Got into an accident...Other driver has no Insurance...

[kjaglal76v2]

Well said megadoc

[zoom rader]

^ Yes but only if that driver was culpable for the accident, in this case he's not.



I just love to see how 'intelligent' 2nrs just pull random 'facts' out their ass and render it law.

Half the time when police giving advice on law, and it goes before the courts it's get thrown out.

Judgement said.
No insurance means your car not lawful on the road . If the illegal car was not the road then there would be no accident.
That was the judgment given. This is no random facts.

In the UK you can't even park your car on public roads without insurance. Once you get caught, your car is impounded and then crushed. There is no fine for this, it ends up crushed.

[megadoc1]

^ Yes but only if that driver was culpable for the accident, in this case he's not.



I just love to see how 'intelligent' 2nrs just pull random 'facts' out their ass and render it law.

Half the time when police giving advice on law, and it goes before the courts it's get thrown out.

Judgement said.
No insurance means your car not lawful on the road . If the illegal car was not the road then there would be no accident.
That was the judgment given. This is no random facts.

In the UK you can't even park your car on public roads without insurance. Once you get caught, your car is impounded and then crushed. There is no fine for this, it ends up crushed.

for real! a lot of police reports does get trumped by the ones submitted by private investigators lol

[88sins]

so what you saying is the man driving with out insurance on the nation roadway is more right than the legit driver?

The driver without insurance IS guilty, but ONLY of operating a vehicle w/o insurance. And he should be charged for the offense accordingly by the police. The driver of the vehicle exiting the minor road onto the major road is also guilty, of NOT exercising caution when doing so, & thus causing the collision. If he did exercise due caution, said collision would've never occurred, & both drivers would've never made contact.
This kinda thing is not rocket science, or advanced theoretical physics. They are BOTH guilty, one of operating a vehicle sans insurance, the other of causing the collision, & in re who is liable to fix what, the one responsible for causing the collision is the one that is responsible for any repairs that may be needed.

one illegal car on the road got into an accident and yet allyuh want to brace the legit driver?..... yep seems logical

First off, the vehicle itself was not illegal. The illegal act was operation of said vehicle on a public road without a valid certificate of insurance. And again I say that driver can & should be charged for this, and this offense ONLY.
Secondly, if the "legit driver" in their failure to show due caution had hit a vehicle that was insured, then that vehicle would been at fault too ent?

[megadoc1]

so what you saying is the man driving with out insurance on the nation roadway is more right than the legit driver?

The driver without insurance IS guilty, but ONLY of operating a vehicle w/o insurance. And he should be charged for the offense accordingly by the police. The driver of the vehicle exiting the minor road onto the major road is also guilty, of NOT exercising caution when doing so, & thus causing the collision. If he did exercise due caution, said collision would've never occurred, & both drivers would've never made contact.
This kinda thing is not rocket science, or advanced theoretical physics. They are BOTH guilty, one of operating a vehicle sans insurance, the other of causing the collision, & in re who is liable to fix what, the one responsible for causing the collision is the one that is responsible for any repairs that may be needed.

good now line that up against the two cases posted on here that were before judges, see how it worked out and tell me if what you saying make any sense ...or better yet find a case before a judge that turned out in favor of what you are saying and post it here
I bet the only ones you will find are ones that never came before a judge...get real nah

one illegal car on the road got into an accident and yet allyuh want to brace the legit driver?..... yep seems logical

First off, the vehicle itself was not illegal. The illegal act was operation of said vehicle on a public road without a valid certificate of insurance. And again I say that driver can & should be charged for this, and this offense ONLY.
Secondly, if the "legit driver" in their failure to show due caution had hit a vehicle that was insured, then that vehicle would been at fault too ent?

don't nick pick! you still expecting that a man wake up a morning , starting it off on the wrong side of the law and not be made to pay for his actions , no one is arguing about which charges he should face,where the op is concerned this is now a civil matter this is no longer about right or wrong in the accident at hand ,its the fact that damage was cause due to illegal activity ....go back to the basics, if the man obeyed the law there won't be an accident!!! well at least for that day according to the OP driving skills

[Ted_v2]

the other driver may not be wrong but he would be charged once the right police notice it.

