Intentional Crash and Witnesses

Intentional Crash and Witnesses

Author
Discussion

tbc

3,017 posts

174 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
I'v always wanted to see what a driving test in Eastern European countries consists of.

The standard of driving in general is absolutely shocking from Polish, Lithuanian, Romanian, Ukraine etc

Then again some of the driving from UK folk is beyond joke

Mouse1903

Original Poster:

839 posts

152 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. She does say she was keeping her distance but I obviously wasn't there so can't say if she acutally was, although knowing her driving style she is certainly not one of the bumper to bumper types. All I know is both were doing about 25 in a 30 limit. Looks like the car will get fixed and hopefully it doesn't really go further than her losing her excess. She now has to suffer even more in the meantime...she has been given a Corsa to drive :P


Nezquick

1,451 posts

125 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Centurion07 said:
Nezquick said:
Sounds like a typical "slam on" type incident which is commonly associated with fraudulent claims. That's backed up by the fact the Yaris had only been insured 3 days - it's a common scam.

Tell your sister that she needs to be adamant with her insurers - she will not accept that she was to blame. The two "independent" witnesses will hopefully back her on this and their evidence will carry much more weight than that of 3 people who all know each other and are in on it.

Good luck!!
I don't think insurers work like that.

If what the OP says is accurate, that the Yaris was the only car ahead, as in it didn't overtake & slam on, it didn't pull out in front and slam on, then the only person with any blame is OP's sister, scam or not.
They do work like that in a case where fraud is possible. They take that very seriously indeed. The chances of proving fraud/a deliberate act are quite good if the two witnesses hold up.

Mouse1903

Original Poster:

839 posts

152 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
How can the polish mob justify reasons for only taking out 3 days insurance? That's the question that should be asked by the insurance company

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Police have no say at all in insurance matters.

Witnesses in the car of one of the claimants count for little

Independent witnesses not known to either driver are extremely valuable.

Now the cynic in me kicks in, firstly the schools are on holiday, secondly this fits the standard PH stereotype of everyone who is hit by a PHer or anyone they know is a fraud steer and should be executed by UKIP / BNP / Britain First / EDL, depending on how far your fascist leanings go.

TPS

1,860 posts

212 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Mouse1903 said:
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. She does say she was keeping her distance but I obviously wasn't there so can't say if she acutally was, although knowing her driving style she is certainly not one of the bumper to bumper types.
To be painfully harsh we all know she was not keeping a safe distance.
Why? Because she hit the car.

Safe distance=no crash.

I know that sounds harsh but it's the straight talking truth.

We are all probably guilty of driving to close at times and this is a harsh reminder.

The only other option is not paying attention/distracted at that moment.



As loon had said the people in the car she got are not really good as a witness.
The ones passing in the other car are.

Loon are there not cases now where people braking hard for no reason have been found liable?

speedking31

3,541 posts

135 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Mouse1903 said:
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. She does say she was keeping her distance but I obviously wasn't there so can't say if she acutally was, although knowing her driving style she is certainly not one of the bumper to bumper types. All I know is both were doing about 25 in a 30 limit. Looks like the car will get fixed and hopefully it doesn't really go further than her losing her excess. She now has to suffer even more in the meantime...she has been given a Corsa to drive :P
Thinking and stopping distance from 25 mph = 17 m, only 5 car lengths. Braking distance <3 car lengths.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
TPS said:
Loon are there not cases now where people braking hard for no reason have been found liable?
There have been a few very rare cases where this has happened, more often what happens is the injured claimants go silent and their claim lapses. The drover at the back then picks up the cost for their own damage via their insurance, but the TP claim disappears.

Joeguard1990

1,181 posts

125 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
So the Yaris broke for no reason at all and you have 2 independant witnesses who can back this up.

So why are people blaming the OP? Yes she hit the car so may not have been keeping the correct distance but all the facts point to an insurance scam which is how this should be pursued.

If everyone ever involved in an isurance scam kept a safe distance there wouldn't be any LMAO so it's irrelevant the accident happened.

moreflaps

746 posts

154 months

Tuesday 22nd July 2014
quotequote all
Joeguard1990 said:
So the Yaris broke for no reason at all and you have 2 independant witnesses who can back this up.
Yaris -breaking down all the time for no reason -its a cheap car after all.

mikeyr

3,116 posts

192 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
If you think you may have been a victim of crash for cash, you can report the incident to the Insurance Fraud Bureau’s Cheatline on 0800 422 0421 or visit www.insurancefraudbureau.org.

