Drink driving? No comprehensive cover!

[Emmit]

Hi all,

Yes, it's that time of year when we throw our cheque books and credit cards at the Insurance Co. and allow them to help themselves.
Yesterday I received an invitation to bankrupt myself again when the 'Invitation'? to renew came down the line.

Just for a change, and with nothing better to do, I started to go through the 27 pages of????.
All the usual, until I came across what is, in effect, the title of this thread.
The bit that caught my eye said that, in the event of an accident, if one was over the limit or refused to supply either breath, blood or urine, then one's comprehensive Insurance was null and void. It went on to say that third party risks to comply with the RTA was still there but you would be on your own as to damage to your pride and joy.

This came as news to me and although I don't imagine any of us would knowingly d and d but that old problem of the accident, 'The following day' could be a real problem.

I would copy the details but I don't know how to get a copy of the doc. which is on a PDF.

 

[AJM2]

I hope that is the case. If it was really someone's pride and joy would they really be driving it over the limit? And what about the person who was hit by the driver who was driving over the limit? 'I fancied another one' isn't really going to cut much mustard with them, I suspect. Sorry, have absolutely no time for drunk drivers, having seen what the outcome can be.

 

[Puddleduck]

It's the day after that catches so many people out. Especially when the limits are really low.

BUT if I am reading what you wrote correctly it is the failing to provide a specimen that negate the insurance rather than the act ?

If we know we are likely to go out the next day neither of us will have anything alcoholic to drink the day before. I don't drink alcohol (except for a sip and spit if Martin says a new wine is nice) so there is always one stone cold sober driver at all times here.

 

[2x2camper]

I think you will find a number of policies only cover 3rd party liability if found to be over the limit.

Whats the problem?

 

[Odd-no-more]

I didn't know that, would it apply if although over the limit, the accident was not your fault?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

I didn't know that, would it apply if although over the limit, the accident was not your fault?

If the collision is not your fault you won’t be claiming from your insurance company. You’ll be claiming from the at fault drivers insurance.
Unless they are uninsured, then, if you’re over the limit I guess you’re knackered.

 

[Nirvanauk]

It's the day after that catches so many people out. Especially when the limits are really low.

BUT if I am reading what you wrote correctly it is the failing to provide a specimen that negate the insurance rather than the act ?

If we know we are likely to go out the next day neither of us will have anything alcoholic to drink the day before. I don't drink alcohol (except for a sip and spit if Martin says a new wine is nice) so there is always one stone cold sober driver at all times here.

Unfortunately the limits in England are among the highest in the world

 

[Odd-no-more]

If the collision is not your fault you won’t be claiming from your insurance company. You’ll be claiming from the at fault drivers insurance.
Unless they are uninsured, then, if you’re over the limit I guess you’re knackered.

I have never knowingly driven while over the limit, but it's the day after which is hard to judge. Back when we did the Butlins 70's weekends, I would stop drinking at midnight on Sunday and not drive until midday on the Monday, but there is no way to be sure unless stopped by the rozzers.

 

[Nirvanauk]

I have never knowingly driven while over the limit, but it's the day after which is hard to judge. Back when we did the Butlins 70's weekends, I would stop drinking at midnight on Sunday and not drive until midday on the Monday, but there is no way to be sure unless stopped by the rozzers.

You can get breathalysers at alcosense

 

[Phill D]

If the collision is not your fault you won’t be claiming from your insurance company. You’ll be claiming from the at fault drivers insurance.
Unless they are uninsured, then, if you’re over the limit I guess you’re knackered.

i think you may have a fight on your hands if you are over the limit and involved in an accident to be claiming it was the other drivers fault, especially if the other driver was clear.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Phill D]

PS; unless of course it was blatantly obvious and witnessed as such..

 

[Langtoftlad]

Also often (invariably?) it's also an exclusion clause in travel insurance policies...
Have a few drinks, trip over an uneven kerb, break your leg and... poof... insurance policy void.

 

[PeteH]

Hmmm? Missed that one!. Cannot find any similar reference on either of my current policies?.

You can get breathalysers at alcosense

I think I have seen somewhere that they are UN-reliable?

 

[Wellington]

I'm sure they could argue it was a factor. I've always assumed that if you are in contravention of any laws your insurance wouldn't be valid (they'll have any excuse!)

 

[Odd-no-more]

Unfortunately the limits in England are among the highest in the world

I don't want to get into another drink driving thread, but do you have any evidence that people who are under the limit are causing accidents due to being drunk?

i think you may have a fight on your hands if you are over the limit and involved in an accident to be claiming it was the other drivers fault, especially if the other driver was clear.

Suppose I was on the main road driving under the speed limit and a driver pulls out of a drive in front of me, would that still be my fault?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Emmit]

Puddleduck.
In answer to your post the Insurance Co. have all the bases loaded and covered.
ie. The removal of comprehensive cover for being over the prescribed limit is obviously covered as well as failing or refusing to supply a sample. (ALL samples be it breath at the scene or Station or a subsequent demand for a sample of breath blood or urine.) That would prevent a client saying"there is no evidence that I was over the limit"

2x2camper.

