Stupid Mistake!!

[[TW]Fox]

She could say she told him she had, I mean come on with a ridiculous law punishing the owner of the car that he allowed someone who doesn't have a license to drive it... She WILL get the 2 fines anyhow, she can prevent her bf to lose his license...

And in todays episode of 'The ridiculous fantasy world of snowdog, who knows nothing about our legal system and doesnt even live here', snowdog advocates perverting the course of justice to avoid a fixed penalty notice.

'Tune in next week, where we follow snowdog in his attempts to buy and insure a third car in order to realise a lifetime dream of also owning a Toyota Carina'

 

[Robbo]

^ Haha

 

[snowdog]

, snowdog advocates perverting the course of justice to avoid a fixed penalty notice.

Of course, anything to avoid a penalty. Use every trick in the book.

Rest of rubbish

No, it's laughable, I got my green insurance card, it includes a field ''put down the names & autograph of everyone allowed to drive this car'' ( for UK & Ireland only), I can put down anyone down, even you, just to make it ''legal''.

Come on, you're one of the 2 countries in Europe which has an insurance system where the insurance is on the driver, instead of the car...
You can't even let one of your mates drive you home when drunk without telling the insurance company in advance.

EDIT : Just checked, it's not ''ireland'' but north Ireland, so what can I make out from this, a simple autograph of any clown on the card makes him insured for the car ? But when it's not there, I can be prosecuted because I allowed someone to drive ''without insurance'', wtf ?

 

[Scania]

Come on, you're one of the 2 countries in Europe which has an insurance system where the insurance is on the driver, instead of the car...
You can't even let one of your mates drive you home when drunk without telling the insurance company in advance.

Good point - if fails me why this is not changed.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Of course, anything to avoid a penalty. Use every trick in the book.

Perverting the Course of Justice is a serious criminal offence which carries a jail sentance. People have been jailed for lying to avoid motoring offences as trivial as a speeding ticket.

Seriously, don't offer advice on a subject it is clear you know nothing about.

You can't even let one of your mates drive you home when drunk without telling the insurance company in advance.

You can. I did exactly this at the weekend infact.

EDIT : Just checked, it's not ''ireland'' but north Ireland, so what can I make out from this, a simple autograph of any clown on the card makes him insured for the car ?

What the heck are you talking about now?

 

[[TW]Fox]

Good point - if fails me why this is not changed.

Because the driver is the risk not the car?

 

[snowdog]

What the heck are you talking about now?

A green ( car insurance) card here has a field to put the autographs of any other drivers allowed to drive the car for insurance just for the UK... Doesn't it strike you odd that it ONLY has to happen for the UK and not any other country, say Spain or Germany or heck, Slovenia.

I can be punished if I let my mate drive in the UK in my car, if I didn't let him sign it, but if he quickly does when they're stopping us, it's alright all the sudden ?

You can. I did exactly this at the weekend infact.

Explain, he is not a named driver, but he is insured ?

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why are you telling us about your insurance? I dont understand. You do not live in the UK, you dont insure a car in the UK, you dont know anything about motoring in the UK yet you are attempting to give advice on insurance to somebody in the UK?

There is nothing wrong with the way we do insurance here. It means people who are a low risk pay less, and people who are a high risk pay more.

Insuring just the car means the premium has to reflect a range of possible risk scenarios. Insuring the driver on the car means the premium can be exactly tailored to that risk.

 

[Scania]

Because the driver is the risk not the car?

Thinking along the lines of Snowdogs post, it has its uses for the reason he gave.

You can. I did exactly this at the weekend infact.

I'm guessing somebody who had their own policy & 3P cover drove your car?

Chatting to a Spanish friend recently, he commented how better their system is than the UK's (he's speaking from an Ex-pat point of view) - He said that even if I did not have my own insurance, I could, should we go to a bar & him have too much, drive home legally, as the car is insured regardless of who (legally) is driving it.

Which getting back to Snowdogs post, to me, is better than our own system.

But yes, the insurance industry would hate it!

 

[[TW]Fox]

Chatting to a Spanish friend recently, he commented how better their system is than the UK's (he's speaking from an Ex-pat point of view) - He said that even if I did not have my own insurance, I could, should we go to a bar & him have too much, drive home legally, as the car is insured regardless of who (legally) is driving it.

You can buy such a policy in the UK if you wish. We have a choice as to how we insure our cars.

Which getting back to Snowdogs post, to me, is better than our own system.

Our system being what, one which offers a choice in how you insure your car?

If you want an any driver policy then go and buy one? CIS do one IIRC.

 

[snowdog]

Why are you telling us about your insurance? I dont understand. You do not live in the UK, you dont insure a car in the UK, you dont know anything about motoring in the UK yet you are attempting to give advice on insurance to somebody in the UK?

If he sees a good chance to even let one of the penalties go, he and she should (have) work(ed) together to prevent it, 2 penalties is better than three if just for his sake.

There is nothing wrong with the way we do insurance here. It means people who are a low risk pay less, and people who are a high risk pay more.

Insuring just the car means the premium has to reflect a range of possible risk scenarios. Insuring the driver on the car means the premium can be exactly tailored to that risk.

