RE: Police: Crash Gangs On The Rise

[J111]

tinman0 said:

J111 said:

"The scammers often make innocent drivers crash into them so that they can claim for damage and injuries such as whiplash. Usually they will brake hard so that the driver behind goes into the back of them."

Hmm

Only a fool breaks the two second rule ?

If someone is trying to create an accident, the two second rule won't save you. Although we should always be alert about other drivers and their actions, if someone is trying to cause an accident isn't something we are on the look out for.

My point was more that it's a little more complicated than suggested by the article

[Fort Jefferson]

I they know how many and how much, they must know who, so why do they pay out?

[tinman0]

J111 said:

tinman0 said:

J111 said:

"The scammers often make innocent drivers crash into them so that they can claim for damage and injuries such as whiplash. Usually they will brake hard so that the driver behind goes into the back of them."

Hmm

Only a fool breaks the two second rule ?

If someone is trying to create an accident, the two second rule won't save you. Although we should always be alert about other drivers and their actions, if someone is trying to cause an accident isn't something we are on the look out for.

My point was more that it's a little more complicated than suggested by the article

Fair enough! Wasn't having a go at you

[mike_1985]

I was sitting in sunday traffic last year with my friend driving his car , the traffic was barelly moving and everyone was chattin away in the car when we heard a pop.
Looked like he hit the car in front at a miximum of 2mph , there was no damage whatsoever to any cars and we didnt think much of it, then after speaking with the driver he started shouting call me an ambulance as i cant move my neck ( we didnt even feel we hit a car ) anyway must ve been his lucky day as he got 3k of his insurance

Why that is not fraud?

[Mike400]

mike_1985 said:

I was sitting in sunday traffic last year with my friend driving his car , the traffic was barelly moving and everyone was chattin away in the car when we heard a pop.
Looked like he hit the car in front at a miximum of 2mph , there was no damage whatsoever to any cars and we didnt think much of it, then after speaking with the driver he started shouting call me an ambulance as i cant move my neck ( we didnt even feel we hit a car ) anyway must ve been his lucky day as he got 3k of his insurance

Why that is not fraud?

Ahhh, whiplash, you cant prove or disprove a patient has it, easy claim and the standard is at least £2500.

Thing about whiplash is the pain or effects are not instant, so for someone to have a "sore neck" at the time of impact shows they are taking the piss imo

Part of the problem are the lawyers encouraging their clients to put a claim in even when they know rightly its bullst.

Boils my piss. A woman hit my car years ago when I was parked, I wasnt hurt, she was very nice about it and obviously sorry so I just let her sort out the damages rather than go through the insurance.

A couple of mates said I was an idiot for not claiming whiplash!!! This attitude is also part of the problem.

[tinman0]

mike_1985 said:

Why that is not fraud?

It is fraud.

[mike_1985]

I was hit in the tesco car park by a crazed woman in a skoda , totally smashed my front left of my car which was 1 month old then. Everyone was encouraging me to claim , but as she seemed nice and she also took the blame on the spot i didnt bother . What was funny is that i got a call from her insuarnce company and they was begging me to go thru them as they can get the most amount of money
I st you not

Edited by mike_1985 on Monday 11th August 16:35

[Petemate]

IGL said:

With regard to the standard crash at a roundabout, that most people seem to have at sometime in their life, Wife, Brother-in-law & Father-in-law, but not me, well not so far anyway, it is all about the method of determining whether it is safe to proceed. Lots of people at second place at a roundabout are intent on looking to the right to see whether it is clear, and are only slightly aware of the car in front out of the side of their eyes. When it moves, they assume it has gone completely, but due to the speed of modern cars, (from the right, i.e. time taken to travel between their entrance and your entrance is now very short), and the indecision and judgement of the car driver in front, they often stop, by which time it is too late.

My approach is to completely ignore the cars to the right until the car in front has gone completely. It is the car in front that is your primary obstacle and it is this which you should concentrate on most. After it has cleared, the cars to the right become the primary obstacle, so only then should you concentrate fully on them.



Ian

Edited by IGL on Monday 11th August 12:32

Ian - you are spot-on there. As a good example, has anyone tried getting out of Sainsbury's at Heyford Hill on the Oxford ring road IN THE RUSH HOUR? With one of these dithereing idiots in front? Too right - wait till they have LONG gone then light the blue touch paper!...
Pete

Edited by Petemate on Monday 11th August 16:41

[mark3man]

mike_1985 said:

I was sitting in sunday traffic last year with my friend driving his car , the traffic was barelly moving and everyone was chattin away in the car when we heard a pop.
Looked like he hit the car in front at a miximum of 2mph , there was no damage whatsoever to any cars and we didnt think much of it, then after speaking with the driver he started shouting call me an ambulance as i cant move my neck ( we didnt even feel we hit a car ) anyway must ve been his lucky day as he got 3k of his insurance

Why that is not fraud?

Because insurance companies (and I hope they are reading) take the easiest way out - sign the cheque. There is a ready source of income and they rely on the inertia factor for people to read the amount when renewing policies and send off the cheque.
Nor do insurers like it when challenged - I took the solicitors of one lot to the Law Society for issuing a false invoice (grossly inflated repair bill for someone elses car). Oh, they said when the xxxx hit the fan, if you feel so strongly it really was only worth £100, we'll accept that and forget about our collection fees we tried to charge you - if you will back off.
The odd letter to the chief of the insurance company asking why, as a shareholder*, payouts seem not to be checked very thoroughly and are reducing your dividends is another good way to stir things up - especially if you quote who did what chapter and verse.

• chances are you will be via a pension/savings fund.