[88sins]

good now line that up against the two cases posted on here that were before judges

bring a link to the legal precedent that was set by that magistrate. if you don't have a link, either you or provide a case number or the plaintiff & respondents & I will be able to verify or disprove zr's postings.
If neither of those can be provided by either of you, then you & zr's mutual point bears no merit other than 2nr ole talk

As a civil matter in these types of cases, the fact that the vehicle was not uninsured does not absolve the other driver of his irresponsibility wrt not paying attention while operating his vehicle, & the uninsured cannot be held accountable for the other drivers negligence, since he did not directly cause said negligence in his actions of operating his vehicle without insurance.

its the fact that damage was cause due to illegal activity ....go back to the basics, if the man obeyed the law there won't be an accident!!! well at least for that day according to the OP driving skills

Actually, if the op had exercised due caution there wouldn't have been an accident, uninsured vehicle or not. If he had hit a vehicle that was insured, you think he'd have a valid civil case for damages?

But believe what you wish, it ain't my wuk to convince you or anybody else, & i have better tings to do

[megadoc1]

good now line that up against the two cases posted on here that were before judges

bring a link to the legal precedent that was set by that magistrate. if you don't have a link, either you or provide a case number or the plaintiff & respondents & I will be able to verify or disprove zr's postings.
If neither of those can be provided by either of you, then you & zr's mutual point bears no merit other than 2nr ole talk

As a civil matter in these types of cases, the fact that the vehicle was not uninsured does not absolve the other driver of his irresponsibility wrt not paying attention while operating his vehicle, & the uninsured cannot be held accountable for the other drivers negligence, since he did not directly cause said negligence in his actions of operating his vehicle without insurance.

pulled the file today
claim No .CV2012-00723 between
Samuel Simon .....claimant
and Michael Maturine.......first defendant
R***** V****...........second defendant (name not publish intentionally)
will do a scan if necessary

its the fact that damage was cause due to illegal activity ....go back to the basics, if the man obeyed the law there won't be an accident!!! well at least for that day according to the OP driving skills

Actually, if the op had exercised due caution there wouldn't have been an accident, uninsured vehicle or not. If he had hit a vehicle that was insured, you think he'd have a valid civil case for damages?

No! but thats not the case so its in light of the fact that the other driver had no insurance the guy now have a valid civil case, that's all I have been trying to convey to you since my initial post! in the case I put forth the defendants tried to argue due caution and all those other stuff you are saying but if you look back to my post the judge said she eh going so far

But believe what you wish, it ain't my wuk to convince you or anybody else, & Ihave better tings to do

you cant convince me otherwise, I have documents in my hand that shows such precedent, that's why I asked you to show one that supported what you were saying,I know for sure you wont get that

[rollingstock]

Hahahahaha

Common sense ain't so common, and understanding of the law is non existent.


fyi the police ascribing culpability in an accident is for internal use only, that's why insurance companies have adjusters.

If the police ascribe culpability to a certain driver that would be used to prosecute that driver for any road traffic offence that they would unearth.

BUT police have charged drivers that have won their matters and the court ascribe blame to the other party or judge fault by percentage, i.e one driver being 80% at fault and the other 20% or even 50/50 where both drivers are equally at blame etc.

Yet again magistrates decision have been contested at the High Court and overturned.

One decision by a magistrate doesn't stand for all cases in the same scenario, every magistrate may/can have a different opinion, only a Privy Council ruling may be cited as case law.



With all that said this is still a very simple matter, driver without insurance is guilty of that offence only, the other driver is liable for the accident despite the other driver not having insurance, all that means is that if that driver was at fault he would have been personally liable as he had no insurance in effect.

Take a read of the laws of T&T Chapter 48:51 ( Motor vehicle insurance (third party risks) act)would enlighten you.