It's far unfairer than from what I've heard from anyone in another European country, I am stumped some youngsters have to pay 3k for insuring a car just because their risk is higher, that's like punishing someone for something he hasn't done yet. You say you can get an insurance policy that allows other to drive it, I'm betting this costs a lot more ? Can't you see the system favors insurers extremely ?

The system is theoretically fine, but the differences between ''low risk'' and ''high risk'' are EXTREME. NCB is fair, because people ''earn'' their low insurance by not crashing. Simply letting an 18 year&0ncb old pay double or triple than a 40 year old & 0ncb is unfair and completely unacceptable in my eyes. A 40 year old can still cause FAR more damage than an 18 year old scratching his bumper on a post. I know the risk is higher, but it punishes people purely for what they are and not what they do. Should

NCB going into negatives for crashing would be fairer I think for example.


Should gypsies pay triple for legal expenses insurance because they are statistically more likely to appear in court for crimes ?

 

[iaind]

Why the hell is snowdog talking about insurance in continental europe in a thread about someone in the UK driving without a valid license?

Also, I really detest people who like to wriggle out of punishments and not accept responsibility (looking at you here again, snowdog)......you're a grown man FFS, not a 12 year old trying to convince your mum not to ground you

 

[[TW]Fox]

If he sees a good chance to even let one of the penalties go, he and she should (have) work(ed) together to prevent it, 2 penalties is better than three.

Yes lets risk a prison sentance over avoiding a motoring offence

It's far unfairer than from what I've heard from anyone in another European country, I am stumped some youngsters have to pay 3k for insuring a car just because their risk is higher, that's like punishing someone for something he hasn't done yet.

So lets punish the insurers instead?

Simply letting an 18 year&0ncb old pay double or triple than a 40 year old & 0ncb is unfair and completely unacceptable in my eyes.

This is because you are so out of touch with reality it's borderline amusing. An 18 year old is an order of magnitude more likely to stuff a car into something than a 40 year old.

 

[Janesy B]

Trying to plead ignorance is probably one of the worst things you can do. It's obvious the op will know if his gf has a licence or not. The 'OH I DIDN'T KNOW LOL' defence might work in school but in the real world, It's extremely unconvincing and lands you in serious trouble.

 

[snowdog]

This is because you are so out of touch with reality it's borderline amusing. An 18 year old is an order of magnitude more likely to stuff a car into something than a 40 year old.

A gypsy or Moroccan person is statistically more likely to commit a crime here, should they pay more for legal expenses insurance ?

Just because he's more likely ? Punish all the people in that age group ''just because'' they're more likely ?

Also, I really detest people who like to wriggle out of punishments and not accept responsibility (looking at you here again, snowdog)......you're a grown man FFS, not a 12 year old trying to convince your mum not to ground you

Ohnoes, he let his GF drive on a quiet road at 1am. Take his license and severely punish both him and his GF .

He's to late to plead ignorance anyhow.

This is because you are so out of touch with reality it's borderline amusing

Didn't you say I'd crash my car in the first year I drove ?

 

[Janesy B]

The problem is that the OP has been caught and is now at the mercy of the law. Weaving a tale like you suggest can only make things worse for the OP. He's been caught and has to face it like a man.

 

[iaind]

A gypsy or Moroccan person is statistically more likely to commit a crime here, should they pay more for legal expenses insurance ?


Ohnoes, he let his GF drive on a quiet road at 1am. Take his license and severely punish both him and his GF .

Who says he's going to get severely punished?

The reason we have a legal system is to establish a suitable punishment for the crime and situation. But yeh, grow up anyway, learn to take responsibility for your own actions

 

[snowdog]

The problem is that the OP has been caught and is now at the mercy of the law. Weaving a tale like you suggest can only make things worse for the OP. He's been caught and has to face it like a man.

It is too late anyhow because from his story you can make out he admitted he knew when they were caught...

The reason we have a legal system is to establish a suitable punishment for the crime and situation.

It sounds quite, erm, excessive, when nothing bad happened.

 

[Valentino]

TBH if it comes to court I would seriously have a word with your girlfriend and get her to say she told you she had a license and you were drunk so she was driving you home and you can't remember the police incident. She can't be charged for lying to you and it will eliminate the charge to you. If the full force of the law is going to be applied to you for just letting her go down a quiet road then you might as well only let one of you get hit with it.

TBH the policemen should have just had a stern warning for you. Perhaps they have, perhaps they chucked the paperwork in the bin and knew the scare would shake you up.

I remember when my dad took me out about a month before i got my provisional down an empty country road. Always an empty road, used to ride bikes down there as kids and climb trees, except on this occasion several tractors come out of nowhere and i end up having to learn super fast clutch control, endded up doing lots of revving and wheel spinning to get out of the way lmao.

It's sods law.

 

[Janesy B]

They'll ask the officers if the op appeared to be intoxicated at the time, they'll obviously say no and that'll get thrown out. If you're drunk enough to forget, you're drunk enough for a cop to be able to tell.

Seriously, none of this advice is constructive and IT DOESN'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.