What happens if you hit an uninsured driver

AdrianC

Simple. The other driver claims directly from your insurer if you're clearly at fault. They don't need to involve their insurance, if they have it.

interstellaflyer

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Of course it's a criminal matter.

It's a motoring offence, not a criminal offence, there is a difference, points and fine for this type of offence, not a criminal record.

AdrianC

It's a criminal offence. It's just not a recordable criminal offence.

EdGasket

Can you argue that the uninsured driver should not have been on the road in the first place, in which case there would have been no accident so it is the uninsured driver's fault?

AdrianC

EdGasket wrote: »

Can you argue that the uninsured driver should not have been on the road in the first place, in which case there would have been no accident so it is the uninsured driver's fault?

Strangely, enough, no - you cannot drive into things that "shouldn't be there", and escape the consequences.

spadoosh

EdGasket wrote: »

Can you argue that the uninsured driver should not have been on the road in the first place, in which case there would have been no accident so it is the uninsured driver's fault?

Can you argue a pedestrian should be in the road so its their fault if you hit them?

EdGasket

spadoosh wrote: »

Can you argue a pedestrian should be in the road so its their fault if you hit them?

That's a bit different; the pedestrian is not breaking the law; an uninsured driver is. Plus a pedestrian always has right of way over a vehicle; so no I wouldn't argue what you suggest but might argue what I suggested.

alleycat`

AdrianC wrote: »

Strangely, enough, no - you cannot drive into things that "shouldn't be there", and escape the consequences.

Just out of curiosity Is that response from any sort of legal standing?

My gut reaction was exactly as you stated but i did start to wonder what would happen if the other driver was subsequently prosecuted.

Would there then be any precedent that would allow the OP to sue them for the money back.

In essence the other driver is potentially responsible for causing the accident by been there when they had no right to be so.

I suppose it would be the same if the other driver was drunk(?)

You're probably correct but the legal system does have some strange rules and it would be a hell of a can of worms.

AdrianC

alleycat` wrote: »

but i did start to wonder what would happen if the other driver was subsequently prosecuted.

Exactly the same as if the other driver was prosecuted for their car being untaxed, or parked illegally, or any other driving offence. Was it a contributory factor to the collision? No? Then it's irrelevant.

Would there then be any precedent that would allow the OP to sue them for the money back.

Why on earth WOULD there be?

In essence the other driver is potentially responsible for causing the accident by been there when they had no right to be so.

Tough. They were there.

Did the driver causing the collision even know the other car wasn't insured at the time of the collision? If they did, then did they deliberately ram the uninsured car as some kind of vigilante justice attempt?
Wouldn't that bring in the probability of dangerous driving charges?

If, otoh, they didn't know, then how is it relevant?

alleycat`

AdrianC wrote: »

If, otoh, they didn't know, then how is it relevant?

It's relevant in as much as the other party could be said to have contributed to the accident by willfully performing an act they know they shouldn't have?

As i started out.

I didn't say i disagreed with you i was asking where it stood in law.