[De Dragon]

Hahahahaha

Common sense ain't so common, and understanding of the law is non existent.


fyi the police ascribing culpability in an accident is for internal use only, that's why insurance companies have adjusters.

If the police ascribe culpability to a certain driver that would be used to prosecute that driver for any road traffic offence that they would unearth.

BUT police have charged drivers that have won their matters and the court ascribe blame to the other party or judge fault by percentage, i.e one driver being 80% at fault and the other 20% or even 50/50 where both drivers are equally at blame etc.

Yet again magistrates decision have been contested at the High Court and overturned.

One decision by a magistrate doesn't stand for all cases in the same scenario, every magistrate may/can have a different opinion, only a Privy Council ruling may be cited as case law.



With all that said this is still a very simple matter, driver without insurance is guilty of that offence only, the other driver is liable for the accident despite the other driver not having insurance, all that means is that if that driver was at fault he would have been personally liable as he had no insurance in effect.

Take a read of the laws of T&T Chapter 48:51 ( Motor vehicle insurance (third party risks) act)would enlighten you.

Nah, 2NR Privy Council done rule

[megadoc1]

Hahahahaha

Common sense ain't so common, and understanding of the law is non existent.


fyi the police ascribing culpability in an accident is for internal use only, that's why insurance companies have adjusters.

If the police ascribe culpability to a certain driver that would be used to prosecute that driver for any road traffic offence that they would unearth.

BUT police have charged drivers that have won their matters and the court ascribe blame to the other party or judge fault by percentage, i.e one driver being 80% at fault and the other 20% or even 50/50 where both drivers are equally at blame etc.

Yet again magistrates decision have been contested at the High Court and overturned.

One decision by a magistrate doesn't stand for all cases in the same scenario, every magistrate may/can have a different opinion, only a Privy Council ruling may be cited as case law.



With all that said this is still a very simple matter, driver without insurance is guilty of that offence only, the other driver is liable for the accident despite the other driver not having insurance, all that means is that if that driver was at fault he would have been personally liable as he had no insurance in effect.

Take a read of the laws of T&T Chapter 48:51 ( Motor vehicle insurance (third party risks) act)would enlighten you.

breds the case I mentioned above was before a judge not a magistrate it was before judge Judith Jones ,furthermore, the driver in question was never charged by the police and that's another story by it self ...see how your arguments begin to fall apart again ? as far as the op stands this is now a civil matter
you are missing out on the fact that you cant go to court with dirty hands and expect to win WRT driving without insurance on the nations roadway...please, instead of all that talk just present a case, just one case that agree with what u saying.I really believe now that you just spewed hot air
but that's not gonna fly, present a real life example of what you are saying
afteral this is how its done in courts right? but then again what you wrote below tell how much knowledge yuh lacking where this is concerned

only a Privy Council ruling may be cited as case law

this is total crap! if you want to go down this road I can show you lots of cases that will shut down this nonsense!
Privy Council rulings are used to clarify the law other cases are used as precedent!

Take a read of the laws of T&T Chapter 48:51 ( Motor vehicle insurance (third party risks) act)would enlighten you.

enlighten one about what exactly? lol hot air again! where or what information in this act u wish to convey to me in respect to this discussion?

[cvasur]

it is unfair but op will be responsible for the damages

my advice is to make sure the road is clear and try to anticipate what other drivers will do to avoid accidents such as this

have a merry christmas

P.S. everyone please be careful on the roads, many accidents occur during this season
i saw at least three accidents while i was on the road yesterday morning

[rollingstock]

megadoc should stick to arguing religion cause you clearly have no idea of law, I used a legal term the meaning of which flew over your head evidenced by your rebuttal.

And no i'm not going to clarify, learned persons wrt law will recognize it, bless.

[megadoc1]

all talk and no examples yet? have the last say my friend.. I have seen reality

[konartis]

^ Yes but only if that driver was culpable for the accident, in this case he's not.



I just love to see how 'intelligent' 2nrs just pull random 'facts' out their ass and render it law.

Half the time when police giving advice on law, and it goes before the courts it's get thrown out.