The purpose of the OP was to inform. That was it. Pure and simple. There is no "problem"

 

[Nanniemate]

I didn't know that, would it apply if although over the limit, the accident was not your fault?

If you are over the limit you should not be there so .........................

 

[Emmit]

I didn't know that, would it apply if although over the limit, the accident was not your fault?

Yes. It's very clear and unambiguous.

 

[Phill D]

I don't want to get into another drink driving thread, but do you have any evidence that people who are under the limit are causing accidents due to being drunk?

Suppose I was on the main road driving under the speed limit and a driver pulls out of a drive in front of me, would that still be my fault?

in truth probably not, but if you have an accident and you were over the limit it is likely that the other driver and the police would claim that your judgement was affected and that was the deciding factor. Just saying that i think it would tilt the balance away from you.

 

[glenn2926]

I have never knowingly driven while over the limit, but it's the day after which is hard to judge. Back when we did the Butlins 70's weekends, I would stop drinking at midnight on Sunday and not drive until midday on the Monday, but there is no way to be sure unless stopped by the rozzers.

There are a lot of us on here who can look back and say, there but for the grace of god go I. It was a different world back then . Drink driving wasn’t socially unacceptable back then. Thankfully we have moved on.
I attended many RTAs which became RTCs in my thirty years in the Fire Service.
The drink drive RTCs were almost all older drivers, in fact only one younger drunk driver incident comes to mind. It takes a long time, but we do learn.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[The Coops]

If it was an accident both parties would or should be tested for drink/drugs, It does not matter of you are the not a fault driver (not innocent) and found to be under the influence your insurance company would only cover third party claims for personal injury and if they were in your vehicle and were aware that you had been overdoing it then a massively reduced payout follows any subsequent prosecution .
Everybody literally has a differning metabolic rate for dealing with alcohol etc The only safe way is no way. When I was performing certain duties it was stipulated a no alcohol rule for At least 24 hrs beforehand and we were subject to random testing, if the slightest trace and I mean trace was found then it was a disciplinary offence and no more job.

 

[glenn2926]

Unfortunately the limits in England are among the highest in the world

Once saw a press type advert claiming upto 25% of all crashes were caused by drunk drivers.
That means 75% were caused by sober drivers. .

 

[glenn2926]

If it was an accident both parties would or should be tested for drink/drugs, It does not matter of you are the not a fault driver (not innocent) and found to be under the influence your insurance company would only cover third party claims for personal injury and if they were in your vehicle and were aware that you had been overdoing it then a massively reduced payout follows any subsequent prosecution .
Everybody literally has a differning metabolic rate for dealing with alcohol etc The only safe way is no way. When I was performing certain duties it was stipulated a no alcohol rule for At least 24 hrs beforehand and we were subject to random testing, if the slightest trace and I mean trace was found then it was a disciplinary offence and no more job.

I think you’ll find that if nobody is injured then the police are not coming.

 

[Odd-no-more]

I know it is possible to buy a breath testing machine, but as someone who doesn't drink if I'm driving I don't think it's worth it. I suppose if I did drink a lot and push my luck it would be a good investment. Back in our clubbing days I would drink water all night, I have not yet found a soft drink I like. Having said that I still managed to have a good time on water. There was one night when Mrs. Ex said she would drive, and then kept nodding off, so I had to keep a hand ready to catch the wheel from the passenger seat and keep the car on a straight line and then nudge her to wake up. After that I stuck with the water. And drove every week.

 

[pappajohn]

If it was really someone's pride and joy would they really be driving it over the limit?

You don't need to be anywhere near drunk to be over the limit.
Everyone is different and tolerates alcohol differently.
Blood/alcohol or breath/alcohol makes that decision... Not the quantity.
It was once suggested a couple of pints or a couple of spirits was your safe limit.... A couple of pints wouldn't ease the stiffness in my drinking arm but I know people who are half pissed on two pints. .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[2x2camper]

2x2camper.

The purpose of the OP was to inform. That was it. Pure and simple. There is no "problem"

From the OP
This came as news to me and although I don't imagine any of us would knowingly d and d but that old problem of the accident, 'The following day' could be a real problem.

I think he had problem.

 

[pappajohn]

I think you’ll find that if nobody is injured then the police are not coming.

You'll also find if a passer by rings the emergency services they will be there at warp speed.

 

[Jimbohorlicks]

I don't want to get into another drink driving thread, but do you have any evidence that people who are under the limit are causing accidents due to being drunk?

Suppose I was on the main road driving under the speed limit and a driver pulls out of a drive in front of me, would that still be my fault?

If you were over the limit, it could be used against you in that your judgement was impaired and certainly your reactions. A person who hadn't been drinking may have had better reactions or awareness to stop.
There is enough backup data to prove that.

 

[Emmit]

I think you’ll find that if nobody is injured then the police are not coming.

You would be amazed at how many, shall we say junior Constables who wish to get a White top, will get the breathyliser out when they 'come across' an accident.

They have to show they have a real desire to be in Traffic and they have to put a folio to prove the point.

 

[Emmit]

From the OP
This came as news to me and although I don't imagine any of us would knowingly d and d but that old problem of the accident, 'The following day' could be a real problem.

I think he had problem.

The 'problem' has already been highlighted in following posts.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}