Got stopped driving a friends car...

GM228

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,

How you "read" things is wrong, the majority of offences are stautory including those which cause harm.

This really isn't the thread for discussing this issue is it, I suggest you start a thread in the Legal Discussion thread, but bear in mind there are two posters here (Coylemj and myself - who actually do know the law, especially criminal law and the law of motoring which are my specialties) who are regulars in that thread and know and have high experience of what we speak of.

Also these threads may educate you a little:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057860365&page=1

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057800993&page=1#post105065054

fritzelly

[QUOTE=seanrambo87;107485466]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?[/QUOTE]

Didn't think you were, myself at least didn't

EagererBeaver

Pkiernan wrote: »

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?

Not a hope in hell it was an honest mistake. You just don't "forget" that you're not insured to drive somebody else's car, on your own, when you're not even qualified to drive.

Marcusm

CiniO wrote: »

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

Purely from the financial perspective of the insurance company, someone willing to drive uninsured evidences a higher degree of risk taking warranting additional checks and/or premium.

It’s not a financial offence, it’s a compliance offence in the same manner as driving without a licence or whilst disqualified.

GM228

seanrambo87 wrote: »

law is a philosophy and open to interpretation if I am not mistaken?

Law is not a philosophy, but there is the philosophy of law, known as jurisprudence.

Some laws are open to interpretation depending on the circumstances and in many cases any question of interpretation is answered by the courts. Law which is open to interpretation is minor compared to law which isn't.

Del2005

fritzelly wrote: »

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

They don't need to be forced they do it everyday and even pay out for claims when the person has driven against the terms of their permit and therefore has none in the eyes of the law. They do have the option of recouping the cost of claims from the illegal driver and apparently they have started to do this.

But too many people are still driving outside the conditions of their licence/permit.

wexie

Del2005 wrote: »

But too many people are still driving outside the conditions of their licence/permit.

Not just that, I was chatting to a buddy that works in the car insurance business and apparently what they are seeing more and more is that someone gets a TFPT policy on lets say 1.6 Golf and then goes out driving a 530D.

Anything happens the insurer still has to cough up, he mentioned the term for legalese means that the insurer still has to pay but I can't think of it right now.

So people are out there doing these kinds of things because insurance premiums are so high....and driving premiums for the rest of us even higher :mad:

coylemj

Marcusm wrote: »

Purely from the financial perspective of the insurance company, someone willing to drive uninsured evidences a higher degree of risk taking warranting additional checks and/or premium.

Right, this is classic 'cause and effect' so buckle up and let's go....

Proposition: People who drive uninsured are reckless individuals which means they are more likely to be involved in accidents which means they are higher risk and, when they do decide to get insured, should have their premiums loaded.

Rebuttal: There are no statistics which show that uninsured drivers are involved in more or less less accidents (per 1,000 miles driven) than insured drivers.

The fact is that nobody can say with certainty that uninsured drivers are better or worse then the population at large. If you have a conviction for driving uninsured, the industry practice is to screw you next time you take out a policy and the principal reason for doing so is to discourage others from taking the risk of driving uninsured.

I would certainly accept the explanation for loading someone coming off a conviction for drink driving, I don't accept that the same logic applies in the case of a conviction for driving uninsured.

CiniO

Marcusm wrote: »

Purely from the financial perspective of the insurance company, someone willing to drive uninsured evidences a higher degree of risk taking warranting additional checks and/or premium.

It's a fact you present, but not explanation why.
I still can't see how person who in the past drove uninsured and was caught, can present higher risk for insurance company.
My understanding is that person with higher risk for insurance company is someone who is more likely to cause an accident/damage which will result in a claim and payout by insurance company. And I really fail to see how fact that someone once (or many times) drove uninsured, can possibly make that person more likely to crash/cause damage in the future when driving insured.

It’s not a financial offence, it’s a compliance offence in the same manner as driving without a licence or whilst disqualified.

Excuse my bad wording - term "financial offence" was a bit of my own creation by which I meant the offence which can only affect rest of society financially. I.e. driving without insurance in case of crash might cause a need for a payout to someone from MIBI and if MIBI is not able to recover the sum from that uninsured driver, cost will lie with society.

I really fail to see a need driving ban (which should be only issued for person who for some reason is not suitable for driving from safety point of view - i.e. after drink driving or multiple road traffic offences or dangerous driving offences. etc). In other words, people who are dangerous to public should be taken off the road by driving bans. I don't see the link between being dangerous and driving uninsured.