Judgement said.
No insurance means your car not lawful on the road . If the illegal car was not the road then there would be no accident.
That was the judgment given. This is no random facts.

In the UK you can't even park your car on public roads without insurance. Once you get caught, your car is impounded and then crushed. There is no fine for this, it ends up crushed.

And this is why all these lawyers ent know sheit when they get called to the bar and put in a court, the running england for their lec...
We dealing with trinidad laws and logic fool...not UK...

[konartis]

And the idiot quoting case law and all them sheit of the internet, you know what is the meaning of a case law?? Is what lawyers use in their submission to strengten their case...to show a magistrate that this happen already so yoy should do the same here...these cases are fought in the lower courts and has one result...appealed and sent the privy council and they overturned the ruling or ordered a re-trial...i really want to see a case with this circumstances

Also....when a magistrate is makin the ruling and this is from my xperience...they always say one thing...
As a driver you must not and CANNOT anticipate the actions of another driver...

You know whats that means???
Dont say to urself he wud stop....

[zoom rader]

^ Yes but only if that driver was culpable for the accident, in this case he's not.



I just love to see how 'intelligent' 2nrs just pull random 'facts' out their ass and render it law.

Half the time when police giving advice on law, and it goes before the courts it's get thrown out.

Judgement said.
No insurance means your car not lawful on the road . If the illegal car was not the road then there would be no accident.
That was the judgment given. This is no random facts.

In the UK you can't even park your car on public roads without insurance. Once you get caught, your car is impounded and then crushed. There is no fine for this, it ends up crushed.

And this is why all these lawyers ent know sheit when they get called to the bar and put in a court, the running england for their lec...
We dealing with trinidad laws and logic fool...not UK...

I showed the comparison to relate how primitive Trini laws are.
Think about it ,your car has no insurance, then why is it on a public road .
Don't worry it will be introduced very soon.

[rollingstock]

^ Yes but only if that driver was culpable for the accident, in this case he's not.



I just love to see how 'intelligent' 2nrs just pull random 'facts' out their ass and render it law.

Half the time when police giving advice on law, and it goes before the courts it's get thrown out.

Judgement said.
No insurance means your car not lawful on the road . If the illegal car was not the road then there would be no accident.
That was the judgment given. This is no random facts.

In the UK you can't even park your car on public roads without insurance. Once you get caught, your car is impounded and then crushed. There is no fine for this, it ends up crushed.

And this is why all these lawyers ent know sheit when they get called to the bar and put in a court, the running england for their lec...
We dealing with trinidad laws and logic fool...not UK...

I showed the comparison to relate how primitive Trini laws are.
Think about it ,your car has no insurance, then why is it on a public road .
Don't worry it will be introduced very soon.

I now reading that chit you post, what level of assholery you posting.
You even aware of the laws in the UK?

Yes we know you work there:? But clearly you're ignorant.

Our laws are closely modeled after the laws in the UK. Using a vehicle without insurance in the UK is similar to here wrt penalty, fixed penalty notice/summons, if impounded a fine and if you do not pay and claim your vehicle within a specified period it 'may' be destroyed.

[zoom rader]

^ Yes but only if that driver was culpable for the accident, in this case he's not.



I just love to see how 'intelligent' 2nrs just pull random 'facts' out their ass and render it law.

Half the time when police giving advice on law, and it goes before the courts it's get thrown out.

Judgement said.
No insurance means your car not lawful on the road . If the illegal car was not the road then there would be no accident.
That was the judgment given. This is no random facts.

In the UK you can't even park your car on public roads without insurance. Once you get caught, your car is impounded and then crushed. There is no fine for this, it ends up crushed.

And this is why all these lawyers ent know sheit when they get called to the bar and put in a court, the running england for their lec...
We dealing with trinidad laws and logic fool...not UK...

I showed the comparison to relate how primitive Trini laws are.
Think about it ,your car has no insurance, then why is it on a public road .
Don't worry it will be introduced very soon.

I now reading that chit you post, what level of assholery you posting.
You even aware of the laws in the UK?

