Is there ever a reasonable excuse for driving uninsured?

[MC Spyda 10]

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...

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

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.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

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

[foxy lady 10]

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.

[Obelix 11]

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.

[maza87 10]

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!

[HeadingNorth 11]

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!

 

It definitely wasn't your fault; it is, though, your responsibility.

 

However, I thought you could claim a valid defence that the insurance company had not contacted you to inform you of the cancellation? Or does that only apply if they have cancelled it of their own volition, not of yours?

 

Can anyone clarify the point?

[Obelix 11]

It definitely wasn't your fault; it is, though, your responsibility.

 

However, I thought you could claim a valid defence that the insurance company had not contacted you to inform you of the cancellation? Or does that only apply if they have cancelled it of their own volition, not of yours?

 

Can anyone clarify the point?

 

There is no defence mentioned in law and it specifically says that a driver should satisfy themselves.

 

If you could have proved it I would have pled guilty in front of a bench and asked them to consider special reasons for sentencing - with a decent solicitor you might have persuaded them.

[splodgeyAl 10]

You are rich enough and willing to pay out in the event of an accident.

 

I thought this an interesting diversion...

 

http://laurenthomas.hubpages.com/hub/Car-Insurance-Around-the-World

[John X 10]

It definitely wasn't your fault; it is, though, your responsibility.

 

However, I thought you could claim a valid defence that the insurance company had not contacted you to inform you of the cancellation? Or does that only apply if they have cancelled it of their own volition, not of yours?

 

Can anyone clarify the point?

 

If maza87's ex is the policy holder and maza is a named driver, then the insurance company has a contract with him.

 

If he then contacts the company and has maza's name removed from the cover, they may send him something to confirm that the schedule has been altered but as a third party they are under no obligation to inform maza of the change. They would assume that he would tell her directly.

 

It doesn't absolve her of her obligation to ensure she has the correct cover before driving the car.

 

However, if it can be proven that he knew she was driving the car after he had cancelled the insurance, he can then be prosecuted, possibly for concern with (involved with) a driving without insurance offence.

 

John X

[HeadingNorth 11]

Thanks for that,, John...

 

 

However, if it can be proven that he knew she was driving the car after he had cancelled the insurance, he can then be prosecuted, possibly for concern with (involved with) a driving without insurance offence.

 

If he's enough of a ratbag to cancel her insurance without telling her and then call the police to inform them of her offence, it's safe to say that he would simply lie on oath and say she was told. It would come down to one person's word against another and no jury can convict on that.

[Balpin 12]

Doesn't matter. We can not pick and choose which laws to obey. Surely there were some neighbours available that could have made the journey?

 

 

 

I didn't really expect you to, it was more a thinking out loud kind of question;).

 

You can actually choose, all you need to do is say you are a traveller, and it would be a breach of your human rights to have iniquitous insurance and road tax etc imposed upon you.

You would be sent on your way with a friendly wave, and apologies for the inconvenience. (no questions about all that railway signal cable in the back, either )