Hit and Run no insurance

[PanzerMcGrory]

Don't the Germans just have the right word for every occasion?

Sadly, you are correct Don. We hear of the Baby P case and we are advised that social services, especially child care, are overloaded and are frequently subjected to aggressive and abusive behaviour.

What the fragrant ones in the government bunkers and think tanks do not seem to appreciate is that not all people are of the same mind set, breeding and ethics as they are.

Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith have conceded that they do not feel safe walking through certain parts of London. Well, I have to say, there are lots of worse places where the police will only go either in groups or in fast cars.

New laws are not the answer. Enforcement of the ones we already have, with meaningful remedies for those who will not comply, is the first step that society needs to take.

The Untermenschen almost certainly do not realize, or recognize these differences.

Ich Vollig Ubereinstimmen Mein Obersturmbannfuhrer.

 

[television]

Ich Vollig Ubereinstimmen Mein Obersturmbannfuhrer.

Thats what I was thinking too

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Ich Vollig Ubereinstimmen Mein Obersturmbannfuhrer.

It's something I have come to expect, but thank you anyway.

 

[MercStraight6]

Insurance should not be so expensive; I have every sympathy for those who have to drive without it.

The police are trying to ensure that motoring is only for the rich, by using the whole 'database culture' and big brother mass surveillence systems that Labour has brought us

 

[television]

Insurance should not be so expensive; I have every sympathy for those who have to drive without it.

The police are trying to ensure that motoring is only for the rich, by using the whole 'database culture' and big brother mass surveillence systems that Labour has brought us

They could always take 3rd party fire and theft

 

[MercStraight6]

They could always take 3rd party fire and theft

That is not much cheaper.

 

[PanzerMcGrory]

Insurance should not be so expensive; I have every sympathy for those who have to drive without it.

Unfortunately due to do-gooding liberal views like your own this country will always have its pathetic judicial and penal system.

While people like you and the unlimited supply of social workers, councillors etc etc pander to the oxygen thief who mowed down that wee boy I on the other hand have sympathy not for the uninsured driver but for his family who have had their life ruined.

 

[MercStraight6]

Unfortunately due to do-gooding liberal views like your own this country will always have its pathetic judicial and penal system.

I am no liberal; a libertarian-conservative perhaps, but no liberal.

I oppose state control and regulation of motoring. They take our money then spit in our faces by telling us no new roads and no repairs to all the potholes.

While people like you and the unlimited supply of social workers, councillors etc etc pander to the oxygen thief who mowed down that wee boy I on the other hand have sympathy not for the uninsured driver but for his family who have had their life ruined.

Why does it matter if they were insured though?

Would an insurance policy have stopped them from crashing? Or would a policy have been able to bring him back?

 

[ALFIEBEARD]

Alex im afraid you are far off the mark with the "stiff custodial sentence"

This pond life will be lucky to get four years and what joe public does not know is she will only have to complete half her sentence no matter how she behaves in prison as legally you cannot serve more than half your sentence up to four years,
then on top of only serving half her sentence she will be eligible to be released even earlier under the early release scheme.

the point of sentencing is the public hear the length of sentence and are happy that they think justice is being done.

the govermnent know they only serve half the sentence so are happy the prison place is being freed up.

lawyers that you and i pay for to keep representing these scum are delighted as their "client" is feed early and can quickly provide further business.

You took the words out of my mouth how very true,the sentencing system is a joke.
Alfie B

 

[ALFIEBEARD]

Insurance should not be so expensive; I have every sympathy for those who have to drive without it.

