Driving with a cast on.

m3llowship

Kinda wrecked my ankle at training the other day. My lower left leg is in a cast now, from below my knee to my toes.

Anyone know the ins and outs of being allowed to drive with this thing on me. I am physically able to drive but would I be covered under insurance?

Mods, move if its in the wrong place!

javaboy

If your doctor said not to drive, you'll almost certainly be uninsured if you do. I wouldn't do it.

Boom_Bap

ring your insurance company to confirm, but most likely you shouldnt be driving.

admiralofthefleet

javaboy wrote: »

If your doctor said not to drive, you'll almost certainly be uninsured if you do. I wouldn't do it.

yep. you know what happens when you play with fire op

artanevilla

Is it manual or automatic?

Jet Black

Just walk(limp) instead. Or get the bus.

SV

You won't be able to be prosecuted for no insurance if that's what you mean.

Then again if you do crash they(insurance company) may use it as an argument to invalidate your insurance..I don't think they'd win.

Wazdakka

m3llowship wrote: »

I am physically able to drive

Being physically able to drive and able to drive safely are two different things buddy..

I wouldn't chance it.

javaboy

SV wrote: »

You won't be able to be prosecuted for no insurance if that's what you mean.

You sure about that? If you are knowingly violating your insurance (and being fit and able to drive may be a requirement), then surely you can still be prosecuted.

Then again if you do crash they(insurance company) may use it as an argument to invalidate your insurance..I don't think they'd win.

I would hope they would.

SV

javaboy wrote: »

You sure about that? If you are knowingly violating your insurance (and being fit and able to drive may be a requirement), then surely you can still be prosecuted.



I would hope they would.

I am absolutely positive about that.
It's not knowingly violating your insurance if you can still drive perfectly well(well, the OP says he can physically drive, I don't know how well) and there's nothing about it in the insurance documents.

Why would you hope they would?

javaboy

SV wrote: »

I am absolutely positive about that.
It's not knowingly violating your insurance if you can still drive perfectly well(well, the OP says he can physically drive, I don't know how well) and there's nothing about it in the insurance documents.

Would that still be the case if he was told he couldn't drive? I broke my leg and was told by a doctor. explicitly that I could not drive. And I was told explicitly when I could drive again too.

Why would you hope they would?

Because I don't believe someone with a cast as far as their toes should be driving and I think their insurance shouldn't cover them if they get in a crash.

mathie

Am I the only twisted freak who read the subject as 'Driving with a hard on'?

SV

javaboy wrote: »

Would that still be the case if he was told he couldn't drive? I broke my leg and was told by a doctor. explicitly that I could not drive. And I was told explicitly when I could drive again too.



Because I don't believe someone with a cast as far as their toes should be driving and I think their insurance shouldn't cover them if they get in a crash.

It may come into consideration(with the insurance company) if he crashed yes.
It still wouldn't allow the gardaí to prosecute him for no insurance though.


Why though?
just because you believe they shouldn't be driving you would wish that they can be put into debt for the rest of their lives as a result of a crash?
bearing in mind the crash might have absolutely nothing to do with the cast?

Wazdakka

SV wrote: »

just because you believe they shouldn't be driving you would wish that they can be put into debt for the rest of their lives as a result of a crash?
bearing in mind the crash might have absolutely nothing to do with the cast?

Seriously?

Well Id assume its because it could be unsafe to drive...
For both the injured driver and more importantly other road users and pedestrians.

The driver being put in debt is your big worry about this???

The op is injured.. He knows he is injured, he has to wear a solid brace around a part of his body because he is injured.
So obviously that part isn't working properly..
And it's a part of the body used to operate a car.

This really isn't a "getting away with it" question.
It's a "what about other people" question.

In my mind it's akin to driving drunk.
As long as he can be guaranteed that in the time driving, that he wont come anywhere near any other road user or pedestrian,
then go for it.
You can only fcuk yourself up and it was your decision.
Fair enough..

But who the hell has the right to put me or anybody else in danger by making a decision to drive a car when they are obviously not in a condition to do so as safely as they normally do??


[/rant]

WIZE

m3llowship wrote: »

Kinda wrecked my ankle at training the other day. My lower left leg is in a cast now, from below my knee to my toes.

Anyone know the ins and outs of being allowed to drive with this thing on me. I am physically able to drive but would I be covered under insurance?

Mods, move if its in the wrong place!

You wont be able to use the Crutch Clutch

SV

Wazdakka wrote: »

Seriously?

Well Id assume its because it could be unsafe to drive...
For both the injured driver and more importantly other road users and pedestrians.

The driver being put in debt is your big worry about this???

The op is injured.. He knows he is injured, he has to wear a solid brace around a part of his body because he is injured.
So obviously that part isn't working properly..
And it's a part of the body used to operate a car.

This really isn't a "getting away with it" question.
It's a "what about other people" question.

In my mind it's akin to driving drunk.
As long as he can be guaranteed that in the time driving, that he wont come anywhere near any other road user or pedestrian,
then go for it.
You can only fcuk yourself up and it was your decision.
Fair enough..

But who the hell has the right to put me or anybody else in danger by making a decision to drive a car when they are obviously not in a condition to do so as safely as they normally do??


[/rant]

What if his car is an auto ? :-)

Regardless, the OP asked the question regarding insurance and I answered. I don't really care about whether he should be on the road or not or whether its just as safe.

Wazdakka

SV wrote: »

What if his car is an auto ? :-)

Well then obviously he is a terrible driver anyway


I think It was just my daily rant really..
I'm all opinionated out now..