driver jumped red light, crashed into me. Was uninsured

arealhighlander

Having been reminded by one of those police fly on the wall documentary programmes tonight, I see that a lot of Forces are now taking away any uninsured cars that they find and crushing them (Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act now allows them to do this).

So maybe you are lucky the didn't decide to do that with your parents car!

kr15snw

Right from what I know about this:

Her insurance will probably pay for the damage to your parents car if it is proven that she was in the wrong.

You will be charged and have points / fine / criminal record for no insurance

Your mum will be charged and have points / fine for letter you drive

thescouselander

arealhighlander wrote: »

Having been reminded by one of those police fly on the wall documentary programmes tonight, I see that a lot of Forces are now taking away any uninsured cars that they find and crushing them (Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act now allows them to do this).

So maybe you are lucky the didn't decide to do that with your parents car!

I dont think that applies here. It seams the car was insured but the driver was not.

Just think, if it worked the way you are suggesting the police would have to crush any car that had been stolen as the driver wouldn't have been insured.

nej

One thing that's been bothering me about this thread (and I will confess I haven't read all 7 pages), is the statement of "Even if I had insurance, the accident would still have happened."

This is not quite true. There is the argument of "to be acting legally, you must have had insurance". The counter-argument to this is "to be acting legally, you should not have been driving that car". Therefore the accident would not have happened. You cannot say the other driver would have hit the lorry behind you, because that may not have happened. Chaos theory, and all that. The lorry might have been travelling slower. Or maybe you were driving slowly holding up the lorry. Maybe the order of traffic would have been different because of different cars being let out of junctions because you weren't there - who knows...

The other point is - if you had insurance it may well not have happened to you. Why? Because you would have been on the phone for 10 or 15 minutes, meaning you wouldn't have been in the same place at the same time.

There are simply far too many variables to say the accident would have happened anyway. The set of exact circumstances that led to it is enormous and a change of one of them could present a different course of events..

Tight_Old_Git

Dogma wrote: »

Thanks man, i appreciate it.

Ive spoken with my parents insurance today actually. They told me the same thing. They say they might not need to get involved as it was the other party's fault.
For them to get involved I would need to be prosecuted for theft - though they say to be considered theft that i would have to intended to keep the vehicle permenantly - which was obviously not the case as i only used it for 1 journey

You could be prosecuted for TWOC, there does not need to be intent to deprive the owner of the vehicle permanently to prove Taken Without Owner's Consent. And seeing though the TWOC'ed vehicle was involved in an accident, you may be charged with aggravated vehicle taking.

northernkind

Dogma wrote: »

Mum2one im sorry for what happened to you i really am. But wasnt your accident caused by presumably a boy racer speeding?

No, her accident was caused by an uninsured driver like yourself.

Doesnt matter if they were a boy racer, or driving carefully (like you claim you were).. to have no insurance is totally irresponsible and as an adult you should know better.