The Mirror...bumping up the cost of insurance

EdGasket

matttye wrote: »

Just applying my own standards. If I witnessed contact between two vehicles I'd stop.

Which would not make any difference if the insurers are just going to pay up because they claim if it went to court they would lose in the face of a doctor's certificate.

The system needs a good shake-up because it relies on people being fundamentally honest which unfortunately these days, they are not.

patman99

So, lets lobby our MPs to ban whiplash claims. If it can't be proved, then it can't be claimed-for.

Incidentally, one of the biggest 'crash for cash' scams was run by a white man. His scams involved over 800 people, 80 of which were prosecuted and had their assets seized and/or suffered a jail sentence.

matttye

EdGasket wrote: »

Which would not make any difference if the insurers are just going to pay up because they claim if it went to court they would lose in the face of a doctor's certificate.

The system needs a good shake-up because it relies on people being fundamentally honest which unfortunately these days, they are not.

Right, but the other witnesses would confirm the accident wasn't your son's fault - so the fact they had whiplash wouldn't affect him.

EdGasket

Unfortunately the driver behind is always considered to be at fault in a shunt.

matttye

EdGasket wrote: »

Unfortunately the driver behind is always considered to be at fault in a shunt.

If a number of witnesses said that the car cut up your son in law and he couldn't possibly have stopped without shunting the car, it's difficult to see how they could come to that conclusion.

I know that under normal circumstances the driver behind will always be considered to be at fault, but if you had a few independent witnesses saying it wasn't his fault, it might be a different story.