Yes we know you work there:? But clearly you're ignorant.

Our laws are closely modeled after the laws in the UK. Using a vehicle without insurance in the UK is similar to here wrt penalty, fixed penalty notice/summons, if impounded a fine and if you do not pay and claim your vehicle within a specified period it 'may' be destroyed.

There is NO specified period for chushing a car it will be destroyed.
UK police take pride in chushing your car once you get caught.

8. Motor vehicle documentation and learner driver requirements
Documents
Driving licence. You MUST have a valid driving licence for the category of motor vehicle you are driving. You MUST inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) if you change your name and/or address.
Law RTA 1988 sects 87 & 99(4)

Holders of non-European Community licences who are now resident in the UK may only drive on that licence for a maximum of 12 months from the date they become resident in this country. To ensure continuous driving entitlement

a British provisional licence should be obtained and a driving test(s) passed before the 12-month period elapses, or
in the case of a driver who holds a licence from a country which has been designated in law for licence exchange purposes, the driver should exchange the licence for a British one.
MOT. Cars and motorcycles MUST normally pass an MOT test three years from the date of the first registration and every year after that. You MUST NOT drive a motor vehicle without an MOT certificate when it should have one. Exceptionally, you may drive to a pre-arranged test appointment or to a garage for repairs required for the test. Driving an unroadworthy motor vehicle may invalidate your insurance. From November 2012, motor vehicles manufactured before 1960 will be exempted from an MOT requirement, although they can still be submitted for a test voluntarily. Owners are still legally required to ensure their vehicle is safe and roadworthy.
Law RTA 1988 sects 45, 47, 49 & 53

Insurance. To use a motor vehicle on the road, you MUST have a valid insurance policy. This MUST at least cover you for injury or damage to a third party while using that motor vehicle. Before driving any motor vehicle, make sure that it has this cover for your use or that your own insurance provides adequate cover. You MUST NOT drive a motor vehicle without insurance. Also, be aware that even if a road traffic incident is not your fault, you may still be held liable by insurance companies.Law RTA 1988 sect 143

Uninsured drivers can now be automatically detected by roadside cameras. Further to the penalties for uninsured driving listed on page 126, an offender’s vehicle can now be seized by the Police, taken away and crushed. Law RTA 1988, sects 165a & 165b

https://www.gov.uk/rules-drivers-motorcyclists-89-to-102/motor-vehicle-documentation-and-learner-driver-requirements

[megadoc1]

And the idiot quoting case law and all them sheit of the internet, you know what is the meaning of a case law?? Is what lawyers use in their submission to strengten their case...to show a magistrate that this happen already so yoy should do the same here...these cases are fought in the lower courts and has one result...appealed and sent the privy council and they overturned the ruling or ordered a re-trial...i really want to see a case with this circumstances

magistrate yuh say? lol anyways A man reluctant to pay a lil under $2000 for a year's insurance gonna spend tens of thousands to head up to the privy council? that u want to see? BRB trying to order a pink elephant for you yo ,should be much easier to come by

Also....when a magistrate is makin the ruling and this is from my xperience...they always say one thing...
As a driver you must not and CANNOT anticipate the actions of another driver...

You know whats that means???
Dont say to urself he wud stop....

you have example of what u saying? is that final? and how would it relate to this discussion? was that case a matter of one party having no insurance like whats being discussed? the one I spoke about stopped at "no insurance? settle! another one here ended at "No insurance means your car not lawful on the road . If the illegal car was not on the road then there would be no accident" now all I am asking you to do is present one that support what u saying that's all

[desifemlove]

OP stop listening to some of these men here eh!!!

YOU ARE NOT WRONG

the other had no insurance, therefore it not suppose to be on road..

and he made a bad drive.....either he cause accident and is legally culpable..

[rollingstock]

There is NO specified period for chushing a car it will be destroyed.
UK police take pride in chushing your car once you get caught.

