Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Uninsured Driver

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    johndaman66
    Registered Users Posts: 4,095 ✭✭✭johndaman66


    Haddockman wrote: »
    The option exists still. Many public bodies such as CIE etc still self insure.

    2yung2adm wrote: »
    Haddockman has answered this and he is correct. The gardai do not hold certificates of Insurance. Another company was John A. Woods.

    Thanks for clearing that one up folks. I assume that the bond would be quite high for private social, domestic and pleasure use as in millions?


  • Options
    #33
    CiniO
    Registered Users Posts: 16,088 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Andrew33 wrote: »
    Why should she be compensated??
    Because someone caused damage to her property. You must agree that's true.
    She has NO right to be on the road, this is not a case of a pedestrian getting knocked down, what if your "friend" had a collision with a pedestrian? would you be on here "boo hoo'ing" abut uninsured pedestrians? You need to seriously cop on and join the human race. its people like her that has insurance in this country so high, I sincerely hope she gets everything due to her.

    She has a right of being on the road the same as everyone else. It's a public place and everyone can use it.
    Of course, if someone is using it against some rules commiting an offense (like here driving without insurance) he should be prosecuted for this. But law clearly describes what is the penalty for driving without insurance. And that the penalty she can get.
    You can't just add to the penalty lack of compesnation from someone who caused damage to her, just because you don't like what she was doing.

    Imagine you are standing in public place (like bus stop) and smoking cigarette. That's illegal. You can be prosecuted.
    But if someone goes there, and punches you in your face, would you accept it. Because to be honest, if you are smoking cigarette, you were not allowed by law to be there (on the bus stop) so in your logic, you couldn't accuse anyone for punching you in the face, could you?

    It's just a different example, but the same logic as you presented before.


  • Options
    #34
    Andrew33
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭Andrew33


    I am seriously fed up with this thread.
    If a person broke into a building site and sustained an injury,
    would they sue the owners of the site?
    Ask yourself a moral question.


  • Options
    #35
    Greenmachine
    Registered Users Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭Greenmachine


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    Why should they get nothing? I they are blameless in this accident? Having no insurance is a seperate legal issue. If you were to climb down the very steep ladder off your horse then you might have suggested that the person should be prosecuted as well as getting compensated for the damage done.

    It is not a higher than thou attitude. If he wasn't driving his car at the time. He wouldn't have been involved in the accident. That wouldn't matter a great deal if he had insurance.
    The fact he doesn't changes the situation. Legally he might be in a position to put in a claim. Doesn't mean that morally he is entitled to.

    Say someone breaks into your house and hurts themselves. The fact that he is burglarising your house is addressed completly seperately to the fact that he might try to claim off your insurance. He might even get the benefit of probation etc etc.

    There is no such way out if he makes a claim against you. You will just ahve to take it on the chin doesn't make it right. Does it.

    The other driver is insane for accepting liability even if he was at fault.
    Would love to have seen the OP friend reaction to that.

    Things would not look good for him at all.


  • Options
    #36
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    CiniO wrote: »
    Because someone caused damage to her property. You must agree that's true.



    She has a right of being on the road the same as everyone else. It's a public place and everyone can use it.
    Of course, if someone is using it against some rules commiting an offense (like here driving without insurance) he should be prosecuted for this. But law clearly describes what is the penalty for driving without insurance. And that the penalty she can get.
    You can't just add to the penalty lack of compesnation from someone who caused damage to her, just because you don't like what she was doing.

    Imagine you are standing in public place (like bus stop) and smoking cigarette. That's illegal. You can be prosecuted.
    But if someone goes there, and punches you in your face, would you accept it. Because to be honest, if you are smoking cigarette, you were not allowed by law to be there (on the bus stop) so in your logic, you couldn't accuse anyone for punching you in the face, could you?

    It's just a different example, but the same logic as you presented before.

    Troll?


    This accident would never have occurred if the idiot without insurance obeyed the law.

    I would love to listen in on the phone call she would be making toward the other persons insurance company.
    Considering how unbelievably reluctant insurance companies are at paying out, I very much doubt it'd take much for them to avoid paying out and I'd imagine they'd report her in the process.

    I hope she does try and claim though, for those reasons. Talk about, literally, adding insult to injury...

    This is another reason why you never admit any kind of liability on the spot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Vertakill wrote: »
    This accident would never have occurred if the idiot without insurance obeyed the law.

    Or the person who admitted liability never crashed into the person without insurance?


