Hey, there! Log in / Register
A weekend of attacks and moved laundry in Cambridge
By adamg on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 12:31pm
Cambridge Police report on a variety of attacks over the past few days:
At 1:57 a.m. on Friday, a man was hit in the head with a handgun outside the Sunset Cafe on Cambridge Street.
At 2:53 p.m. the manager of Finagle-a-Bagle on First Street ran after a kid who stole two bottles of water:
The manager followed the juvenile across the street to the Lechmere MBTA station. The manager confronted the juvenile and the juvenile threw the water at the manger and fled the area.
Around 7 p.m. on Saturday, a man found a guy in his Cottage Street living room stealing his laptops. The two got into a fight:
During the scuffle both computers were severely damaged.
Around 3:30 a.m. on Sunday, a Wolliston man reported being kicked in the head at River and Laurel streets by three men who stole his wallet
About the same time, the Store 24 at 324 Broadway was held up by a black man in his 40s wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and a mask.
Finally, on Friday, a Hancock Street resident reported that:
An unknown person(s) entered his residence, opened his mail, took stamps, and moved his clothes from one pile to another.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I see bicyclist safety is still a priority in Cambridge
On 10/17/08 at 10:45 AM, an officer responded to Mass. Ave. for a bicyclist struck by a motor vehicle. The bicyclist did not require any medical assistance. The operator of the motor vehicle was found to be operating with a suspended license and was summonsed to court for the infraction.
Oh, that's classy. The "operator" hits someone, has a suspended license (and thus no insurance), and Cambridge police just let them walk...
and Cambridge police just let them walk...
[The driver] "was summonsed to court for the infraction," so he'll have to respond to the charges, prolly driving with a suspended license. Dunno the penalty for the infraction. Dunno who drove the vehicle home.
Better to let him walk than to let him drive ;-p
Lucky for the driver, the bicyclist was uninjured b/c as you point out, no auto insurance to pay the costs. If the cyclist had good health insurance then his would pick up the cost. They usually do anyway and then contact the driver's insurance company for reimbursement, when appropriate.
Maybe the police towed the car after stopping it?
I think they'd have to if the only occupant of the car is unlicensed.
having a suspended license
does not mean that you have no insurance. If you don't know the law, don't post ignorant statements.
The penalty for operating with a suspended license for a first offense is no more than 10 days in jail and a $500-$1,000 fine. Subsequent offneses are no less than 60 days in jail and no more than 1 year in jail.
You can bet this guy simply paid the court costs and another driver in the vehicle was allowed to drive it away.
suspended license = insurance policy cancelled within weeks
does not mean that you have no insurance. If you don't know the law, don't post ignorant statements.
Unlicensed drivers cannot carry motor vehicle insurance. When your license is suspended (say, by an error at the DMV), you get a notice in the mail from your insurance company within days saying they're canceling the policy. Speaking from first-hand experience there.
Also, I'm reasonably certain that if Person A loans unlicensed driver B their car, Person A's insurance doesn't cover them since they're not a legal operator!
Aren't cars insured, not drivers?
I thought car insurance was tied to the car registration, not to the driver's license of any particular operator of the car.
Auto Insurance
Cars are insured, but only for the drivers named on the policy. Obviously, theft, arson, etc., is just covered no matter who might be in the car, but accident coverage entails having a named driver at the wheel. That's how I understand it to be, anyway.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
insurance = f(driver) too
When I rent a car in another US state, I am covered under my MA policy. This is a standard feature. Good to know, since you can turn down the expensive rental car coverage if you have good insurance on your home vehicle.
If I get in an accident driving my MIL's car, and it is my fault, I'm not sure what would happen. I suspect that there would be some overlap of her coverage and my coverage, but it might be like the rental car situation, too.
Not true again
You can own 50 cars and have a suspended license and let whomever you want drive those vehicles.
The registry does not revoke your insurance when your license gets suspended.
Besides, don't MA insurance companies cover non-insured motorists anyway?
Bottom line is that this guy that was hit by the bike will be covered by the vehicles insurance.
On the other hand ...
Your insurance company will be notified of your suspended license by the registry. The insurance company, in turn, will likely terminate your insurance due to the suspended license.
My policy (in hand here) specifically says that I will be dropped if my license is supsended. That would mean that I would not be covered if I were driving my shared car without a valid driver's license. My husband would still be covered and could drive, but I could not.
Thanks Swrrly.
