egafd.com

"....holier-than-thou sanctimonious sentiments...."

By Jupiter's jockstrap, talk about "pot" and "kettle".

Anyway, no revelling here; no sanctity either, just a good, healthy, indifferent shrug of the shoulders, a raising of the eyes, a yawn and a "ho-hum".

Verdict: Misadventure.

Actually, they would get an insurance pay out, regardless of who was riding the bike. The insureres are legally obliged to pay out in the event of any accident.
Any vehicle that isn't currently insured, the previous insurer is obliged to pay and claim any costs back through the individual who caused the accident.

And they would get a big payout from criminal injury, not that that matters at all. They commited a crime it was bad, but no one can comment as easy as they deserved to die. Total rubbish. They could have ran over someone who was inocent, they could have ran over a nonce they could have ran over someone with a back pack full of TNT and save some lives. Fact is they never. Do you honestly think it makes any difference whether the bike was stollen or not if someone dies, if you lost a son though any negligence of another driver you would feel the same way, speeding so if somone was speeding and dies its deserved, again rubbish, what a waste of a blade driving it round at 30, 50 and then the hairy 70. My kids 50cc scooter does that.
Where do you think the Spainish/Italian super motorbike champions come from...Crazy kids.

Phil McC

No, I meant sanctity, for your compassion is overpowering.

Overpowering in the sense of a sickly, cloying miasma.

Such beatific ecstasy - do the Blessed marks appear?

I've got zero sympathy for them.

To equate what they did with a licensed and insured driver going at 35 in a 30 zone is facile beyond belief.

No one has tried to equate what they did with a licensed and insured driver going at 35 in a 30 zone. What said was he who has commited no wrong throw the first stone. If your kid or wife was hit by a speeding motorist regardless of whether he was insured or not you would be just as fucked off. No one has said what they were doing was right, but for nicking a bike they deserved to die, never and no one could agree to that, I had my house broken into at Xmas and the kid was 15, caught huim and he is banged up, I might like to sweeze his testies but as for want him dead, never. Bev might have a different view as he nicked her handbag,

Phil McC

Assuming the owner did have insurance on the bike in question, his policy will be required under what's known as 'Domestic Regulations' to cover the damage to the lamppost, even if the bike was stolen.

That policy will also then be required under the Road Traffic Act to cover the driver's third party liability to the pillion passenger. Given the circumstances, a slice of 'contributory negligence' will reduce any potential pay-out to his parents - but probably not by as much as it should do. The parents of the driver will in all likelihood receive nothing, since nobody elses negligence has contributed to his death.

With compensation awards based on earnings and number of dependents, it's always cheaper when the victims are either children, retired or low earners. Also it's cheaper for insurers when the victims die, as opposed to requiring care for the rest of their lives.

Some might question whether this situation is fair on the owner of the bike (assuming he insured it) and assuming of course it was actually stolen. But that's the way it is, and incidents like this are one of the reasons why the motor insurance premiums we pay in totality as a nation don't currently cover the overall cost of claims.

"No one has tried to equate what they did with a licensed and insured driver going at 35 in a 30 zone"

I think someone did:


"Author: warren zevon rip
Date: 06-07-07 22:28

Nobody on this thread ever gone over the speed limit then? "