The police are trying to ensure that motoring is only for the rich, by using the whole 'database culture' and big brother mass surveillence systems that Labour has brought us

i certainly have no sympathy whatsoever for the irresponsible tossers who drive without insurance, I reckon you may change your views if you were on the receiving end of such a person and you ended up out of pocket, usually people without insurance also have no licence and people without a licence are not bothered about MOTs or bald tyres etc etc.I own 6 vehicles and although I cant drive them all at once they are all FULLY legal which costs me a fortune but I can sleep at night.:neutral:

Alfie B

 

[ALFIEBEARD]

Compulsory 3rd party cover is added to vehicle registration in Australia. In one or two states the cover is 'no blame' (i.e. the medical costs etc are covered regardless of who is at fault), in others it gets sheeted home to the person at fault. I'm not sure how the latter system works as I've always lived in a 'no blame' state. In Victoria, the 3rd party cover used to be provided by private insurers and you couldn't register a car without quoting a cover number. It all became a bit too hard, so one of the Labor governments set up a state government Transport Accident Commission which now runs it. Currently, the cost for a city based car is AUD378.00 per year (for comparison, 12 months comprehensive insurance for a 2008 VW Golf is AUD675).

Collection can still be a problem as some people don't register their cars either, and just knock off a set of plates from some law abiding person. But those people will never respect and abide by the law whatever they're threatened with.

Maybe the old way was best and we should exile them to some god-forsaken hole without cars or any of the comforts of home. You can't use Australia any more (too comfortable), so maybe a small lump of rock in the middle of the ocean? Oops, sorry, can't do that, it would infringe their human(???) rights.

SOME GOD FORSAKEN HOLE!! DONT SAY THAT THEY WILL SEND THEM ALL TO CARLISLE.

Alfie B

 

[PanzerMcGrory]

I am no liberal; a libertarian-conservative perhaps, but no liberal.

I oppose state control and regulation of motoring. They take our money then spit in our faces by telling us no new roads and no repairs to all the potholes.



Why does it matter if they were insured though?

Would an insurance policy have stopped them from crashing? Or would a policy have been able to bring him back?

Yet again you are someone else on this forum who muddys the waters with a different argument.

I have already said these scum will drive uninsured and unlicensed without fear of our pathetic justice.

Now i am passed you red herrings i can get back to your view that you feel sympathy for this subhuman who knocked down and killed an 11 year old boy and rather than stop to help carried on and went into hiding.

I will say again while the silent majority is ruled by the liberal elite of all the major parties we will remain the laughing stock of the world.

 

[MercStraight6]

Yet again you are someone else on this forum who muddys the waters with a different argument.

I have already said these scum will drive uninsured and unlicensed without fear of our pathetic justice.

Now i am passed you red herrings i can get back to your view that you feel sympathy for this subhuman who knocked down and killed an 11 year old boy and rather than stop to help carried on and went into hiding.

I will say again while the silent majority is ruled by the liberal elite of all the major parties we will remain the laughing stock of the world.

Lots of ranting, but you still haven't answered my question. This thread is about car insurance, so how would insurance have saved the boy?

 

[PanzerMcGrory]

Lots of ranting, but you still haven't answered my question. This thread is about car insurance, so how would insurance have saved the boy?

You are obviously someone people just waste their breath with.

Yet again i will state these scum will drive uninsured or unlicenced no matter what so yes this poor boy will still be dead no matter what, however i have been saying this all along in this and other threads.

Yet again getting back to your original point, your liberal sympathies are with the vermin who killed him and unfortunatley your views are echoed by the minority liberal elite who run this country.

 

[FIBAMAN]

Dealing with these Untermenschen every day im afraid you are seriously wrong if you think 1% have any remorse for their actions.

These things are not like you or i and would not mourn the death of their own child like a normal human being let alone someone elses.

At last someone else who recognises the scum layer for what it is and is not swayed by the the rosy eyed bleeding hearts.
The latest idiot scheme to come from these plonkers this week in Glasgow, is to house failed asylum seekers in highly desirable city centre apartments for free, in an effort to encourage them to return home voluntarily. I am still trying to work out the logic of this one.

 

[Retired]

I am no liberal; a libertarian-conservative perhaps, but no liberal.

