[article] Uninsured biker wants compo for hurting himself....GRRRRR

Nuttzz

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1438324&issue_id=12779

HE WAS blatantly riding a motorcycle without any insurance and while on a provisional licence.

So when Martin Woods from Co Louth crashed and was paralysed for life almost four years ago it was just fortunate that he did not maim or kill anyone else.

But the 23-year-old is now taking a test case to the European Commission to try and force a change in Irish law that would oblige the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland to give him a multimillion euro payout in compensation for his injuries.

If he succeeds, he will open the floodgates for other uninsured motorists to claim from a fund which was originally set up to recompense the innocent victims of uninsured road users.

The move would inevitably lead to a hike in insurance premiums for law-abiding motorists, a possibility that did not seem to overly concern Mr Woods last week.

He said: "Compensation has to come from somewhere and that is what insurance is for. I had every intention of getting insurance, but I wasn't able because I was working all the time.

"It was the day that was in it, having a day off work, that made me go out on the bike without insurance. I didn't re ally think I was doing any thing too wrong. Now I just have to try and make the best of my life."

Mr Woods was 19 years old and his brother Stephen was 18 when the two crashed at Clogher Head, Co Louth on September 14, 2001. The nation had been given the day off work to mourn the victims of the 9/11 attacks on New York. Neither brother had passed a test at the time.

Mr Woods claims that he was "just trying out" a new Honda 400cc motorbike, but it was not the first time the teenager had taken the powerful bike out on the public road uninsured.

He was just a few miles from home when his brother sped up behind him, overtook and did a U-turn causing the crash. Mr Woods was catapulted from his bike into a parked car. His brother escaped with a broken leg, but Mr Woods suffered serious injuries that mean he will never walk again.

During a three-month stay in the Mater Hospital, Dublin Mr Woods made the shocking discovery that his younger brother was also uninsured. He said: "I said to him, 'I'll have to get compo for this off your insurance'. He said, 'Sure, I've no insurance'. At the time it was the least ofmy worries."

Mr Woods suffered numerous broken bones and damage to his spinal cord that left him paralysed from the shoulders down. He has the use of his arms, but is now entirely dependent on his mother Mary. He said: "I can't describe the anguish and mental torture that these events have caused to me and my family. Imagine the pain I felt as it gradually dawned on me what my life now was and would become. I have suffered rage, denial and despair. The physical pain, though shocking, was not the worst."

Stephen Woods was fined for a number of serious offences, including dangerous driving and driving with neither licence nor insurance. Martin Woods has not faced charges for driving without insurance, an offence that carries the ultimate penalty of a six-month jail sentence.

Mr Woods applied for compensation from MIBI, but was turned down as the rules state that motorists who drive while uninsured are ineligible regardless of who is to blame for the collision.

Mr Woods said: "My brother didn't set out to do it, but he is to blame. I am not at fault here at all. My brother knows it was his fault."

Mr Woods has chosen not to sue his brother as "he has nothing". Instead he hopes a formal complaint to the European Commission will lead to a change in Irish law forcing the fund to pay him €2m.

Mr Woods said: "An award of financial compensation would not give me back my health and youth, but would go a long way to givingme back some level ofindependence and restoring my dignity."

Ironically, Mr Woods would have been entitled to compensation if the crash had happened anywhere northof the Border - just 25miles away.

Solicitor Alison McGrath said: "The purpose of the EU directive is to compensate blameless victims of uninsured drivers.

"The Irish government introduced a clause excluding blameless drivers who were also uninsured.

"The position is different in Britain, where someone in Martin's position would be entitled to compensation."

The MIBI fund is entirely paid for by law-abiding Irish drivers who pay a levy of six per cent on their motor insurance to sustain it. The most recent figures show the fund paid out an incredible €70m to victims of uninsured drivers in 2003.

Last week the European Commission issued a "reasoned opinion" formally asking the Irish State to "amend its legislation on insurance cover for blameless drivers of uninsured vehicles".