(copied from BBC website)

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
P...standard PH stereotype of everyone who is hit by a PHer or anyone they know is a fraud steer and should be executed by UKIP / BNP / Britain First / EDL, depending on how far your fascist leanings go.
hehe

Not in my mate's case. No fraud, just a fricking stupid person who thought that they would do an emergency stop in the middle of town to let some kids cross the road (all ignoring the zebra crossing 25m further down the road...)

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

216 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
When I was younger and more foolish than I am now, I went into the back of someone who brake tested me. He had pulled out in front of me from a town centre junction in Lancaster without looking and I flashed my headlights at him. About 100 yards later he anchored on as hard as he could and came to a stop, closely followed by yours truly using his rear bumper as a buffer.

He claimed the sun was in his eyes, causing him to stop, despite the sun being behind him at the time. When the Police arrived, he gave a different version of the story. The Police's response was to let insurance sort it out, and a complaint to them by either one of us might see us both prosecuted for careless.

It was a company policy and my insurer paid out. To be honest, I shouldn't have been so close so, despite the intentional brake test from the other guy, I shouldn't have been susceptible to it.

Hungry Pigeon

224 posts

183 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
OP, I'm sorry to hear of your sister's woes. It's an awful thing to happen to anyone, and I hope she makes a full and swift recovery.

I'm no expert in these matters, but it might be worthwhile trying to establish whether the brake lights on the yaris were working. I've heard of instances in crash-for-cash scams where the brake lights had been disconnected. If that was the case in this instance, then that might explain why your Sis hit the yaris even though she claims to have left a decent gap between her and it.

Not sure how you'd go about proving it though!

Cliftonite

8,405 posts

137 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Mouse1903 said:
How can the polish mob justify reasons for only taking out 3 days insurance? That's the question that should be asked by the insurance company
Is this sort of cover available? And, if it is, how could the OP's sister have found out that the Yaris was covered for only three days?



Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Mouse1903 said:
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. She does say she was keeping her distance but I obviously wasn't there so can't say if she acutally was, although knowing her driving style she is certainly not one of the bumper to bumper types. All I know is both were doing about 25 in a 30 limit. Looks like the car will get fixed and hopefully it doesn't really go further than her losing her excess. She now has to suffer even more in the meantime...she has been given a Corsa to drive :P
They probably disabled their brake lights, all the deluded perfect drivers on here would not have avoided the crash anyway, despite what they say.

Dave200

3,515 posts

219 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Cliftonite said:
Is this sort of cover available? And, if it is, how could the OP's sister have found out that the Yaris was covered for only three days?
Temporary insurance is perfectly valid and readily available, and can be used for all sorts of reasons, including borrowing a car, driving home from buying while waiting to arrange insurance.

I get the impression that, had the occupants not been outed as "Poles", this thread might have gone a different direction. Strange old place, PH...

OP - I hope your sister gets out of this without any undue financial penalty.

stargazer30

1,582 posts

165 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Would the newish assisted braking tech thats getting ever more popular have avoided this one?

Lost soul

8,712 posts

181 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Mouse1903 said:
Police arrived and basically said it's insurance call, but even with witnesses the 3 in their car work against her 2..
Very sorry to hear your sisters problem this is a really stty thing , but on this point you made surely 2 independent witnesses must trump 3 who were in a vehicle that's involved

Hackney

6,800 posts

207 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Mouse1903 said:
My poor sister was involved in a deliberate crash on Friday. Driving from work the only car up ahead was a Yaris. She was keeping her distance but the driver decided to come to a full emergency stop for absolutely no reason, no traffic up ahead etc. Now a couple from the other side of the road saw it happen and were so shocked they made their way to the accident scene to act as witnesses.

Her 5 year old Fiat 500 has probably at least around 2k damage to it, both airbags went off and the impact of this smashed the windscreen.
I can't reconcile this version of events.
She was keeping her distance but couldn't stop in time when they did an emergency stop? And did £2k damage to her own car?

Why couldn't she stop? Why couldn't she swerve?