The law on illegal vehicles
Discussion
Hi All,
Today got me thinking.
I was pulling out into a road and had to brake suddenly as there was a guy coming my way on an electric scooter.
I was curious if there had been an accident what view the law/insurance would take on this.
As scooters are currently illegal to operate on the road, what do you think would the the outcome if:
a) I pulled out and caused an accident that would under normal circumstances been my fault i.e. an accident with a legal vehicle
b) I pulled out and the scooter caused an accident that would have been his fault regardless of the illegality of the vehicle
I can imagine a judge feeling some pity on a scooter rider who is uninsured and who will for the lack of an insurance payout have to pay for his own healthcare/damages himself but does the illegality of the vehicle completely exclude him from any compensation purely by the fact that he should not have been on the road in the first place?
Today got me thinking.
I was pulling out into a road and had to brake suddenly as there was a guy coming my way on an electric scooter.
I was curious if there had been an accident what view the law/insurance would take on this.
As scooters are currently illegal to operate on the road, what do you think would the the outcome if:
a) I pulled out and caused an accident that would under normal circumstances been my fault i.e. an accident with a legal vehicle
b) I pulled out and the scooter caused an accident that would have been his fault regardless of the illegality of the vehicle
I can imagine a judge feeling some pity on a scooter rider who is uninsured and who will for the lack of an insurance payout have to pay for his own healthcare/damages himself but does the illegality of the vehicle completely exclude him from any compensation purely by the fact that he should not have been on the road in the first place?
Cold said:
I think it's generally frowned upon to mow down members of the public, no matter what form of transport they choose to use.
While I appreciate the Grand Theft Auto humour on this, the question was relatively serious on the basis that there are a fair number of scooters on the road and an accident will eventually happen with a scooter at fault.sociopath said:
I took that as a fairly serious response, you cant mow someone down with impunity just because they're breaking a different law.
They'll be dealt with for their offence, and you for yours
Accepted but I wasn't talking about mowing down purposefully.They'll be dealt with for their offence, and you for yours
It was a case of accident with driver at fault and accident with scooter at fault.
Artsy said:
Hi All,
Today got me thinking.
I was pulling out into a road and had to brake suddenly as there was a guy coming my way on an electric scooter.
I was curious if there had been an accident what view the law/insurance would take on this.
As scooters are currently illegal to operate on the road, what do you think would the the outcome if:
a) I pulled out and caused an accident that would under normal circumstances been my fault i.e. an accident with a legal vehicle
b) I pulled out and the scooter caused an accident that would have been his fault regardless of the illegality of the vehicle
I can imagine a judge feeling some pity on a scooter rider who is uninsured and who will for the lack of an insurance payout have to pay for his own healthcare/damages himself but does the illegality of the vehicle completely exclude him from any compensation purely by the fact that he should not have been on the road in the first place?
a) I would think.Today got me thinking.
I was pulling out into a road and had to brake suddenly as there was a guy coming my way on an electric scooter.
I was curious if there had been an accident what view the law/insurance would take on this.
As scooters are currently illegal to operate on the road, what do you think would the the outcome if:
a) I pulled out and caused an accident that would under normal circumstances been my fault i.e. an accident with a legal vehicle
b) I pulled out and the scooter caused an accident that would have been his fault regardless of the illegality of the vehicle
I can imagine a judge feeling some pity on a scooter rider who is uninsured and who will for the lack of an insurance payout have to pay for his own healthcare/damages himself but does the illegality of the vehicle completely exclude him from any compensation purely by the fact that he should not have been on the road in the first place?
Also, even if the other party was assigned some blame, your insurance would still likely end up paying for his healthcare if he was injured..
I am not saying I think its right or wrong, its just how I think it will play out in that given scenario.
Artsy said:
sociopath said:
I took that as a fairly serious response, you cant mow someone down with impunity just because they're breaking a different law.
They'll be dealt with for their offence, and you for yours
Accepted but I wasn't talking about mowing down purposefully.They'll be dealt with for their offence, and you for yours
It was a case of accident with driver at fault and accident with scooter at fault.
Hol said:
a) I would think.
Also, even if the other party was assigned some blame, your insurance would still likely end up paying for his healthcare if he was injured..
I am not saying I think its right or wrong, its just how I think it will play out in that given scenario.
Just replace the method of transport from a scooter to a cyclist. Same answer.Also, even if the other party was assigned some blame, your insurance would still likely end up paying for his healthcare if he was injured..
I am not saying I think its right or wrong, its just how I think it will play out in that given scenario.
ro250 said:
Hol said:
a) I would think.
Also, even if the other party was assigned some blame, your insurance would still likely end up paying for his healthcare if he was injured..
I am not saying I think its right or wrong, its just how I think it will play out in that given scenario.
Just replace the method of transport from a scooter to a cyclist. Same answer.Also, even if the other party was assigned some blame, your insurance would still likely end up paying for his healthcare if he was injured..
I am not saying I think its right or wrong, its just how I think it will play out in that given scenario.
If I recall correctly the car driver here was prosecuted for death by dangerous driving for offences that caused this accident with the biker, despite the biker averaging c.100mph in the run up to the junction.
https://youtu.be/5_6HU2bq_R0
Totally responsible for your own conduct in the eyes of the law.
https://youtu.be/5_6HU2bq_R0
Totally responsible for your own conduct in the eyes of the law.
jonobigblind said:
If I recall correctly the car driver here was prosecuted for death by dangerous driving for offences that caused this accident with the biker, despite the biker averaging c.100mph in the run up to the junction.
https://youtu.be/5_6HU2bq_R0
Totally responsible for your own conduct in the eyes of the law.