MIBI are seeking legal advice on how to respond to this. Chief executive John Casey said: "The cost of the mayhem caused by uninsured drivers comes directly from the premiums paid by the law abiding 95 per cent of the motoring population who pay their insurance regularly.

"Should this case succeed there will certainly be an implication for insurance premiums, though I imagine this may not be too severe as the chances of two uninsured drivers crashing into each other are relatively low."

But Mr Casey stressed there are moral as well as financial implications to Mr Woods' case as it is "wholly inequitable" that a person who "has not bothered to insure" should be entitled to compensation paid for by those who abide by the law.

he has some nerve.....

murphaph

I wouldn't wish his troubles on anyone but he's a typical bollocks who thinks insurance is for mugs-until he needs to fall back on it.

Silvera

I agree !

The 'brass neck' of some people is unreal !

Interesting how he says that he couldn't get insurance because he was 'always working' - and yet the on day of his accident he was 'off work' ?!

......he obviously had no intention of ever getting insurance ! :mad:

I wonder has he been prosecuted for having no insurance ?

I have sympathy for his plight in regards to his disability, but he didn't care about anybody else when he went out on his bike without insurance - so why should he get any benefit from a fund that all law-abiding drivers contribute to ?!!

boardsee

Pity the skanger wasnt killed! Save us people with more than 1 brain cell that actually pay insurance, a bob or 2. Looking for E2million, :rolleyes: SUch a knacker.

The brother had no insurance either, obviously a family of knackers.

impr0v

I think the above is a particularly bad example on which to start a debate upon the clause the Irish Government has inserted, because of the stupidity displayed by the participants in this particular 'accident'.

It's hard to argue in favour of law-abiding motorists compensating Mr. Woods for the low intelligence which seems to plague his family, his own poor decision making and his brother's insolvency. The person I feel sorry for in this situation is his mother who is presumably now stuck with this person as a dependent for the rest of her life, though an argument could be made that she deserves it for raising two idiots of such calibre.

I can only presume that the Government introduced such a clause in order for it to serve as a further deterrent to driving without insurance, surely an indictment of how the courts system is currently carrying out this task, and also perhaps to protect the MIBI funds from such scenarios.

While both of these are inarguably valid aims, I think the clause is fundamentally unjust, and when viewed in the context of another example, would appear as such. Say a situation where an individual commandeered a vehicle in an emergency, to bring its incapacitated insured driver to hospital. While on route, driving safely but illegally since he's uninsured, another car crosses a solid white line on a blind corner to overtake and collides with the vehicle, causing serious injury to our hero, through no fault of his own. In this case (someone correct me I'm wrong) the clause would again come into play and the uninsured good samaritan would be adjudged to be at fault for the accident in the eyes of the insurers.

It's an extreme example, but in many ways so is the story of the brothers dim above. A more realistic scenario could perhaps be where you had misread the terms of your insurance and believed any driver with a full licence was covered to drive it with your permission, and an accident occured while they did.

In my unqualified opinion his chance of succeeding in the challenge are high, and while this may appear to be a bad thing for the insured public I think time will show that the benefits outweigh the negatives. As John Casey states, accidents involving two uninsured drivers are relatively unusual, and hence any additional money being paid out by the fund after the removal of such a clause would be small, though would unfortunately include an amount for Mr. Woods.

nxbyveromdwjpg

If he wins sure whats the point in even getting insurance, when you are covered without it??

impr0v

nm wrote:

If he wins sure whats the point in even getting insurance, when you are covered without it??

It will still be unlawful to drive without insurance and you face 5 penalty points, a fine and most likely a disqualification of a period at the discretion of the judge.

