JE Leak's question (Letters, 24 February) regarding when and where motor vehicles require RTA cover raises a wider issue.

The artificial division between RTA and non-RTA cover is not recognised by claims. Being hit by a vehicle doing 40mph causes, in similar circumstances, the same damage and injury irrespective of whether on a public road or elsewhere.

Why should the injured party be put at a potential disadvantage due to the extent of insurance purchased by the negligent party? The solution, which would adopt common sense, would be to modify legislation so that any motorised vehicle requires, as a minimum, 'RTA cover' irrespective of where and when the vehicle is used.

Chris Ridgers