Legally Uninsured Road Users
Isn’t it time that all road users must have insurance to use the roads? Not just car users who already require the legal minimum of third party insurance in case of injury to others. It’s getting worse by the day. There are so many road users it’s becoming impossible to police, if it isn’t already. Fewer police and more road users. This is a worrying combination. I believe the real reason for speed cameras is that they are the 24 hour patrolman. Always present and always alert.
I have yet to meet anyone who can answer my question about what happens in the event of a bicyclist (non-motorised and no minimum age limit and no requirement to test competence) at night who has no running lights being the cause of an accident in which someone is seriously injured of even killed. They have no insurance and may escape without injury themselves - they are simply the cause. Typically, seen at the last minute requiring evasive action the result of which is a crash. Culpability is 100%. What happens next? Nothing? There is no insurance requirement and the cause may disappear. Run away. If it is a car driver who causes such a situation firstly there is the minimum legal insurance requirement to be using the road and the legal requirement to remain at the accident. And even report it if necessary. Someone may have died or been seriously injured and no ‘responsibility‘ is attached to the one who caused the situation. Morally perhaps, but legally...?
Note also that fines for uninsured drivers (accident or not) are quite pathetic. Absolutely no reason to bother with it in the future either. These people are one of the reasons insurance costs continue to increase and they don’t pay it themselves - costs too much! Of course, another reason is awful driving: attitude and performance and that’s a separate issue.
Interestingly, a common response is to talk about damage to a vehicle and the claim procedure. Here this concerns the fact that there is no insurance and no vehicle involved. It does demonstrate the thinking though that some are more concerned with their car rather than the victim, whoever is responsible.
I have yet to meet anyone who can answer my question about what happens in the event of a bicyclist (non-motorised and no minimum age limit and no requirement to test competence) at night who has no running lights being the cause of an accident in which someone is seriously injured of even killed. They have no insurance and may escape without injury themselves - they are simply the cause. Typically, seen at the last minute requiring evasive action the result of which is a crash. Culpability is 100%. What happens next? Nothing? There is no insurance requirement and the cause may disappear. Run away. If it is a car driver who causes such a situation firstly there is the minimum legal insurance requirement to be using the road and the legal requirement to remain at the accident. And even report it if necessary. Someone may have died or been seriously injured and no ‘responsibility‘ is attached to the one who caused the situation. Morally perhaps, but legally...?
Note also that fines for uninsured drivers (accident or not) are quite pathetic. Absolutely no reason to bother with it in the future either. These people are one of the reasons insurance costs continue to increase and they don’t pay it themselves - costs too much! Of course, another reason is awful driving: attitude and performance and that’s a separate issue.
Interestingly, a common response is to talk about damage to a vehicle and the claim procedure. Here this concerns the fact that there is no insurance and no vehicle involved. It does demonstrate the thinking though that some are more concerned with their car rather than the victim, whoever is responsible.
posted by Louis Brothnias at 11:28 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home