So who's out there riding taking chances ? | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

So who's out there riding taking chances ?

We all understand that. I'm not sure it matters all that much in your scenario (other than upping the pita factor as the uninsured rider will have to fight harder to get money.)
I don't know if the argument holds but it was "If you and or the vehicle were not qualified to be legally on the road you wouldn't have been there for me to crash into so I can't be held responsible for your loss."
 
I don't know if the argument holds but it was "If you and or the vehicle were not qualified to be legally on the road you wouldn't have been there for me to crash into so I can't be held responsible for your loss."
And that's a reasonable argument for lawyers in court.

According to an insurance company, it is clean. I don't trust statements by insurance companies. They will do anything possible not to pay (including false propaganda). I would love a court decision to reference but I suspect they will be hard to find as in the face of an impending loss, insurance would settle to keep it sealed.



"If you are the uninsured driver with involvement in an accident, you will be held personally responsible. This will include responsibility for all the repairs to your vehicle, as well as any medical bills. You will also be financially responsible to pay for the damages to any other vehicle(s) in the accident. This will apply even if you’re not at-fault for the collision. "
 
And that's a reasonable argument for lawyers in court.

According to an insurance company, it is clean. I don't trust statements by insurance companies. They will do anything possible not to pay (including false propaganda). I would love a court decision to reference but I suspect they will be hard to find as in the face of an impending loss, insurance would settle to keep it sealed.



"If you are the uninsured driver with involvement in an accident, you will be held personally responsible. This will include responsibility for all the repairs to your vehicle, as well as any medical bills. You will also be financially responsible to pay for the damages to any other vehicle(s) in the accident. This will apply even if you’re not at-fault for the collision. "
That's very serious food for thought but since it was written by an insurer it may be biased. Will it hold up in court?

Do judges go soft on the minimum $5000 fine or are these issues absolute?
 
I saw a case on YouTube about someone in the U.S. without insurance, at fault crashing into someone with, getting life altering injuries and then successfully suing the not at fault driver, due to some obscure clause in the law.
 
It seems a large number of people from local GTA Facebook motorcycle pages I used to follow enjoyed riding uninsured. "PIGS CANT CATCH ME YO"
I stopped following those groups when I could feel my brain cells rotting away from the drivel that was constantly posted.
 
That's very serious food for thought but since it was written by an insurer it may be biased. Will it hold up in court?

Do judges go soft on the minimum $5000 fine or are these issues absolute?
Soft. Seen plenty of 2500-3500 cases
 

Back
Top Bottom