Thanks Swrrly.
yes, true again.
You can own 50 cars and have a suspended license and let whomever you want drive those vehicles.
Only if each of those fifty cars is insured, since insurance is required to register them. If your license is suspended, your insurance policy is revoked. Guess what happens to your registration when the insurance policy is revoked?
The registry does not revoke your insurance when your license gets suspended.
That's correct. Your insurance company revokes your insurance when your license gets suspended. I don't know specifically if the Registry notifies insurance companies in specific cases, provides a dump of all the insurance company's customers, or if the insurance company periodically queries the registry.
Besides, don't MA insurance companies cover non-insured motorists anyway?
That applies only when Uninsured Masshole A hits Insured Masshole B. Masshole B's insurance is required to cover the damage.
The vehicle is still insured
in case someone is injured in that crash. The insurance might not cover injuries sustained to someone who is operating while suspended but they will cover other motorists that they crash into. Ive been in the busness over 20 years and have never seen a vehicles insurance revoked due to suspension of the owners right to operate in MA. The vehicle is either insured or not.
checking out of this idiotic argument
in case someone is injured in that crash. The insurance might not cover injuries sustained to someone who is operating while suspended but they will cover other motorists that they crash into
If the driver HAS NO INSURANCE and hits a bicyclist, THERE IS NO INSURANCE. There's no mythical state-wide default insurance agency that magically swoops down over a collision caused by an uninsured driver, waves a fairy wand, and pays everyone's claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_motorist_cl...
Ive been in the busness over 20 years and have never seen a vehicles insurance revoked due to suspension of the owners right to operate in MA.
Swirlygrrl, myself, and others have either read it off their policies or had first-hand experience where our insurance company sent us cancellation notices because the registry told 'em our license had been suspended.
Want to keep going at this? You can do so solo- I'm tired of arguing with an intellectual fencepost.
So you know the guy had canceled insurance?
Or are you going to read what wikipedia says and base that on whether or not the vehicle was insured? Remember your first point? You automatically assumed that the vehicles insurance was void because the license was suspended.
THE LAW says that the burden of the process to revoke the inusrance is ON THE INSURANCE CARRIER and it is a 53 day process that must be followed to revoke the insurance. But you must have found out on wikipedia that this process must have happened right?
Anyone that knows anything about the law, knows that since this vehicle was not towed, and the operator not charged with operating a vehicle with revoked insurance, that the insurance was not revoked by the carrier or registry.
You went out and made a blanket statement that since the guys license was suspended, the "fairy wand" makes this guys insurance go away. It doesn't happen like that in the real world, and most certainly doesn't make it happen that way in Boston.
Proof? Tee hee.
Swirlygrrl, myself, and others have either read it off their policies or had first-hand experience where our insurance company sent us cancellation notices because the registry told 'em our license had been suspended.
Want to keep going at this?
You're definitely going up against a stone wall here. He's reminding me of Chico Marx, who once said "Who you gonna believe: me, or your own eyes?"
Just saying
that because swirlygirl and Brett got notices does not mean that the vehicle was not insured.
It's like saying, "I got pulled over for speeding and got a $200 ticket, so everyone that gets pulled over gets $200 tickets".
Just not true.
I didn't get a notice ...
I read my policy. (I've had one at fault accident in 25 years of driving - a $400 fender denting in a parking lot). The only time we got a cancellation notice was when our plate expired on our justified and ancient Escort Wagon (long may you run!) before we formally pulled it off and turned it in.
There is a process for insurance revocation, no doubt, but there is still a clear policy stated in my insurance documents (your carrier may vary) that anything that happens when there is a driver driving without a valid license is absolutely not covered.
Whether that would survive a court challenge by the plaintiff is another issue, particularly if the insurance company was unaware of the supension before an accident and had not jumped the proper hoops. Of course the company would attempt to deny any claims because the stated policy is "if the driver has no license, there is no coverage".
That's how it works in the real world. Feel free to link to these processes that you are talking about - I'd like to read them FWIW in the future. I suggest that you check your policy for this and other "it would be good to know" types of things. There are more than a few benefits you might want to know about too - such as coverage on a rental car, optional features, etc.
insurance
Its still the law that the person has to be legally notified and the process complete itself before someone (or vehicle) is not covered. The division of insurance makes it clear that this process must be completed before someone loses coverage even if it might dictate that in the policy otherwise. Thats why Massachusetts has this division of insurance in the first place.