Driver appears in court - banned from driving
Drives away from court after sentencing - charged with driving whilst banned & no insurance
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-57020296
|
|
far more common than you think. Some dont realise the ban is immediate, some just dont care
|
Back to court, another fine he may not be able to pay, more points, extended ban.
Leave the court, get in car ........ start the story again.
The law is only effective if the sanctions applied deliver a change in behaviour. Unless the miscreant is imprisoned (daft and expensive for a minor offence) they will continue to blithely ignore the law.
|
I think it can be entirely logical.
If someone has already decided to drive with no licence and no insurance...
They save on the costs of driving lessons, insurance. If the car gets taken from them from time to time, they might buy bangers. There's no real downside to it being taken away - especially if you have a network who can supply a new one in a day or two.
If you get nicked from time to time, that can be seen as simply a cost of the lifestyle. If it is less than the costs of not obeying the law, what's the problem?
When I see reports of someone with no licence or insurance being given a further ban and a nominal fine I see no reason for them to change their behaviour.
If you're a serial offender who has decided to become law abiding, I imagine the cost of insurance will be extremely expensive. It may be entirely logical to stay illegal.
|
Just remembered. I had an elderly great aunt who never passed her driving test, or had insurance. I didn't really know her, so don't know if she was ever charged. I'm told she did have a couple of accidents - and simply drove away each time.
But these days, it is so terribly easy to clone another car. Look for one the same make/model/colour and adopt its number. Just check the original on askmid from time to time. The chance of being pulled over must be very, very small.
|
>> If you're a serial offender who has decided to become law abiding, I imagine the
>> cost of insurance will be extremely expensive. It may be entirely logical to stay illegal.
>>
The answer is - what?
Porridge?
|
The answer is what?
The New Zealand model?
In New Zealand there's no need for third party insurance to cover injuries because we already have a form of compulsory 'insurance' that covers injuries caused by a car accident. ... However, holding insurance to cover the costs of causing damage to your own or another person's property is optional.
Politically probably difficult to sell to the public when you look at how much duty and tax is already loaded on to fuel in the UK.
In theory it should reduce the administration costs for insurers - since they already contribute to MIB.
And decriminalise uninsured drivers - although it would open them up to civil claims for damages. Maybe better treatment for the accidental uninsured?
|
>> The answer is what?
>>
>> The New Zealand model?
>>
>> In New Zealand there's no need for third party insurance to cover injuries because we
>> already have a form of compulsory 'insurance' that covers injuries caused by a car accident.
>> ... However, holding insurance to cover the costs of causing damage to your own or
>> another person's property is optional.
Isn't that part of a wider no fault scheme covering all forms of personal injury including medical accidents and a ban on compensatory legal claims?
|
Isn't that part of a wider no fault scheme covering all forms of personal injury including medical accidents and a ban on compensatory legal claims?
I believe so. There used to be stories of european tours being funded by amputation of a lttle finger. not sure if apocryphal ? :)
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Sun 16 May 21 at 11:05
|
With a state funded scheme for personal injury, the lawyers would struggle for business - I assume the government would develop a fairly rigid set of compensation payouts.
They may even argue that as the state already steps in to support those in need, any further compensation would be low or limited. The question may be very simple - would you rather go to court or arbitration to battle the governement or an insurance company.
Relying upon the other driver to have insurance for property damage would be similar to now - if they don't have insurance they are unlikely to be able or willing to pay in the event of a claim.a
|
Not the sharpest tool in the box - Zero
