JoelP
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 08:22 PM |
|
|
Puzzling one in the news
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?
|
|
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 08:26 PM |
|
|
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
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 08:29 PM |
|
|
...pleaded guilty at Luton Crown Court to a charge of causing the death of Sir John Acland by driving while uninsured last September...
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 08:31 PM |
|
|
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.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
pdm
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 08:38 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
turbodisplay
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 09:04 PM |
|
|
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
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Dusty
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 09:05 PM |
|
|
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!
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 09:33 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
jimmyjoebob
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 09:46 PM |
|
|
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!
If at first you don't succeed, hide all evidence you ever tried!
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 09:57 PM |
|
|
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]
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Stott
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 10:26 PM |
|
|
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!
You mean the aptly named Nick Freeman!
|
|
|
Badger_McLetcher
|
| posted on 14/5/10 at 10:54 PM |
|
|
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]
If disfunction is a function, then I must be some kind of genius.
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 15/5/10 at 07:07 AM |
|
|
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.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
karlak
|
| posted on 15/5/10 at 07:58 AM |
|
|
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,,,,
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 15/5/10 at 06:41 PM |
|
|
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]
It's not waxing superior, it's just how the law of our country is made and applied in the courts.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 15/5/10 at 07:02 PM |
|
|
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's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 15/5/10 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
it had mot at least!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 15/5/10 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
Cheers Joel - I thought it said the MOT had expired a few hours before! Must learn to read!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 15/5/10 at 08:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Cheers Joel - I thought it said the MOT had expired a few hours before! Must learn to read!
its interesting to think how important the piece of paper is, since mechanically the condition of the vehicle wouldnt change in 24 hours. Few hours
one way and you're in the clear, few hours the other and you're a maniac driving a deathtrap!
|
|
|