I oppose state control and regulation of motoring. They take our money then spit in our faces by telling us no new roads and no repairs to all the potholes.



Why does it matter if they were insured though?

Would an insurance policy have stopped them from crashing? Or would a policy have been able to bring him back?

No, having insurance wouldn't have stopped the accident.

However, the type of person who doesn't bother to have insurance, perhaps as you suggest because they can't afford it, possibly won't bother / can't afford decent tyres etc. That might make a difference.


Insurance can and does help with accidents. If someone runs into your car and damages it assuming you are not to blame the third parties insurance pays for the damage, you don't. Perhaps you are injured and confined to a wheelchair and unable to work following the accident then the insurance funded compensation will help.

You say insurance is too expensive. The price is driven by the competitive market. One of the compoents of the insurance premium is an amount to allow for covering claims when the third party isn't insured. So some people having no insurance actually makes it more expensive for those who do!

What's your suggestion to make it cheaper?

If you can't afford insurance you can't afford to own a car.

You oppose state control of motoring. What does that mean?

No contruction and use regs? No MOT? No speed limits? No laws against dangerous driving.......

 

[White230CE]

Interesting debate. For what it's worth, I offer the following thoughts for consideration:

1. The purpose of compulsory car insurance is to compensate the victims injured or killed by a negligent driver (ditto property damage). This is because in the absence of insurance, the driver might not have enough money.

2. The purpose of insurance is not to filter who gets to drive on the roads and who does not. I accept it has that effect - for law-abiding drivers at least - but that is not its purpose.

3. Where a victim is injured or killed by a negligent driver who is uninsured, the injured victim or his estate/dependants can obtain compensation from the driver if the driver is very rich, or they can obtain it from the Motor Insurers' Bureau - the government organisation compulsorily funded by all motor insurers in this country. But the victim must still prove that the driver was negligent or worse.

4. Likewise, an uninsured driver may commit the criminal offence of driving while uninsured, but there must be something in his actual driving if he is to be charged with and convicted of any other driving offence.

5. It may be correct that if the uninsured driver had not taken to the road at all, the victim would not have been killed. But consider this scenario: An uninsured driver drives carefully and safely along an A road, but has a collision with an insured driver who is speeding and driving recklessly on the wrong side of the road. The insured driver is killed. The uninsured driver would have committed only one offence: driving while uninsured. There would be nothing in his actual driving manner which could be said to be a criminal offence, or which could be said to be neligent so as to attract civil liability. The insured driver on the other hand, was negligent, and was committing the offence of careless or dangerous driving. Luckily, in my example, he injured and killed no one but himself.

6. The punishment for driving while uninsured is a reflection of the above. It is a punishment for that particular offence only. If in addition, the uninsured driver has driven dangerously, has bald tyres, killed someone, etc, these all constitute separate offences with separate penalties.

7. Not all uninsured drivers fall into the 'scum' category. For example, a driver can find himself 'uninsured' because, unknown to him, his policy draws a very technical distinction between 'social domestic pleasure' and 'business use', and he finds that he only has an SDP policy when his journey was technically 'business use'.

8. In summary, the victim of an uninsured driver will still be fairly compensated and the uninsured driver will be punished in a way which is regarded as commensurate with his actual wrongdoing.

9. I know there are some who regard "punishment commensurate with wrongdoing" in this country to be too lenient. I happen to be one of those. That is why I used the words 'regarded as'. I trust that those reading can see that the point I am making is a different one.

 

[PanzerMcGrory]

Interesting debate. For what it's worth, I offer the following thoughts for consideration:

1. The purpose of compulsory car insurance is to compensate the victims injured or killed by a negligent driver (ditto property damage). This is because in the absence of insurance, the driver might not have enough money.

2. The purpose of insurance is not to filter who gets to drive on the roads and who does not. I accept it has that effect - for law-abiding drivers at least - but that is not its purpose.

