David probably got those 3 points from speeding. If you’re going to speed in a £60k supercar-for-dads please don’t also complain about your premium going up.
The only weak argument that can be made is that "David" is a "danger" on the road because he drives too fast, and therefore, is bound to crash his car eventually. Which would "warrant" a higher insurance premium.
But the fact is that, if "David" was accident-prone, he would already be penalized by his malus.
So now he is being charged extra beforehand, for an accident he didn't commit, just because the insurance company can. In a way, it reminds me of Minority Report..
He's got 3 points, and so? That's none of the insurance company's business. It's between a driver and the road authorities.
Statistically, a non-negligible proportion of medication prescribed to the general population can have an impact on cognitive abilities, and, de facto, make them worse drivers. Yet, car insurance companies are not privy to a driver's medical history. For a good reason: breach of privacy.
My argument is that points on a license fall under the same category: privacy, and not-their-business.
Then again, they also had insurances in the UK inviting drivers to install phone apps to monitor their driving, and set their premiums accordingly. So, if a country thinks that's absolutely fine, well, what to say..
Even if traffic violations fell under criminal law, and most of them don't, it still would remain a private matter. Private companies simply have no right to a person's criminal record, full stop.
Same effect, extra pain in the ass.
[0] https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/20-mph-speed-limits-hav...
Also the 20mph policy is about reducing the risk of pedestrian death, not accident rates.
That's a blanket assertion - surely it would depend on the law being violated and how it is violated. What if a law was unjust? What if a law was designed to be violated? Are free speech activists in authoritarian countries reckless?
> insurance companies can only charge high rates for speeders if they can prove their past payouts were higher for speeders than non speeders.
Untrue, there's little regulation on how insurance companies determine and charge for risk and there's next to no transparency.
> Also the 20mph policy is about reducing the risk of pedestrian death, not accident rates.
The referenced article looks at 'outcomes' - `road traffic collisions, casualties, or driver speed`. Not just accident rates.
> Untrue, there’s little regulation…
But this is not true. Not only are there large regulatory bodies whose main purpose is to audit the spending and calculations of insurance firms, but there are also laws on what companies can consider in actuarial calculations (e.g. not race).