Number Six Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 case 2 'My child was dying and I had no choice'-tough, you're banned from driving. No I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Then I would have no sympathy when the police seize the car, then squash it. You are in an isolated area with no phone, you find someone that is badly injured and needs urgent medical attention, and it would take you too long to run for help. If the person that needs help had a car, and the only way for me to get that help in time to save their life was to drive their car, I would drive it despite not having insurance. I have changed my mind I wouldn't drive for help in an emergency if it was sccsux that need help. In the circumstances of my quoted post the owner of the car would have tax and insurance so the police wouldn't crush the car and it would be up to the court if I should be prosecuted for driving without insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Insurance is a scam. You shouldn't pay for insurance on principle. We already pay for the NHS to provide care for people in the event of an accident. Some of your ideas go beyond being difficult to empathise with, and rapidly make it to the 'plain silly' category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 You own two cars. One is a Smart car you use to commute in, it's taxed and insured, your daily driver. The other is a Land Rover you are restoring. It's kept in your garage while you fix it, and is SORN - not taxed, not insured. Over Christmas you pretty much finish it - you just need to get it a new MOT after the holidays so you can tax and insure it. Then, it snows a great deal, and your child is taken seriously ill. NHS Direct advise you to get to a hospital as soon as possible. Ambulances cannot get to your house because you live in a remote area (hence the Land Rover restoration). Taxis cannot get to you. There are no buses at this time even if it hadn't snowed. You have a sick child - and they keys to a taxed and insured Smart car, and an uninsured Land Rover. I know which one I'd take. It would be best to call out the emergency helicopter in that case. I have a 4*4 for winter use, but it is no better than any other car as the roads are blocked with 2 wheel drives that bar your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emma royd Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Insurance is a scam. You shouldn't pay for insurance on principle. We already pay for the NHS to provide care for people in the event of an accident. I suppose that is where our society falls down. It doesn't matter what you do to try to protect the people, there will always be scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee79 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Though they can not be used as a defence to the offence, merely as a mitigating factor that the courts can (not would or do) take into consideration. And then if a court agrees that there was no other alternative than to drive under the circumstances then it could be seen as the court has excused them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 And then if a court agrees that there was no other alternative than to drive under the circumstances then it could be seen as the court has excused them? Not necessarily..the person could still be convicted even with no alternative but the mitigation may reduce the puinishment...although I would have thought that the instances where there was absolutely no alternative would be very rare... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 You can plead not guilty to almost any offence on the grounds that committing it was the only reasonable way to save a life that was at risk. The argument that may be used against you is that you were putting a whole bunch of other lives at risk by driving without insurance, but on balance I think the courts would acquit you if you genuinely were trying to save a life and had no option. A hypothetical example that springs to mind is a remote farm, where the farmer suffers a heart attack and his wife is not insured to drive - but if the wait for the ambulance would be too long, she's probably justified in driving him to the hospital. There are probably numerous examples, like this one and the one given by Number Six, where the justice system would conclude that the act of driving uninsured was reasonable. But having an accident whilst uninsured is likely to be catastrophic no matter what the excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 And then if a court agrees that there was no other alternative than to drive under the circumstances then it could be seen as the court has excused them? But a court cannot do that. If there was an offence committed then the driver would be found guilty of that offence. Mitigating circumstances are only taken into consideration when it comes to handing out sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Insurance is a scam. Patently nonsense. You shouldn't pay for insurance on principle. If your principles are "me me me and sod everyone else". We already pay for the NHS to provide care for people in the event of an accident. The NHS will make a claim against any insurance to pay for treatment of people involved in RTA's under the Road Traffic (NHS charges) Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.