Got stopped driving a friends car...

evolving_doors

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Ah lads you're kidding yourselves if you think this has any chance of achieving anything. Any self respecting guard with an interest in doing their job properly will think "this lad went out and got himself insurance a few days after I stopped him, who does he think he's trying to kid?”

What credit would you think you could reasonably expect or be entitled to if this was the course of action you took? You would be entitled to absolutely none. The lad clearly drove knowingly without insurance. Taking some out a few days after the fact doesn't mitigate that at all as there's no "doing the right thing" here. Rather it's a rather brazen and shameless attempt to give the impression of propriety.

He could still chance it and hope the guard doesn't check the dates! I.e. go in when it's busy with some mouldy drunk jailbird starting to kick off.

jelutong

evolving_doors wrote: »

This. But have a farm good excuse or play dumb as soon as yet rumbled
But get some legal advice first.

That's good advice?

evolving_doors

jelutong wrote: »

That's good advice?

Thank you, that'll be €100 please.

Del2005

evolving_doors wrote: »

He could still chance it and hope the guard doesn't check the dates! I.e. go in when it's busy with some mouldy drunk jailbird starting to kick off.

It's an automated system. THe OP was stopped on x date and when they produce an insurance cert with a date after x the system will auto generate the notices.

fritzelly

jelutong wrote: »

That's good advice?

And why we have examples like linked earlier.
Always looking for excuses and ways to get out of being punished

The amount of threads on here from learner drivers either caught or something happens is unreal in this day and age.

mgbgt1978

Metalrobe wrote: »

Get a solicitor or you will get a heavier fine. They will explain you were unaware and didn't do it intentionally or regularly. Unfortunately its a least 6 penalty points which will disqualify you from driving on a learner permit. A conviction will see you with a pretty heavy loading once you can drive again. I think it only counts for three years after your conviction as far as im aware so there may be hope.

If you know what gard it is it is no harm to visit the station to see what they can do. Its probably not going to cut any salt but worth a try. As a side not be very careful when driving other peoples cars even when you have a full licence. A lot of insurance companys have engine size retrictions. You would not have been insured anyways even if you had a full licence and your own insurance policy as the car did not have a valid nct.

Best of luck

Off topic a bit I know, however this is the case only with some Insurers. Many do not stipulate that the Car must have an NCT, simply that it is roadworthy....which does not mean an NCT. Usually their idea of roadworthy is often decided by their Assessors....after an accident ???
But the lack of a valid NCT does not mean that somebody is automatically not insured to drive another Car.

Have to agree with your advice regarding hiring a solicitor for the Court Case. As all Judges were once Solicitors/Barristers themselves ,they really do like to see their ex colleagues getting a bit of employment.

Mongfinder General

Two choices here as I see it. Either be honest or disingenuous. If you get caught out trying to bluff your way out of it the consequences will be worse.

CiniO

fritzelly wrote: »

Any pending action - OP will receive a conviction - has to be declared. OP has shown himself to be a very high risk client.
You cannot declare what you don't know so the speed camera example is irrelevant

I actually don't get it.

How driving with no insurance constitutes being high risk for future insurer?
There was nothing said about skills and way OP was driving and that's what his risk for future insurers should depand on...
But sure yea - in Ireland insurers can use any silly excuse to load the sh1te out of anyone's premium.

fritzelly

CiniO wrote: »

I actually don't get it.

How driving with no insurance constitutes being high risk for future insurer?
There was nothing said about skills and way OP was driving and that's what his risk for future insurers should depand on...
But sure yea - in Ireland insurers can use any silly excuse to load the sh1te out of anyone's premium.

Not sure why I have to spell it out - driving unaccompanied in an untaxed, no NCT car thinking because he thought he had insurance (even tho he forgot it expired) he was ok. And then getting insurance after the fact thinking he is still ok
Some people need the book thrown at them.
Some people are learner drivers still after 3 years for a reason but still think WTH I'm gonna drive - too many examples in Ireland

saccades

Teekay94 wrote: »

So I just go to the garda station and explain that I didn't have insurance at the time I was stopped? It was an honest error on my part.

I was in court recently for not producing my insurance certificate (I thought the square was sufficient, guard didn't pull me up on it at the time...), At the same time there was a lad like you whose employer attended to say not able to drive, no job, plus with a solicitor.

