Drink driving/crash advice please!
Discussion
First of all, I'd just like to explain that I'm asking this on behalf of a girl I work with.
She went out on Saturday night and had quite a bit to drink. Anyway, on the way to work on Sunday she had a car accident (nobody else involved thankfully!) but the police were in attendance and, as a matter of routine, took a breath sample. She blew over so they took her to the station where she again blew just over double the drink drive limit. She had an interview after this an admitted to driving the car at the time of the accident.
Now, what I'd like to know is what (realistically) will happen from here?
I've suggested that the insurance will probably not pay out (the car is thought to be a write-off) and she'll probably get a driving ban but for how long etc etc? Is there any way to escape the ban with a fine or is she just going to have to suck it up and take whatever's thrown at her?
She keeps saying how stupid she was and how embarrassed she is but she thought that she'd be okay as she'd slept since the alcohol consumption (obviously us PHers know better!)
Constructive advice welcomed please!
She went out on Saturday night and had quite a bit to drink. Anyway, on the way to work on Sunday she had a car accident (nobody else involved thankfully!) but the police were in attendance and, as a matter of routine, took a breath sample. She blew over so they took her to the station where she again blew just over double the drink drive limit. She had an interview after this an admitted to driving the car at the time of the accident.
Now, what I'd like to know is what (realistically) will happen from here?
I've suggested that the insurance will probably not pay out (the car is thought to be a write-off) and she'll probably get a driving ban but for how long etc etc? Is there any way to escape the ban with a fine or is she just going to have to suck it up and take whatever's thrown at her?
She keeps saying how stupid she was and how embarrassed she is but she thought that she'd be okay as she'd slept since the alcohol consumption (obviously us PHers know better!)
Constructive advice welcomed please!
She should expect a magistarte's court appearance in fairly short prder and DD is put through quickly. There are defenses but the these are procedural and rarely successful. Take legal advice.
A ban of at least 12 months and a fine should be expected. The twice the limit and a crash will be agrivating factors and is likely to increase the length of the ban. It is possible to shorten the period of the bad by doing a drink drive course but this is not always available.
A ban of at least 12 months and a fine should be expected. The twice the limit and a crash will be agrivating factors and is likely to increase the length of the ban. It is possible to shorten the period of the bad by doing a drink drive course but this is not always available.
Daggers89 said:
I've suggested that the insurance will probably not pay out (the car is thought to be a write-off) and she'll probably get a driving ban but for how long etc etc? Is there any way to escape the ban with a fine or is she just going to have to suck it up and take whatever's thrown at her?
Something similar happened to a lad I worked with after a night out. He hit a minibus full of Police and if I remember right his insurance paid out for the damage to the Police van, but not to his car. Not 100% sure on that though - it was a few years ago.He got a 12 month ban and a £500(ish) fine. I'd be surprised if there was a way to escape the ban - I'd imagine you'd need a very good motoring lawyer and hope that the Police hadn't followed the correct process in some way.
One of my idiot siblings actually crashed his car on the way home from work (worked in a hotel). He'd had a couple of drinks and "slid on black ice" (miraculously disappeared by the time Police arrived) into a wooden telegraph pole and snapped it. His insurance paid a fortune to repair the telegraph pole but because insurance companies are big horrible meanies they didn't pay a penny for his car. And he had to pay recovery charge. And his stereo had gone missing when he went to pay the recovery and storage fees
15 month ban and a £250 fine.
No idea why fines are different - would like to know though?
The insurance will pay out for the other person, but then will recover it from her. I believe this is pretty standard practice now.
ETA - Just re-read OP, as no one else involved it's likely the insurance company will just refuse to payout.
ETA - Just re-read OP, as no one else involved it's likely the insurance company will just refuse to payout.
Edited by Petrus1983 on Monday 5th May 01:32
Petrus1983 said:
The insurance will pay out for the other person, but then will recover it from her. I believe this is pretty standard practice now.
What's the point in having insurance if the company is just going to try to recover it after paying out? In an injuries case that could be a bankruptcy job for many people.Loon will perhaps turn up and bring some clarity to the insurance point.
My understanding is that some insurers have clauses that can deny pay out in specific circumstances. That is not the same as saying they all do have such clauses and that they all will refuse to pay out all of the time.
My understanding is that some insurers have clauses that can deny pay out in specific circumstances. That is not the same as saying they all do have such clauses and that they all will refuse to pay out all of the time.
Steve H said:
Petrus1983 said:
The insurance will pay out for the other person, but then will recover it from her. I believe this is pretty standard practice now.
What's the point in having insurance if the company is just going to try to recover it after paying out? In an injuries case that could be a bankruptcy job for many people.What happens with her insurance depends entirely on who she's insured with and what the terms of her policy are.