Damage you cause to occur to others by your actions, i.e. third-party damage, is currently covered by the uninsured drivers fund if you are involved in an accident and are not insured. Damage to yourself, or your property is not covered and this will remain the case if the challenge is successful. The only difference will be if you are an uninsured driver and suffer through the actions of someone else, you will be entitled to claim damages from them, as you would be if you were an insured driver.

unkel

I've been following the story since it first hit the headlines years ago. Although fuming at the cheek of those idiots that shouldn't even have been born <sorry-still fuming>, I have to agree with impr0v

I think he will and I feel he should win the case

Maybe a wee suggestion to ease the burden on all of us having to pay for it: let's put a mandatory €10000 fine on driving without insurance. If you can't cough up that amount for any reason, deduct €10 a week for life no exceptions from the state benefits or through taxation

seamus

impr0v wrote:

In my unqualified opinion his chance of succeeding in the challenge are high, and while this may appear to be a bad thing for the insured public I think time will show that the benefits outweigh the negatives. As John Casey states, accidents involving two uninsured drivers are relatively unusual, and hence any additional money being paid out by the fund after the removal of such a clause would be small, though would unfortunately include an amount for Mr. Woods.

I'm skeptical. While it does bring up a certain issue, if the clause is overturned, then a more exact clause should be added, e.g. if the driver is driving *knowingly* uninsured, then they're not covered. Of course, the onus should be on the driver to prove that they had reason to believe they were insured (slight change/difference on the policy for example).

The problem I can see with this, if they win, is little knackers robbing cars, and then claiming from the state when they crash into eachother and injure themselves. Sure what's a 6-month suspended sentence for joyriding compared to getting 10k in compo just for being scum of the earth?

Ideally, I would prefer that any driver who is involved in an accident and is uninsured, immediately assumes fault.

jayok

When I read this first, I read it with a little disbelief, however as impr0v pointed out this is an unfortunate case to test the law with and I too believe that Mr. Woods will win his case - Mr. Injured vs Insurance Companies type of case.

Anyhow, I note that if he crashed in the North he would have been entitled to a payout. But would he have got €2 millon? My understanding is that one of the reasons for the differences in insurance premiums between the Republic and UK is that in the UK payouts are actually capped, whereas here they are no caps and insurance companies have no budget for these high-claims.

While I feel sorry for Mr. Woods injuries, Where the figure of €2 million came from? I also wonder did his brother really cause the crash? Or did it simply sound better that way?

No point in getting vexed about this, it will be a test case that will probably suceed. If it does, does it mean that we will all have 3rd party insurance cover whether we paid for it or not?

milltown

Even if he can no longer feel them, he's got some balls! When I read this first my blood was boiling until I realised the piece was written to be sensationalist but the main point is that a (probably) unjust law needs to be changed.

I agree with Jayok that €2m is a ludicrous amount to be looking for. Is he looking for full time care in the Blackrock clinic for the rest of his days? Let his brother pay for his care I say, his mother has enough on her plate worrying about her brain donor sons!

There does appear to be a risk, as has been said, that if the law is changed it will be seen as free insurance for people who are "too busy to get insurance". As far as I know the MIBI will only pay out if the uninsured driver at fault is found and presumably charged (I have heard of hit and run cases where the wronged party got nothing from the MIBI). That being the case I think whoever is costing all this money should be made to pay in the long term by deductions from their wages/dole. I don't believe that the sort of person who gets into a car or onto a bike with no insurance is too bothered about getting caught and getting five points on a licence they probably don't have either.

nellieswellies

boardsee wrote:

Pity the skanger wasnt killed! Save us people with more than 1 brain cell that actually pay insurance, a bob or 2. Looking for E2million, :rolleyes: SUch a knacker.

The brother had no insurance either, obviously a family of knackers.

I hope these words never come back to haunt you!, I would not wish what happened to that guy on anyone. Yes, he made a poor judgement call and hes paying the price.

Chalk

failry misleading topic there.

from the way i read the article,
he was injured when he lost control due to his brothers dangerous driving.
he didnt hurt himself purposely.

Interesting how he says that he couldn't get insurance because he was 'always working' - and yet the on day of his accident he was 'off work' ?!

it was a national holiday.....

