA produced the following table of premiums before and after a driver* was given a CU80 penalty, which attracts at least a £60 fine and three points on your licence.

Insurer

Clean

premium

CU80

premium

Increase

A

£298

Refused quote

-

B

£313

Refused quote

-

C

£331

£377

14%

D

£378

£499

32%

E

£392

Refused quote

-

F

£491

£564

15%

G

£434

£495

14%

H

£434

Refused quote

-

* Based on a 40-year-old man driving a Ford Mondeo, using eight insurers on the AA's panel.

As you can see, four refused cover, while the other four pushed up their renewal premiums by between 14% and 32%, with the average premium increase being 18%.

Only one or two police forces offer mobile-phone awareness courses, so there's little chance you'll escape a CU80 penalty if you're caught 'dialling and driving'. That's a pretty hefty price to pay for taking or making a call while on the road.

What's more, these offences lie on your licence for four years, thus bumping up your next three or four yearly premiums. Even worse, the police may escalate a mobile-phone offence to a charge of careless or dangerous driving, which carries much heavier penalties. 

Slow down, you move too fast

The AA also warned that few insurance companies are willing to ignore a first SP30 speeding offence nowadays. Almost all insurers now penalise a first SP30 with a premium hike.

Take a look at this second table, which shows the premium increases from one and two SP30 speeding offences:

Insurer

Clean

premium

One SP30

(3pts)

Increase

Two SP30s

(6pts)

Increase

A

£298

£333

12%

Refused quote

-

B

£313

£344

10%

Refused quote

-

C

£331

£366

11%

£399

20%

D

£378

£396

5%

£509

35%

E

£392

£441

13%

£491

25%

F

£491

£509

4%

£533

8%

G

£434

£467

7%

£495

14%

H

£434

Refused quote

-

Refused quote

-

As you can see, a first speeding fine can lead to your next premium being hiked by 4% to 13%, with the average rise being 8%. Only one of these eight insurers refused to renew a policy after a single SP30.

However, a second fine can send your renewal soaring by between 8% and 35%, with the average increase of 20%. What's more, three of these eight insurers refused to renew after two SP30s, making it much harder for repeat speeders to find replacement cover.

The AA says that these premium increases will remain but reduce over three years. So a single speeding offence costing £60 could cost another £200 extra in higher insurance premiums. This makes the typical £90 charge for a speed-awareness course a much cheaper alternative.

Keep your hands upon the wheel

Finally, a separate survey last week by insurer esure found that around two million British motorists have had an accident or near-miss while driving with only one hand on the wheel.

Also, esure found that drivers who eat at the wheel see their reaction times doubled, placing them at greater risk of accidents. Almost half (47%) of UK motorists admit to driving often with one hand on the wheel, while one in five (20%) admit to smoking while driving.

More on cars and car insurance:

Get a car insurance quote

The most expensive petrol in the world

Car finance: a terrible way to pay for your new car

Car vs public transport: An old banger is cheaper than the bus!

25 ways to cut your car insurance

How to find the cheapest diesel and petrol prices

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (18)

  • holdswc
    Love rating 0
    holdswc said

    Just demonstrates how the police can extort cash to help people 'get off' from the consequence of what they tell us is irresponsible and criminal behavior. If I was able to operate a similar scheme they would call it perverting the course of justice.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • h4rj12
    Love rating 1
    h4rj12 said

    It is law in this country that you can only be punished for a crime once.

    It seems driving offences and insurance companies operate above the law by effectively punishing you up to 6 times for any misdemeanour.

    1. Points on license

    2. Potential ban and/ or loss of job

    3.Year one insurance hike

    4. Year two insurance hike

    5. Year three insurance hike

    6. Initial fine

    Its time the points system was scrapped.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 600
    Mike10613 said

    The points system is bad because it costs people their jobs quite often for just being unlucky. Often people drive from a 50 zone to a 30 zone with a speed camera just in the 30 zone and get caught, Not everyone wants to go on those bloody silly courses either. Often they are miles away from home because people get caught on unfamiliar roads when they are away home.

    The punishment for using a mobile while driving is fair though; really stupid people should be banned. They endanger everyone.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • time2go
    Love rating 66
    time2go said

    It doesn't have to be a fine.

