|
I must remember to update my book of lame excuses:-)
|
|
Do you work for a rail company then?
|
I can see why you might think that :-)
Seriously, though, having been involved with local traffic issues for a number of years I've heard a few excuses in my time. The common factor with most is that no matter what destruction has been caused and how obvious it is that they've been reckless, those involved always seem to be driving just under the speed limit and swerving to avoid animals!
The latest local one involved a guy who claimed he'd swerved to avoid a parked car, gone the wrong way around a pedestrian refuge, clipped it with his FNS wheel in the process, mounted the pavement and finally come to rest on the grass verge further down the road having ploughed a large furrow in it. He claimed he wasn't speeding or anything but couldn't explain how he'd been unable to see that parked car (if indeed there ever was one) on an otherwise straight and perfectly clear section of road. Funny how he disappeared from the scene very rapidly and only reappeared 24 hours later though !
|
The latest local one involved a guy who claimed he'd swerved to avoid a parked car,
Presumably the parked car suddenly moved out in front of him...
|
|
Yep - and I bet there's a brief out there somewhere who's used that one too :-)
|
|
|
|
And how does someone who is unemployed and on disability benefits afford a 4 litre range rover????
Not really relevant. Keep it motoring please. ND
|
In answer to your question Owen - the same way he'll manage to pay the fine.
Just a couple of other points here:
How does someone aged 39 manage to have a 28 year unblemished driving record ?
Was he registered, insured etc. as a disabled driver ?
How can anyone (even a brief) have the nerve to stand up in court and try to defend this idiot ?
|
|
|
|
And why was he looking for a tape if he was simply trying to move the car a few yards?
To quote Delbert McClinton: "If you can't lie better than that, you might as well tell the truth!"
|
|
Do you think his legal team have come across that quote JBJ ?
|
Presumably not, VM!
------------------
Die dulci fruere!
|
|
|
|
Surely the most relevant comment in the report is: "They also discovered that Arliss was more then three times the drink-drive limit" Knocked the selector lever looking for a tape? I don't think so....
Wasn't this all to do with an argument over a parking space? The guy couldn't find a space outside his own door, so he decided to shunt all the other cars out the way and make one, (or four).
|
|
And how long's it going to be before someone (car maker, insurance company, wreckers yard, recovery organisation ....) launches an advertising campaign based on this case ? :-)
|
The next item I'm expecting is to hear that he wasn't covered! They'll probably have to put him in prison for his own safety, if that happens...
------------------
Die dulci fruere!
|
|
|
|
|
wow! Now, considering most of what the chap said seems to be a 'tissue of lies' what are the chances that he was in fact heading off on a further drinking binge? Silly as it sounds, i'd prefer morons like that to crunch parked cars than to be driving on the open road with innocent people... I hope they throw the book at him.
|
|
"Throw the book at him" Ian ? Come on now, this is the UK you know :-(
|
|
Oh sorry, I forgot. Obviously the humiliation of having his name bandied about in the press will be considered punishment enough, right? It's a shame he ain't younger, otherwise they could send him on a character-building safari to Kenya or something...
|
|
Actually, he'll probably sue successfully for a breach of his human rights!
|
|
|
|
|
Well I think this could make a great Hollywood blockbuster! Plenty of scope for special effects, if just a tad short on content - that should mean 2-2.5 hours duration at least. Now we've just got to sort out who's going to play the driver, his female partner, the brief ....... ?
|
I nominate Pugugly for the brief...
BTW, £137k might sound a lot, but there was an American case a while ago where a driver ran off the road and crashed into an aircraft hangar, which caught light and burned out 11 planes...
|
Yeah but I bet he wasn't just trying to move his car to a safer place though JBJ
Don't know about PU for the brief - is he good looking enough ?
|
|
I had a useful conversation yesterday with an employee of the local s************ Partnership. We discussed, among other things, the siting of cameras in the County ie nowhehere near where the fatal accidents have been. I then mentioned that the stated largest cause of accidents in the County was "Collision with animals on the highway" to which he replied that this was the standard excuse given by people who plough off the road and, if the police can't prove differently, that's what it goes into the stats as. "Just looking for a tape" - not very likely I think!
|
He doesn't get on with hs neighbours and thinks they've damaged hs car.
He gets back from the pub where he's knocked back around 6 pints of Dutch courage.
Maybe he wasn't in the best mood.
It's possible that he may have embarked on a crazed 4x4 rampage and staring down the barrel of a criminal damage charge went for the lighter Drink Driving excuse. Allegedly.
|
|
Anyone know whether his insurers are likely to pay out? Sounds like it might be an exclusion to me...
|
|
I expect we'll all wind up paying the bill one way or another JBJ :-(
|
If he's actually insured, they'll pay out - someone would have to in the end for most of them, whether his insurer or the insurers of the cars he's wrecked, so the generally gnerous nature of most policies (at least in theory) will see them right.
Actually criminal damage probably wouldn't be too bad except it would be in addition to the drink driving but, if it's a first offence, he'd probably get a suspended sentence - according to Jordan's, the magistrates' starting point for this is a fine.
Is anyone else worried at how the guy has a twenty eight year driving record when he's only thirty nine? Was he going down the boozer and driving round in someone else's car at eleven perhaps?
|
|
I defer to your knowledge in such things, David, but are you sure that an insurer wouldn't make an exception when someone deliberately uses his vehicle to shunt others? Oh, sorry, forgot - he was looking for a tape...
|
Answering from a practical rather than a strictly legalistic standpoint, most of the time (when the damage is in four, not six figures) it's not worth the cost of litigating on. There's too much risk of it going the other way and paying out £10k in costs on a £6k claim.
Also, you're looking at a situation where, overall, most insurers will pay up based on the assumption that they would end up paying up in many of these situations, only from the claimant's insurance.
Also, s.145 (1) of the Road Traffic Act staets that any policy of motor insurance
(a) must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road in Great Britain.
There are then various exceptions, the main one being use for hire and reward.
Basically, including a gross negligence/stupidity/wilfulness clause would leave the courts open to too many disputes as to who would be insured as it would be far too easy for an insurer to abdicate responsibility by putting too much of the blame on their own insured.
|
The crucial question is what was on the tape. Sources close to no-one in particular reveal:
Smash it up - The Damned
Crash - The Primitives
Running up that bill - Kate Bush
Twist & Clout - The Beatles
And the Smashie & Nicey favourite;
You ain't seen nothing yet - Bachman Turner Driveover.
Not 'arf pop pickers.
|
Bachman Turner Driveover, Nicey ???
You mean Bachman Turner Flyover don't you?
Or was it Bachman Turner Overdrive ? :-)
|
Tape should also have included:
Crawling from the wreckage - Dave Edmunds!
TTFN
|
"..a gross negligence/stupidity/wilfulness clause"
Just as well stupidity isn't a let-out, I guess.
Or as Groucho Marx famously said: "Sanity clause, what sanity clause? Doesn't he know there ain't no sanity clause?" :-)
|
|
|
|
|
