Is there ever a reasonable excuse for driving uninsured?

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.

[Obelix 11]

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.

[maza87 10]

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!

[MC Spyda 10]

How about if you are held at gun point and told to drive an uninsured car?

[love_rat 10]

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?

[Mecky 10]

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.

[MC Spyda 10]

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.

[Anna B 1,414]

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.

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.

[foxy lady 10]

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.

[Obelix 11]

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.

[Anna B 1,414]

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.