[mike_1985]

Maybe its because its not his money that he is carelessly spending

Edited by mike_1985 on Monday 11th August 18:04

[Malim]

Sadly this activity is nothing new. However, I do ave to report that's it isn't just the criminal and the poor that get up to this. Ten years ago I was a poor student following a brand new Volvo estate at a decent distance. The guy indicated right to turn into a side road. Fortunately I knew it to be a dead end so hung back. He turned in, spotted it was a dead end, slotted it into reverse and tanked backwards into my now stationary car. Tweedy charm school graduate then tried to claim I had driven into the back of him.

It takes all sorts of 'special people' to make a world.

[skid-mark]

mrloudly said:

This is nothing new. Years ago I had a mate who reversed his Viva into a post. He came up with the wonderful plan of braking hard causing somebody to rear end him. This would then allow repair of the previous post damage FOC. For ages he drove along looking in his rearview mirror for a likely victim and then BANG, he collides with the car in front!!!

Needless to say, we still take the p.ss today!!

Andy M

some nice mates you've got

[flattotheboards]

It is an absolute disgrace that this is allowed to happen.

A couple of years ago when I was commuting to work on my bike I was knocked off by a van, he got straight out and made sure that I was alright (the guy was more shook up that I was) and helped me and the bike to the side of the road, called the police to tell them what had happened. The policeman came and took statement the van driver admitted that it was his fault and said he would pay for all the damages. I was told by many people - colleagues, friends etc that I should claim, but why should I? I wasnt really injured had a couple of grazes and a sprained wrist, I could still work and I wasnt in any pain, and my bike was going to be repaired. Needless to say I didnt claim.

I can see why you are able to claim but I feel you should only claim if you are affected and I would guess that the majority of claims are by people who werent even affected - ITS WRONG imo.

[PeteFf]

Not a gang thing but on the dodgy claim front my daughter reversed into a parked Focus in school car park. she waited for the driver who was a woman picking kids up and swapped details. There was no damage to my daughter's old Corsa except number plate light broke and there was ding in the Focus rear bumper. A month later she had a call from the insurance asking how serious the damage was to the Focus and was the car still drivable to which she replied yes. They contacted her again to ask if she would testify to this as the garage had claimed for a rear bumper, quarter panel and boot floor for the Focus and the woman was asking for a months car rental as she had to hire a car during the time it was off the road. She had been using the car all the time as she still picked the kids up every day at the same time as my daughter. This was 5 months ago and nothing else has been heard from the insurance so we don't know if she received her claim.

[sospan]

I read an article couple of years ago about these gangs.
They were filling a car/people carrier/minibus up with mates as pasengers and deliberately driving to force a collision.
Lo and behold the occupants of the veh they were in all seemed to suffer "injuries" and claimed. The scam involved driving normally then slowing down to allow the following car to get close. Then - slam on brakes or even reverse back into the following car. Always in a quiet road with no other witnesses other than the gangs own veh. who all swore that the following car was speeding/tailgating. The warning in the article was to avoid such a situation by not following a suspicious vehicle. Not easy to do when you are driving and watching the road normally.
My question is - if there are gangs doing this then is there a database of claimants so that seriial claimants can be identified?
Perhaps the answer is to have a video cam pontuing forwards as per US police/
Keep this evidence a secret until; the claims go in then pass it to insurance company and police - fraud in anybody's book!

[NiallOswald]

mike-r said:

Good excuse to get some 6 pots then.

Better to invest in some sticky tyres, there can't be many cars around these days where the brakes can't lock the wheels in the dry.

[Dubmaster77]

Mike400 said:

Orb the Impaler said:

This has been going on in NE Manchester and Bradford for *years* now; I see it all the time.

Luckily the perps are very easy to spot, and everyone I know simply gives them a very wide berth. Doesn't stop problems at traffic lights though: car in front of you, car behind you (full of first car's mates). Car in front reverses into you and claims it was your fault. Witnesses in rearmost car. You get the picture....

Fair boils my piss.

My dad has mounted a discreet camera just above his rear-view mirror, with a recorder in the boot with a loop tape (i.e. once the tape is full it starts recording over itself.

Means he usually has the last couple of hours driving on tape.

Its a bit overkill and he only installed it because he could (bit of a geek / gadget freak / tinkerer type)

But its got me thinking of doing the same....

on the Gadget show recently they had a simmilar thing, When a certain amout of G Is created Ie under heavy breaking it starts to record a set time of footage I think if the Grises above a certain level I e acctually during impact it automatically saves the footage to an internal hard drive, I do remember thinking it was somewhat floored in the acctual ammount of time it recorded. Will look it up later!

[PATTERNPART]

What a country full of crooks we live in. Sad state of affairs. I once foolishly let my car coast down a sliproad onto a blocked motorway. I was looking at a map on the passenger seat and didn't feel my car start to move. Next thing. Bump. Old chap in a spotless Metro. I rolled into it. No visible damage. Swapped telephone numbers etc. He phoned me up a week later to say his garage reckoned something under his bumper was bent and it would cost £125 to put right. I sent him a cheque. End of story. I'm sure he wasn't trying it on. I've never claimed anything on anyone's insurance in 20 years. Paid a fortune in premiums over that time though!

[haleelectrical]

If I was ever to fall victim to this sort of scam and the perp claimed whip lash, I would make damn sure that he really had it the next time he reversed off his drive.

[flemke]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

G0ldfysh said:

All the more reason to not sit so close to the car in front..

Then no matter how hard they brake you should have time to react

exactly!!

nail hit squarely on the head there.

And when you're keeping a proper gap behind the car ahead, only to have that gap instantly filled by someone in the next lane, who then hits his brakes?