>>They didn't seem to realise that this person was simply notup to the complicated task of driving -
>>The right to drive is not enshrined in the MagnaCarta - I say fail the test 3 times and you must wait say a year before a re-test with about 20 certified lessons .
>>
I'll agree with you 100% on this one. Unfortunately the way of the world seems to be these day that 'it is our right to...' as opposed to the logical 'driving is a privilege one has to earn'.
|
a good friend of mine murdered 22 people in cold blood last night and left thre scene in a car,im not going to report them because i remember that they once gave me a lift back from the pub and i was the grateful one (and not dead)
|
a good friend of mine murdered 22 people in cold blood last night ........
Fibber!
--
L\'escargot.
|
Bell Boy
If I were you'd lay off the cheese late at night.
|
Sorry chaps. Can't agree that driving without a licence is comparable in any way to cold-blooded murder. Don't agree either that non-possession of a licence necessarily means the person can't drive (and we all know, don't we, that possession of a licence doesn't mean that a person can). Whether a person needs or deserves to be grassed up - perhaps Blue's ex friend is an example of one who does - depends on who they are. Woman taking children to school doesn't say that to me. More detail is needed.
All of you harsh legalists seem to make assumptions about the woman that aren't supported by the facts given.
|
My opinion is that this is a serious crime and more serious than petty crimes such as shop lifting. I would not feel any issue with referring to such people as scum and low life. The rest of us have to prove that we can on one occasion drive to a sufficient standard. So what is so special about this person? and what happens when she drives into the side of some pensioner's car, and has no insurance? Who pays the pensioner's repair bills? As I say, such people are low life.
And the "she might be poor" claim does nothing for me. Does she smoke? Does she drink? If so, then the cost of smoking and/or drinking far outweighs the cost of taking a test, and buying insurance.
And in any case what would the punishment be? From cases I have heard about, if she is an otherwise honest person, she will get a warning, maybe a small fine, and maybe a suspended sentence. But she really is scum, then she will get what she deserves.
Incidentally, my step brother once regularly drove without a licence, until his mother stopped him. If I had known, and had be continued to drive, then yes I would have shopped him. As it is, the action taken was enough IMO.
|
and what happens when she drives into the side of some pensioner's car and has no insurance? Who pays the pensioner's repair bills?
In exchange for a paltry £100 (the excess on my protected NCD comprehensive policy) my insurer would sort it all for me, same as they did before I became a pensioner. Provided none of the occupants of my car suffer personal injury, I don't care what uninsured driver drives into my car. What they do is their business. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You have to look after yourself in this life.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
And if the pensioner has TPF&F only?
|
|
|
|
All of you harsh legalists seem to make assumptions about the woman that aren't supported by the facts given.
No licence = no insurance, and that's a fact.
|
Lud, I think you are missing the main point with your liberal approach.
The fact is that this driver is uninsured. No 'ifs' or 'buts'.
However good this person is, if they run you over and paralyse you, your liberal attitude to the crime she is committing will not pay for your care. That is what insurance pays for.
A 'good' person does not drive without a licence. A stupid one does, and deserves to be caught.
|
|
My life hasn't always been a walk in the park. Won't give details but I've been in dire straits, I've driven without tax and insurance. I did what I did until I dug myself out of a hole. One of my neighbours knew this and helped me out and I'm very grateful to her.
|
Devil's advocate time.
With respect to the original poster ...
There is someone locally who drives a car while as inebriated as a newt. She often drops her children off at school. Who is the best authority to inform?
Same logic applies - IF said unlicensed/totally bladdered woman hits you in your vehicle, due to inept behaviour behind the wheel...
They shouldn't be on the road - end of story.
NOW ... shall we start a new thread - "I saw some bloke drink 15 pints of lager, and get into his car. Who do I inform?"
|
NOW ... shall we start a new thread - "I saw some bloke drink 15 pints of lager and get into his car. Who do I inform?"
his liver specialist?
|
SNIPQUOTE! his liver specialist?
That would be Best ...
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 14/11/2007 at 18:52
|
>>NOW ... shall we start a new thread - "I saw some bloke drink 15 pints of lager, and get into his car. Who do I inform?"