Person driving uninsured should be fined heavily financially, and if person can't pay, probably some other form of penalty like obligatory work, etc...

fritzelly

Double rebuttal - all those uninsured drivers cost everyone else more in their insurance policies to cover because they think they will never have an accident but are an expense at no cost to them
Boom!
How does insurance cover for the masses work again?

CiniO

coylemj wrote: »

Right, this is classic 'cause and effect' so buckle up and let's go....

Proposition: People who drive uninsured are reckless individuals which means they are more likely to be involved in accidents which means they are higher risk and, when they do decide to get insured, should have their premiums loaded.

Rebuttal: There are no statistics which show that uninsured drivers are involved in more or less less accidents (per 1,000 miles driven) than insured drivers.

The fact is that nobody can say with certainty that uninsured drivers are better or worse then the population at large. If you have a conviction for driving uninsured, the industry practice is to screw you next time you take out a policy and the principal reason for doing so is to discourage others from taking the risk of driving uninsured.

I would certainly accept the explanation for loading someone coming off a conviction for drink driving, I don't accept that the same logic applies in the case of a conviction for driving uninsured.

That's a very interesting think you wrote:
"...the industry practice is to screw you..."

It looks like it really is, for any possible excuse.

I understand it's in industry interest to make sure everyone buys insurance. But doing what you described above that they are doing is just not a fair practice.

endacl

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,

I'm genuinely wondering at this point...

Are you trying to explain the mechanics your own misunderstanding, or trying to convince readers that there's something we're missing, and that we've all been wrong all this time? That the gardaí, judiciary, and legislators have collectively all got it all wrong?

Good thing you came along. You should start a blog!

coylemj

fritzelly wrote: »

Double rebuttal - all those uninsured drivers cost everyone else more in their insurance policies to cover because they think they will never have an accident but are an expense at no cost to them
Boom!

Not even a single rebuttal. Where have you shown that uninsured drivers have a greater incidence of accidents than the general population and so represent a higher risk?

When someone with a conviction for driving with no insurance does come on board, they are levied with higher premiums as punishment, not because they are higher risk.

Del2005

coylemj wrote: »

Not even a single rebuttal. Where have you shown that uninsured drivers have a greater incidence of accidents than the general population and so represent a higher risk?

When someone with a conviction for driving with no insurance does come on board, they are levied with higher premiums as punishment, not because they are higher risk.

Insurance companies work off statistics not spite. So if they are loading people with convictions it's because they are costing the insurance companies more.

Henry Ford III

If someone chooses to deliberately drive uninsured they deserve whatever punishment comes their way. It's a stupid thing to do and totally irresponsible. If they cause damage or injury the MIBI (funded by premium payers) will pick up the tab, so it's only fair that they should pay for that when the time comes for them to affect cover.

Eggs For Dinner

Del2005 wrote: »

Insurance companies work off statistics not spite. So if they are loading people with convictions it's because they are costing the insurance companies more.

Exactly, it is very hard for an insurer to defend a claim when their policyholder's evidence is crucial, if he has numerous convictions for motoring offences. Credibility of witnesses can often decide a course of action. If an insurer has a weak witness, they will often concede liability and up paying where they might not have normally

NUTLEY BOY

Teekay94 wrote: »

Hi I recently got stopped driving a friends car on my way to town. His car was out of NCT and tax but it had insurance. However, since it was not my car, I was asked if I was insured and said yes. He asked me to produce the insurance in 10 days. However, I realised my insurance had expired in May and didn't know ( my fault for not checking as I havent driven my car in 4 months as it broke down and i was tooo broke to fix it. ) I did get new insurance but it doesn't cover me the time.i was stopped, so what happens now? Should i still produce the new insurance at the garda station? I'm so scared I might go to prison since I have a Learner permit. Please help.

Apologies if this has been asked / answered already but did you check the vehicle owner's policy to see if it covered you ? It probably doesn't for a few reasons but that should be clarified.

wexie

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked / answered already but did you check the vehicle owner's policy to see if it covered you ? It probably doesn't for a few reasons but that should be clarified.

I do believe there are policies out there that cover drivers over 25 with a full license but OP clearly doesn't fit the criteria.

I may well be wrong but I'm pretty sure there aren't any policies out there that would cover an unaccompanied learner driver.