Admitted death by careless driving (not dangerous driving).https://youtu.be/5_6HU2bq_R0
Totally responsible for your own conduct in the eyes of the law.
Sentenced to community sentence & 18 month ban.
Vulnerable road user card would be played straight away i suspect.
Similar to a cyclist as pointed out above.
I suspect the default position would be "Your fault cos vulnerable" unless there was compelling evidence to the contrary.
A friend mowed down a cyclist who did the swerve off the pavement into the path of cars trick. They wanted to do him for careless driving until he lawyered up on the grounds that a careful driver would have anticipated the cyclist may do that with the crossing coming up and slowed accordingly.
Similar to a cyclist as pointed out above.
I suspect the default position would be "Your fault cos vulnerable" unless there was compelling evidence to the contrary.
A friend mowed down a cyclist who did the swerve off the pavement into the path of cars trick. They wanted to do him for careless driving until he lawyered up on the grounds that a careful driver would have anticipated the cyclist may do that with the crossing coming up and slowed accordingly.
vonhosen said:
jonobigblind said:
If I recall correctly the car driver here was prosecuted for death by dangerous driving for offences that caused this accident with the biker, despite the biker averaging c.100mph in the run up to the junction.
https://youtu.be/5_6HU2bq_R0
Totally responsible for your own conduct in the eyes of the law.
Admitted death by careless driving (not dangerous driving).https://youtu.be/5_6HU2bq_R0
Totally responsible for your own conduct in the eyes of the law.
Sentenced to community sentence & 18 month ban.
There was also some bird who used to post loads of stuff online about herself that people seem to love these days. I seem to remember that she was hit and killed whilst illegally on an electric scooter. I have no idea what the lorry driver got as a punishment but clearly fate was her punishment.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/13/tv...
It is really no different to the scumbags you see on scooters with no helmet and no lights and no silencer on their exhaust. Or car drivers with only one headlight that I see so often. All are illegal but if you have an accident you will be in the sh#t.
Maybe not seeing them will stand in your favour if they have not lights.
Pip
Ps I am sure the blogger/vlogger was a lovely person.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/13/tv...
It is really no different to the scumbags you see on scooters with no helmet and no lights and no silencer on their exhaust. Or car drivers with only one headlight that I see so often. All are illegal but if you have an accident you will be in the sh#t.
Maybe not seeing them will stand in your favour if they have not lights.
Pip
Ps I am sure the blogger/vlogger was a lovely person.
I would happily declare open season on those that insist on riding bikes or electric scooters at night dressed in dark clothing with no lights. Most of them are very likely to be delivering drugs so it would do everyone a favour. They could be offered a Darwin Award for services to improving mankinds genepool upon exit 
Pip1968 said:
There was also some bird who used to post loads of stuff online about herself that people seem to love these days. I seem to remember that she was hit and killed whilst illegally on an electric scooter. I have no idea what the lorry driver got as a punishment but clearly fate was her punishment.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/13/tv...
It is really no different to the scumbags you see on scooters with no helmet and no lights and no silencer on their exhaust. Or car drivers with only one headlight that I see so often. All are illegal but if you have an accident you will be in the sh#t.
Maybe not seeing them will stand in your favour if they have not lights.
Pip
Ps I am sure the blogger/vlogger was a lovely person.
You'll be in the sh#t in respect of your level of culpability, not automatically in the sh#t.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/13/tv...
It is really no different to the scumbags you see on scooters with no helmet and no lights and no silencer on their exhaust. Or car drivers with only one headlight that I see so often. All are illegal but if you have an accident you will be in the sh#t.
Maybe not seeing them will stand in your favour if they have not lights.
Pip
Ps I am sure the blogger/vlogger was a lovely person.
NikBartlett said:
I would happily declare open season on those that insist on riding bikes or electric scooters at night dressed in dark clothing with no lights.........
+1 
If they're too stupid to ride at night on the most vulnerable modes of transport, with lights and reflective clothing on, then they're too stupid to live!
Perhaps if they knew they could be run down by vehicles, with total impunity for the drivers of the colliding vehicle if the cycle/scooter was found to have no lighting whatsoever, more of them might put some bloody lights on their bikes/scooters?
(And before someone comes out with: "What if it was a member of your own family who was knocked down?" - If it was due to them riding in the dark, in dark clothing, without lights on, there would be a part of me that would be forever thinking: "You brought it on yourself! [Luckily enough though, my family members aren't that stupid!] )
Artsy said:
Accepted but I wasn't talking about mowing down purposefully.
It was a case of accident with driver at fault and accident with scooter at fault.
I wonder if it’d be viewed the same way as getting collected by a car going a long way over the speed limit when pulling out.It was a case of accident with driver at fault and accident with scooter at fault.
It’s reasonable to assume, when pulling out into a 30mph road that there’s not a car about to appear round the bend 100m away doing 80mph.
Similarly I’d say it’s reasonable at the moment not to expect someone dressed in black on an unlit scooter riding in the gutter to be doing 40mph.
Yes, we should be observant enough to see them, but it’s a very new sight, and if we’re somewhere with no rental scheme for them then they really are unexpected.
To take a more extreme example, if a light aircraft was about to use a road for an emergency landing would a car be at fault for pulling out in front of it?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff