Sierra Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Before i left Stoke there was a man who brought his daughter into A&E in his own car. She lost two of her fingers in an accident at home and the ambulance was going to be around 40 minutes so he put her in the car and brought her even though the car wasnt taxed and he wasnt insured to drive it. Cutting a long story short another patient saw his car in the car park had no tax (he was stood by smokers corner) and they got chatting. The dad told this man the car wasnt taxed or insured and the reasons why he drove his daughter to hospital, they finished their smoke and went their seperate ways. This man was an off duty police officer, phoned his station and got a patrol to come round and check his car. The car obviously had no insurance and not tax so they took it away. I dont know if they crushed it but i know the look on the mans face when they told him how much it would be per day to store it was awful. What upset me is i was dealing with this man and his daughter, such a lovely family and you could tell the dad was desperate which is why he used his own car but it cut no ice with the law. They wouldnt even let him get his brother who was a mechanic with a trailor to come tow it away for him. Poor bloke His daughter made a very good recovery though which is the silver lining to this cloud. There might be a reason why he did this, though it seems terribly, terribly mean spirited, and if I were a police oficer, I'd be sorely tempted to look the other way. Don't know if the same applies in England, but in the US, a police officer can be held liable if they allow someone to knowingly drive off in an uninsured vehicle that's later involved in an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 and Good points-but if a court does take into account the surrounding factors and heavily reduces the punishment then they have at least acknowledged that there are circumstances where it is more acceptable than others. Also, I agree these circumstances are rare. But only if a court were to do that. Mitigating circumstances are likely to get a sentence reduced but it isn't likely to be by much. The point about uninsured drivers is the possible consequences of their actions should they cause an accident. In similar circumstances I suppose someone using a phone whilst driving could claim that it was an emergency of some sort, but by going to court to claim mitigating circumstances the sentence (fine) is always going to be more than the on the spot penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 My view is that there is never a reasonable excuse. It is always wrong. Thankfully, I've never been in the situation where I've needed to drive uninsured to help a loved one in danger, or even a stranger for that matter, so I don't know for certain how I would react. (The same applies - on a much more serious level - to helping to end the life of a loved one who is in great pain and wants my help in dying). If I am ever in such a situation, I hope that I would act to help them, breaking the law as necessary. I would then expect to suffer the consequences of the law. There's no excuse (as my answer to the OP), but there may be some mitigating circumstances which may reduce the resulting punishment. But at the end of the day, if you choose to break the law, you accept the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 But only if a court were to do that. Mitigating circumstances are likely to get a sentence reduced but it isn't likely to be by much. The point about uninsured drivers is the possible consequences of their actions should they cause an accident. In similar circumstances I suppose someone using a phone whilst driving could claim that it was an emergency of some sort, but by going to court to claim mitigating circumstances the sentence (fine) is always going to be more than the on the spot penalty. There is an defence of using the phone whilst driving to call for help. That's a perfectly acceptable defence. As for insurance there is a defence mention of driving whilst uninsured whilst you think you were (eg works van, and the boss forgot to pay the insurance.) For other situations special reasons can result in an absolute or conditional discharge as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maza87 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Ha! I got an IN10 thanks to my ex (no I am NOT bragging about this). Anyhow, my ex was paying my insurance, as I was driving our daughter around and I was due to pay him for this. I came to my car one day to find a police car there and to cut a long story short, they said they'd been informed (by my ex) that I had no insurance; I insisted I had, told them who with- they checked and it came back that it had been cancelled 3 days previously. I was fuming. They took my car off me, gave me a £200 fine and 6 points- oh and because I'd only had my full licence a month I got it revoked and now have to start all over again!! So, I'd say there is yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 How about if you are held at gun point and told to drive an uninsured car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 How about if you are held at gun point and told to drive an uninsured car? You should tell the gunman, that you refuse to drive uninsured. Can you imagin what could happen if you had an accident whilst being uninsured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Ha! I got an IN10 thanks to my ex (no I am NOT bragging about this). Anyhow, my ex was paying my insurance, as I was driving our daughter around and I was due to pay him for this. I came to my car one day to find a police car there and to cut a long story short, they said they'd been informed (by my ex) that I had no insurance; I insisted I had, told them who with- they checked and it came back that it had been cancelled 3 days previously. I was fuming. They took my car off me, gave me a £200 fine and 6 points- oh and because I'd only had my full licence a month I got it revoked and now have to start all over again!! So, I'd say there is yes! Think you would have a legal stance with that, if the insurer your ex didn't tell you what they planned to do within a reasonable time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Think you would have a legal stance with that, if the insurer your ex didn't tell you what they planned to do within a reasonable time frame. I doubt it. They will say it's your responsibility and yours only, to make sure you are insured at all times while driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 A couple of points here. There is no entitlement to own a car in this world. I know it has become the norm for people to run up huge debts buying things that they can't afford, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to them. So. If folks can't afford to run a car they shouldn't run a car. The fact that many do and operate without insurance, tax, MOT and probably on stolen fuel means legitimate motorists have to pay more to compensate for the freeloading scum that don't pay their way. So a driver who is expected to pay £2000 insurance wouldn't have to pay £2000 insurance if it wasn't for the freeloaders. Get rid of the freeloaders and the problems largely go away. I think the freeloading scum are actually the Insurance companies who put costs up just because they can. Simply more profits for them - in much the same way as energy companies have. We, apparently, have no choice in the matter other than to pay it. Obviously you can afford a higher threashhold, but the point may come when you can no longer afford it either. Will you still hold the same views? At what point do we say 'stop, this is a total rip off.' Transport is a necessity to most people and public transport not always an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.