    A NON FAULT claim will also increase your premium. Just ask your insurance company (if they give you a straight answer, bret they won't). I'm making such a complaint at the moment so I will soon find out.

    When 'No Win - No fee' was introduced - Insurers jumped into the market straight away, as they saw a way to make easy money. E.g. They charge a (Sometimes extremely high) premium to insure against legal costs. Years later they found profits are not as great as they want, so they ask for 'No Win - No Fee' to be scrapped.

    The problem is Insurers and their greed. We are legally obliged to have car insurance. Although we are told there are lots of insurers, they all operate from the same script. After all it is their business and their share holders want profits.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • spwwuk
    Love rating 6
    spwwuk said

    I'm amazed that you think that a £60 fine, 3 points on the licence and a possible 14% - 32% hike in insurance premium is "a pretty hefty price to pay for taking or making a call while on the road." Using a mobile phone whilst driving has been shown to adversely affect driver ability to the same (or arguably greater) extent that drinking alcohol does. I wonder if you'd be prepared to change your statement to apply to drink drivers, as in "a pretty hefty price to pay for being drunk while on the road." Somehow I don't think so.

    @ Mike10613

    There are many who feel that people who speed are just as stupid as mobile phone users. I'm afraid the term "unlucky" just doesn't cut the mustard when drivers in charge of a ton or more of metal fail to notice speed signs. After all, you have to be able to pay attention in order to drive a car in the first place so why is it "unlucky" when you fail to pay attention to such signs or, in fact, any motorist-relevant legislation? The vast majority of those caught speeding are caught because they choose to break the speed limit. Simple.

    @h4rj12

    If you can't do the time then don't do the crime.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • AdAstra100
    Love rating 26
    AdAstra100 said

    The points system is the only deterring and fair system. Otherwise we are back to the days when the rich just paid their way out of the system and kept offending and the poor went deeper into penury and their families lost out. I would add that banned drivers should be tagged and tracked since far too many continue to drive. Similarly, anyone caught driving without a full licence and insurance should be jailed. Penalties for the last two offences seem to be pitiful.

    Mobile phone usage in cars seems to be more acceptable to today's drivers, particularly the young, any it has far more catastrophic potential than minor speed offences. Failure to use indicators is another dangerous bad habit on the increase, again mostly by the young who do not seem to realise that indicators are also there to inform the other road users, NOT seen by the driver of the maneuvering vehicle.

    Finally, insurers have very right to assess the risk to their business [My interest is only as a shareholder] which is why the EU's legislation to force companies to treat male and female the same as far as insurance and annuities are concerned is ludicrous.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • AndyP
    Love rating 24
    AndyP said

    It's not just speeding and using a phone that causes a rise in premiums - it's absolutely anything at all that insurers can use as an excuse to shaft you.

    My car was vandalised twice in the space of three months, each time I claimed on the insurance for a total of £450. My insurance premium the following year went up by... £450! I literally gained nothing by claiming on my insurance, in fact, because it was still higher the year after that and the year after that, I lost somewhere around £400 compared to if I'd simply paid for the repairs myself and not claimed. Where is the sense in that?

    @spwwuk - I'm afraid your holier-than-thou attitude only works if the law is sensible. While I completely agree with you that using a phone while driving is (and has been proven to be) stupid and dangerous, your comments on speeding are (in too many cases) sanctimonious drivel I'm afraid. I was "caught" speeding a few years ago because I was doing 45mph... on an *empty dual carriageway* that had a ridiculous 40mph speed limit, when most similar roads allow you to do at least 60mph. Instant three points, £60 fine, and hundreds of pounds more in insurance premiums. I'm more than happy to obey the law... but when the law is intentionally an ass just to bring in extra funding for the local police authority, there can indeed be justified cause for complaint.

    People speed, usually, because it is safe and comfortable to drive at that speed, not (for the most part) because they are careless thrill-seekers racing on dangerous roads. If the speed limits were sensible, people would not complain if they were penalised for speeding.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • spwwuk
    Love rating 6
    spwwuk said

    @AndyP Sanctimonious drivel, eh? More than a touch of Pot and kettle there, then. After all, you're "more than happy to obey the law" but obviously only when it suits you. To state that the law is just there to bring in extra funding for the local Police Authority is patent nonsense and, sadly, typical of the sort of excuse that speeding motorists are prone come up with to justify their behaviour. Funny, I don't see burglars and muggers coming up with the same sort of denial-driven complaints when they get caught.