Many (most?) insurers have no particular policy terms relating to drink driving, so will pay out as normal. The point of insurance is of course to protect you when you drive like a pillock.
Some insurers (eg Hastings) restrict cover to third party only in the event of a drink related accident.
A handful of insurers (Admiral and Zurich are the only ones I know of) will provide no cover and will only pay out as required by the Road Traffic Act, and will then seek recovery from her. That would mean that not only would they not pay for the car, she could find herself being presented with a bill for any other damage she'd caused.
Without knowing who she's insured with, anyone who tries to tell you what will happen is guessing.
In terms of penalty the sentencing guidelines are on page 124 here
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/MCS...
For approximately double the limit she can expect a ban if 17-22 months and a band C fine (ie approximately her weekly post tax income if she pleads guilty). She'll likely be offered a drink drive rehabilitation course which will reduce the ban by a quarter, but she can't escape the ban entirely without special reasons. Common special reasons for avoiding a ban are spiked drinks, driving due to a genuine emergency and only driving a very short distance (eg to move a car which is in dangerous position), none of which apply here.
Many (most?) insurers have no particular policy terms relating to drink driving, so will pay out as normal. The point of insurance is of course to protect you when you drive like a pillock.
Some insurers (eg Hastings) restrict cover to third party only in the event of a drink related accident.
A handful of insurers (Admiral and Zurich are the only ones I know of) will provide no cover and will only pay out as required by the Road Traffic Act, and will then seek recovery from her. That would mean that not only would they not pay for the car, she could find herself being presented with a bill for any other damage she'd caused.
Without knowing who she's insured with, anyone who tries to tell you what will happen is guessing.
In terms of penalty the sentencing guidelines are on page 124 here
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/MCS...
For approximately double the limit she can expect a ban if 17-22 months and a band C fine (ie approximately her weekly post tax income if she pleads guilty). She'll likely be offered a drink drive rehabilitation course which will reduce the ban by a quarter, but she can't escape the ban entirely without special reasons. Common special reasons for avoiding a ban are spiked drinks, driving due to a genuine emergency and only driving a very short distance (eg to move a car which is in dangerous position), none of which apply here.
Edited by Aretnap on Monday 5th May 10:19
Siscar said:
The point is to insure you when sober and within the terms of the policy. But you can't expect them to cover situations that are against the terms of the policy unless they are legally obliged to. That's why they pay out for third party claims in these circumstances, although they may then seek to reclaim that from you.
I was looking for a good way to word my reply but it's been done for me - Aretnap said:
The point of insurance is of course to protect you when you drive like a pillock.
I don't want my premiums to go up as a result of payouts to drunks but I also don't want them to be covering the cost of doting parents who were too busy looking at their offspring on the back seat to concentrate on driving or spurious whiplash claims that very little is being done about; drunk driving is just the easy to see tip of a very large and apparently easy to ignore iceberg.Most accidents are caused by some kind of avoidable poor/lazy/distracted/aggressive/drunk driving, I'm uncomfortable with the particular emphasis on drunk drivers not because I think it's OK to do but because for the insurance companies I think it's a cost cutting move that is easy to get away with and for the authorities it's an easily quantifiable form of behaviour to demonise - a lot like they are now doing with speeding. How long will it be until they refuse to pay out if you were over that limit? …………..
Steve H said:
Siscar said:
The point is to insure you when sober and within the terms of the policy. But you can't expect them to cover situations that are against the terms of the policy unless they are legally obliged to. That's why they pay out for third party claims in these circumstances, although they may then seek to reclaim that from you.
I was looking for a good way to word my reply but it's been done for me - Aretnap said:
The point of insurance is of course to protect you when you drive like a pillock.
I don't want my premiums to go up as a result of payouts to drunks but I also don't want them to be covering the cost of doting parents who were too busy looking at their offspring on the back seat to concentrate on driving or spurious whiplash claims that very little is being done about; drunk driving is just the easy to see tip of a very large and apparently easy to ignore iceberg.Most accidents are caused by some kind of avoidable poor/lazy/distracted/aggressive/drunk driving, I'm uncomfortable with the particular emphasis on drunk drivers not because I think it's OK to do but because for the insurance companies I think it's a cost cutting move that is easy to get away with and for the authorities it's an easily quantifiable form of behaviour to demonise - a lot like they are now doing with speeding. How long will it be until they refuse to pay out if you were over that limit? …………..
I was commenting on the factual basis around it, it makes no difference what anyone thinks about it, if an insurance term is legal and the policy holder has signed up to it then that is the situation regardless of whether you like it.
Of course you can opine about it, you could even try and raise the enthusiasm to get the law around it changed, but for the time being it is as it is whether you like it or not.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff