What issues do you all have with your current insurance provider?
Lets see if we can work together to get things right…
Are we talking hgv insurance or private car?
HGV (single truck and fleet)
Probably worth moving this across to the owners section.
In here mainly we’re the ones that cause the damage. In there they’re the ones who pay for it 
toonsy:
Probably worth moving this across to the owners section.In here mainly we’re the ones that cause the damage. In there they’re the ones who pay for it
Or he’ll be moving off altogether if he ain’t got the go ahead to advertise. 
robroy:
toonsy:
Probably worth moving this across to the owners section.In here mainly we’re the ones that cause the damage. In there they’re the ones who pay for it
Or he’ll be moving off altogether if he ain’t got the go ahead to advertise.
“Compare HGV Insurance” in green
Written just above “Forum Sponsor”
robroy:
toonsy:
Probably worth moving this across to the owners section.In here mainly we’re the ones that cause the damage. In there they’re the ones who pay for it
Or he’ll be moving off altogether if he ain’t got the go ahead to advertise.
toonsy:
Probably worth moving this across to the owners section.In here mainly we’re the ones that cause the damage. In there they’re the ones who pay for it
Good shout 
Franglais:
robroy:
toonsy:
Probably worth moving this across to the owners section.In here mainly we’re the ones that cause the damage. In there they’re the ones who pay for it
Or he’ll be moving off altogether if he ain’t got the go ahead to advertise.
“Compare HGV Insurance” in green
Written just above “Forum Sponsor”
I knew that all along…I was just testing. 
robroy:
Franglais:
robroy:
toonsy:
Probably worth moving this across to the owners section.In here mainly we’re the ones that cause the damage. In there they’re the ones who pay for it
Or he’ll be moving off altogether if he ain’t got the go ahead to advertise.
“Compare HGV Insurance” in green
Written just above “Forum Sponsor”I knew that all along…I was just testing.
Yes, you’re very testing.
CompareHGVInsurance:
What issues do you all have with your current insurance provider?
None. Was even £20 cheaper than last year and now with Quidco cashback i’m paying £120 a year fully comp.
As for the lorry it’s not mine so I don’t pay insurance and therefore don’t give a toss as long as it is insured. As mentioned this really would be better on the Owner Drivers board.
robroy= SUPERGRASS… 
Is it true that some insurance companies insist on in cab cameras?
Or is it just an excuse so drivers can be spied on?
Mystery Action:
Is it true that some insurance companies insist on in cab cameras?
Or is it just an excuse so drivers can be spied on?
Absolutely 100% true. Although not many to be honest. They may mandate in on those fleets that have a high claims frequency or are starting to deteriorate. From an insurance perspective we’re not interested on spying on drivers, just want the evidence to fight your corner as all too often the (HGV) driver is to blame when they are not at fault.
CompareHGVInsurance:
Mystery Action:
Is it true that some insurance companies insist on in cab cameras?
Or is it just an excuse so drivers can be spied on?Absolutely 100% true. Although not many to be honest. They may mandate in on those fleets that have a high claims frequency or are starting to deteriorate. From an insurance perspective we’re not interested on spying on drivers, just want the evidence to fight your corner as all too often the (HGV) driver is to blame when they are not at fault.
Maybe you ain’t interested in ‘spying on drivers’ fair enough, but the operators sure as hell are, and they usually put the same positive spin on it as what you have stated…‘‘To protect the driver’’ followed by a (usually made up ) example of Joe Bloggs who was found innocent and exonerated by his driver facing camera…aye right., which then goes on to be repeated and regurgitated by the ‘yes men’ and the serial conformists in the job. 
For every innocent Joe Bloggs, how many have been implicated, and I ain’t on about the few isolated cases of telephone/video use carnage, those kers deserve all they get, but maybe some poor ■■■■ filmed having a coffee, or a long noisy yawn, then 5 mins later having a crash which was more than likely unconnected…but he was ‘‘Driving Tired’’.
I know it ain’t your bag mate as an insurance bod, but I’m just stating facts and reality here to balance up your last statement.
Cheers…
robroy:
CompareHGVInsurance:
Mystery Action:
Is it true that some insurance companies insist on in cab cameras?
Or is it just an excuse so drivers can be spied on?Absolutely 100% true. Although not many to be honest. They may mandate in on those fleets that have a high claims frequency or are starting to deteriorate. From an insurance perspective we’re not interested on spying on drivers, just want the evidence to fight your corner as all too often the (HGV) driver is to blame when they are not at fault.
Maybe you ain’t interested in ‘spying on drivers’ fair enough, but the operators sure as hell are, and they usually put the same positive spin on it as what you have stated…‘‘To protect the driver’’ followed by a (usually made up ) example of Joe Bloggs who was found innocent and exonerated by his driver facing camera…aye right., which then goes on to be repeated and regurgitated by the ‘yes men’ and the serial conformists in the job.
