just stoped by police driving borrowed car with no insurance .what will happen

Sgt_Pepper_2

brat wrote: »

Of course, but no-one else would read.

I know the ignorance in your comments, because this subject is within my professional knowledge, and you play your ignorance of it in spades. You must know your own knowledge weaknesses in this area, because you cannot claim any experience or knowledge through training for most of the drivel you post. Many others will recognise that too.

You probably mean well when you offer advice, but when those better informed than you put you right, it would be more edifying if you just acknowledged and accepted that gracefully, rather than trying to make out you actually meant something different.

Well said brat, you hit the nail on the head.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Of course, but no-one else would read.

I know the ignorance in your comments, because this subject is within my professional knowledge, and you play your ignorance of it in spades. You must know your own knowledge weaknesses in this area, because you cannot claim any experience or knowledge through training for most of the drivel you post. Many others will recognise that too.

You probably mean well when you offer advice, but when those better informed than you put you right, it would be more edifying if you just acknowledged and accepted that gracefully, rather than trying to make out you actually meant something different.

Only have your word for that. I choose not to claim anything at all because I cannot prove anything (just as you cannot diss-prove anything) here.

Have I been on any related 'courses'? Obviously I could answer yes to that whether I have or not so please feel free to believe what you want to believe.

But the fact of the matter is that you havn't actually proven what I have posted in this thread is totally inaccurate. More so you have shown what COULD of happened rather than what MUST of happened.

The only thing I do not fully agree with you on is where you say that "Their (the police) decision not to seize was entirely correct and appropriate for the circumstances". This, after discovering as a matter of fact the OP was uninsured and with the absence of an insured driver available at the scene, is total and utter hog wash.

I've seen it on Road Wars remember!

Tilt

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Well said brat, you hit the nail on the head.

No, in fact he hit his thumb if anything!

brat

Tilt wrote: »

brat wrote:

this subject is within my professional knowledge

Only have your word for that. I choose not to claim anything at all because I cannot prove anything (just as you cannot diss-prove anything) here.

Do you not claim to have been a bus and coach driver? Do you not use that experience to qualify some of your claims. Eg this post.

Tilt wrote: »

Did I say that? I said that coach drivers don't get as much as bus drivers. I have done both so I know what I am talking about.

I have your word that you're a coach driver, so I wouldn't argue with you that the bus tickets you dish out are green if every bus driver worth his salt knows that bus tickets are always pink.

Some of the advice you offer is just wrong, either in fact or likelihood. Any police officer and many laypeople will recognise that, and should correct you if they know better.

There is no shame in learning.

But it is wrong to parade pub gossip as fact.

Trebor16

I wonder if Tilt is an alias of Fivetide? Their style is very similar:D

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Do you not claim to have been a bus and coach driver? Do you not use that experience to qualify some of your claims. Eg this post.


I have your word that you're a coach driver, so I wouldn't argue with you that the bus tickets you dish out are green if every bus driver worth his salt knows that bus tickets are always pink.

Some of the advice you offer is just wrong, either in fact or likelihood. Any police officer and many laypeople will recognise that, and should correct you if they know better.

There is no shame in learning.

But it is wrong to parade pub gossip as fact.

WAS a coach driver many moons ago. Yep, another string to my bow. As part of my 'training' to be a bus driver, I attended various road traffic related courses which, in some cases were run by police officers. So there you have it, you busted me! Help yourself to a biscuit!

Of course there is always going to be people on these forums that claim to know better than anybody else. But at the same time, no one really knows for sure what qualifications anybody has on here! So in fact, your post is just an opinion.

I don't give definitive 'advice' unless I am sure about it. Otherwise I tend to use the words MAY/THINK/COULD/POSSIBLY be or even IMHO. Or I may make the odd suggestion here and there.

Hope that is OK with you.

Tilt

Trebor16 wrote: »

I wonder if Tilt is an alias of Fivetide? Their style is very similar:D

No, sorry.

neilmcl

Tilt wrote: »

I don't give definitive 'advice' unless I am sure about it. Otherwise I tend to use the words MAY/THINK/COULD/POSSIBLY be or even IMHO. Or I may make the odd suggestion here and there.

You really need to read what you write sometimes.

Tilt wrote: »

This is weird... unless the car has been seized in which case they MUST give you formal notice of the fact. I find it hard to believe that they have simply told you to leave the car where it is and get your mom to collect it. It simply dosn't work like that.... the insurance status of the driver collecting it will need to be checked after they have pulled a driver of a car with no insurance.

They should of also cautioned you and advised you that you will be reported for driving without insurance. Also, as you told them that your mom gave you permission to drive, it is likely that she will also face prosecution.

Sounded pretty definitive to me and clearly incorrect, as shown.

Tilt

neilmcl wrote: »

You really need to read what you write sometimes.

Sounded pretty definitive to me and clearly incorrect, as shown.

Please educate me then, show me how it is incorrect. A link to some actual legislation would be good. Seeing as it's Christmas.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Please educate me then, show me how it is incorrect. A link to some actual legislation would be good. Seeing as it's Christmas.

S165A(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by S152 SOCPA states

(5)Where this subsection applies, the constable may—
(a)seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;
(b)enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;
(c)use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).

The text from Kent constabulary I linked to earlier puts a little meat on the bones of the word 'may', showing how and why officers are required to be discretionary with their powers of seizure.