Donald Trump

OP,

Are you female and hot? Maybe the guard will let ya off if you make it "worth his while"?

If not, just watch the last episode of Love Hate to prepare yourself for a Fran-like ending in the 'Joy


If your story is real as told, there might be a slight chance that your "mate" added you to his insurance as a named driver if they were trusting you with their car multiple times.......but given that it was already out of tax and NCT, probably not the most conscientious driver....so see answer above

seanrambo87

GM228 wrote:

Also these threads may educate you a little:-

I'll check them out thanks.

Dave147

coylemj wrote:

Can we get one thing straight here.... there is absolutely no point in the OP going near a Garda station without an insurance cert showing that he was insured to drive that specific car on the day he was stopped, something that we know he cannot do. Going to grovel and apologise cuts no ice, they won't want to know. Save your apology for the judge.

Here's where I disagree, when the court date comes up the Guard who stopped him will be up there, OP coming to him and explaining his mistake may help when the judge asks the Guard for details of the event. Familiarity with the Guard can work in his favour for slightly more leniency, he's not getting away with it, but the judge may go easier on him a little if the Guard has something good to say about him.

evolving_doors

What would happen if a summons was sent to his house and he had gone off on a round the world trip for a few years?

Henry Ford III

Dave147 wrote: »

Here's where I disagree, when the court date comes up the Guard who stopped him will be up there, OP coming to him and explaining his mistake may help when the judge asks the Guard for details of the event. Familiarity with the Guard can work in his favour for slightly more leniency, he's not getting away with it, but the judge may go easier on him a little if the Guard has something good to say about him.

Was it a mere mistake though? I've my doubts tbh.

coylemj

Dave147 wrote: »

Here's where I disagree, when the court date comes up the Guard who stopped him will be up there, OP coming to him and explaining his mistake may help when the judge asks the Guard for details of the event. Familiarity with the Guard can work in his favour for slightly more leniency, he's not getting away with it, but the judge may go easier on him a little if the Guard has something good to say about him.

Being insured to drive a car is like being pregnant - you either are or you are not.

My point being that there is no middle ground or scope for a 'mistake' and in several months time when the case is called, the Garda will give evidence in a clinical fashion to the effect that he stopped the OP on the date in question, the OP failed to produce an insurance cert. there and then, undertook to produce one in xxx Garda Station within 10 days but failed to do so.

You say the Garda may have 'something good to say about him' - like what? This is a bread and butter case for the Garda and the judge, nobody cares about how contrite the defendant was a few weeks after the event when he met the Garda with a tearful confession, it will cut no ice whatsoever.

wexie

evolving_doors wrote: »

What would happen if a summons was sent to his house and he had gone off on a round the world trip for a few years?

I would imagine he would come home to find a warrant for his arrest.

But I might be wrong on that.

Dave147

Henry Ford III wrote:

Was it a mere mistake though? I've my doubts tbh.

Suppose it mightn't have been, still in OPs best interest to plead ignorance and at least give both the Guard and Judge something to think about though. It can't do any harm..

LionelNashe

CiniO wrote: »

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

I agree. There's a cultural belief in Ireland that driving without insurance is somehow dangerous, and likely to cause an accident in the same way that drunk driving or speeding is.

Eggs For Dinner

LionelNashe wrote: »

I agree. There's a cultural belief in Ireland that driving without insurance is somehow dangerous, and likely to cause an accident in the same way that drunk driving or speeding is.

Driving without insurance doesn't present an extra hazard on our roads. However, it is a strong indicator as to the type of motorist you are. Selfish, reckless and a risk taker. Those traits single you out as more likely to be involved in an accident

FurBabyMomma

LionelNashe wrote: »

I agree. There's a cultural belief in Ireland that driving without insurance is somehow dangerous, and likely to cause an accident in the same way that drunk driving or speeding is.

No, there's a belief that if you're involved in an accident with an uninsured driver then you're the one who'll get screwed. People rightly want them off the road and punished for putting other people at risk in that manner. It's not straightforward dealing with a claim due to an uninsured driver.

Rachiee

What I dont get it when the Garda asked for the OPs licence why he just ignored the fact that he wasnt accompanied?, I thought they were supposed to be cracking down on unaccompanied drivers!
Even if the OP had an insurance certificate to produce they surely wouldn't have been insured within the bounds of the policy as they were driving illegally?