Judge fined him 800 euro, points which means banned for 6 (or 12 months).

The courts hate people with no insurance.

CiniO

fritzelly wrote: »

Not sure why I have to spell it out - driving unaccompanied in an untaxed, no NCT car thinking because he thought he had insurance (even tho he forgot it expired) he was ok. And then getting insurance after the fact thinking he is still ok
Some people need the book thrown at them.

I'm not saying they don't.

But still I fail to see how any of things OP has done, classify him at higher risk of being involved in an accident in the future which could result in a claim for future insurer.

Likelyness of causing an accident should be based on claim history and only that.
Nothing else can really fairly give estimation to how likely person is to crash.
If someone has shown that he/she could drive for 20 years without causing an accident, then this should be enough for insurer, no matter how many penalty points, conviction, etc person has.

But as I was saying - biggest scammers in all that are Irish insurers which will use any opportunity to screw their customers.

CiniO

Driving without insurance has absolutely nothing to do with road safety.
It's an financial offence, and should be prosecuted financially only.

Pkiernan

Not having a go at the OP, but some posters have said he made an honest mistake.

Where is the honest mistake in deliberately driving unaccompanied?

fritzelly

CiniO wrote: »

I'm not saying they don't.

But still I fail to see how any of things OP has done, classify him at higher risk of being involved in an accident in the future which could result in a claim for future insurer.

Likelyness of causing an accident should be based on claim history and only that.
Nothing else can really fairly give estimation to how likely person is to crash.
If someone has shown that he/she could drive for 20 years without causing an accident, then this should be enough for insurer, no matter how many penalty points, conviction, etc person has.

But as I was saying - biggest scammers in all that are Irish insurers which will use any opportunity to screw their customers.

Not how liability works - learner driver, strike 1, caught driving unaccompanied, strike 2, caught in what could be a dangerous car, strike 3 (won't even bother counting driving without insurance as it would be void anyway)

OP is now a very high liability if they took him on - past history means nothing, ask any new driver or even anyone under 25 as they are the high risk group

saccades

CiniO wrote: »

I'm not saying they don't.

But still I fail to see how any of things OP has done, classify him at higher risk of being involved in an accident in the future which could result in a claim for future insurer.

Likelyness of causing an accident should be based on claim history and only that.
Nothing else can really fairly give estimation to how likely person is to crash.
If someone has shown that he/she could drive for 20 years without causing an accident, then this should be enough for insurer, no matter how many penalty points, conviction, etc person has.

But as I was saying - biggest scammers in all that are Irish insurers which will use any opportunity to screw their customers.

This is statistics, the closer you get to the single numbers the less it appears to be true.

The insurers will see driving without insurance conviction and lump them with all the other people who have driven without insurance, those who have speeded, crashed caused accidents etc. As an example 98% of those convicted cost the insurers a fortune, the other 2% don't.

He'll get shafted because he'll now appear to be a high risk.


Edit to say, ANPR in the UK has shown that people without tax/insurance are most likely to have unsafe cars and be under the influence when stopped.

Mongfinder General

saccades wrote: »

I was in court recently for not producing my insurance certificate (I thought the square was sufficient, guard didn't pull me up on it at the time...), At the same time there was a lad like you whose employer attended to say not able to drive, no job, plus with a solicitor.

Judge fined him 800 euro, points which means banned for 6 (or 12 months).

The courts hate people with no insurance.

That was his mistake right there. Showing that he had a job and could afford a solicitor. If he’d gone in there dressed as a scruffy twat in a hoodie, no solicitor and jobless, he’d have received more lenient treatment.

wexie

CiniO wrote: »

Driving without insurance has absolutely nothing to do with road safety.
It's an financial offence, and should be prosecuted financially only.

While I see your reasoning the insurers don't see it like that. For a number of reasons (such as having more correlating statistics) but the simplest of that is 'conviction for motoring offences'.

As an aside we still don't actually know why OP was pulled over, or if it was just a checkpoint.

fritzelly

Maybe someone knows (Googled and couldn't find it) can an insurance company be forced to insure a learner driver?

