Intentional Crash and Witnesses

Intentional Crash and Witnesses

Author
Discussion

Driver101

14,376 posts

120 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
I've seem lots of accidents and very rarely anyone accepts any responsibility. There is always a mitigating reason why it wasn't their fault.

You've accepted your sister's version of events as being 100%. You can't do that for one. We are also accepting your version of your sister's account. Hope you can see why this might be giving more than a slightly biased opinion.

We've even see guys post road camera footage on here that doesn't back up their version of events, that is even when they have the benefit to see it back. They'll see everything from their own point of view and try to defend and justify themselves.

People don't like blame and do everything to avoid it.

If your sister ran into the back of another car, she was either following too closely or wasn't paying enough attention.

It might be a scam. However there is 365 days in a year and millions of road users. There is a lot of people on their first day of insurance.

We never witnessed the accident so can't possibly assume what happened and if it is a scam.

The only safe thing we can conclude is your sister wasn't driving safely enough.

HereBeMonsters

14,180 posts

181 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
My Father once had this happen, but he was the car in front. A bee/wasp got in the window of the car, landed on his face, and crawled in behind his sunglasses.

Not wanting to get stung in the eye he quickly stopped (by which I mean, in a car with no ABS, on a dry day he braked hard, but didn't lock the wheels. 2 seconds later we were hit by a guy behind not paying attention.

Insurance attributed it 100% to the guy behind, and my Dad's Primera got a new exhaust and rear bumper.

The Restorer

841 posts

227 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
I think there's a few sanctimonious folks on here arguing the toss about stopping distance. I think we would all try and keep a reasonable distance judging by conditions etc but whether you like it or not this will not always take into account being brake tested!

Anyways, when someone hit my car and drove off, the police said my 2 passenger witnesses were worthless and made no effort to pursue the other party for damages. She drove pretty recklessly after the incident to get away from me. Despite giving chase at first I backed off when she was doing 70 down some speedbumped road with parked cars and driveways on both sides and a child in the rear passenger seat. If it is as you say a scam, report to the operation cash4crash someone mentioned earlier and fight strongly against insurance.

LoonR1 would know, maybe if they can get the cops to investigate and charge for fraud then the insurance case could be made easier.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 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
Right. This was posted at exactly the same time I posted for the first time. The OPs sister has no way of knowing this. The whole story is BS.

Dodsy

7,168 posts

226 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
I think it would be easy to cause this type of collision even if you were following at a safe distance. Car in front comes off the gas, gap starts to close. Car behind will take a moment to realise the car in front is slowing significantly as no brake lights. Car in front then anchors up and even if the driver behind reacts with lightning speed they are already closing the gap with the car in front before they have hit the anchors so good chance they will hit them. I think anyone could be caught out by this even if following at a safe distance.


CYMR0

3,940 posts

199 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
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
Right. This was posted at exactly the same time I posted for the first time. The OPs sister has no way of knowing this. The whole story is BS.
Depends if they just happen to be driving around with their insurance documentation that shows the start date for the cover.

They may easily have used that to exchange details.

In any event, 3 days into insurance is 1% of the way through cover under the policy. Are 1% of claims going to be refused because it's suspicious that a claim would occur so early?

HereBeMonsters

14,180 posts

181 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Dodsy said:
I think it would be easy to cause this type of collision even if you were following at a safe distance. Car in front comes off the gas, gap starts to close. Car behind will take a moment to realise the car in front is slowing significantly as no brake lights. Car in front then anchors up and even if the driver behind reacts with lightning speed they are already closing the gap with the car in front before they have hit the anchors so good chance they will hit them. I think anyone could be caught out by this even if following at a safe distance.
Then that's not a safe distance.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
CYMR0 said:
Depends if they just happen to be driving around with their insurance documentation that shows the start date for the cover.

They may easily have used that to exchange details.

In any event, 3 days into insurance is 1% of the way through cover under the policy. Are 1% of claims going to be refused because it's suspicious that a claim would occur so early?
He's saying it's a 3 day policy. Read it again. Still far from convinced about this story.

CYMR0

3,940 posts

199 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
He's saying it's a 3 day policy. Read it again. Still far from convinced about this story.
Ah, misunderstood and yes, that is slightly suspicious although the fact that the policy exists may mean it can be explained. In any event, the length of cover would still be shown on relevant documentation, in that it shows the car was only on cover for three days in total rather than just the last three days.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Do we think the OPs sister would be able to read a recount that level of detail on a policy document? Police are highly unlikely to share that information, the most you'd get would be conformation that they are insured and who with and possibly the policy number.

