Whiplash Zones
Discussion
Like most people I'm getting rather annoyed with the cost of my car insurance. As a nation we're in the biggest economic depression since the 1930's and four figure premiums are hitting most most drivers harder in the wallet than needs be. 
Part of the problem is the pandemic of whiplash claims (fake or not) and insurance companies being spineless themselves to fight a claim no matter how much evidence there is that the claimant has no injury whatsoever.
I've suggested to the Ministry of Transport that they have "Whiplash Zones" using information from the national insurance database to isolate local areas where an unusually high number of claims have been made and signposing these areas. This would serve to warn drivers to be extra observant and let whiplash fraudsters know the authorities are on to them. Potentially reducing the number of collisions, claims and eventually insurance for everyone.
Something like this...
...looking a bit like this on the road...
...what do you guys think?
Part of the problem is the pandemic of whiplash claims (fake or not) and insurance companies being spineless themselves to fight a claim no matter how much evidence there is that the claimant has no injury whatsoever.
I've suggested to the Ministry of Transport that they have "Whiplash Zones" using information from the national insurance database to isolate local areas where an unusually high number of claims have been made and signposing these areas. This would serve to warn drivers to be extra observant and let whiplash fraudsters know the authorities are on to them. Potentially reducing the number of collisions, claims and eventually insurance for everyone.
Something like this...
...looking a bit like this on the road...
...what do you guys think?
Not sure what effect if any this would have, if you were to put signs up like this the clumsy drivers that cause the accidents that create the statistics you suggest using will be to busy looking at those signs rather than looking where they're going and before you know it you have another claim to deal with. The system needs to change but everyone is well aware of the issue. Not saying a sign to make people aware and be extra observant is a bad thing but I just think the cost of doing such an exercise could be better spent elsewhere in redesigning the system.
WhereamI said:
The simple solution is to not allow whiplash claims in any accident where the impact speed was assessed to be less than a reasonable level, say 30mph. In practice whiplash is very unlikely in low speed crashes.
They came up with a silly rule about this I believe but the speed was more like 6mph irrc The simplest solution would be to change the system. While these Injury Shysters 4U are paying tax it's hardly likely to happen is it?
The Department of Transport rejected the idea but it's ultimately up to local Highways Agencies funded by the Council to put the signs up. It's not like Councils to spend money unnecessarily is it?
The Department of Transport rejected the idea but it's ultimately up to local Highways Agencies funded by the Council to put the signs up. It's not like Councils to spend money unnecessarily is it?
WhereamI said:
The simple solution is to not allow whiplash claims in any accident where the impact speed was assessed to be less than a reasonable level, say 30mph. In practice whiplash is very unlikely in low speed crashes.
The problem is, there is medical research saying that whiplash can occur at closing speeds of 4mph and above. Disproving something that has already been researched and proven is going to be incredibly difficult.Having recently gone into the back of someone, is the answer not to just drive further away from the car in front?
Maybe a few "keep your distance" signs or chevrons on the road would remind people to stay back.
If everyone kept their distance then no-one would end up rear ending any one else.
Maybe a few "keep your distance" signs or chevrons on the road would remind people to stay back.
If everyone kept their distance then no-one would end up rear ending any one else.
Eviltad said:
Having recently gone into the back of someone, is the answer not to just drive further away from the car in front?
Maybe a few "keep your distance" signs or chevrons on the road would remind people to stay back.
If everyone kept their distance then no-one would end up rear ending any one else.
Yep all signs and road markings make the world of difference on the motorway network. Maybe a few "keep your distance" signs or chevrons on the road would remind people to stay back.
If everyone kept their distance then no-one would end up rear ending any one else.
"rolleyes" as there's no sarcasm smilie
I had a recent head on collision with a ladies car on my way back from university...A couple of days later an insurance company claiming to be to do with the ladies insurance practically begged me to claim whiplash...When I told the nice lady on the phone NO, I then got asked if there were any passengers in the car with me that wanted to claim....
...she didn't seem to know i was on a bicycle...
...she didn't seem to know i was on a bicycle...
Didnt the government state a while ago they were going to clamp down on this?
I think a very simple solution would be to stop these types of companys advertising like they did with cigarettes years ago.
I very much doubt these types of lawyers are all new but the claim culture for whiplash is only a thing of the last decade is it not? Surely if folk didnt hear about them as much then less claims would go in!
I think a very simple solution would be to stop these types of companys advertising like they did with cigarettes years ago.
I very much doubt these types of lawyers are all new but the claim culture for whiplash is only a thing of the last decade is it not? Surely if folk didnt hear about them as much then less claims would go in!
Just keep you eye out for the car infront and do the 'whiplash warriors' checklist:
1. Is it a cheap car? (will be written off at the drop of a hat) Small hatchback.
2. Is the car FULL? 4 or 5 (usually male) shifty looking passengers.. all looking round from time to time.
3. I'm not going to open the ethnicity can of worms... but do the occupants really suit the car they are all crammed into?
1. Is it a cheap car? (will be written off at the drop of a hat) Small hatchback.
2. Is the car FULL? 4 or 5 (usually male) shifty looking passengers.. all looking round from time to time.
3. I'm not going to open the ethnicity can of worms... but do the occupants really suit the car they are all crammed into?
DaveH23 said:
Didnt the government state a while ago they were going to clamp down on this?
That's where the 6mph thing came in I guess. Why would the government intervene? They stand to lose a load of revenue if insurance goes down. Maybe closer to an election they'll make a song and dance about it to get votes but apart from that that with the Tax on insurance, court time (costs) and income tax from all the injury shysters it would be like shooting their golden egg laying goose.
That mat sound a bit "Daily Mail" but it sounds about right doesn't it?
Liquid Knight said:
Why would the government intervene? They stand to lose a load of revenue if insurance goes down.
They wouldn't lose... Insurance payouts are tax free to the individual and go down on the insurance company's books as a loss so no tax from either side. They also know that costs will never go back down by much. The gov also has to pay for the courts so they'll save there.Overall, I expect it would be a saving and a little bit of a vote winner (gotta get the motorist on side somehow and they can't cut petrol duty).
daemonoid said:
They wouldn't lose... Insurance payouts are tax free to the individual and go down on the insurance company's books as a loss so no tax from either side. They also know that costs will never go back down by much. The gov also has to pay for the courts so they'll save there.
Overall, I expect it would be a saving and a little bit of a vote winner (gotta get the motorist on side somehow and they can't cut petrol duty).
But there is ofcourse, IPT (insurance premium tax) - About 6% iirc.Overall, I expect it would be a saving and a little bit of a vote winner (gotta get the motorist on side somehow and they can't cut petrol duty).
parapaul said:
WhereamI said:
The simple solution is to not allow whiplash claims in any accident where the impact speed was assessed to be less than a reasonable level, say 30mph. In practice whiplash is very unlikely in low speed crashes.
The problem is, there is medical research saying that whiplash can occur at closing speeds of 4mph and above. Disproving something that has already been researched and proven is going to be incredibly difficult.We exchanged details but as ther was no damage to either car no claim was made, I'm not claiming for the neck pain because it's not caused me 2 grands worth of pain and I don't want to be a knob.
cheadle hulme said:
Just avoid Bradford.
You could do, but the most prolific area for this is a lot closer to you http://www.directline.com/about_us/news_26042010.h...
(although I believe an updated top ten shows this is moving further South)
Edited by 7mike on Sunday 20th May 17:48
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff