I know it was in a dream but I'd realy like to know the answer to this question?

I was driving along a road and had an accident where I hit a scooter rider who didn't have a crash helmet on but given the circumstances(it was my dream after all) the person at fault weas unclear. As bystanders saw the accident and he admitted infront of them that he had not been wearing a helmet, would his insurance be invaled and could I take him to court for re-embursement for the damage caused to my car and could he also be prosecuted for the crime of failing to wear a helmet?

I'm in the UK

Not wearing a helmet is an offence opposed to a crime.

The lack of a helmet would not invalidate the insurance. Presuming he has insurance then you would claim off this policy. If he has no insurance then you could claim compensation through the Motor Insurance Bureau (although each case is decided on seperately - so you'll not always be able to claim).

Th scooter rider would be dealt with for the offence of no helmet, either by reporting on summons or a non-endorsable fixed penalty ticket (拢30).

May be. Depends on the place where you live

He could be prosecuted for not wearing a helmet. Whether his insurance is invalid depends on the clauses of the policy. And whether you can claim compensation depends on who was at fault.

It depends on the policies of the insurance company, usually insurance would not be invalidated based on his lack of proper safety equipment. However, you could take him to court for damages to your vehicle, depending on who was found at fault for the collision.

I am unfamiliar with UK law, so I cannot comment on failing to wear a helmet, in the US, he could be issued a citation, but most likely wouldn't be.

"I was driving along a road and had an accident where I hit a scooter rider" What does the scooter driver wearing a helmet have to do with the fact that you hit him? If there are by standers that saw the accident "you hitting the scooter rider", you should be more concerned about whether you have Insurance. You are at fault for hitting him, he is in for a ticket for no helmet it that is the law in your place of residence.

its illegal to even ride a push bike without a helmet so i would say he would be at fault but without the helmet insurance would definetly be void.i reckon this would be a definate court case for prosecution for no lid and damage costs for you!!!

Are you sure it was a dream, or did it really happen

Come on, confess.

i think his insurance would still be valid, but definately get done for dangerous driving

Yes, yes and yes.
To expand: one of the conditions of his insurance would be that he had to wear a helmet at all times - not doing so would render it invalid.
You would possibly have a civil claim against him for damage to your vehicle. It would be a matter for the civil court to apportion blame on the evidence.
If he admits not wearing a crash helmet and you saw it there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.
This all assumes you are in UK and it was a scooter as in Lambretta as opposed to scooter like children play with.

His insurance would not be invalid just because he was breaking the law (your insurance would not be invalid if you were speeding would it? (unless with Quinn Direct)

Whether you could claim for damage would depend on whether he was negligent in his driving - not whether he had a crash helmet on.

If he claimed for personal injury due to your negligence the amount awarded would be reduced due to contributory negligence (but see below).

He could be prosecuted unless a member of a religious organisation that requires specific headgear to be worn at all times. The Motor Cycle Crash Helmet (Religious Exemptions) Act 1976 dictated that any follower of the Sikh religion shall be exempt from wearing a helmet if he is wearing a turban. No other religious or ethnic groups with funny headgear are covered by this exemption.

yes he should be charged with not wearing a seat belt, go and speak to your local citizen advice office, they are great, they could help, but just say the accident happened, don't say it was a dream, all the best

assuming they were lucky enough to survive fully compus mentus, then yes their insurance would be invalidated (unless they were a sikh : theyre legally exempted on religious grounds) and they would be prosecuted for failing to wear a crash helmet. The fact that they were wearing a crash helmet doesnt however automatically render them liable for the accident, for instance if you jumped a red light and rammed into him / her even if they werent wearing a crash helmet you would still be liable on the grounds you had failed to stop for a traffic signal so you wouldnt necessarily be able to bring any claim for damages to yourself. The fact that they werent wearing a helmet would however mean that they couldnt claim for any kind of head injury (even if wearing a helmet wouldnt have prevented it) however they could still sue you for damages to their vehicle and personal injury (excluding head injuries) so please think twice before deliberately ramming your car into the chavvy kids riding a stolen motorbike up and down the road outside your house without a helmet and three of them sat on the bike, you could still be sued!!!!

If it was a dream - whay does it mean ?

Not wearing a helmet, would not cause the crash.
Therefore fault would still need to be proved.

On proving fault, damages would be awarded.

If the fault was yours, it would be a waste of time the scooter driver trying to claim for head injuries.

A theoretical question requiring a theoretical answer!

If the scooter rider wasn't wearing his helmet, he could technically be prosecuted for that offence. Whether a prosecution for that offence would go ahead would depend on the decision made by the relevant prosecuting agent.

It's the same as the reason for the Police carrying out appropriate insurance and licence checks on ALL victims of reported road traffic collisions. If the drivers aren't licenced or insured then their vehicles are now seized under Section 165 of the road traffic act, (UK).
Whether the rider's insurance would be void would depend on the terms of his insurance but I imagine it would.