8. Motor vehicle documentation and learner driver requirements
Documents
Driving licence. You MUST have a valid driving licence for the category of motor vehicle you are driving. You MUST inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) if you change your name and/or address.
Law RTA 1988 sects 87 & 99(4)

Holders of non-European Community licences who are now resident in the UK may only drive on that licence for a maximum of 12 months from the date they become resident in this country. To ensure continuous driving entitlement

a British provisional licence should be obtained and a driving test(s) passed before the 12-month period elapses, or
in the case of a driver who holds a licence from a country which has been designated in law for licence exchange purposes, the driver should exchange the licence for a British one.
MOT. Cars and motorcycles MUST normally pass an MOT test three years from the date of the first registration and every year after that. You MUST NOT drive a motor vehicle without an MOT certificate when it should have one. Exceptionally, you may drive to a pre-arranged test appointment or to a garage for repairs required for the test. Driving an unroadworthy motor vehicle may invalidate your insurance. From November 2012, motor vehicles manufactured before 1960 will be exempted from an MOT requirement, although they can still be submitted for a test voluntarily. Owners are still legally required to ensure their vehicle is safe and roadworthy.
Law RTA 1988 sects 45, 47, 49 & 53

Insurance. To use a motor vehicle on the road, you MUST have a valid insurance policy. This MUST at least cover you for injury or damage to a third party while using that motor vehicle. Before driving any motor vehicle, make sure that it has this cover for your use or that your own insurance provides adequate cover. You MUST NOT drive a motor vehicle without insurance. Also, be aware that even if a road traffic incident is not your fault, you may still be held liable by insurance companies.Law RTA 1988 sect 143

Uninsured drivers can now be automatically detected by roadside cameras. Further to the penalties for uninsured driving listed on page 126, an offender’s vehicle can now be seized by the Police, taken away and crushed. Law RTA 1988, sects 165a & 165b

https://www.gov.uk/rules-drivers-motorcyclists-89-to-102/motor-vehicle-documentation-and-learner-driver-requirements

You read that part, further to the penalties etc

There is a process, a vehicle is not immediately crushed just so, there are fines and penalties in place, if you fail to pay the fines and retrieve your vehicle within a specified period then it is destroyed.

Not.

In the UK you can't even park your car on public roads without insurance. Once you get caught, your car is impounded and then crushed. There is no fine for this, it ends up crushed.

Stop posting flabbergastery dan.

[zoom rader]

There is NO specified period for chushing a car it will be destroyed.
UK police take pride in chushing your car once you get caught.

8. Motor vehicle documentation and learner driver requirements
Documents
Driving licence. You MUST have a valid driving licence for the category of motor vehicle you are driving. You MUST inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) if you change your name and/or address.
Law RTA 1988 sects 87 & 99(4)

Holders of non-European Community licences who are now resident in the UK may only drive on that licence for a maximum of 12 months from the date they become resident in this country. To ensure continuous driving entitlement

a British provisional licence should be obtained and a driving test(s) passed before the 12-month period elapses, or
in the case of a driver who holds a licence from a country which has been designated in law for licence exchange purposes, the driver should exchange the licence for a British one.
MOT. Cars and motorcycles MUST normally pass an MOT test three years from the date of the first registration and every year after that. You MUST NOT drive a motor vehicle without an MOT certificate when it should have one. Exceptionally, you may drive to a pre-arranged test appointment or to a garage for repairs required for the test. Driving an unroadworthy motor vehicle may invalidate your insurance. From November 2012, motor vehicles manufactured before 1960 will be exempted from an MOT requirement, although they can still be submitted for a test voluntarily. Owners are still legally required to ensure their vehicle is safe and roadworthy.
Law RTA 1988 sects 45, 47, 49 & 53

Insurance. To use a motor vehicle on the road, you MUST have a valid insurance policy. This MUST at least cover you for injury or damage to a third party while using that motor vehicle. Before driving any motor vehicle, make sure that it has this cover for your use or that your own insurance provides adequate cover. You MUST NOT drive a motor vehicle without insurance. Also, be aware that even if a road traffic incident is not your fault, you may still be held liable by insurance companies.Law RTA 1988 sect 143

Uninsured drivers can now be automatically detected by roadside cameras. Further to the penalties for uninsured driving listed on page 126, an offender’s vehicle can now be seized by the Police, taken away and crushed. Law RTA 1988, sects 165a & 165b

https://www.gov.uk/rules-drivers-motorcyclists-89-to-102/motor-vehicle-documentation-and-learner-driver-requirements

You read that part, further to the penalties etc

There is a process, a vehicle is not immediately crushed just so, there are fines and penalties in place, if you fail to pay the fines and retrieve your vehicle within a specified period then it is destroyed.