  • Options
    #38
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    I think people are letting their emotions confuse the issue here. There are two completely seperate issues in play:

    1. The OPs friend was hit by another vehicle who apparently was at fault.

    2. The OPs friend was driving without insurance.

    One does not affect the other. You dont have to have insurance yourself to make a claim or to be compensated for damage caused by someone who was completely liable. There is a good chance however that if you do claim you will be found out to have been driving without insurance, and in this case I sincerely hope the OPs friend does get found out, but that does not change the fact that she is entitled to claim to have her car repaired.


  • Options
    #39
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Vertakill wrote: »
    Troll?
    Play the ball, not the man.


  • Options
    #40
    beeno67
    Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭beeno67


    I love the attitude that seems to be prevelant on this site. Someone without insurance (which I fully accept is wrong) gets totally blasted yet on other threads speeding (and other illegal activity) seems to be, if not celebrated then certainly accepted. I know who I would wish to come accross while driving.

    Thanks to all who replied.


  • Options
    #41
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    djimi wrote: »
    I think people are letting their emotions confuse the issue here. There are two completely seperate issues in play:

    1. The OPs friend was hit by another vehicle who apparently was at fault.

    2. The OPs friend was driving without insurance.

    One does not affect the other. You dont have to have insurance yourself to make a claim or to be compensated for damage caused by someone who was completely liable. There is a good chance however that if you do claim you will be found out to have been driving without insurance, and in this case I sincerely hope the OPs friend does get found out, but that does not change the fact that she is entitled to claim to have her car repaired.
    She only has to wait 1 month and then she is clear.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    FlorientRei
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭FlorientRei


    I think that in ireland, it is compulsory to have a valid car insurance. You have to look closer at your renewal deadlines to be insured all the time.
    I am currently wondering which insurer i should go for to insure my new car, having it insured is not enoughm, you have to pay attention to the cover too.
    in the case of your friend, I think he is in trouble :/ , I hope he didn't have to pay that much money for his accident.


  • Options
    #43
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Haddockman wrote: »
    She only has to wait 1 month and then she is clear.

    How long do you have after an accident before you can claim off insurance? Do you not have to notify the insurance company immediately? Even if the other person notifies their insurance company right away is there not a chance they might start asking questions like who is the other party insured with?


  • Options
    #44
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    CiniO wrote: »
    Why disgraceful?
    Driving without insurance is an offense, the same as million other things that almost every one do on the road - even driving with fog light on during good weather.

    It puts driver on huge risk, in case if he/she will cause some serious damage, he/she might have to pay off for the rest of his/hers life.

    But in this particular case, fault was at others person which had insurance.

    She should definitely claim, for a damage that the other person caused to her.

    And also she should be prepared to be penalised for driving without insurace.

    It's disgraceful because she shouldn't be on the road in the first place to have her property damaged. How is this any different from a person claiming from a property owner for an injury sustained during the course of a burglary? It's the kind of civil case which makes a mockery of the law and those who bring the case and those who represent them should be ashamed.


  • Options
    #45
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    beeno67 wrote: »
    I love the attitude that seems to be prevelant on this site. Someone without insurance (which I fully accept is wrong) gets totally blasted yet on other threads speeding (and other illegal activity) seems to be, if not celebrated then certainly accepted. I know who I would wish to come accross while driving.

    Thanks to all who replied.

    WHo would you rather have crash into you?


  • Options
    #46
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    It simple really lads...

    She has every right to claim for damages to her property, whether she was insured or not does not come into this equation..

    the only thing your friend has to consider is that if she does claim off the other driver who was in the wrong, she runs the risk of been reported to the Gardai for driving without insurance.

    At the end of the day, your friend has to weigh up whether the cost of repairs to her car is worth the risk of been found out and brought to court , fined and have a load of points on her licence.


  • Options
    #47
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    beeno67 wrote: »
    I love the attitude that seems to be prevelant on this site. Someone without insurance (which I fully accept is wrong) gets totally blasted yet on other threads speeding (and other illegal activity) seems to be, if not celebrated then certainly accepted. I know who I would wish to come accross while driving.

    Thanks to all who replied.

    The speeder? At least if they hit you and theyre insured you dont have to fight tooth and nail to try and get financially reimbursed...


  • Options
    #48
    beeno67
    Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭beeno67


    k_mac wrote: »
    WHo would you rather have crash into you?

    The uninsured of course by a million miles. What kind of idiot would prefer to be hit by someone speeding than someone doing the normal speed?


  • Options
    #49
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    beeno67 wrote: »
    The uninsured of course by a million miles. What kind of idiot would prefer to be hit by someone speeding than someone doing the normal speed?

    Assume for a second were talking about a 30mph zone; someone doing 25mph uninsured is probably going to do more or less the same damage as someone doing 35mph, but at least if the person who is doing 35mph is insured its a lot less hassle me to get my car repaired and to be financially reimbursed.

