Three men jailed over ‘crash for cash’ motorway insurance sc

[Who me ?]

SP & L ?

The men carried out a "crash for cash" scam on a motorway slip road (Picture: City of London Police)
View photos
The men carried out a "crash for cash" scam on a motorway slip road (Picture: City of London Police)

Three men have been jailed for carrying out a “crash for cash” insurance scam on a motorway in Coventry.

The trio drove at about 50mph on a motorway slip road then falsely performed an emergency stop, causing an innocent driver to collide with them.

They then entered personal injury claims for whiplash, worth a total of £28,000.

The three men pleaded guilty at Birmingham Crown Court last Friday to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation.

Mohammed Azam, 47, and Husnain Ahmed, 22, both from Birmingham, were sentenced to 25 months imprisonment, while Sufyan Lone, 25, also from Birmingham, was sentenced to 20 months.

To any BIB on here involved - well done lads and keep up the good work.

[av185]

What a surprise and a remarkable coincidence all 3 miscreant scumbags originate from Birmingham.

[NGee]

So why was the 'innocent driver' driving too close to the vehicle in front?

If everyone drove at a safe distance from the car in front there would be no such thing as 'cash for crash'.
Hopefully the reporting of stories like this will make people think about thier own driving standards - although I doubt it, easier just to blame someone else.

To be clear, I am not condoning the scumbags who do this sort of thing, just pointing out it takes two to have an accident!

[matjk]

Because these scum bags do things like disconnect the brake lights , or swap lanes right in front of you. They know how to cause a crash that on paper looks like its the guys behind fault

[alexmonkey]

NGee said:

So why was the 'innocent driver' driving too close to the vehicle in front?

<<lecturing>>

To be clear, I am not condoning the scumbags who do this sort of thing, just pointing out it takes two to have an accident!

Strikes me that perhaps you're trolling for an argument.

[eldar]

alexgreyhead said:

Stikes me that perhaps you're trolling for an argument

I think you are on the money. PH seems to be filling up people with 100% hindsight and excessively large aholes.

[EazyDuz]

Checked the names of the culprits, not even a raised eyebrow of surprise.

[SS2.]

Rarely can there have been a better advertisement for dashcams.

Link to video

[brman]

SS2. said:

Rarely can there have been a better advertisement for dashcams.

Link to video

which shows that NGee is right, the car behind was far to close

but yes, great that there was evidence to prosecute.

[NGee]

eldar said:

I think you are on the money. PH seems to be filling up people with 100% hindsight and excessively large aholes.

Maybe you could explain why you need hindsight to drive a safe distance from the car in front.

[Exige77]

NGee said:

eldar said:

I think you are on the money. PH seems to be filling up people with 100% hindsight and excessively large aholes.

Maybe you could explain why you need hindsight to drive a safe distance from the car in front.

It’s already been explained how these scum bags remove the safe distance.

Sure you must be trolling.

[Torquey]

Its good to see there were at least 2 different videos of the incident. Hoping the time has come where these tts cant get away with this any more.

[eldar]

NGee said:

Maybe you could explain why you need hindsight to drive a safe distance from the car in front.

You did look at the video and the set up, didn’t you.

[funkyrobot]

brman said:

SS2. said:

Rarely can there have been a better advertisement for dashcams.

Link to video

which shows that NGee is right, the car behind was far to close

but yes, great that there was evidence to prosecute.

Looks like a lot of people were too close there. Good job there wasn't any traffic on the left.

[Black_S3]

NGee said:

To be clear, I am not condoning the scumbags who do this sort of thing, just pointing out it takes two to have an accident!

If someone is hell bent on tricking someone into crashing into them they will manage it.... Even if he’d left a gap, they’d close it on him on the slip road where he would have little choice than to accept the smaller gap as joining too slowly is the more dangerous option - at this point the victim is still blissfully unaware that the car in front wants to be crashed into.... All with the passenger watching for when the victim looks in his mirrors/does his life saver to shout the driver to brake.

[brman]

eldar said:

NGee said:

Maybe you could explain why you need hindsight to drive a safe distance from the car in front.

You did look at the video and the set up, didn’t you.

I am confused... it is almost like you didn't look at the video yourself! What I saw was tailgating by most of the cars there, including the one that was claimed against. I don't see the argument - the front car was obviously trying to cause an accident (and so deserves what they got) but the one behind would still have had a much better chance of avoiding it (in fact I suspect the front car would not even attempted to cause it) if it hadn't been tailgating in the first place.

[p4cks]

They'll have zero remorse and once released I'd hazard a guess that they'll be back doing more dodgy stuff.

[NGee]

brman said:

....... (in fact I suspect the front car would not even attempted to cause it) if it hadn't been tailgating in the first place.

Correct, and this is the crux of the matter which some people don't seem to understand. If the 'inocent driver' had been driving safely in the first place the scumbags would just have moved on to an easier target.

[p4cks]

NGee said:

Correct, and this is the crux of the matter which some people don't seem to understand. If the 'inocent driver' had been driving safely in the first place the scumbags would just have moved on to an easier target.

And maybe they did move to an 'easier target' having attempted it a number of times to other people on the road. Maybe this particular victim was their fourth, fifth or sixth attempted target that day.

I get your theory I really do, but in practice the little s who do this sort of thing will eventually find a target

[NGee]

p4cks said:

And maybe they did move to an 'easier target' having attempted it a number of times to other people on the road. Maybe this particular victim was their fourth, fifth or sixth attempted target that day.

I get your theory I really do, but in practice the little s who do this sort of thing will eventually find a target

Yes, I absolutely agree but it won't be an 'innocent victim'. As you say, maybe 4 5 or 6 other people had already avoided the scumbags by driving safely.