TheRiverman

No sympathy here,stupid learner drives car with no nct,no tax,no insurance,I presume no L plates and no qualified driver.Three year driving ban and stiff fine at least.

artanevilla

CiniO wrote: »

Driving without insurance has absolutely nothing to do with road safety.
It's an financial offence, and should be prosecuted financially only.

By that logic so should theft.

fritzelly

artanevilla wrote: »

By that logic so should theft.

And you know who would end up paying that in the end

seanrambo87

CiniO wrote:

Driving without insurance has absolutely nothing to do with road safety. It's an financial offence, and should be prosecuted financially only.

Kind of what I was getting at earlier, it is a civil offence not a criminal one, it is one of a financial nature not criminal, as I said earlier I'm willing to stand corrected. A couple of lads said and probably rightly so that an offence is a criminal act but in my mind the two are not the same. No injured party no crime. I'm not trying to stir that's how I understand it

seanrambo87

And jasis I don't mean to go on but as the chap pointed out earlier when I asked what is dangerous driving? And he responded as pertaining to the road traffic act.

Isn't the law open to interpretation and is it not one word against another unless it causes harm in which case there us a victim? An injured party? Whereas the op has not comited a crime per say.

GM228

CiniO wrote: »

Driving without insurance has absolutely nothing to do with road safety.
It's an financial offence, and should be prosecuted financially only

There's no such thing as a financial offence.

The part in bold sounds like an eye for an eye type of punishment, I won't ask how other crimes should be punished

seanrambo87 wrote: »

Kind of what I was getting at earlier, it is a civil offence not a criminal one, it is one of a financial nature not criminal, as I said earlier I'm willing to stand corrected. A couple of lads said and probably rightly so that an offence is a criminal act but in my mind the two are not the same. No injured party no crime. I'm not trying to stir that's how I understand it

No injured party = no crime? Seriously, I guess theft etc and all those other offences where no one is injured is not a crime.

Your understanding of what is civil and criminal is totally wrong. Ireland does not have a concept known as a "Civil Offence"*. Being a criminal offence has nothing to do with a financial nature or not, rather a criminal offence is an offence against the people or state as proscribed by statute or common law.

*Unless you are in the Military, but I won't sway off topic.

Basically criminal law punishes for crimes against the state (which are proscribed by statute or common law), whilst civil law looks for redress for wrongs to a person (natural or legal), in other words civil law protects people from each others wrongs.

fritzelly

seanrambo87 wrote: »

Kind of what I was getting at earlier, it is a civil offence not a criminal one, it is one of a financial nature not criminal, as I said earlier I'm willing to stand corrected. A couple of lads said and probably rightly so that an offence is a criminal act but in my mind the two are not the same. No injured party no crime. I'm not trying to stir that's how I understand it

You can get up to 6 months in jail - criminal offence all the way

Light reading on Irish Statute law
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/56/enacted/en/html

seanrambo87

GM228 wrote:

No injured party = no crime? Seriously, I guess theft etc and all those other offences where no one is injured is not a crime.

Injured party is not physical, I read it as harm Loss or fraud on someone's name/character, that covers all crime, everything else is statutory,

Mongfinder General

fritzelly wrote: »

You can get up to 6 months in jail - criminal offence all the way

Light reading on Irish Statute law
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/56/enacted/en/html

Not what the op wants to read. A big fine, a custodial sentence and a rod up the bum in mount joy. It won’t happen unless he’s a complete prick to the Garda and vice versa

fritzelly

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Not what the op wants to read. A big fine, a custodial sentence and a rod up the bum in mount joy. It won’t happen unless he’s a complete prick to the Garda and vice versa

LOL - unlikely for a first offence to be imprisoned but as for the rest will be crucified

(p.s does anyone know about the insurance thing for learner drivers)

fritzelly

seanrambo87 wrote: »

Injured party is not physical, I read it as harm Loss or fraud on someone's name/character, that covers all crime, everything else is statutory,

If the offence is covered under Statute law then it is criminal (as is no insurance)

seanrambo87

fritzelly wrote:

You can get up to 6 months in jail - criminal offence all the way

I'm not trying to stir the pot here I'm trying to have a discussion lads, I think I am being misunderstood maybe I am not expressing myself properly here let me gather me thoughts, and I will get back, law is a philosophy and open to interpretation if I am not mistaken?