    The fact is that it is only some speeding motorists who think they should be aloud to speed, nobody else does. If it means that much to you then you can follow the same route as everybody else in the country: write to your MP, set up a lobbying group, etc.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • teafoo
    Love rating 47
    teafoo said

    > AndyP

    Agreed that speed limits should be reasonable and sensible ... and some are extremely frustrating when you stick to them... " a ridiculous 40mph limit .." maybe so in your opinion, but it is obvious that you were aware of that limit at the time .. so why break the law?

    "Justified cause for complaint.. " Is breaking the law the right way to 'complain'?

    SO..

    none of that is an excuse to ignore the law and do it your own way.

    So spwwuk is right that there is a correct way to change the situation.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Chr1s
    Love rating 2
    Chr1s said

    @spwwuk - I can imagine you being one of those typical drivers who blocks people trying to overtake them in the third lane on the motorway because you are doing 70MPH and no one else can pass you as they will be breaking the LAW!

    In my opinion speed limits should be about common sense. If it is raining hard people tend to drive slower, if there are no hazards around like in AndyP scenario then I think you should be able to drive faster. The problem with this country is most of the people haven't got any common sense so they treat us like a nanny state. People like you are a classic example of this as you actually think its right?!?

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    Some road speed limits are arbritary at best, ludicrous at worst.

    With the introduction of the speed camera, Police patrols were reduced. Police patrols can actually be an effective deterent against dangerous driving and also means that the law can be used with discretion.

    It is an absolute fact that the road policing of UK used to be one of the best and most respected in the world. Now, with the mass introduction of the speed camera, it is a joke.

    The whole justification of speed cameras is an outright lie. The numbers used to justify them are not true. It is true that when the facts were being put together to convince the public they were for 'our own good' shocking misuses of data happened. It is a fact that less than about 5% of all road deaths were caused by drivers EXCEEDING the posted speed limit. The highest crash factor was inattention by a driver.

    People have been fed the lie from all angles, and now think it is a fact. IT IS NOT ! You have been indoctrinated to believe than cameras save lives. A Gov't report actually came to the conclusion that speed cameras have no positive effect. They do have negative impacts though. Eg people looking for speed cameras or their speedo instead of the road ahead.

    There needs to be clarification of 'speeding'.

    In my humble opinion. Speeding = driving faster than the conditions would allow for save driving.

    This does NOT necessarily mean exceeding the posted, arbritary limit. eg, 30mph road - driving past a school at 3pm on a school day at 30mph is NOT exceeding the speed limit, BUT PROBABLY IS SPEEDING.

    Driving past the same school at 3am on a Sunday morning with no-one around at 40mph is exceeding the posted, arbritary limit but is probably NOT speeding (using my definition).

    The first example is infinitely more dangerous, but is "OK" to the speed limit enforcers (cameras)

    The second case is not considered OK for the scamera and you will get a NIP.

    I drive to the conditions. Sometimes I will drive higher than the posted arbritary 'limit', sometimes I will not.

    As this policy can be demonstrated to have worked for the last 23 years of me driving, I see no real basis to change.

    If you don't believe my opening comments, then do some research and find the truth about speed cameras.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    I have read the same report that Iamcoldsteve has read, which also goes on to say that in 90% of accidents between pedestrians and vehicles, the pedestrian is at fault, yet the motorist is still penalised.

    One question I have is why points expire after four years, yet insurance companies want to know of points earned in the last five years. Surely if points have expired, they should be discounted, yet insurance companies flout the expiry by specifying a five year history. If you fail to declare points during the last five years, expired or not, you could invalidate your policy.

    By the way, speeding doesn't kill. Inattention and reckless driving does.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    Are you not allowed to eat or smoke when driving? Glad I packed-up the fags. Saved a fortune anyway.

    Can you pick your nose when driving? I see a lot of people doing that, but usually at traffic lights or in a traffic jam. :o)

    I remember when you just jumped in a car, no belts and just drove and enjoyed the experience. I know accidents were more life threatening, but we just had more fun. I can't see how eating something sensible can be dangerous. However people do drive strangely when on the phone, but they weren't around in my previous era.