    Obviously Id rather not be hit by either. And I dont think there are many on here who condone or champion speeding tbh, not at dangerous levels anyway.


  • Options
    #50
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    djimi wrote: »
    How long do you have after an accident before you can claim off insurance? Do you not have to notify the insurance company immediately? Even if the other person notifies their insurance company right away is there not a chance they might start asking questions like who is the other party insured with?
    Nope. She has 6 years to claim for damage to the car and 2 years for personal injury. So waiting a month will allow her to escape from the no insurance charge. It may be in the other guys terms and conditions of insurance that he inform them immediately, but this is not binding on any third party to the incident.


  • Options
    #51
    beeno67
    Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭beeno67


    djimi wrote: »
    Assume for a second were talking about a 30mph zone; someone doing 25mph uninsured is probably going to do more or less the same damage as someone doing 35mph, but at least if the person who is doing 35mph is insured its a lot less hassle me to get my car repaired and to be financially reimbursed.

    Obviously Id rather not be hit by either. And I dont think there are many on here who condone or champion speeding tbh, not at dangerous levels anyway.

    Yes. Now assume one driver doing 120kph and the other doing 80kph.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Ah fair enough.


  • Options
    #53
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    beeno67 wrote: »
    Yes. Now assume one driver doing 120kph and the other doing 80kph.

    Id rather not be hit by either if Im being honest, but at least if the guy doing 120kmph was insured then my life would be made easier in what would more than likely be a very difficult period.

    Its a stupid arguement which Im not going to continue. Neither speeders nor uninsured drivers should be on the road and if either are I hope they stay the hell away from me!


  • Options
    #54
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    beeno67 wrote: »
    The uninsured of course by a million miles. What kind of idiot would prefer to be hit by someone speeding than someone doing the normal speed?
    That depends on the accident. A speeder in a 30km/h zone might do a lot less damage than someone doing the 'normal' speed on a national primary.


  • Options
    #55
    2yung2adm
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭2yung2adm


    robtri wrote: »
    It simple really lads...

    She has every right to claim for damages to her property, whether she was insured or not does not come into this equation..

    the only thing your friend has to consider is that if she does claim off the other driver who was in the wrong, she runs the risk of been reported to the Gardai for driving without insurance.

    At the end of the day, your friend has to weigh up whether the cost of repairs to her car is worth the risk of been found out and brought to court , fined and have a load of points on her licence.

    Read the posts and perhaps we will not have to bear any more misrepresentation of this point of law again.
    She has to wait only one month and if a demand to produce her cert of insurance or exemption is not made within that time she is free from criminal prosecution


  • Options
    #56
    2yung2adm
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭2yung2adm


    Vertakill wrote: »
    Troll?


    This accident would never have occurred if the idiot without insurance obeyed the law.

    I would love to listen in on the phone call she would be making toward the other persons insurance company.
    Considering how unbelievably reluctant insurance companies are at paying out, I very much doubt it'd take much for them to avoid paying out and I'd imagine they'd report her in the process.

    I hope she does try and claim though, for those reasons. Talk about, literally, adding insult to injury...

    This is another reason why you never admit any kind of liability on the spot.
    The idiot who caused this accident is the idiot who failed to keep a proper look out for other road users.
    The fact that the injured party did not have insurance did nothing to cause the accident and she has nothing to fear from making a claim.


  • Options
    #57
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    2yung2adm wrote: »
    Read the posts and perhaps we will not have to bear any more misrepresentation of this point of law again.
    She has to wait only one month and if a demand to produce her cert of insurance or exemption is not made within that time she is free from criminal prosecution

    No she isn't. She is free from certain prosecutions but not all.


  • Options
    #58
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    2yung2adm wrote: »
    The idiot who caused this accident is the idiot who failed to keep a proper look out for other road users.
    The fact that the injured party did not have insurance did nothing to cause the accident and she has nothing to fear from making a claim.

    But she should lose 90% of it in contributory negligence because she should never have been there in the first time.


  • Options
    #59
    2yung2adm
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭2yung2adm


    k_mac wrote: »
    No she isn't. She is free from certain prosecutions but not all.
    Read the post, it clearly says "on this point of law"
    Just out of interest what other prosecutions can she still be subjected to?
    For the purpose of this exercise we will assume that the accident happened a month ago.


  • Options
    #60
    2yung2adm
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭2yung2adm


    k_mac wrote: »
    But she should lose 90% of it in contributory negligence because she should never have been there in the first time.
    So by being there without insurance means she is 90% negligent.Wow, I hope you are not a judge... or a solicitor...or a Garda or...or


  • Advertisement
Advertisement