Not.

In the UK you can't even park your car on public roads without insurance. Once you get caught, your car is impounded and then crushed. There is no fine for this, it ends up crushed.

Stop posting flabbergastery dan.

Rs there is NO waiting period it is crushed in UK. It's to deter "uninsured cars". There is a difference between uninsured cars and. "uninsured drivers"

You can have an insured car that is driven by an uninsured driver. In this case the driver is charged and the car is impounded untill the owner claims his car. Your insurance must state who is insured to drive your car.

Then you have the owner of the car that did not insure his car. In this case the car gets crushed.

[megadoc1]

OP stop listening to some of these men here eh!!!

YOU ARE NOT WRONG

the other had no insurance, therefore it not suppose to be on road..

and he made a bad drive.....either he cause accident and is legally culpable..

do you know all the facts in this matter to determine who is right or wrong or who made a bad drive? why not leave that for the court? but guess what! if this matter is to go to court, before they reach the part of determining who was right or wrong the issue of no insurance will take priority and determine the outcome ....in the case I mentioned in my post, the judge started off by saying "I don't know why the insurance companies did not deal with this matter" that was said to prompt the defense into confessing that they had no insurance! then she said "well I don't see the difficulty here! if they had no insurance they should settle and it will cost them cheaper to settle than to continue with this matter" this matter was settled at next hearing

some men take it upon themselves to determine if op was right or wrong without any facts before them, thing is in the court even the police report on the matter can be challenged and thrown out!
so if the official report could be thrown out,you think what we conclude here in respect to whether op is right or wrong could be of any value? lets leave that for the court to decide nuh
but I am of the view, based on personal observations that this is a case that could be determined before they even entertain the part of determining who is right or wrong

but lets keep it real nah if I was driving without insurance on the nations roadway everybody will have the right of way!.. what if the other driver observed the fact that he has no insurance and allowed just under 20 seconds so to allow the op to go his way? its not like he had rights to be on the road in the first place..did he really have the right of way then? was he wrong for being on the road yet at the same time thinking op should not get out in front of him because he had the right of way? tell me what u guys think

[pete]

Was no insurance or expired insurance?

[desifemlove]

OP stop listening to some of these men here eh!!!

YOU ARE NOT WRONG

the other had no insurance, therefore it not suppose to be on road..

and he made a bad drive.....either he cause accident and is legally culpable..

do you know all the facts in this matter to determine who is right or wrong or who made a bad drive? why not leave that for the court? but guess what! if this matter is to go to court, before they reach the part of determining who was right or wrong the issue of no insurance will take priority and determine the outcome ....in the case I mentioned in my post, the judge started off by saying "I don't know why the insurance companies did not deal with this matter" that was said to prompt the defense into confessing that they had no insurance! then she said "well I don't see the difficulty here! if they had no insurance they should settle and it will cost them cheaper to settle than to continue with this matter" this matter was settled at next hearing

some men take it upon themselves to determine if op was right or wrong without any facts before them, thing is in the court even the police report on the matter can be challenged and thrown out!
so if the official report could be thrown out,you think what we conclude here in respect to whether op is right or wrong could be of any value? lets leave that for the court to decide nuh
but I am of the view, based on personal observations that this is a case that could be determined before they even entertain the part of determining who is right or wrong

but lets keep it real nah if I was driving without insurance on the nations roadway everybody will have the right of way!.. what if the other driver observed the fact that he has no insurance and allowed just under 20 seconds so to allow the op to go his way? its not like he had rights to be on the road in the first place..did he really have the right of way then? was he wrong for being on the road yet at the same time thinking op should not get out in front of him because he had the right of way? tell me what u guys think

lolol..how he can tell he had no insurance?

