http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8683607.stm

Cant see how this accident was caused by him being uninsured? He bought a van, something fell of the engine, and it caused a fatal accident. How did his (lack of) insurance cause that? Why was he not just charged with driving with no insurance?

where does it say the lack of insurance caused it? it just states he was uninsured. and also that the MOT ran out that night

...pleaded guilty at Luton Crown Court to a charge of causing the death of Sir John Acland by driving while uninsured last September...

I think the inference is that he was not insured, so should not have been driving and if he wasn't driving then the accident would not have happened.
But that is really not true. If he was insured the exact same scenario could / would have happened.

I've every sympathy with the widow here and her dignity at the court.

The story does say though the van was parked up on verge - it was the oil spill that caused the skid.

Half of me says you ought to know when you're car is road worthy regardless of whether you have an MOT (even if its one that expires in a few hours). In that case I think morally there is some liability.

BUT suppose you're driving along and hit a rock - you sump is damaged and you dump all your oil. Next car along hits it and skids. That's not really you're fault.

I don't think the van driver would have expected something to fall off his engine with such catastrophic consequences.

I think it's that there's no such thing as an accident these days - there must always be someone to blame/be liable.

Just to re-iterate though I've every sympathy for the widow, the son/daughter(S) and grandchild(ren) - heartbreaking.

Surely the person who sold the van is more likely to be at fault, it was just a day.
I have had a brand new van leak brake fluid.
Agree it is a case of looking for blame, unless you argue he could have parked in a safer place.


I would say (given the few details mentioned) her speed was inapropiate for the conditions (something we have all done).

Darren

I bet he would have been 'not guilty' if he had used that flash barrister who defends football stars etc on drink driving charges and always finds a legal loophole. This case would have been as watertight as a fishing net to him. One law for the rich!

It comes down to the obligation of the driver.

You are legally obliged to ensure that any vehicle you drive is insured, taxed, has a valid MOT and is roadworthy.

Having an MOT only means that your car was roadworthy on the day it was tested and you have an obligation to check and ensure that's still the case every time you drive it.

To me there are two charges in the case - driving an un-worthy vehicle AND driving without insurance.

Any one of us could be unlucky in a similar way, though I suppose it would come down to a test of reasonableness as to whether any normal (reasonable) checks could have indicated a potential problem before setting out on the journey.

In Thailand any accident involving a foreign driver is automatically defined as being the fault of the foreigner irrespective of any other factors.

Simply put, if they hadn't been in the country the accident wouldn't have happened. Very few accidents occur involving foreigners as they concentrate more!

It says he caused the death by driving, the fact that he was uninsured was not stated as the cause of death. You can read it how you want. I think now you can have an MOT a month before yours runs out and the certificate can be pre-dated any excuse for not having one is pretty limp.

[Edited on 14/5/10 by Peteff]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dusty
I bet he would have been 'not guilty' if he had used that flash barrister who defends football stars etc on drink driving charges and always finds a legal loophole. This case would have been as watertight as a fishing net to him. One law for the rich!

---

I disagree with this whole looking for fault culture. It has its uses, but sometimes accidents happen.
In this case I'd say its actually the fault of the person who left the oil slick if anyone. People can wax superior about only driving when you know the car is road worthy, but if something has been sold as roadworthy it should be (and for anyone without technical experience trying to diagnose an engine fault?). It was within it's MOT too. If it hadn't been for the oil all that would have happened was that he'd have pulled over safely and damned his judgement in buying the van.
This could have happened to anyone who has ever had any kind of failure that's made them pull over.
All respect to the woman for realising this.

[Edited on 14/5/10 by Badger_McLetcher]

As above, you can't really say he was doing anything needlesly dangerous, and he believed he was insured on another policy, its fault for not checking of course.

The way I see it is that you are responsible for insurance.

I know he was found guilty and doing some type of Community service etc, with a small fine on top. But, what if the person killed was a working dad of 3 kids on the way back from a 12 hour shift ? If the person was insured and the fault of the accident could be attributed to them (which may still not be the case here), then that persons insurance would pay out big time compensation, quite rightly, which would help support the family now without a bread winner. That is what you have 3rd party liability insurance for.....

I really have a problem with uninsured drivers after my wife was involved in a serious accident when she was in her ealry twenties. Major back operations, loss of earnings and continuing issues all because she was hit by a driver with no insurance, tax, licence etc - oh and they left the scene of the accident and had to be traced afterwards. The driver did not even get a fine - ofcourse they had no insurance so we had no compensation,,,,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Badger_McLetcher
People can wax superior about only driving when you know the car is road worthy,
[Edited on 14/5/10 by Badger_McLetcher]

---

He's involved in a fatal accident and during the subsequent investigation it's revealed he was driving without insurance or MOT.

No brainer... his vehicle should never have been on the road... no ifs, buts, or maybes.

£760 to pay and 50 hours of unpaid work to do sounds pretty lenient to me!

it had mot at least!

Cheers Joel - I thought it said the MOT had expired a few hours before! Must learn to read!

quote:

---

Originally posted by scootz
Cheers Joel - I thought it said the MOT had expired a few hours before! Must learn to read!

---