What happens if you hit an uninsured driver

Tigger_looks_bigger

Having worked at a personal injury solicitors for a while a few years ago. When a call came in from an unisured driver who had been rear ended the solicitor with 15+ years experience in rta cases refused to take the case.

He said because the unisured drivers car shouldn't have been there it was his fault and so we didn't stand a hope of winning/ recovering costs. This guy knew his stuff, it was about 2-3 years ago so unless there has been a law change/ precedence set since then I'd think it was still the case.

Car_54

EdGasket wrote: »

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.

Can you quote a source for that?

Clue: the Highway Code says: "The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance"

Probably because there is no such thing in law.

Fat_Walt

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?

However, if someone were to run into an uninsured vehicle and die. The uninsured driver could be sent to prison for causing the death as he shouldn't have been there.

Fat_Walt

interstellaflyer wrote: »

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.

Anything that we'll see you in Magistrates or Crown Court is a criminal offence. Convictions for no insurance show up on a criminal record.

AdrianC

alleycat` wrote: »

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?

Are all uninsured drivers doing so "wilfully"...?

How many people get prosecuted for driving uninsured when they thought they were covered by a DOC clause? Or thought they were a named driver on their wife's policy? Or are just lousy at personal admin, so hadn't noticed their policy hadn't been renewed, or the DD had failed and it'd been cancelled, or...?

AdrianC

Fat_Walt wrote: »

However, if someone were to run into an uninsured vehicle and die. The uninsured driver could be sent to prison for causing the death as he shouldn't have been there.

Nope.

If somebody is driving carelessly, and a death ensues, then there's a range of more serious penalties available, through specific extra offences, but the carelessness still has to be present.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

EdGasket

Car_54 wrote: »

Can you quote a source for that?

Clue: the Highway Code says: "The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance"

Probably because there is no such thing in law.

Rule 206 covers this.

"206

Drive carefully and slowly when

in crowded shopping streets, Home Zones and Quiet Lanes (see Rule 218) or residential areas
driving past bus and tram stops; pedestrians may emerge suddenly into the road
passing parked vehicles, especially ice cream vans; children are more interested in ice cream than traffic and may run into the road unexpectedly
needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement
reversing into a side road; look all around the vehicle and give way to any pedestrians who may be crossing the road
turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning
the pavement is closed due to street repairs and pedestrians are directed to use the road
approaching pedestrians on narrow rural roads without a footway or footpath. Always slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, giving them plenty of room as you drive past."

The above implies beyond reasonable doubt that vehicles must give way to pedestrians. Anyway if you think otherwise and deliberately run someone over who you think doesn't have right of way; who do you think would go to jail?

Car_54

EdGasket wrote: »

Rule 206 covers this.

"206

Drive carefully and slowly when

in crowded shopping streets, Home Zones and Quiet Lanes (see Rule 218) or residential areas
driving past bus and tram stops; pedestrians may emerge suddenly into the road
passing parked vehicles, especially ice cream vans; children are more interested in ice cream than traffic and may run into the road unexpectedly
needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement
reversing into a side road; look all around the vehicle and give way to any pedestrians who may be crossing the road
turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning
the pavement is closed due to street repairs and pedestrians are directed to use the road
approaching pedestrians on narrow rural roads without a footway or footpath. Always slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, giving them plenty of room as you drive past."

The above implies beyond reasonable doubt that vehicles must give way to pedestrians. Anyway if you think otherwise and deliberately run someone over who you think doesn't have right of way; who do you think would go to jail?

No, it says you must give priority to pedestrians in certain clearly defined circumstances.

In other situations you are warned that they"may run into the road unexpectedly" - it does not say that they have priority.

Nor does it say anywhere that they always have "right of way".

Deliberately running over someone would rightly land you in jail. Accidentally running over someone who "runs into the road unexpectedly" would not.

arcon5

If you run over me whilst I'm walking on the pavement do you think you can wriggle out because I missed my bus through getting up late, as such shouldn't have been there, I should have been on the bus.

AdrianC

"Oh, him? The naked man in bed with my wife? Yes, I shot him - but he shouldn't have been there in the first place..."