[megadoc1]

^by checking his documents and making sure they are in order before hitting the road

Just for information purposes the gentleman actually accepted liability and stated that he was looking away at a stockpile when it occurred...but that's not what I am getting at.

just seeing this .... if this is true it means the guy was driving without insurance and not paying attention on the roadways but yet folks here want to say op wrong?

[rollingstock]

Rs there is NO waiting period it is crushed in UK. It's to deter "uninsured cars". There is a difference between uninsured cars and. "uninsured drivers"

You can have an insured car that is driven by an uninsured driver. In this case the driver is charged and the car is impounded untill the owner claims his car. Your insurance must state who is insured to drive your car.

Then you have the owner of the car that did not insure his car. In this case the car gets crushed.

You are wrong, review the law again, do better research or ask someone that would know.

[konartis]

And the idiot quoting case law and all them sheit of the internet, you know what is the meaning of a case law?? Is what lawyers use in their submission to strengten their case...to show a magistrate that this happen already so yoy should do the same here...these cases are fought in the lower courts and has one result...appealed and sent the privy council and they overturned the ruling or ordered a re-trial...i really want to see a case with this circumstances

magistrate yuh say? lol anyways A man reluctant to pay a lil under $2000 for a year's insurance gonna spend tens of thousands to head up to the privy council? that u want to see? BRB trying to order a pink elephant for you yo ,should be much easier to come by

Also....when a magistrate is makin the ruling and this is from my xperience...they always say one thing...
As a driver you must not and CANNOT anticipate the actions of another driver...

You know whats that means???
Dont say to urself he wud stop....

you have example of what u saying? is that final? and how would it relate to this discussion? was that case a matter of one party having no insurance like whats being discussed? the one I spoke about stopped at "no insurance? settle! another one here ended at "No insurance means your car not lawful on the road . If the illegal car was not on the road then there would be no accident" now all I am asking you to do is present one that support what u saying that's all

its the decision of a magistrate, Mg Rambachan in the sanfernando traffic court, the driver coming down the entrance/exit of the SFGH with insurance and turned south onto the lady hales avenue and struck a security van w/ insurance...the driver of the car insisted that he had enuff time to make it unto the road and proceed, he said that the other driver couldve stopped and insisted that he should have insurace to be on the road in order to drive lawfully so....he never accepted liability, he was charged for the matter went before the court, took from 2005-2010 to actually start, at the end, the driver of the car was found guilty of careless driving based on what i said, the driver of the security company was also charged and pleaded guilty in the first appearance for drive no COI, he ended up as the witness for the prosecutor who argued that the offender was prosecuted for his negligence and was on his way to renew his insurance at that time, he stressed that the offender had no right to assume that the driver took heed that uncoming traffic should stop for him
magistrate noted the negligence of the driver and that the vehicle was uninsured, however he said "As a driver you must not and CANNOT anticipate the actions of another driver"

the police prosecute drivers for negligence, thats it....
i have dealth with over 25 cases in traffic, before Rambachan.....

the driver at the end, was told to seek compensation tru private means tho....

and negligence to renew your insurance doesn't trump the negligent driver, its punishable by a ticket for no insurance.
i can go on and on, but wasting my brain arguing to you a nobody is a waste, let ur OP pm me and i will gladly take his money....i mean case

[konartis]

Rs there is NO waiting period it is crushed in UK. It's to deter "uninsured cars". There is a difference between uninsured cars and. "uninsured drivers"

You can have an insured car that is driven by an uninsured driver. In this case the driver is charged and the car is impounded untill the owner claims his car. Your insurance must state who is insured to drive your car.

Then you have the owner of the car that did not insure his car. In this case the car gets crushed.

You are wrong, review the law again, do better research or ask someone that would know.

that law was amended when the PM driver was caught driving without insurance and won because of this loophole