3. Where a victim is injured or killed by a negligent driver who is uninsured, the injured victim or his estate/dependants can obtain compensation from the driver if the driver is very rich, or they can obtain it from the Motor Insurers' Bureau - the government organisation compulsorily funded by all motor insurers in this country. But the victim must still prove that the driver was negligent or worse.

4. Likewise, an uninsured driver may commit the criminal offence of driving while uninsured, but there must be something in his actual driving if he is to be charged with and convicted of any other driving offence.

5. It may be correct that if the uninsured driver had not taken to the road at all, the victim would not have been killed. But consider this scenario: An uninsured driver drives carefully and safely along an A road, but has a collision with an insured driver who is speeding and driving recklessly on the wrong side of the road. The insured driver is killed. The uninsured driver would have committed only one offence: driving while uninsured. There would be nothing in his actual driving manner which could be said to be a criminal offence, or which could be said to be neligent so as to attract civil liability. The insured driver on the other hand, was negligent, and was committing the offence of careless or dangerous driving. Luckily, in my example, he injured and killed no one but himself.

6. The punishment for driving while uninsured is a reflection of the above. It is a punishment for that particular offence only. If in addition, the uninsured driver has driven dangerously, has bald tyres, killed someone, etc, these all constitute separate offences with separate penalties.

7. Not all uninsured drivers fall into the 'scum' category. For example, a driver can find himself 'uninsured' because, unknown to him, his policy draws a very technical distinction between 'social domestic pleasure' and 'business use', and he finds that he only has an SDP policy when his journey was technically 'business use'.

8. In summary, the victim of an uninsured driver will still be fairly compensated and the uninsured driver will be punished in a way which is regarded as commensurate with his actual wrongdoing.

9. I know there are some who regard "punishment commensurate with wrongdoing" in this country to be too lenient. I happen to be one of those. That is why I used the words 'regarded as'. I trust that those reading can see that the point I am making is a different one.

There is a big difference in someone knowingly or unwittingly driving without insurance and cases of the latter will be very few indeed.

The original post asks what can be done? simple stop having a joke for a judicial and penal system and make people fear these systems once again.

With reference to making excuses for uninsured drivers who might not be at fault in an accident, they are always at fault in the fact they should not be on the road in the first place, the same argument could be made for a drunk driver involved in an accident that wasnt his fault.

Your post pays great heed to financial compensation to various parties however the original post was in response to a peice of "SCUM" driving uninsured, killing an 11 year old boy, not stopping to help then going into hiding.
I dont think the poor parents of that child will find comfort in any small pittence that might head their way.

 

[White230CE]

My post was not about whether insurance and compensation are adequate substitutes for human life. I do not think they are. I also happen to agree with your views about the particular incident referred to.

My post was about putting the crime of driving while uninsured in its correct context. Whether you or I agree with the context, it is what it is. By definition, the crime of driving while uninsured is about insurance, the insurance is required so that victims are compensated, and the reason for making lack of insurance a crime is because of the perceived injustice of victims being uncompensated. I did not choose the definition or the reasons; the legislators did.

 

[Xtractorfan]

Some very interesting comments and all of them valid, I think there will always be the people who will drive without insurance, and not all will be poor and cant afford it, similarily there will be people who will shoplift, murder, rape, burgle houses etc, even fiddle expenses..All part of our society.

One point I was gonna make, An Accident Management Company will ring you up when you've had an accident and supply you with a car, they will appoint a team of lawyers, who will claim compensation on your behalf including depreciation for your vehicle, now all of those people have to be paid, including the car hire, just another reason why insurance is so expensive.

I think i said before on this thread that insurance should come as part of the car..or there again a new driver wanting insurance should be able to purchase that policy for say £500, and if their driving record is good with no accidents then that premium will gradfually come down to an acceptable level, On the other hand if that driver has an accident or even convictions for serious motoring offences then that policy will double /treble until that driver has shown he/she is capable of being in control of a motor vehicle..