Eater Sundae Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 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. Re the bold bit: Then you stop driving. Driving is not a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 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. It isn't a defence at all. It is simply a claim of mitigation. As for the instance of driving a works van; again it is no defence as a driver is required to satisfy himself of the legality of a vehicle before taking it on the road. You really do need to brush up on the law if you are going to keep posting about points of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 It isn't a defence at all. It is simply a claim of mitigation. As for the instance of driving a works van; again it is no defence as a driver is required to satisfy himself of the legality of a vehicle before taking it on the road. You really do need to brush up on the law if you are going to keep posting about points of it. You mean the RTA1988 where is specifies that defence? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143/enacted (3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves— (a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan, (b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and ©that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above. and the legislation regarding mobile phones and the defence of calling the emergency services? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regulation/2/made oh look... (5) A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged contravention— (a)he is using the telephone or other device to call the police, fire, ambulance or other emergency service on 112 or 999; (b)he is acting in response to a genuine emergency; and ©it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call (or, in the case of an alleged contravention of paragraph (3)(b), for the provisional licence holder to cease driving while the call was being made). That's got an defence in the law as well... Fancy that. When you post make sure you know what you are talking about please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Re the bold bit: Then you stop driving. Driving is not a right. Why is driving not right? Pretty soon we will be driving electric cars with zero emissions. Not everyone has access to public transport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Why is driving not right? Pretty soon we will be driving electric cars with zero emissions. Not everyone has access to public transport. Not a right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Simple answer: No. Consider the following scenario: I'm a young parent (male or female) walking with two children and we cross the road at a Green light. An uninsured motorist fails to stop, puts me in a wheelchair for life, kills one of my children and makes the other a quadriplegic. The driver who caused the problem was uninsured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 WHo pays? IMO, the driver who caused the accident should be paying for the rest of his (or her) life. I've been driving for nearly 50 years. No convictions, no tickets, no points on my licence.. - I'm an 'old fart' ... why should I pay to subsidise incompetent poorly-qualified drivers? I Pay to insure. I have 2 bikes (BMWR1100RT and BMWK1200LT.) Both insured (silly premiums, which I( lill exchange) One car. Silly premium - so I will re-negotiate the deal. It is POSSIBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 You mean the RTA1988 where is specifies that defence? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143/enacted (3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves— (a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan, (b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and ©that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above. Fancy that. When you post make sure you know what you are talking about please. It is a very dangerous thing to rely on search engines as your source of knowledge. Searching for a key word merely finds what you want to read and not necessarily what you need to know. English law is very complex and built up of many overlapping regulations and what might appear as a loophole in one isn't always a loophole in them all. The instance that you highlight is not an escape route for uninsured drivers but a gateway for larger prosecution. It would require a driver to claim that he was driving on the instruction of his employer and the employer to concede this point that they had sent him out in an uninsured vehicle. So not only could the driver still be arrested, but the vehicle would certainly be impounded and in danger of going to the crusher as well as heavy fines for the company. Beyond that it opens a doorway for the examination of all the company's tachograph records and prosecution for any other instances of uninsured vehicles being used on the highways to be investigated as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 My original post was in response to "As for the instance of driving a works van; again it is no defence as a driver is required to satisfy himself of the legality of a vehicle before taking it on the road." So in other words it confirms exactly what I claimed. The driver is perfectly in the claer and there is an absolute defence in law. I can only presume that you are still smarting about the garage pressure sensor for reasons that escape me and therefore wish to engage in more pointless diatribe Since debating with you is pointless I'll stop here and not embarrass you any further. If you really are unable to accept being wrong on something, however minor, then perhaps you shouldn't post on a public debate forum, or you should make sure that you are absolutley 100% correct in everything you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maza87 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I doubt it. They will say it's your responsibility and yours only, to make sure you are insured at all times while driving. I would not have gone anywhere with my child in the car had I known I was uninsured, I genuinely believed I was, didn't realise my ex was such a dirty scumbag! I didn't think he had any reason to cancel without letting me know. I ain't so naive now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.