|
|
|
Rather weird dillemma. Need some advice quick plz!
- Thread starter kingsha
- Start date
Very. Find a retarded babe who will do anything you ask. Buy a car in her name and drive uninsured. If you have a wreck it falls on her and you dump her. Popular method in one community.
Hah, I call a bluff.
"Hi. Had a crash and the front rim of my cbr600 is slightly bent from 2 places."
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...-tiny-bend-in-front-rim&p=1752457#post1752457
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...-source-to-buy-fairings&p=1752461#post1752461
Sorry to break it to you, but you are up ***** creek, man.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
Nice Catch.
I have a 'friend' who has this rash. What can my friend do, this hurts like a mofo....
vkhamphi
Well-known member
Does it hurt when you pee? I mean, does your friend hurt when he pees?
kingsha
Well-known member
Looool you guys are jokers. That other thread was a typo. I have a license and my own bike...2007 gsxr600
This is really my older brother's bike. I'm gonna repair it for him tho.
What does that have to do with morality? Ignoring the HTA isn't a moral dilemma. He took a risk riding without insurance and a license. No question there. But if the accident was due to the driver's negligence then the driver is morally responsible for the damages as far as I see it. The fact that the driver has leverage over the rider is irrelevant from a moral standpoint. I actually find it disheartening that people will take advantage of a situation like this. Refusing to pay is one thing but blackmailing the rider to pay for damages the driver caused proves the driver is a ****** bag.
As for the argument that the rider is at fault for riding uninsured... This doesn't make a lick of sense either. Again, assuming the driver hit him due to his own negligence, blaming the rider for being uninsured is like trying to argue that the accident wouldn't have occurred if his parents hadn't gotten drunk one night and conceived him. It's technically true that events would have occurred differently but it's an indirect relationship that has no causal significance. The direct cause of the accident would still be the driver's negligence. He had no idea the rider was uninsured and if the rider hadn't been on the road that day it could've very well been someone else who got hit instead.
This is just an academic response to some opinions I disagree with and I'm assuming the driver caused the collision. Ultimately, the rider still put himself in a tight spot and I think both parties walking away is a reasonable settlement. For shame!
Last edited:
Af4iK you raise a good point. A few years ago a taxi was stopped on the wrong side of the street and as my wife approached in her car, the passenger opened her door and cleaned off the mirror on my wife's car. The passenger could (should) have seen my wife coming and waited; she was facing the right direction after all. The cabbie was found at fault in this case and had to pay as he was parked on the wrong side of the street, trying to drop his fare off a few feet closer to the door. In my opinion it was the passenger who should have had to pay, for two reasons. She pulled the bonehead move, and she was a lawyer who could more easily afford it I'm sure. Morals, ethics; do they even exist anymore?
Dresden
Well-known member
Riding without insurance or license = At fault.
If it were me, I would have not given any info out, and just called it a day/lesson learned... sounds like your brother tried to get greedy to have the damages on his bike fixed and now he's in a pickle.
Edit. Just saw above.
.jpg)
Last edited:
There is very little to argue in this thread, if you understand both insurance and the law.
From an insurance standpoint the car driver gets hit with an at-fault, under the Rules of Fault Determination. The motorcyclist ends up with a mark on his record, for operating a vehicle without insurance, which results in ridiculous insurance rates for years to come, on any and all vehicles he insures.
From a legal standpoint the car driver gets charged with 'operation without due care and attention', which is likely reduced to either 'failure to yield right of way' or 'operate electronic device while driving', if he fights the charge. The motorcyclist gets charged with operating a vehicle without insurance, which results in a fine in the $5000.00 to $25,000.00 range, for a first offence. If it's a subsequent offence, then the fine goes to $10K - $50K.
One side doesn't win and the other side lose. Both sides lose.
From an insurance standpoint the car driver gets hit with an at-fault, under the Rules of Fault Determination. The motorcyclist ends up with a mark on his record, for operating a vehicle without insurance, which results in ridiculous insurance rates for years to come, on any and all vehicles he insures.
From a legal standpoint the car driver gets charged with 'operation without due care and attention', which is likely reduced to either 'failure to yield right of way' or 'operate electronic device while driving', if he fights the charge. The motorcyclist gets charged with operating a vehicle without insurance, which results in a fine in the $5000.00 to $25,000.00 range, for a first offence. If it's a subsequent offence, then the fine goes to $10K - $50K.
One side doesn't win and the other side lose. Both sides lose.
Did the fine for operating without insurance change? I was thinking it was a bit lower, starting or fixed at $3000. (Not advocating doing it, of course)
Rob I think you are entirely right if the police reported to the scene. Since this is after the fact it may be hard to prove the other driver was in the wrong (although there were witnesses).
It is of course is easy to prove the bike had no insurance...
It did, as Rob noted...first offense is 5K to 25K, second starts at 10K up to 50K. Wording is along the lines of no lower (or not less) than 5K and no higher than 25K... It is on the MTO website.
|
|
|
|
|