    I've only had one speeding ticket and that was a con on the way to a F1 meeting at Silverstone back in the 70s. Had a clean licence since. I use my rear view mirror effectively.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    Insurance companies are only in business to make money so it is hardly surprising that they use every trick in the book to do so. As IMHO the Government are all rich people who want to be on the boards of companies and make lots of money they aren't going to regulate the insurance industry. What always puzzled me is why people use knives and guns to kill people. Why don't they use a car? They are just as effective and the penalties are tiny in comparison. After all, breaking the law in a car isn't actually a crime is it?

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Offa
    Love rating 40
    Offa said

    It seems teh only sensible way oout of this is to use 'east european' plates on your car. Few , if any, are traced backt o their country of origin . they also avoided the ever-popular scam from parking companies. I am amazed that more cars are not sporting these plates.

    I know in my region the car that has broken the speed limit at a camera by the biggest margin was on east european plates. The police had not traced the owner and did not seem particularly bothered by this. This car was doing over 130mph, how many points for that? or a three week speed course perhaps?

    It seems the suckers have their normal plates on when they commit speeding.

    Report on 24 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CU80
    Love rating 0
    CU80 said

    Its great to see finally the world is wakening the alarming increase of motorists using their mobile phones while driving.

    There is finally a solution:

    A DEVICE which blocks mobile phone signals in cars is to go on sale in Scotland.

    The CU80, sold by a Scottish company, could spell the end for children chatting on mobiles in their parents’ cars and employees using phones in company vehicles.

    Motoring entrepreneurs Eddie Eusebi and Allan Gibbons have the licence to sell the £150 ‘black box’ across Europe, and hope it will reduce deaths on the road.

    With recent research showing browsing the internet can be more distracting than drink driving, the pair point out it can be used to block the use of social networking sites.

    Mr Eusebi, who co-founded CU80, said: “Virtually every mobile phone can go online and the sad fact is that many drivers are checking their Facebook status and Twitter news-feeds as they drive and are putting lives at risk as they do so.

    “The law forbidding driving while using a mobile phone device is widely flouted. A quarter of British drivers, as many as eight million, use their phone while on the move either with a hands free kit or by holding their mobile.

    “The CU80 device can block as much or as little activity as required, from simply stopping a driver making or receiving calls from their mobile phone to blocking an MP3 player or surfing the internet on a tablet computer.”

    The device works by Bluetooth to block any text message or phone calls. It prevents any use of mobile phones when the vehicle is in motion, though can be adjusted via a website.

    The CU80 is named after the offence code for drivers caught using mobile phones.

    Temptations

    It was developed by US company OBD Edge, and the pair hope it will sell well to businesses with fleets in the UK.

    Co-founder & Director Allan Gibbons said he wanted to change drivers’ habits.

    He said: “We want drivers to think again about their driving habits.

    “Many motorists can’t resist the urge to check their phone or make a call when they know they shouldn’t.

    “Even hands-free mobile phone conversations are dangerous as talking to someone who is not in the car require greater conversation to make up for the lack of visual cues.

    “The CU80 takes the temptation away and ensures that drivers have their hands on the wheel and their eyes and minds firmly on the road.

    “The reality is that many people see using a mobile device while driving as an acceptable practice.

    “What we want to do is make using a mobile device as socially unacceptable as drink driving.”

    Recent research from the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) found using social media on a smartphone slowed reaction times more than alcohol, cannabis and texting.

    Report on 27 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    The 'off' button costs nothing.

    The CU780 doesn't educate - it takes over.

    Is man a "Slave to" or a "master of" technology?

    Report on 27 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • GaryDean
    Love rating 56
    GaryDean said

    While I strongly agree with penalties for those who callously break the law endangering not only themselves but other road users, I am appalled at the profiteering & opportunistic practices of the peddlers of motor insurance. Wherever the need to use a particular service becomes compulsory the business offering such services becomes dirty, seedy & full of calloused greedy execs who will stop at little to fill their pockets. I know this is strong language but with the scandals hitting the banking sectors, the media, politics & others of late such practice is becoming accepted as 'normal' making those who speak strongly against it appear fanatical. When will common sense & decency prevail once again in this country?

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Related content

Our top deals

Credit card
company 		Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR 		Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).

Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4