minor accident - i am being stiched up

Hotspur

I will not comment on whose fault this was as it could be either party however, the claim may well be genuine or fraudulent. Proving it either way could be very difficult.

The high incidence of claims for whiplash has meant that the law may change in this area along with banning of referral fees to 'agents' by personal injury businesses who, IMO, submit artificial claims knowing they are likely to receive a large payout for minimum effort.

This article tells more.

spacey2012

Fault is a moral issue, Liability is a legal one, so it can be someone else's "fault" for which you are legally Liable.
You have to be able to stop your vehicle within the space in front of you.
Thats just how it is.

Strider590

flashnazia wrote: »

Er no, us 'believers' can be victims too you know. They don't discriminate!

No, the "kufar" I refer to are the insurance companies, it's nothing to do with the innocent 3rd party (probably should have made that clear). It's also the reason why so many don't have car insurance, the whole business of paying money for nothing, money that ends up in corrupt hands.

Anyway, it's a subject that is kept nicely under the rug so as to avoid confrontation, but a subject which actually needs to be understood properly and corrected, not brushed aside through fear and lack of understanding.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Carpi09 wrote: »

I've been reading your posts in this thread and you seem to think you know it all. I don't normally post as I just like to read these forums but I felt the need to because of YOU.

It's not always the fault of the person that runs into the back of someone. As a few have already mentioned, there are a lot of scenarios and given that there is enough evidence to prove it, ie fraudulent or someone cutting in front of you and braking wildly, then it isn't.

So to put it bluntly like you have with your blunt comments.

You are wrong. "END OF"

If I was wrong end of. The scam of slam on collisions wouldn't work would it?

mattyprice4004

savingsp wrote: »

Who are you to keep critisizing he hasnt had an accident or fine in 12 years of driving

To thoses who gave advice THANK YOU i will ring my insurance and speak to them tomorrow

We keep criticising because he WAS driving too close and HE is liable.

Deal with it, it's his fault.

mattyprice4004

Carpi09 wrote: »

I've been reading your posts in this thread and you seem to think you know it all. I don't normally post as I just like to read these forums but I felt the need to because of YOU.

It's not always the fault of the person that runs into the back of someone. As a few have already mentioned, there are a lot of scenarios and given that there is enough evidence to prove it, ie fraudulent or someone cutting in front of you and braking wildly, then it isn't.

So to put it bluntly like you have with your blunt comments.

You are wrong. "END OF"

Actually, no he isn't.

Running in to the back of someone implies driving too close - any of the other scenarios you mention would be 'someone pulled out on me' or 'they cut me up' etc.

The scenario Sgt Pepper was describing SPECIFICALLY related to someone in front chucking on the anchors, and the OPs partner being too close - in which case liability is ALWAYS with the following car. They should have left more room.

Not quite as smart now, eh? End of. :rotfl:

artbaron

Crabman wrote: »

Doesn't sound like you know much about the real world.

Bravehearted's post seems entirely logical. If someone fills the gap in front, you ease off to restore the gap. It's very simple.

I think I get the gist, my point is to maintain a consistent no-risk gap in traffic is not only very difficult but patently absurd in most cases. If you want no risk, get the bus. Good drivers balance the practicalities of driving with the optimal theory. Bad drivers say things like "Always maintain highway code stopping gaps!" and "Traveling at 61mph in a 60 is very dangerous!"

Carpi09

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Actually, no he isn't.

Running in to the back of someone implies driving too close - any of the other scenarios you mention would be 'someone pulled out on me' or 'they cut me up' etc.

The scenario Sgt Pepper was describing SPECIFICALLY related to someone in front chucking on the anchors, and the OPs partner being too close - in which case liability is ALWAYS with the following car. They should have left more room.

Not quite as smart now, eh? End of. :rotfl:

On this occasion yes. However his comment come across as anyone going in to the back of someone means fault.

I'm not going to play your petty games, the way his posts come across is rude, he/she was asking for advice, not smart a**e comments.

Miss_Havisham

savingsp wrote: »

I know he will be by law at fault but i am just trying to stop one of a possible fraudulent claim that seems to be acceptable these days .....

I know what you mean about perhaps the woman stopped quickly on purpose, having seen that your DH was too close and decided to take advantage. I sympathise, but it appears that so many people go down the whiplash path and it's one of those things that can't be proved/disproved if you know what I mean.

She's probably been contacted by at least one of those "where there's blame there's a claim" companies - when someone drove into my car last year I had calls from 3 such companies !

To be honest all you can do is voice your suspicions to the insurance co, but I don't know if they would/could do anything about it.

Good luck sorting it out

Miss H

Crabman

artbaron wrote: »

I think I get the gist, my point is to maintain a consistent no-risk gap in traffic is not only very difficult but patently absurd in most cases. If you want no risk, get the bus. Good drivers balance the practicalities of driving with the optimal theory. Bad drivers say things like "Always maintain highway code stopping gaps!" and "Traveling at 61mph in a 60 is very dangerous!"

I drive regularly in an extra-urban environment and generally have no issues keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front. If someone cuts me up, I take action to restore the gap.

It's all about reading the road ahead, driving defensively and trying to anticipate others' actions to try and minimise (not eliminate) the risk.