"It is also an offence to allow a vehicle you own to be driven by an uninsured driver

Motorist

Hi all,

P 152 of the Driver Theory Test book states this. Is this correct? I have never heard of a vehicle owner being prosecuted for allowing a vehicle owned by him to be driver by an uninsured driver.

What happens if you give consent for a week and the driver then cancels his policy half-way through the week.

DarkJager

Motorist wrote: »

Hi all,

P 152 of the Driver Theory Test book states this. Is this correct? I have never heard of a vehicle owner being prosecuted for allowing a vehicle owned by him to be driver by an uninsured driver.

What happens if you give consent for a week and the driver then cancels his policy half-way through the week.

Uninsured drivers shouldn't be on the road full stop. No ifs or buts about it.

Motorist

DarkJager wrote: »

Uninsured drivers shouldn't be on the road full stop. No ifs or buts about it.

Yes but in reality there will always be uninsured drivers. So my question is about a particular aspect of the offence.

If the uninsured driver is stopped by the gardai driving his Dad's vehicle, for example, could the Dad also be prosecuted for "allowing" the son (as the DTT book states) to drive uninsured? Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Randy Anders

DarkJager wrote: »

Uninsured drivers shouldn't be on the road full stop. No ifs or buts about it.

Yes but what if a friend/associate lies and tells you he has open insurance and you let him take the vehicle

Surely the owner of the car isn't responsible in this instance?

dev100

Motorist wrote: »

Yes but in reality there will always be uninsured drivers. So my question is about a particular aspect of the offence.

If the uninsured driver is stopped by the gardai driving his Dad's vehicle, for example, could the Dad also be prosecuted for "allowing" the son (as the DTT book states) to drive uninsured? Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I'd assume (assumption is dangerous where law is concerned) if you knowingly let an uninsured person drive your car you could be prosecuted ...

DarkJager

Motorist wrote: »

Yes but in reality there will always be uninsured drivers. So my question is about a particular aspect of the offence.

If the uninsured driver is stopped by the gardai driving his Dad's vehicle, for example, could the Dad also be prosecuted for "allowing" the son (as the DTT book states) to drive uninsured? Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

They rank up there with drunk drivers in my opinion, 2 types of person on the road I love hearing about the Gardai catching.

I would assume that the uninsured driver being the person in the car at the time (and without the required insurance to have it on the road) would be the one prosecuted to the full extent. As for the dad knowing about, I really couldn't say. I'd assume there would be some sort of reprecussion as he's the owner and registered insuree of the car, and has also knowingly allowed an uninsured driver behind the wheel.

Motorist

Yeah but is this outlined anywhere in legislation? I cant imagine it is and am wondering if the driver theory test is correct in stating this.

DarkJager

Motorist wrote: »

Yeah but is this outlined anywhere in legislation? I cant imagine it is and am wondering if the driver theory test is correct in stating this.

Couldn't find details for the Irish law but this is from a UK site:

The penalty for causing or permitting the use of a vehicle whilst uninsured is no different to the principal offence - 6-8 points OR discretionary disqualification and a fine of up to £5000.

I'd like to know what the Irish law says on it though.

Cookie_Monster

Motorist wrote: »

If the uninsured driver is stopped by the gardai driving his Dad's vehicle, for example, could the Dad also be prosecuted for "allowing" the son (as the DTT book states) to drive uninsured? Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

of course, why does it seem ridiculous? If you held the gun on the teller while your friend robbed the bank can you be accountable for the robbery?

If his Dad knowingly allowed him to use the car the he is entirely at fault for allowing an uninsured person use his car for which he is responsible. You could perhaps argue the case if the son took the car without his knowledge, but then that would be akin to theft which the son could possibly be charged for then also.

There's a whole motors forum for this btw, it's not a C&T issue.

corktina

accomplice before the fact or some such jargon perhaps.

If an Owner knowingly allows an uninsured driver drive the car, he is as guilty as the actual person who commits the offence.

