driver jumped red light, crashed into me. Was uninsured

mymatebob

derrick wrote: »

I don't think so, taking a slightly skewed view, take the uninsured car out of the equation, the vehicle that would have been behind said car would have taken the hit from the red light jumper, she was totally responsible for the accident and her insurer should pay ALL costs and she should be prosecuted.

I am not sticking up for the OP, as no one should drive uninsured, and I agree with all of the comments relating to that, but the red light jumper would have hit the next vehicle and that one might have had children in it, although the OP did say the following vehicle was a lorry, so the red light jumper might have been killed,one problem,(red light jumper), solved!

Taking the uninsured driver out of the equation means that we would have no idea what would have happened - it is but mere speculation, no more no less.

As has been already said two wrongs don't make a right. The person who jumped the red light was wrong and so was the OP.

derrick

mymatebob wrote: »

Taking the uninsured driver out of the equation means that we would have no idea what would have happened - it is but mere speculation, no more no less.

There was a lorry behind! the light jumper would have hit that! no speculation.

Inactive

All anybody knows for ( almost ) certain, is the OP drove without insurance, the rest is based on a one sided statement of events.;)

gardner1

Riq wrote: »

Should be triple whatever the relevant insurance premium would be imo.

Plus some hefty admin fees of course!

then ban them for life

mymatebob

derrick wrote: »

There was a lorry behind! the light jumper would have hit that! no speculation.

May have hit the lorry may not.

So speculation.

derrick

mymatebob wrote: »

May have hit the lorry may not.

So speculation.

Lorry behind car, car not there, lorry in it's place, light jumper hits lorry. No speculation

Inactive

derrick wrote: »

Lorry behind car, car not there, lorry in it's place, light jumper hits lorry. No speculation

Speculation because you are basing your comments on a one sided report of events, which may, or may not be factual and / or complete.;)

Ickle-toots

If the OP still has fully comp insurance on a car that she no longer has (even tho' paid for,for the year) i.e left it run rather than cancel policy, wouldn't her insurance company be liable to repair her mums car as some policies cover a main driver to drive other cars on a tp basis as long as they have the owners permission ? So, if her mum/stepdad said she could drive it knowing she still had ongoing insurance for her old car, wouldn't that be o.k ?

Riq

The OP doesn't have ongoing insurance, it was cancelled. The OP wasn't insured at all.

Riq

derrick wrote: »

Lorry behind car, car not there, lorry in it's place, light jumper hits lorry. No speculation

Would the lorry have set off as fast as a car? probably not.

Speculation therefore.