I have seen in the late afternoon a very drunk driver who was unable to keep to the left side of the road, he even crossed double white lines several times. I called the Police with the registration number of the car and details of the main A road it was travelling on. The reaction I got amazed me. "Were there any other witnesses?" Just my wife and daughter with me. "Did he hit another vehicle or object?" No. "Then there is little we can do other than note your comments." So this driver got away with it because the Police could not be bothered to make any checks. It made me wonder if I would bother phoning another time.
--
Roger
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
|
|
If you do phone them another time better make sure you're on a hands free or they'll scramble the chopper... ;-)
|
Clearly I am not going to convince anyone here. And they are not going to convince me. Where I come from it is considered dishonourable to run whining to the authorities and make trouble for people without a good reason. It doesn't seem to me that the mere knowledge the person has no licence is a good reason. Of course wazza may well have a good reason that he hasn't given. So no offence to him.
But I accept that not everyone shares my outlook. So I won't go on repeating myself.
For the benefit of some posters however, I refer you to PugUgly's post above, to the effect that not having a driving licence is no bar to having insurance. It is often claimed that the insurance is invalid if the insured hasn't got a licence, but my impression is that this isn't really true.
|
|
Dream on. You try claiming when you have no licence. You'll be dropped like a hot brick.
|
Without a good reason?
Sharing the road with me when she shouldn't be behind the wheel is reason enough for me.
It is NOT a question of dishonourable or honourable - IF by keeping the silly bint off the road you MAY prevent an accident, then can that be a bad thing?
See my 15 pints analogy - neither are entitled, by their own actions or lack thereof, to be on the road.
|
by keeping the silly bint off the road you MAY prevent an accident then can that be a bad thing?
On that basis Ian it's a good thing to get anyone you can off the road, because by so doing you may be preventing an accident. But you will have your work cut out calling the Cossacks over every couple of mph over the limit and every blown brake light bulb. Life's too short.
On the question of insurance, setting aside the multiple-death bloodbath crashes - not unknown on the school run but hardly commonplace - that seem to loom so large in everyone's imagination, I would far rather be involved in a traffic nerf with an honest unlicensed uninsured driver than some snivelling crook with all the insurance in the world. And the one is just as likely as the other in my experience.
|
SNIPQUOTE!On that basis Ian it's a good thing to get anyone you can off the road because
But that's not addressing this specific case, is it - and it is true to say that the person in question should not be driving, isn't it. There is a very good case that it would be a failure of one's duty *not* to report such a thing.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 14/11/2007 at 18:52
|
There is a very good case that it would be a failure of one's duty *not* to report such a thing.
Of such bon enfant attitudes, writ sufficiently large, are totalitarianisms constructed, no offence Fothers.
|
>> There is a >> very good case that it would be a failure of one's duty *not* to report >> such a thing.
>>Of such bon enfant attitudes, writ sufficiently large, are totalitarianisms constructed, no offence Fothers
Lud, would you take the same view if you knew of a person with an unlicensed firearm?
Cars kill more people in the UK than firearms do so statistically are more dangerous.
|
would you take the same view if you knew of a person withan unlicensed firearm? Cars kill more people in the UK than firearms do so statistically are more dangerous.
>>
Couldn't agree more. Yes, I would take the same attitude. I'm not superstitious about bureaucracy or firearms. Unfortunately these days we are all legally required to be. But I'm not.
If I knew of a firearm in the hands of a crazed toerag and would-be gunman I would disapprove and take appropriate action. If it was an innocent collector or responsible person who liked and understood firearms, I would let him or her be.
As a lot of people have noticed, the ridiculous clampdown on firearms by the last government, much the same as the ridiculous foxhunting ban in general feel, has penalised innocent firearms owners without having the slightest effect on the toerag element.
|
i take you to post 15.21 me Lud
'quote..........One more word.......unquote'
i count 116 extra words here ;-)
|
Damn! I hoped no one would notice. I didn't myself until too late.
People keep saying things that are like puce rags to a chipmunk or something.
|
>> a failure of one's duty *not* to report such a thing. Of such bon enfant attitudes writ sufficiently large are totalitarianisms constructed no offence Fothers.
Ridiculous (no offence, Lud). I am very glad that the majority don't abrogate their responsibilities, and remain good citizens, by reporting such offences as this, as well as others. The mention of "totalitarianisms" makes no sense whatsoever in this context. I have no wish to be in a totalitarian State, nor a criminal one - or to have uninsured people incapable of meeting their potential obligations on the road, because they do not have a driving licence or insurance, either.
|
I have no wish to be in a totalitarian State nor a criminal one
Of course not Fothers, that's why I said no offence.
Still all this stuff about sharing the road with the unlicensed mouse in a Saxo when it is also infested with all sorts of much more dangerous carp, most of it self-consciously legal and even legalist, does depress me a bit.
You have somehow manoeuvred me back into this thread after I had signed off.
I suppose the polite thing to say is congratulations.
:o{
|
blimey, I aint eard the term bint for ages.. Dunno where you get the bubble term from Lud, in my mannor its means havin a laugh or a greek bloke.
Anyway. Shop em? depends on the circumstances. If I kow them to be decent I wouldnt.
If they aint? well its grass them up time.
------
< Ulla>
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 10/03/2008 at 19:21
|
|
All this talk of whether the insurance is valid or not... let's be realistic. She probably doesn't have any insurance to speak of, just like most unlicensed drivers. If she's prepared to drive without a licence then she'll no doubt be prepared to not spend hundreds on "unnecessary" insurance.
|
|
|
The fact given is she has no licence. That alone is enough to justify the criticism she is getting.
No licence? No drive.
No money to pay to learn to drive? No drive.
And no excuses!!!
You'd feel so differently if she hit your car, I'd bet.
|
|
It beggars belief that anyone is trying to condone driving without a licence. She's breaking the law with potential major consequences if she injures someone. Her gender, number of children, wealth or lack of wealth are irrelevant. If this was a 17 yr-old chav would it make any difference?
|
I would add: it is not 'condoning' driving without a licence to refrain from reporting it. It is simply staying on the sidelines and maintaining a watching brief.
A carbon neutral approach so to speak
:o}
|
|
Where do you draw the line? What other offences would you see committed and happily ignore?
|
|
Lud,
You seem to be missing the point, even if the woman is insured; this insurance will become invalid because she is breaking the law. She is only insured IF she owns the car and owns a provisional licence and driving with a qualified driver (FACT)
Therefore unless her children are qualified drivers she is BREAKING THE LAW and therefore her insurance is INVALID.
Carse
|
I could print this discussion and show it to a colleague whose mum was killed and twin sons injured after an unlicensed/uninsured driver in an untaxed, no MOT car mounted the pavement and pinned her against a shopwindow.
I wonder how many people knew of his driving status and said nothing to the Authorities?
|
I originally come from an area where it was considered 'not the done thing' to grass up a neighbour, and anyone caught doing so would 'feel the consequences'.
Thankfully I have managed to to maintain my integrity, and move away.
Where does anarchy begin?
|
I originally come from an area where it was considered 'not the done thing' to grass up a neighbour, and anyone caught doing so would 'feel the consequences'.
keeping silent in these areas is mainly why these estates contunuie to breed the lawless types.
grass em up i say.
|
|
Give up the argument lud. Sometimes you have to concede the majority might just have a point.
|
hancock here...............what if she is innocent though? members of the jury????
only kidding...................hang her
|
>>only kidding...................hang her
Or use the gas chamber. I was reading somewhere here about two week old lohnjohns ;>)
|
|
Must n't use the gas chamber. Think of the carbon footprint!
|
|
LOL bb, and I have given up Uncle. It's just that people keep coming up with further points down here in the bottomless morass of what probably shouldn't be called moral philosophy...
|
One more word, because I am being slightly misunderstood here: daveyjp's stoned idiot driving a dangerous car dangerously is just the sort of person who ought to be reported. But we all know - or anyway I do - that there are others who are earnest, careful and perhaps only illegal on a temporary basis and unwillingly.
When such a person comes to grief, the courts may understand who they really are and use a light touch, but everyone knows they don't always do this. Anyone in the law or law enforcement knows that there are teflon villains who wriggle out of everything and mucky mamas who take undeserved falls despite their best efforts. That's why it seems to me we shouldn't be too quick to report mere technical illegalities of this sort. We may be doing the world a favour, but we may be messing up an already difficult life. That's my last word in this thread.
|
technical illegalities of this sort. We may be doing the world a favour, but we may be messing up an already difficult life. That's my last word in this thread.
yes we may be making a difficult life even more so, but that isnt our problem. this woman needs to learn another way of sorting he commitments out until she can pass a test like everyone else
|
|
So does the op know for sure she doesn't have a licence, everyone has speculated about her failing to pass a test, is there something we don't know about? Is she banned?
|
It is very noticable the O.P. has not contributed since his/her starting of this thread. The information given was sketchy to say the least.
Some of the comments and assumptions made above are incredulous.
--
Alyn Beattie
I\'m sane, it\'s the rest of the world that\'s mad.
|
|
Shop her. How angry does it make you when you read in the paper, a story about an innocent person run down or fatally injured in a crash with someone who LEGALLY can't be driving a car?
|
|
Well, irrespective of all issues. We All have our licenses, we all pay our tax, insurance and look at our MOTs. So why should others be exempt. If we comply, and pay a pretty penny for the privilege, why should others get away with it.
|
It would be interesting to know whether any Backroomers drive without a licence, tax, insurance or MOT. I bet there's one or two lurking somewhere!
--
L\'escargot.
|
Where do you draw the line? That she is driving an uninsured car with young children in it is bad enough, but then driving it into one of the most dangerous driving situations, namely outside a school at opening/closing time for the school is criminal.
No doubts at all, she should be shopped and stopped before anyone gets hurt......
If you are so worried about "reporting it", then why not have a quiet word, or leave a note on her windsreen along the lines of "stop driving or you will be reported" - that way her reaction will tell you whether she gives a toss for others' lives......
|
>>even if the woman is insured, she is BREAKING THE LAW and therefore her insurance is INVALID.
I always thought that an insurance company would meet a third party claim even if the driver broke the terms of their insurance. It is for this reason I always have fully comprehensive insurance with legal protection to claim for any excess. Luckily in 35 years of driving I have never had to make a claim for an accident.
--
Roger
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
|
I always thought that an insurance company would meet a third party claim even if the driver broke the terms of their insurance.
Well, not in 1981. The other driver's insurer got out of paying my uninsured losses because their client hadn't reported the accident to them.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
You'd feel so differently if she hit your car I'd bet.
Not necessarily because I bet she'd pay up for damage in cash pdq. Probably better than 3 months of legal wrangling to end up with 50:50 and a loss of no claims discount.
*Lud made me say that*
:-)
|
I passed a test
Im insured
my car is taxed and tested
I observe as much of the law as is possible
my tyres are legal
why should anyone be exempt?
"dont report her, shes a single parent"
did i get her pregnant too?.....i dont remember if i did!
Edited by mondeo1306 on 02/08/2009 at 16:09
|
Please please don't anyone complain about rising insurance premiums thanks to the MIB paying out for injuries caused by uninsured and/or unlicensed drivers
No, insurance companies won't pay out if you don't have a license. They won't pay out if you fit a rear spoiler without telling them, either.
Too late when she knocks down a child and kills them. Then drives off.
Unlicensed, uninsured drivers? Burn the lot of 'em
|
Please please don't anyone complain about rising insurance premiums thanks to the MIB
MIB = Men In Black?
|
insurance companies won't pay out if you don't have a license
They won't pay you for anything that is your fault, however comprehensive the insurance may be. But they will pay out for third party liability, which is what counts here.
Surely it must be a myth that insurance premiums are so high because of all the uninsured and unlicensed drivers? I would have thought it had more to do with the absurdly inflated cost of repairing minor body damage to bumperless, fragile modern cars driven by licensed and insured incompetent twerps. In fact I would bet money on it.
|
|
|
|
|
