Admiral Recovering Costs From Me!

stripeyfox

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But exactly the same can be said about someone who crashes and causes damage / injury to someone because they were driving too fast for the conditions, or impatiently up someone else's bum. All are criminal acts.

I'll happily put my hands up and admit that I may have been known to speed at times, or driven too fast for the conditions on occasion. And (shock horror) I've even driven in different times when I was almost certainly over the limit and the local bobby had popped in just before closing time to have a coffee "before he sets up the DD trap" - you've never seen a pub car park clear so quickly!


In all cases, if I'd caused an accident, then it would have been a terrible thing with only my own selfish disregard for the consequences to blame.

But:

• If I was speeding, most people would say "Meh, the limits are wrong"
• If I was driving too fast for the conditions they'd say "But you were under the limit so you weren't speeding"
• If I was tailgating most people wouldn't even recognise the fact because they all drive too close all of the time
• Only if I was over the limit would most people wish 9 circles of hell on me and all my descendants until the end of time.

There is definitely some double standards at play here. A few years ago may of us will remember the Selby rail crash. Caused by a driver who nodded off at the wheel and his vehicle left the motorway and came to rest on a railway line. It was struck by a train, and then another. The driver of the vehicle was somewhat vilified by the press at the time because he was proven to be "tired" after "chatting online with women" the previous night. Ultimately he was jailed for 5 years causing the death of the 10 people who died in the rail crash.

Whilst there can be little doubt that the driver was guilty of careless or dangerous driving, I often wonder how the law would view a similar incident if it was a nurse on her way home from a night shift? Same tiredness, same careless driving?

Not to stray to far off topic, but to single out a particular driver over a particular offense over all the other bad/dangerous/reckless drivers who are tired, using mobile phones, speeding, driving unroadworthy vehicles etc etc seems unfair to me.

motorguy

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

She chose to commit a criminal act that she knew full well could kill someone.

Drink driving is in the same category as glassing someone in a pub or dangling your baby off a balcony.

It is a massively stupid and selfish act, no more a “mistake” than is rape.

You really need to get over yourself.

She took a chance, against her better judgement. Hardly the same as glassing someone down the pub or raping someone.

motorguy

To the point in hand from the O/P.

Unfortunately its now going to be a waiting game and see if anything drops through the letterbox.

If it does then negotiate and offer to pay a minimal amount over the longest timeframe possible.

motorguy

foxy-stoat wrote: »

People put the threat of financial ruin over other peoples lives, the insurers should of all come together years ago and all added this clause to their policies. May of saved a life or 2.

No they dont. Do you really think someone who is slightly over the limit - or VERY over the limit - is going to think 'hmm, i must go and read the clauses in my insurance policy and see if i am covered if i have an accident'?

motorguy

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

Yes, it happens often. The costs were caused by your having broken the law so they will seek to recover them in full from you, including medical costs, compensation etc.

And yes, this can be tens or hundreds of thousands.

Hopefully after some reflection you will see that this is only fair, they do not cover you for what happened, so it’s down to you to pay.

An expensive lesson, I agree, but morally the correct outcome.

So where do you draw the line with that? Speeding? Using a mobile phone for a few seconds? Driving carelessly?

Kentish_Dave

motorguy wrote: »

So where do you draw the line with that? Speeding? Using a mobile phone for a few seconds? Driving carelessly?

Your insurance policy documents will set out exactly where the line is here, if you are not sure then check them.

marlot

Nobody is condoning drinking and driving.


We all do things that are unwise or unlawful from time to time. That could include driving too close or too fast. Or being distracted. Or being a bit unwell. Or tired. In most instances no harm is caused to anyone else.

The law is there to punish people who do so excessively, or where harm is caused.

It seems strange to have an insurer impose an additional penalty for just one category of offence, where people are punished further - perhaps even to the point of bankruptcy. This seems abitrary and wrong.

marlot

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

Yes, it happens often. The costs were caused by your having broken the law...An expensive lesson, I agree, but morally the correct outcome.

Are you advocating that insurers reclaim their costs from the insured in any instance where someone has broken the law?

eg. driving too fast for the conditions, speeding, driving to close, being distracted, being tired, ...

Because if we're talking morally ... they're all wrong. And all can lead to devastating outcomes.

stripeyfox

marlot wrote: »

Nobody is condoning drinking and driving.


We all do things that are unwise or unlawful from time to time. That could include driving too close or too fast. Or being distracted. Or being a bit unwell. Or tired. In most instances no harm is caused to anyone else.

The law is there to punish people who do so excessively, or where harm is caused.

It seems strange to have an insurer impose an additional penalty for just one category of offence, where people are punished further - perhaps even to the point of bankruptcy. This seems abitrary and wrong.

I think this neatly summarises the issue here.

This might go against the keyboard experts who can't see past "you were drink driving so you must pay whatever the price" and "you didn't read your T&C's"

AdrianC

foxy-stoat wrote: »

Perhaps everyone who insures with Admiral and their group of companies should do the same - they will get the message at some point.

They won't, because there are far too many people who don't look beyond the price quoted.

stripeyfox wrote: »

There is definitely some double standards at play here. A few years ago may of us will remember the Selby rail crash. Caused by a driver who nodded off at the wheel and his vehicle left the motorway and came to rest on a railway line. It was struck by a train, and then another. The driver of the vehicle was somewhat vilified by the press at the time because he was proven to be "tired" after "chatting online with women" the previous night. Ultimately he was jailed for 5 years causing the death of the 10 people who died in the rail crash.

Whilst there can be little doubt that the driver was guilty of careless or dangerous driving, I often wonder how the law would view a similar incident if it was a nurse on her way home from a night shift?

There was a bit more to it than that... He was somebody who drove 40k/year in his work as a builder, and yet reckoned he could do 36hrs without sleep routinely, and could skip meals routinely. He wasn't just driving the Land Rover, he was towing a 2t trailer.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/13/selby.railtravel5