Just had a car crash...

Strider590

Or more to the point, how can you be speeding if your directly behind her?

Im afraid the above is far to confusing

MARKMAKAVELI

i cant prove that i was behind her though, even though i was.

i can however prove that she is lying with math/science. scum.

johnfarquhar74

Simply refute her claim that you were not behind her.
If that were to be true, it means she looked, the road was clear, you entered the road then accelerated up to a speed sufficient to cover the 150ft in 3 seconds, from a standing start of 0 to a max of 60 giving a linear average of 30mph. Given your 0-60 time of 9+seconds this is clearly nonsense and breaks the laws of physics(Star Trek Scottie springs to mind-she just cannae do it captain!),
OR
You were behind her, she did not see you and failed to indicate her intent thus the collision!

Strider590

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

Simply refute her claim that you were not behind her.
If that were to be true, it means she looked, the road was clear, you entered the road then accelerated up to a speed sufficient to cover the 150ft in 3 seconds, from a standing start of 0 to a max of 60 giving a linear average of 30mph. Given your 0-60 time of 9+seconds this is clearly nonsense and breaks the laws of physics(Star Trek Scottie springs to mind-she just cannae do it captain!),
OR
You were behind her, she did not see you and failed to indicate her intent thus the collision!

^^^ This is worded more logically.

You have to keep it simple, else they'll not bother to read it.
You really are dealing with complete idiots at the claims handling dept.

MARKMAKAVELI

Cheers guys.

The inspectors damage report came back. I've yet to see it, but have been told by insurance company that inspector says I couldn't have been going more than 5mph.

I don't know if they meant her though, as I'm pretty sure I would have been going faster than 5mph.

Regardless, her whiplash claim is looking a bit suspect now isn't it!
The noose is hopefully tightening round her neck.

beth.stephenson2009

"I dont know, I think so".

Those words tell me she shouldn't be on the roads IMO.

Silly bint! 100% her fault.

MARKMAKAVELI

Yep, but because it was only me and my Dad that were there when she said it, it can't be used. My Dad is a biased witness apparently.

All I can hope for is that 100% truth comes out. I will continue to find holes in her story. I would be so happy if she was proved to be making it all up. It's not even so much about the money etc anymore, more the principal.

Quentin

MARKMAKAVELI wrote: »

My Dad is a biased witness apparently.........

Well......definitely can't have your Dad as an "independent" witness!

That is often the problem - two opposite stories, no independent witness, no cctv, both insist the other is lying, how can anyone know??

Not fair, but not worth beating yourself up over it either. Just keep refuting her claim (rather than complicating matters!)

MARKMAKAVELI

Putting the moral issues aside....
A rough guide on insurance increase is about an extra £300 p/a for the next 5 years I think.

It would be a bitter pill to swallow had I caused the accident, but when the other person has completely fabricated their story, its even harder to take.

I'd offer to go on a lie detector or something but I know that kind of thing will never happen.

With regards to you saying "how can anyone know", well that's where the speed calculation and the damage report can hopefully help. It's the only chance I've got of proving my innocence.