Cliftonite

8,405 posts

137 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
The PH Massive cannot be conned ! The BS detectors are twitching . . .

Over to you, OP!

smile


m3jappa

6,385 posts

217 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
I haven't read the whole thread but can assure you these things happen.

Happened to me a few years back, the trio tried claiming 18k for what was a clip on the side of their stty avensis type thing. Slammed on their brakes (well two cars in front did).

I was given all sorts of abuse on here about how dangerous I was etc etc from the usual better than you crowd.

Anyway, in the end even their own solicitor wouldn't stand for them in court as their actions were so fraudulent.

Mouse1903

Original Poster:

839 posts

152 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Right. This was posted at exactly the same time I posted for the first time. The OPs sister has no way of knowing this. The whole story is BS.
Well I can't remember whether she got it from the party in front or was told by her insurance (who contacted the police).

I've basically told her that if it does go down the court route then she should certainly try her best to fight it, despite the keeping her distance issue.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 23rd July 2014
quotequote all
Mouse1903 said:
Well I can't remember whether she got it from the party in front or was told by her insurance (who contacted the police).

I've basically told her that if it does go down the court route then she should certainly try her best to fight it, despite the keeping her distance issue.
Why don't you give her a call and ask her. I'm sure your sister will be happy to hear from you. I'll ask another question depending on your answer most probably.

Sheepshanks

32,412 posts

118 months

Thursday 24th July 2014
quotequote all
Dodsy said:
I think it would be easy to cause this type of collision even if you were following at a safe distance. Car in front comes off the gas, gap starts to close. Car behind will take a moment to realise the car in front is slowing significantly as no brake lights. Car in front then anchors up and even if the driver behind reacts with lightning speed they are already closing the gap with the car in front before they have hit the anchors so good chance they will hit them. I think anyone could be caught out by this even if following at a safe distance.
I know many people hate this, but that's exactly why I always like to flash my brake lights at the car behind when traffic slows on the motorway rather than just letting speed decay.

Cars accelerating away from lights / roundabouts (or a stop on the motorway) etc and then suddenly braking hard is probably more likely to cause a collision than backing off and then braking though.

It's been asked and not answered, but I'd be interested to know if the OPs sister saw brake lights - I'm always mega alert if I become aware of a car with non-working brake lights.

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Thursday 24th July 2014
quotequote all
They are all witnesses, including the drivers.

I've no idea why anyone would think the size of a safe gap is different depending on the reason the follower later thinks the leader stopped wink

For the purposes of the claim the leader's supposed reasons and intentions may be relevant but given how blatant op suggests it all was I'm surprised by the weird comment from the police.

Anyhow, as always with these threads, not even half a story.

amancalledrob

1,248 posts

133 months

Thursday 24th July 2014
quotequote all
pork911 said:
Anyhow, as always with these threads, not even half a story.
Well it was still nice of you to drop in and let us all know smile

ging84

8,789 posts

145 months

Thursday 24th July 2014
quotequote all
since these threads are invariably pure fiction you always get the whole story
the stories are just vague boring and st

pork911

7,080 posts

182 months

Friday 25th July 2014
quotequote all
amancalledrob said:
pork911 said:
Anyhow, as always with these threads, not even half a story.
Well it was still nice of you to drop in and let us all know smile
Sorry, none of my family work for any insurer so I can't compete with your insights.

Phatboy317

801 posts

117 months

Friday 25th July 2014
quotequote all
Dodsy said:
I think it would be easy to cause this type of collision even if you were following at a safe distance. Car in front comes off the gas, gap starts to close. Car behind will take a moment to realise the car in front is slowing significantly as no brake lights. Car in front then anchors up and even if the driver behind reacts with lightning speed they are already closing the gap with the car in front before they have hit the anchors so good chance they will hit them. I think anyone could be caught out by this even if following at a safe distance.
Precisely. A good many people get caught out, not because they're not keeping a safe distance, but because of a slow-moving vehicle cutting in just ahead of them and promptly braking.
Because they're driving slower, their braking distance is a lot less, so the driver behind really doesn't have a hope of stopping in time.
These scammers do a similar thing - they slow right down on their gears so the car behind doesn't see brake lights, and then slam on anchors just as they get close enough.