Motorist

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Motorist wrote: »

If the uninsured driver is stopped by the gardai driving his Dad's vehicle, for example, could the Dad also be prosecuted for "allowing" the son (as the DTT book states) to drive uninsured? Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

of course, why does it seem ridiculous? If you held the gun on the teller while your friend robbed the bank can you be accountable for the robbery?

If his Dad knowingly allowed him to use the car the he is entirely at fault for allowing an uninsured person use his car for which he is responsible. You could perhaps argue the case if the son took the car without his knowledge, but then that would be akin to theft which the son could possibly be charged for then also.

There's a whole motors forum for this btw, it's not a C&T issue.

Ridiculous comparing common design of robbing a bank with road traffic offense. If this supposed offence existed, it would require the owner of a car to examine a drivers policy before giving consent. My assertion that such a law is ridiculous is backed up by the fact that there are never prosecutions for this.

corktina

really? can you say that absolutely there are never proscecutions for an Owner allowing his car to be driven by an uninsured person?

The Onus surely is on the Owner to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that an offense isnt being committed with his vehicle

Irish Halo

The Road Traffic Act, 1961 (section 56, subsection 3) says

Where a person contravenes subsection (1) of this section, he and, if he is not the owner of the vehicle, such owner shall each be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Basically subsection 1 says you can't drive uninsured.

There appears to have been very few upadtes to that wording other than the fine seems to have been increased to €5,000 in 2006 (Part 1 ref number 17)

mathepac

Motorist wrote: »

... If this supposed offence existed, it would require the owner of a car to examine a drivers policy before giving consent. ...

The offence exists and a reasonable person would examine their own and the intended driver's policies to ensure the driving was covered, as well the their licence of course.

The usual caveats would apply - commercial and car insurances are usually not interchangeable and so on and a mature, cautious approach to allowing a 3rd party behind the wheel of you car might prevent embarrassment and cost for all concerned.

Motorist wrote: »

... My assertion that such a law is ridiculous is backed up by the fact that there are never prosecutions for this.

It's not ridiculous at all IMHO and lack of enforcement is nothing new in this country; this is no reflection on the law, just on the enforcers / prosecutors.

coylemj

If a car is involved in an accident and the driver is at fault, it is ultimately the owner of the car (if he is not the driver) and not the driver who is responsible to pay for the damage so not alone does the owner have to ensure that the driver is insured to drive, if it turns out that the driver was not insured, the owner can be prosecuted under the RTA 1961 under the section quoted above and pursued for the civil claim.

There have been plenty of prosecutions for the offence of permitting an uninsured driver to drive a car. When they investigate traffic accidents, the Gardai ask each driver to state who owns the car and if there is no valid insurance produced, they will normally prosecute both the driver and owner where the driver was not the owner of the car and was driving uninsured.

Motorist

coylemj wrote: »

If a car is involved in an accident and the driver is at fault, it is ultimately the owner of the car (if he is not the driver) and not the driver who is responsible to pay for the damage so not alone does the owner have to ensure that the driver is insured to drive, if it turns out that the driver was not insured, the owner can be prosecuted under the RTA 1961 under the section quoted above and pursued for the civil claim.

There have been plenty of prosecutions for the offence of permitting an uninsured driver to drive a car. When they investigate traffic accidents, the Gardai ask each driver to state who owns the car and if there is no valid insurance produced, they will normally prosecute both the driver and owner where the driver was not the owner of the car and was driving uninsured.

So if I give consent to my brother for example to borrow my car for three weeks while I go away on holiday, and check his policy is in order, but if while I'm away his direct debit bounces and insurance is cancelled, I can be prosecuted. That, in my opinion is ridiculous.

Motorist

coylemj wrote: »

If a car is involved in an accident and the driver is at fault, it is ultimately the owner of the car (if he is not the driver) and not the driver who is responsible to pay for the damage so not alone does the owner have to ensure that the driver is insured to drive, if it turns out that the driver was not insured, the owner can be prosecuted under the RTA 1961 under the section quoted above and pursued for the civil claim.

There have been plenty of prosecutions for the offence of permitting an uninsured driver to drive a car. When they investigate traffic accidents, the Gardai ask each driver to state who owns the car and if there is no valid insurance produced, they will normally prosecute both the driver and owner where the driver was not the owner of the car and was driving uninsured.

