Knocked off my bike

InsideInsurance

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

You talk about quality and content yet employ retired police officers to take them.

Got to love those double standards.

Have to say that I have never known any claims assessor to be a retired policeman but I guess in probability there are some. Most the assessors I've known wouldnt be close to retirement age for any profession. Their background will vary depending on what topics they focus on.

At the end of the day you are basically asking a copper to do you a favour. You probably have to be fairly realistic how much time and effort they are going to be willing to put into do you, a rich money grabbing insurance company, a favour.

Captaincodpiece

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Have to say that I have never known any claims assessor to be a retired policeman but I guess in probability there are some. Most the assessors I've known wouldnt be close to retirement age for any profession. Their background will vary depending on what topics they focus on.

At the end of the day you are basically asking a copper to do you a favour. You probably have to be fairly realistic how much time and effort they are going to be willing to put into do you, a rich money grabbing insurance company, a favour.

It's not a favour the insurance companies pay for the interview with a police officer. They don't send claims assessors but pay people to take their statements. Rather than allow the police to provide the evidence they want the insurance companies pay their statement takers something like £150 per statement plus expenses.

But working in the industry you know that. Or is it something they don't wish to be common knowledge?

dacouch

Arfa__ wrote: »

Sounds very similar to a case a friend of mine had, that was recently resolved:
http://www.lampkins.co.uk/news/injured-biker-defeats-dubious-defence-with-gopro-video-camera/

Do you have any video evidence?

Your mate is the subject of quite an active thread on Piston Heads http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1453560&mid=399125&nmt=Motorcycle+accident+video+%2E%2E%2E%2E+opinions+%3F

You / he may want to join in

arcon5

An insurance company taking a statement means the questioning and wording can be set to look favorably for their client

dacouch

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

It's not a favour the insurance companies pay for the interview with a police officer. They don't send claims assessors but pay people to take their statements. Rather than allow the police to provide the evidence they want the insurance companies pay their statement takers something like £150 per statement plus expenses.

But working in the industry you know that. Or is it something they don't wish to be common knowledge?

He's right Insurers and solicitors tend not to bother with Police reports for the majority of claims. They literally take months to be produced which in most cases is of no use unless it's a complex and / or large personal injury

Captaincodpiece

arcon5 wrote: »

An insurance company taking a statement means the questioning and wording can be set to look favorably for their client

90% of it is about police action at the scene and what it was like on arrival. Not sure how they can do that.

InsideInsurance

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

90% of it is about police action at the scene and what it was like on arrival. Not sure how they can do that.

Asking leading questions, avoiding things that put their client in a bad light.

So take a red light jumper A hitting a driver not wearing their seatbelt B. Insurer of B is going to be asking specific questions about evidence of the red light jumping, were the lights working properly, how does the light sequence work etc. They are strangely not going to ask anything about if their client is wearing a seatbelt or not thus a 25% contributory negligence.

In a full trial in court all witnesses get asked questioned by both defence and prosecution/ claimant/ pursuant which readdresses the balance of the questioning. In a 1-2-1 situation there isnt that balance.

Captaincodpiece

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Asking leading questions, avoiding things that put their client in a bad light.

So take a red light jumper A hitting a driver not wearing their seatbelt B. Insurer of B is going to be asking specific questions about evidence of the red light jumping, were the lights working properly, how does the light sequence work etc. They are strangely not going to ask anything about if their client is wearing a seatbelt or not thus a 25% contributory negligence.

In a full trial in court all witnesses get asked questioned by both defence and prosecution/ claimant/ pursuant which readdresses the balance of the questioning. In a 1-2-1 situation there isnt that balance.

I'll give you that one, they tend not to delve too deep on matters like that.



Especially as you've already told them in great detail how you've taken his face out of the windscreen to keep him alive. 😉

DaveTheMus

Someone with young children and pregnant should be dealt with very severely if it's found she was driving dangerously.

What if it had been an artic lorry and not a bicycle?

Captaincodpiece

DaveTheMus wrote: »

Someone with young children and pregnant should be dealt with very severely if it's found she was driving dangerously.

What if it had been an artic lorry and not a bicycle?

Where does the bicycle factor in this?