For every innocent Joe Bloggs, how many have been implicated, and I ain’t on about the few isolated cases of telephone/video use carnage, those kers deserve all they get, but maybe some poor [zb] filmed having a coffee, or a long noisy yawn, then 5 mins later having a crash which was more than likely unconnected…but he was ‘‘Driving Tired’’.
I know it ain’t your bag mate as an insurance bod, but I’m just stating facts and reality here to balance up your last statement.
Cheers…
That’s an interesting angle tbf and immensely frustrating. I guess in some businesses there are the middle yes men that are just interested in pushing their chests out. I don’t have time for that. If there’s footage that will help then great, if there is footage that will hinder then it needs to be managed properly. Believe it or not there has been significant wins for the haulier and insurer with camera footage. Not just in liability disputes but we caught a major fraud gang when they staged an accident. 8 people are serving significant time as a result of it, those people worked at a car hire company, scrap yard, solicitors and an insurance claims dept. They were all in on it. A multi million pound set-up targeting HGV’s. That was a good day when they were caught. The trouble is for every one caught there are probably another 50 getting away with it 
^^^^^^
I think you misunderstand me, not a problem with outward facing cameras, in fact I’m all for them.
I just think the dual ones with the inward facing are a bit if a liberty, those are the ones that implicate the driver more times than they exonerate them.
robroy:
those are the ones that implicate the driver more times than they exonerate them.
Only implicating the driver if they are in the wrong though.
If they arent playing with their phone, or peeling the spuds, instead of driving, the camera will show that. The car driver and passengers who all swear blind you were reading "The Sun" or "Bumsn`■■■■ Weeky" instead of looking at the road will be proven liars.
You hear about the times a driver is caught out by cameras because that is news, you dont hear about the times they clear them, because "Lorry Driver drives OK" doesnt make it to the front page.
Franglais:
robroy:
those are the ones that implicate the driver more times than they exonerate them.Only implicating the driver if they are in the wrong though.
If they aren
t playing with their phone, or peeling the spuds, instead of driving, the camera will show that. The car driver and passengers who all swear blind you were reading "The Sun" or "Bumsn`■■■■ Weeky" instead of looking at the road will be proven liars.You hear about the times a driver is caught out by cameras because that is news, you don
t hear about the times they clear them, because "Lorry Driver drives OK" doesnt make it to the front page.
Ok mate, just you carry on believing what they tell you…‘‘If you aint doing anything wrong you’ve nothing to worry about’’… as the brainwashed tell us .
As I said a long noisy yawn could be quite easily (and very conveniently) construed as a driver carrying on driving when he needed to stop, but chose to carry on and ‘‘cause’’ an accident, … or me taking a sip from a Costa whilst still having both eyes on the road, in full control (whatever they say or you chose to believe) but at the same time some dork runs into me, no relavance to the accident in ‘‘real world’’ but you can sure as hell bet they will go all out to pin it on me…because I was ‘‘in the wrong’’ as you say.
In either case without a camera it would not be conveniently interpreted as the driver at fault.
But hey…‘‘They are there to protect us’’ ‘‘they’’ tell us , so there you go.
So.as I say Frangers,.carry on conforming with ’ The rules’’ and believing what they tell you in their hidden agendas.
robroy:
Franglais:
robroy:
those are the ones that implicate the driver more times than they exonerate them.Only implicating the driver if they are in the wrong though.
If they aren
t playing with their phone, or peeling the spuds, instead of driving, the camera will show that. The car driver and passengers who all swear blind you were reading "The Sun" or "Bumsn`■■■■ Weeky" instead of looking at the road will be proven liars.You hear about the times a driver is caught out by cameras because that is news, you don
t hear about the times they clear them, because "Lorry Driver drives OK" doesnt make it to the front page.Ok mate, just you carry on believing what they tell you…‘‘If you aint doing anything wrong you’ve nothing to worry about’’… as the brainwashed tell us .
As I said a long noisy yawn could be quite easily (and very conveniently) construed as a driver carrying on driving when he needed to stop, but chose to carry on and ‘‘cause’’ an accident, … or me taking a sip from a Costa whilst still having both eyes on the road, in full control (whatever they say or you chose to believe) but at the same time some dork runs into me, no relavance to the accident in ‘‘real world’’ but you can sure as hell bet they will go all out to pin it on me…because I was ‘‘in the wrong’’ as you say.
In either case without a camera it would not be conveniently interpreted as the driver at fault.
But hey…‘‘They are there to protect us’’ ‘‘they’’ tell us , so there you go.
So.as I say Frangers,.carry on conforming with ’ The rules’’ and believing what they tell you in their hidden agendas.
Well, if your job doesn`t allow you 5 or 10 minutes to finish your coffee before dashing off, I feel for you, mate.
If you are driving well with no distractions the camera will show that.
If you “choose to believe” that the whole world is a massive conspiracy to trap the innocent driver, than you carry on believing what all of those YouTubers tell you.