Also why stop at insurance. Why not also prosecute owners by proxy for another drivers drunk driving, speeding, parking fines, motor tax, nxt

corktina

sure theres only common sense stopping most of that....

coylemj

Motorist wrote: »

So if I give consent to my brother for example to borrow my car for three weeks while I go away on holiday, and check his policy is in order, but if while I'm away his direct debit bounces and insurance is cancelled, I can be prosecuted. That, in my opinion is ridiculous.

No it's not. If that provision didn't exist, you could lend your car to any tosser who could then run down a breadwinner leaving a pretty large insurance claim for the insurance bureau to pick up which ultimately would be covered by increased premiums paid by law-abiding drivers.

Unless the owner is made responsible in criminal and civil law, there would be no disincentive to car owners to take some care that they weren't allowing uninsured drivers to take their car out on the pubic roads.

coylemj

Motorist wrote: »

Also why stop at insurance. Why not also prosecute owners by proxy for another drivers drunk driving, speeding, parking fines, motor tax, nxt

In the case of parking, motor tax and NCT they are responsible and can be prosecuted. And in the case of a speeding ticket, the owner gets prosecuted unless he names the actual driver if it wasn't him.

mathepac

Motorist wrote: »

So if I give consent to my brother for example to borrow my car for three weeks while I go away on holiday, and check his policy is in order, but if while I'm away his direct debit bounces and insurance is cancelled, I can be prosecuted. That, in my opinion is ridiculous.

Like, I agree totes dude. It's ridiculous that you can't trust your brother to recognise he no longer has insurance and to park the car up. I just wouldn't give it to him, the fecken chancer. Sure you can't be doin' that!

foggy_lad

Motorist wrote: »

Motorist wrote: »

Also why stop at insurance. Why not also prosecute owners by proxy for another drivers drunk driving, speeding, parking fines, motor tax, nxt

If any driver or even passenger in your vehicle uses it to litter or parks illegally or causes a nuiscance or throws something from the vehicle causing injury or damage etc etc you will be fined for the offence as owner of the vehicle, as the owner of a vehicle you must be aware of where it is and what it is being used for!

Motorist

mathepac wrote: »

Like, I agree totes dude. It's ridiculous that you can't trust your brother to recognise he no longer has insurance and to park the car up. I just wouldn't give it to him, the fecken chancer. Sure you can't be doin' that!

That was just a hypothetical example. Whats totes?

Marcusm

Motorist wrote: »

So if I give consent to my brother for example to borrow my car for three weeks while I go away on holiday, and check his policy is in order, but if while I'm away his direct debit bounces and insurance is cancelled, I can be prosecuted. That, in my opinion is ridiculous.

Funnily enough, a similar issue was being discussed over in Motors recently. A named driver was stopped in possession of his father's when unbeknownst to him (and indeed to his father) the insurance policy had been cancelled because of bounced direct debits. The problem here is that it s a strict liability offence, ie no mens rea issue, and the get out will always have to be prosecutorial discretion in the absence of which you'd have to hope for the judge to take pity and strike out as a conviction will carry the mandatory points if nothing else.

blindside88

If the owner of a vehicle allows an unisured driver to drive his/her car (whether knowingly or not) he/she will be subject to prosecution. I dealt with the case just today and had to refuse to insure a man that was prosecuted for allowing an uninsured driver to drive his car, he didn't know the driver had no insurance and the prosecution was still successful

Cookie_Monster

Motorist wrote: »

That was just a hypothetical example. Whats totes?

totes = totally

(he thinks you're being ridiculous and taking the piss out of you basically)

mathepac

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

....
(he thinks you're being ridiculous and taking the piss out of you basically)

Negatory there dog. I'm like totes simpatico to the steep learning curve dude finds himself on going forward for the future, when the choices are like auto-motion or uncool perambulation.

Cookie_Monster

mathepac wrote: »

Negatory there dog. I'm like totes simpatico to the steep learning curve dude finds himself on going forward for the future, when the choices are like auto-motion or uncool perambulation.

Victor

Behave