I don't think that's right either Pete, as Andy alludes above, as those who chose not to insure a car (for whatever reason - no licence, no money, no morals) far outweighs those who are either disqualified or driving a stolen vehicle. This is why I struggle with such blanket statements that being uninsured somehow correlates to people dying in road accidents, with the notion being that to stop all these "needless" deaths you should be insured. But I don't see how paying for a piece of paper suddenly stops people dying... surely that's down to standards of driving?
mmm, I'm not sure. I think that breaking one law makes it more likely that an offender will break another. Maybe drink driving, maybe not bothering to maintain his or her vehicle. All things that can increase the chance of an accident. Not a direct correlation, granted.
I watched the programme. Personally I like these police type programmes, probably as I have a 'slight' insight into them. Now this bloke youre referring to, was a prize chump, but in this case its my understanding that he was, this time anyway, the innocent party and the court believed his story that he was misled into thinking he had insurance cover.
Oh how simplified it would be if you were insured as a person , i.e. for everything you owned ,did , how much is an average insurance for a car , a bike , your house , personal accident , healthcare . Why can a person not be universally insured . OH hang on I know , the homeless , feckless , the poor and criminals wouldn't be in it to win it. Answered myself .
Isn't it just more likely that it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he knew it was fraudulent? In which case, he'd have to be acquitted. I think there's a difference in these things between strongly suspecting that someone is guilty of a crime and proving that they are. A judge might point this out to the jury and direct them. I assume. I've never attended a trial in any capacity, so it is just my understanding without any first-hand knowledge.
From my point of view the cops cant really win whatever they do. My personal opinion of "most of traffic" is they seem to only be able to see in "black and white". This usually comes over in the programmes where they seem to interview more often than not coppers that look like they've got mental issues, vacant look, skinhead hair cut, talking a little slowly, maybe im being judgemental here.. Case in point last year I got stopped on the way down to poole bike night with a strip plate, and no baffle in the pipe....copper was alright, on hindsight, yeah, the pipe on my rsv was fucking loud, and I think he was right to pull me. Also, and this did surprise me, he said that he didn't mind a plate that was a little smaller but mine was too small. So, since then the baffle has stayed in and ive gotten a slightly larger plate, not full size but not taking the piss. But then on the flipside the police service may need to put out nutty traffic officers in some places to deal with the scum.... I don't really know where im going with this but I thought id say all the same...
Well I've attended lots of trials in various capacities - and your understanding on that point is absolutely correct.