BrianD3

It's an interesting scenario. He seems to be a thick bollox but in my opinion he probably should be compensated by MIBI. The fact is that he wasn't responsible for his injuries - his uninsured brother was. And the MIBI is there to compensate victims of uninsured drivers. The fact that Woods was uninsured himself doesn't change the fact that he was a victim of someone else's mistake. Had Woods been a pedestrian or cyclist he wouldn't have had insurance anyway.

I think it's the job of the gardai and courts to enforce the law on driving without insurance not the job of the MIBI. Therefore Woods should be charged, fined and possibly jailed for driving without insurance. But he should also be compensated for the injuries caused by his brother which is a separate matter.

But I'm wondering if the brother *had* been insured what would have been the situation. Would the brother's insurance company have paid out or like the MIBI would they have used the fact that Woods was driving uninsured to get out of paying. IMO the rules should be the same whether it is an insurance company or the MIBI that are paying out

Rodney Trotter

The fekker shouldn't get one cent. Sounds like the 2 were involved in some serious messing and this is only one version of the consequences.

The fact he was driving a motorcycle uninsured should render him liable to zero compensation.

murphaph

Why should only law abiding motorists who insure themselves against 3rd party liability be made pay this levy to the MIBI to run this (worthwhile) scheme?

Why isn't this run out of general taxation so INNOCENT victims of uninsured drivers are compensated by the state (all of us-not just law abiding motorists)?

The particulars of this case could be legislated for, as impr0v says, someone could be on a mission of mercy but they'd have to prove it, otherwise there will be skangers robbing cars and deliberately crashing them for compo.

These two brothers should be prosecuted for their crimes.

Nuttzz

its this line that gets me "Compensation has to come from somewhere "

why? no one asked him to ride the bike, he took his chances, he got hurt. Why is 6% of my (and everyone elses) insurance going into a fund to pay him, considering he never paid into it himself. Its a bit like him claiming money out of my pension fund because he never got around to getting a pension for himself.

If he does win his case I hope is compo is about €20

Our man in Havana

Nutzz wrote:

If he does win his case I hope is compo is about €20

1 cent would be more fitting. :mad:

seamus

Nuttzz wrote:

its this line that gets me "Compensation has to come from somewhere "

Well reading the article, the guy is clearly an idiot, who's had a solicitor come into him and tell him he's gonna be rich.

But it's this "I've been injured, *somebody's* gonna pay for it" attitude that's been plaguing our country for the last ten years.

"Stupidity is an offence against the State" should be written into the consitution.

Nuttzz

if he does win and get a big payout can the MIBI then try and recover its costs from his brother?

murphaph

seamus wrote:

Well reading the article, the guy is clearly an idiot, who's had a solicitor come into him and tell him he's gonna be rich.

Spot on seamus, he's like one of those pr!cks that have the neck to appear in TV advertisements for ambulance-chasing solicitors in the UK, having been awarded a nice wad of cash for gross stupidity most of the time. If he'd fallen off a wall and ended up with the same injuries, who would he sue then?

This whole story stinks-anyone who ust accepts their version of events, ie, that the brother caused the 'accident' is being very naiive. They were horseplaying on motorbikes and now one of them's paying a high price. Of course I'm not glad he's paralysed but he has nobody to blame but himself.

Boggle

But he should also be compensated for the injuries caused by his brother which is a separate matter.

If he wasn't fcukin around on an uninsured bike for which he had no real training then he'd never have crashed - ergo he is just as responsible as his brother.

A more realistic scenario could perhaps be where you had misread the terms of your insurance and believed any driver with a full licence was covered to drive it with your permission, and an accident occured while they did.

Nice point improv but, to me, the key point is that he was willingly and knowingly driving with no insurance and hence should note be covered.

If he wins they should confiscate the brothers paycheck for the rest of his days to pay for the accident...

Mailman

To prevent the brother of the injured party overstating his responsibility for the accident it would seem to make sense that the uninsured driver/biker should suffer punitively i.e. three years in jail for driving without insurance and then see if he is willing to claim that he was the cause of the action.

Our man in Havana

Nuttz wrote:

if he does win and get a big payout can the MIBI then try and recover its costs from his brother?

Roffle

They would have as much chance of getting blood out of a stone.

SparkyLarks

If this case is succesful, then the effects of driving when uninsured will be more serious. As you may be able to recieve compensation. Therfore the deterrant to driving uninsured is reduced.

The goverment should move to redredd this balance. The uninsured driver has cost the public 2 million. If someone stole 2 million the'd be jailed for a good few years. I'd say minuimum 6 month jail term with ;large fines as well.

With a clause inserted for when life is in danger to protect the uninsured hero.

el tel

If he successfully got €2m could that money be considered as proceeds deriving from a criminal act under The Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996?

Our man in Havana

I can see the headlines now:

Monday "Uninsured Knacker gets €2 million in court case coup"

Tuesday "CAB seize €2 million from knacker in Insurance case"

echomadman

two simple words "screw him"
neither of them were insured, they're both commiting criminal offenses and now he wants a handout for being a retard?

how badly paralysed is he? hopefully he cant breed. that'd be something positive out of this debacle.

edit: spelling.

528i

He was a "blameless victim of uninsured driver" and is therefore perfectly entitled to full compensation like everyone else.

The fact that he himself was uninsured should have no relevance to this particular case as it's up to Gardai (if they so choose) to pursue a separate prosecution for that.

The guy is in pretty bad shape and I've seen ridiculous payouts for less, anyway arent 90% of bikers ( and some contributors to this thread ?) driving around uninsured\illegally on a provisional licence too

Imposter

528i wrote:

He was a "blameless victim of uninsured driver" and is therefore perfectly entitled to full compensation like everyone else.

The fact that he himself was uninsured should have no relevance to this particular case

I thought that was the whole point of his case.

"The Irish government introduced a clause excluding blameless drivers who were also uninsured."

gline

all i can say is - What if he had hit someone and disabled them??? Where would that person get compensation, as the driver wasnt insured??? You play with matches your gonna get burnt. You drive with no insurence (playing with matches) it will catch up with you (burnt). Its his own fault. Now he has to sit back and pay for the decision he made - to drive with no insurence.

And his excuse was soooo lame, that he was working all the time. thats what holidays are for and weekends. He could have probably got someone to buy a postal order or bought one on his lunch and also posted it. Such a lame excuse.

zAbbo

Some side info into this case

http://dundealgan.blogspot.com/2005/07/dundalk-solicitor.html

Well known "personal injuries" solicitor Joe Traynor is currently involved in two high profile cases against the state. One involves private investigator Bill or Billy Flynn who is attempting to sue two of the countries most senior Gardai in relation to the Donegal Garda corruption saga. Flynn who is a private investigator based in Co Meath was hired by the Mc Brearty family to investigate several cases involving the Mc Breartys and the Gardai. The other case Traynor is involved in involves a man from Clogherhead who has been left in a wheelchair as a result of a motorcycle accident. The young man wasnt insured and he is challenging the state into paying him compensation even though he was clearly breaking the law while driving without insurance. Interesting case to watch to see how "personal injuries" guru Joe Traynor gets on.

seamus

gline wrote:

And his excuse was soooo lame, that he was working all the time. thats what holidays are for and weekends..

Well its completely obvious that that's a crap excuse. Any judge should throw the book at him for using that. What job prevents you from using a phone or the Internet for the entire day?

MorningStar

528i wrote:

He was a "blameless victim of uninsured driver" and is therefore perfectly entitled to full compensation like everyone else.

I actuallly agree that even though unisured he could still be blameless and therefore entitled to compensation. The problem is is he really blameless? He and his brother both went out on un-insured bikes together. I find it hard to believe that they weren't both messing around and that was the only action taken out by either that was dangerous. He was also on a 400cc engine which he legally isn't allowed drive and probably not able to control. THere are a few legal issues that might mean he won't win. To bring something to court you can't be involved in a crime. Eg You can't bring your dealer to court for not giving you a full ounce on the grounds you were both acting illegally.
I think if he proves his cases his brother will have to do time for reckless endagerment and in theory they could do similar to him. They might change the irish law but I can't see it working out for him as he will have to prove that his brother was at fault which I think will be the problem.
Either way I think there needs to be new legislation to make sure that who ever is at fault can't just say I have no money and walk away. Did his brother get any penalty at all?
From the article you get the idea that there was some insurance discussion which sounds like they might have gotten a story straight.

gline

Bond-007 wrote:

Roffle

They would have as much chance of getting blood out of a stone.

what they are gonna take his brothers dole money ?- but that also meens we as taxpayers are gonna pay for this "accident".

528i wrote:

anyway arent 90% of bikers ( and some contributors to this thread ?) driving around uninsured\illegally on a provisional licence too .

thats a load of crap. Bottom line is driving without insurence is illigal and should be punished. He broke the law and he should pay legally. And his brother should be punished also.

But in reality i think he will win case and walk away with millions and his bother will get away with it to. As he will be seen as a poor "cripple boy". People will just look at his disablity and feel sorry for him. Dont get me wrong i wouldnt want that to happen to anyone, but if i was fooling around on a bike with no lisence and insurence and crashed it would be my fault and would have to pay the consequences.

And i feel sorry for the mother too, but i wonder did she know her sons were driving around uninsured - if so, awell, partly to blame too

SparkyLarks

how many people frive around on their first provisinal with no one with a fulllicence in the car??

If someone with a provisional licence but is fully insured ,is driving with no fully licenced driver and an uninsured driver crashes into them and puts them into a wheel chair for life would they be entitled to claim?


Yes and unfortunately this rat has a right to claim too.
However if he was at fault for the accident he doesn't.

murphaph

MorningStar wrote:

He was also on a 400cc engine which he legally isn't allowed drive

The cc means nothing. The power and the power to weight ratio are all that matters for provisional licencing (and full licencing for 2 years following passing a test) purposes. Max power is 25kW or a power to weight ratio of not greater than 0.16kW per kilogram. This can be achieved through restriction too so even a bike with spec sheet values higher than those above could still be legal if restricted.

I recently saw a member of the Dublin Fire Brigade on TV. He was paralysed in the line of duty and has received a small grant to make his home wheelchair friendly. He has not received anything like €2m and it's fcuking obscene for a knacker like that to be looking for such a sum when a brave firefighter gets fcuk all in comparison.

goldenbrown

when you take risks on a 400 cc bike be ready for a fall, genuine sympathy to a young guy stuck in a wheel chair BUT 6 per cent of my insurence every year goes to helping out victims of uninsured drivers I do not want this cowboy to get a penny of this, save this money for the next 2 year old little girl who the hypothetical uninsured biker blinds when he rams her pram, coz he is driving to fast, I also don't believe his brother had anything to do with his crash - he just ran out of road baby - happens all the time, luckily I was on 125cc when his age and came off often enough b4 years later becoming the driver of a shiny brand new hornet 600cc (that bike wont paralyse... it just kills you)...anyway enough blagging my final thoughts on this lawsuit.....= :mad:

jackal

I never thought I would feel sorry for an insurance company... They must be absolutely sickened. Some scummer hops on a bike uninsured, brother does the same, gets smashed up, and suddenly they are looking for money from the Insurance fund? Could he not find their number before and actually get insured?

murphaph

jackal wrote:

I never thought I would feel sorry for an insurance company... They must be absolutely sickened.

Don't feel too sorry for them, they'll just pass on the cost to the policyholders.

Trampas

I work in an insurance company and i hate to see people driving around with no insurance.

There is a problem in the law where if you get caught with no insurance the fine is a couple of hundred.

With them kinds of fines people wont pay a couple of grand for insurance.

These people who drive with no insurance should be fined €10,000 and banned from driving for years and lose there licence.

