[TC1474]

Most of you are probably aware that if you leave your vehicle unattended with the engine running, you commit an offence called quitting which carries points and a hefty fine.

I have a couple of neighbours who think they are driving experts and guru's and every day during the frozen spell they would go out, start their car up and then vanish inside and finish their cup of tea or whatever whilst their car's warmed up and defrosted.

I mentioned to them both on a number of occasions that they were paying with fire and whilst they may not care about the fines and points, if their cars were stolen whilst they were indoors, their insurers would refuse to pay out.

I was told that I was talking cr@p, so fair enough I thought, it is their problem.

Suffice to say, one of them had his 73 plate 4 series BMW stolen whilst he was indoors and it was found burnt out a few hours later. No worries he said, its insured 🤭

I had a knock on the door this evening. "Can I help?" was the request

Sure enough the insurers have refused to pay out on his Beemer because he contributed to the theft and made it an easy target by leaving it nattended with the engine running.

He wanted me to speak to the insurers and see if I could use any influence to make them change their decision.

I pointed out that he kept reminding me that I was talking cr@p when I warned them previously, so apart from the fact that I have no influence, what made him think I was going to help him when he kept telling me he knew better.

He is now running around in a beat up 52 plate Nissan Almera. I have no idea how much he owes or has lost on the Beemer, but a tidy sum I bet.

Life does have karma sometimes 😊

[Drivingforfun]

I agree with your stance on this, but the way the world's going r.e. "victim blaming" and peoples refusal to take control and make oneself less attractive as a victim of crime, I wonder how long until the law is changed?

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

I agree with your stance on this, but the way the world's going r.e. "victim blaming" and peoples refusal to take control and make oneself less attractive as a victim of crime, I wonder how long until the law is changed?

That is one law I never see changing. It was the first offence I ever booked someone for back in 1975, and there have been 2 major re-writes of the Road Traffic Act plus the add on's and it has remained, initially for safety reasons, but now for the very reason I highlighted.

It is a hard lesson to learn but he can seek sympathy as a victim of crime all he likes, but he was warned on several occasion, so in my eyes he ceases to be a victim..

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

I agree with your stance on this, but the way the world's going r.e. "victim blaming" and peoples refusal to take control and make oneself less attractive as a victim of crime, I wonder how long until the law is changed?

As part of a management course I attended lectures on management law, focused mainly on factory management, this was in the late 50's early 60's.
The introductory lecture was entitled, 'What is it, and Why the Law'?
This lecture was about Criminal law.

Afterwards, we were asked to submit our answers to the questions posed in the title.
Those who mentioned justice for the victim's of law breakers were severely marked down.

The lecturers explanation was, the victim was only relevant in that they may prove or disprove the relevant law had been broken or add to the body of evidence.
The court proceedings were to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiff had or had not broken the relevant law, and any punishment was for breaking the law.
The degree of punishment may be varied, at the discretion of the judge, depending on any extenuating circumstances.

Any injury, damage or loss to the victim was a matter for a Civil court.

Under pressure from the media this gets blurred into cries of, 'justice for the victim', which it is not, it is justice for the state and justice for the plaintiff that is being sought in a Criminal court.

In a Civil court, the most obvious defence for the defendant is to try and show the victim was to blame or partially to blame. ('blaming the victim'.)
In a Civil court the burden of proof is, to prove it is highly probable the offence happened in the way the evidence presented suggests.

I may have miss remembered this I lost my notes many house moves ago...

[Rolebama]

I once worked for a motorcycle dealership which was next door to a newsagent/confectioner/tobacconist. It was quite common for people to leave their engine running on cold mornings while they ran in for a paper and/or cigarettes. The son of the owner would insist that they turn off their engine and lock the car while they were in the shop. The owner would then argue that he was driving customers away. So the son changed tactics. He would jump in the cars and move them to the Police Station car park, and leave them there, engine running and unlocked. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for some of the conversations that went on there.

[NMNeil]

@Rolebama We were allowed to take our patrol cars home with us, the downside was it meant we were on call 24/7 if the SHTF.
Soon after I graduated and began taking my car home I got calls from two of the local factory farms asking me to put the patrol car out of sight because the workers weren't showing up.
I wonder why 😎

[Rolebama]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

@Rolebama We were allowed to take our patrol cars home with us, the downside was it meant we were on call 24/7 if the SHTF.
Soon after I graduated and began taking my car home I got calls from two of the local factory farms asking me to put the patrol car out of sight because the workers weren't showing up.
I wonder why 😎

Love it. 😁