driver jumped red light, crashed into me. Was uninsured

BusyGirl

Because the liability for causing an accident IS NOT affected by the insurance status of the victim.

I don't dispute this but I don't agree with it. It does seem unfair for someone to drive around without insurance, be involved in an accident (even if it wasn't their fault) and then have the damage paid for by someone else, knowing that they wouldn't be covered to pay for someone else's damage. But hey that's life!

thescouselander

There is a lot of bad advice going round here. Yes, the OP was foolish in not having insurance - I'm sure the police will take the appropriate action.

Regarding the insurance claim, if it really was the other parties fault, the OP will be able to claim from her insurance - the fact the OP was not insured is not relevant.

The only problem for the OP is that normally, his insurance company would have dealt with the claim - since the OP wasn't insured they will have to do it themselves.

Dogma_2

BusyGirl wrote: »

Road accidents do happen and I'm sure she regrets the stupid decision she made in not waiting for the green light. But I don't think she got in her car deliberatley intending to jump the light and to cause an accident, it was a very stupid split second decision on her part, which I am sure she regrets now.
But it sounds like you are trying to deflect the blame here. If you had insurance then her insurance company would pay and she may be prosecuted for her dangerous driving (who knows maybe she still will).
The fact is that you had no insurance, you willing drove someone else's car without insurance, you made that decision and you sound so annoyed that you got caught out. You are in the wrong here too. Why should her insurance company pay for your damage even if it was her fault, if you have been driving around without insurance? What if you had caused the accident who would have paid then? Seems like a double standard here.
I'm far from perfect but I am honest and I've never driven without insurance and certainly never driven a car after drinking or a night out drinking. I have seen the damage that drink drivers have done.

To be as accurately as i can with the facts:

it wasnt a split second decision as she had crashed into me and not the other way around. It took about 3/4 seconds for her to hit me after i set off. To be that late on a red light she must have been distracted (putting make up, on the phone , touching the radio?) or maybe a fault with the lights (i think that is unlikely because she was the only vehicle crossing the junction that late).But that i dont know yet, police investigation will tell. They will analyse the video tapes of the cameras around the junction....All i am 100% sure about the crash and there's evidence of this is that i was in the green from the moment i set off...

mymatebob

Dogma wrote: »

To be as accurately as i can with the facts:

it wasnt a split second decision as she had crashed into me and not the other way around. It took about 3/4 seconds for her to hit me after i set off. To be that late on a red light she must have been distracted (putting make up, on the phone , touching the radio?) or maybe a fault with the lights (i think that is unlikely because she was the only vehicle crossing the junction that late).But that i dont know yet, police investigation will tell. They will analyse the video tapes of the cameras around the junction....All i am 100% sure about the crash and there's evidence of this is that i was in the green from the moment i set off...

And that you were driving illegally.

Dogma_2

about the crash itself.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

The guy knows he was wrong. What anyone has to gain by abusing him is beyond me.

vaio

BusyGirl wrote: »

I don't dispute this but I don't agree with it. It does seem unfair for someone to drive around without insurance, be involved in an accident (even if it wasn't their fault) and then have the damage paid for by someone else, knowing that they wouldn't be covered to pay for someone else's damage. But hey that's life!

You might not think it’s fair but that’s the way it is.

The other side of the coin is that if an uninsured driver causes an accident the MIB will pay out and then recover the costs from the uninsured driver and if that means selling their house then so be it.

anewman

vaio wrote: »

The other side of the coin is that if an uninsured driver causes an accident the MIB will pay out and then recover the costs from the uninsured driver and if that means selling their house then so be it.

Problem is most people who drive without insurance do not own a house.

quietheart

Gangstabird wrote: »

I know this is VERY harsh, but what if you had hit someone who was left disabled for the rest of their lives. They WOULD NOT have been able to claim against your insurance company. What if they had children whom they needed to look after?

If you have/or don't have children you need to think very very seriously about driving again without insurance?

Actually I hope they ban you.

my thoughts exactly. well said.
op - stop harping on about it not being your fault, you drove without insurance and you've been caught. no excuses are acceptable, you did the crime and it is a crime don't belittle it!

viktory

Dogma wrote: »

(although I think my sis will want to pay half of it)

Why would your sister pay half? Yes, she requested a lift but you made the decision to drive uninsured.

Whilst I have been reading this thread, I have felt some sympathy for you but that did wear off when you continually defended your uninsured driving - even suggesting that some posters drink and drive.

You are very lucky that the car wasn't seized and crushed, as I understand that the Police have this authority now.