If in a crash they should have to pay the bills (lose there house if needs be. tough)

Until this happens this country will always have unisured drivers and people like us who have insurance will keep paying for them.

Sorry for the rant

Nuttzz

We should all sell what ever we drive and buy a 89 Nissan Micra and drive around with no insurance, if we get caught the fine will be less than our insurance bill and if I hit someone "ah well, someone will pay" and if I hurt myself "ah well, someone will pay".
Thats the message I'm getting anyway....

MorningStar

murphaph wrote:

The cc means nothing. The power and the power to weight ratio are all that matters for provisional licencing (and full licencing for 2 years following passing a test) purposes. Max power is 25kW or a power to weight ratio of not greater than 0.16kW per kilogram.

I'll trust you on that but I thought the licence mentioned it by cc?
I do feel sorry for him but I am also very critical of what he did and is now doing. He shares some of the responsibility and I doubt he will get a very large settlement. On Sunday morning some undesirible neighbours crashed their car into 4 cars on the road. They had a party and one of them woke up the next morning in the car and flew down the road at speed into 4 parked cars. I had noticed that 2 of their cars had no tax or insurance. Not sure of the one that crashed but I don't know whether to ring the cops about the other two seeing as they have already been at the house on Sunday.

saobh_ie

MorningStar wrote:

I'll trust you on that but I thought the licence mentioned it by cc?

That's your hard working government departments not talking to each other, what am I saying, I means its the offices of a certain department not talking to each other... that or they're stoopid.

As for the two 'cream crackers' (common consensus), I don’t think they should get a penny. Two of them blatting around on Honda 400’s, whatever they are, gonna presume they’d be the pre CBR rockets, lovely machines. Absolutely lethal in the hands of two ejeets who don’t know how to use them.

No wonder why motorcyclists get such a bad rep when you get high profile asshats like this running… well, they’re not running now obviously.

I feel terribly sorry for the mother of the paralysed guy; the guy would be better off dead. That’s the one thing that would put me off biking; I’d rather be dead than physically impaired to that degree. I’d hang in there with a dodgy arm or something but only for my mother.

murphaph

MorningStar wrote:

I'll trust you on that but I thought the licence mentioned it by cc?

An A1 licence is capped at 125cc, but only 16-18 year olds apply for those licences. Anyone over 18 applies for the A licence which is what I described earlier. The guy on the bike was 23 so he could have been licenced to ride it.
This is all OT though, sorry everyone

the_syco

If he gets compo, EVERY SINGLE MUPPET won't renew their insurance. Why should they? Lets see... €5,000 or nothing... I think they'd take the nothing option.

After all, someone else will pay for it...

Stephen

What a pair of pricks. He shouldn't get a penny.
You're stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of your life because you acted the total dickhead? BOO F*CKETY HOO, A5SHOLE.

seamus

SparkyLarks wrote:

If someone with a provisional licence but is fully insured ,is driving with no fully licenced driver and an uninsured driver crashes into them and puts them into a wheel chair for life would they be entitled to claim?

Yes, but they were driving fully insured. I see where you're coming from with the "he was driving illegally" bit, but it's safe to say that the entire reason insurance is compulsory is to protect eachother from those little indiscretions and breaches of law which occur. The vast majority of accidents are caused by or involve a breach of road traffic law by one or both of the parties.

weemcd

the quote in the original post stated neither of them had a licence at the time...

seamus

weemcd wrote:

the quote in the original post stated neither of them had a licence at the time...

Sorry, I'm talking about Sparklark's theoretical situation...

SparkyLarks

seamus wrote:

The vast majority of accidents are caused by or involve a breach of road traffic law by one or both of the parties.

So unfortunately the fact that the driver driving illegially should have no bearing on whether he is entitled to compensatin.The guy was injured because of the action of an uninsured driver. If the guy who was injured however contributed to the accident that is another matter.

Thebig problem here is that the penalties for driving without insurance are too low.
They should be huge as it is a very serious offence. People don't realise how dangerous moterbikes and cars are.