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

Richie-from-the-Boro

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

What does the RTA have to do with me giving my opinion about someone state of mind?
After all, isn't that exactly what the large majority of people on here are doing, giving their opinions?

- your wasting your time, you've been a loyal member long enough to know they, will always win by experience
- that's why they are single issue 'barrack room lawyers', new to the group 94 posts in 1 week
- Join Date: 03-01-2013 - today's date :08-01-2013

Engaging with Hackman will bring nothing new to the debate, that's clearly not his / her intention, shame really. best of luck shaun from Africa.

Richie-from-the-Boro

kingstreet wrote: »

This is a useful tool for those who need to establish what/if they should report to DVLA;-

http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/medical/aag.aspx

Depression in the particular, the general global list is here.

UsernameAlreadyExists

What an amusing thread. It's interesting that "driving without insurance" is now the new single most heinous crime that anyone could possibly commit from behind the wheel. The government insurance scam & brainwashing is clearly working well.

If you remove the "what if" from most of the posts here, the end result is she simply "didn't". Therefore the insurance was wholly unnecessary. Had she done "x","y" or even "z" then yes there may be consequences, but in this case there were none.

*lights touch paper and walks away.

Hackman_2

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- your wasting your time, you've been a loyal member long enough to know they, will always win by experience
- that's why they are single issue 'barrack room lawyers', new to the group 94 posts in 1 week
- Join Date: 03-01-2013 - today's date :08-01-2013

Engaging with Hackman will bring nothing new to the debate, that's clearly not his / her intention, shame really. best of luck shaun from Africa.

As you're such a long standing member why can't you back up your claims with something credible?

Silk

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

*lights touch paper and walks away.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Just to throw my banger into the ring .........

Theres certain states in the USA for example where it's not a legal requirement to have insurance such as New Hampshire for instance.

If you have an accident and it turns out to be your fault you have to buy a retrospective insurance policy.

No doubt theres a few drivers over there who would feel insulted to say they were not competent drivers :rotfl:

marleyboy

Hackman wrote: »

No one has yet given any evidence of it being dangerous to drive without insurance.

I think the key word is illegal, whether or not it is dangerous. Walking the streets with a loaded gun needn't be dangerous, but there is no such get out clause in law of, "safely walking down a public street with a loaded firearm.".

Hackman_2

marleyboy wrote: »

I think the key word is illegal, whether or not it is dangerous. Walking the streets with a loaded gun needn't be dangerous, but there is no such get out clause in law of, "safely walking down a public street with a loaded firearm.".

There is a 'get out clause'. How about armed police officers?

Richie-from-the-Boro

Hackman wrote: »

As you're such a long standing member why can't you back up your claims with something credible?

- this is the last time, feed yourself in future
- others might want to do the same

Johnmcl7

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Did I state or even imply that I thought the OP was guilty of careless or dangerous driving?

Yes you did and you're about to do it again.

My post was very specific in that I thought that the OP was not competent enough to be driving, and this post was in response to an earlier one that was relating to the OP's standards and competency:


and I still maintain that someone who is willing to drive whilst fully aware that they are not insured is not below an acceptable standard to be allowed on the road.

Competency doesn't only have to cover driving standards. It can equally apply to attitude and mindset.

Your post wasn't specific at all, you said that because the driver chose to drive uninsured then they should also be done for one of the careless driving offences - you don't mention any separate factors which are genuine reasons for potential careless driving offences.

Either way it's nothing more than your opinion which isn't backed up in law (unless you've found suitable case law since this post, attitude/mindset is not part of a careless driving offence as there must be evidence of actual poor driving), there is no need for careless offences to be automatically added to a no insurance offence (where there has been evidence of poor driving) as the harsh penalty for no insurance already takes this into account. 6 points puts it in the middle of a careless driving penalty and the insurance unfriendly IN10 code will make it much more difficult and expensive to get insurance again. A second time caught within three years is an automatic six month ban unless exceptional hardship can be proved.

And as above, the police are not charging the OP with any careless driving offence nor does your view on the offence have any basis in law so I don't see point in repeatedly posting about it in this thread. Actually, I don't really see any further point in this thread at all to be honest.

John

marleyboy

Hackman wrote: »

There is a 'get out clause'. How about armed police officers?

I'm not sure the OP is an armed police officer, which might just spoil using that as an excuse.