Safe Speed Forums

Did anyone else catch this last night? It was about the 'crash for cash' insurance scam. Supposedly gangs of crooks are going round targetting 'innocent' motorists, staging accidents and then making fraudulent insurance claims.

Trouble is... most of the 'innocent' motorists who were featured were victims of a 'slam-on' whereby the vehicle in front suddenly brakes for no reason, 'forcing' the driver behind to rear-end them.

What got me REALLY angry was the fact that, had the 'victims' been driving properly - ie NOT DRIVING TOO CLOSE TO THE CAR IN FRONT then the scams would fail!!

The program was IMO a complete waste of time because it didn't focus on the scams targetting HGVs whereby the gang car actually cuts infront of the HGV without warning and brakes. Far harder to avoid and far more dangerous.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Having not seen it I’m not really in a position to comment, but I would have assumed the ‘crash car’ would simply change lane right in front of the victim vehicle and then brake hard before the victim has a chance to react accordingly...... unless they deliberately picked on victims who didn’t react accordingly?

I did watch it and I'd have said that this is exactly what was happening.

There was one with a bus that got me, the scammer cut in front of the bus and braked but the bus managed to swerve and miss the car, the scammer then continued to try again for the second.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

The impression I got was that that was only the case with a few accidents. Certainly the first few in the report stated that 'the car in front just stopped' - the ones around Bolton happened on a single lane road.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Don't forget this is a planned crash. I think you underestimate the surprise effect and therefore reaction time needed to avoid running into a vehicle ahead that emergency brakes to a halt totally without warning. The two seconds gap is adequate in normal circumstances because the following vehicle almost always has some indication that the car ahead is braking and, even if the braking is completely without warning, it is quite unlikely to also be applying maximum braking effort. Where the braking is completely unpredictable and at maximum effort, it would take an extremely alert driver, even allowing a two seconds gap, to react quickly enough to avoid the crash.

I'd wager a reasonable sum that I could drive ahead of almost any driver (not forewarned of my intention) and provoke a rear end crash within an hour or two in a typical congested roads environment.

I suppose that's a fair comment Obsrever, but the 'victims' also reported that just prior to the 'slam-on' the gang car was driving irratically. That would be warning to me to stay WELL back.

The point I was trying to make was that IMO the programme focussed on the wrong issues. It tried to make out that the 'victims' could have done absolutely nothing to avoid the accident which IMO wasn't the case.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I didn't see the program but, I think the 'victims' need better solicitors, few drivers could be expected to react in time if someone cuts in and slams on, especially if they have filled your 2 second gap,
and carrying out such a manouvre is Driving Without Due Care and Attention or even Dangerous Driving IMHO, and if they cause an accident, insurance fraud, assault with weapon, conspiracy and the 'passengers' aiding and abetting.
Do I think the police will thoroughly investigate?
Unfortunately not
Will the Police/camera partnership have an accident statistic to help justify installing a camera?
Definately

fatboytim

Will you please read my original post. The 'victims' were following DIRECTLY BEHIND THE VEHICLE that slammed on, they were NOT cut in on. That's what I'm complaining about. The 'cut in and slam' cases are completely different.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

If I recall, one of the guys from the Insurance Fraud Bureau said he had a letter from the police that basicly said "Its not a police priority or a government priority so were not going to do anything about it".

Was no doubt not written quite like that but still

I didn't see the programme, but one would assume that the scam vehicle would have had its brake lights broken.

It make sthe scam more effective (less warning) and undetectable (lights are going to get broken in the crash anyway).

Of course it's not a police or government priority - it's highly dangerous, "but only motorists suffer, and we don't get any money out of it" is basically what the b*****s are saying.
So much for road safety.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

I think this thread vindicates my comments here from about a month ago where I installed a video camera in my car recording permanantly.

Would definately help in protecting against this sort of scam.

It still wouldn't protect you if you ran into the car in front when it slammed on. Like I've said already, the programme focussed on the rear end shunts that were caused by the rear driver following too close, NOT by the cut in and slam incidents.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

In most (read: almost all) manufactured incidents there are two vehicles involved. Vehicle number 1 is travelling in front of the victim's vehicle. Then vehicle number 2 pulls out from a side road/different lane/from parked 'causing' vehicle number 1 to slam their brakes on.

Vehicle number 2 speeds away and the victim and Vehicle #1 get to moan about #2's poor driving (had #2 stuck around they could be held partially liable for the incident so naturally they vanish leaving the victim's insurance to pay full costs)

#1 will often slow (without braking) just before the incident to decrease the distance between them and the victim.

A lot of the time they will use vehicles that cost less than £1000 to keep the claim 'under the radar' and there are lots of little tricks they use.

I've caught a couple of people trying to commit this fraud, but I don't know what the consequences ended up being unfortunately. Fraud is a massive issue at the moment and as a result car insurance prices are about to dramatically increase (just a heads up for you all) as a result.

It would be nice if the police could dedicate all their time to all the crimes that affect us, but we can't expect that to happen. There are still too many people driving too close to the vehicle in front, which helps the fraudsters no end - but the fraudsters will try every trick at their disposal to induce an accident (and there are lots of tricks to eke out lots and lots of money from each incident).

That's the point I was trying to make Mod - I wasn't commenting on the fact that these frauds are taking place, mearly on the poor quality and wasted oportunity of the programme and the fact that most of the motorists featured in the programme were victims of their own poor driving.

It also failed to make the point that there are several things you can do following the accident to protect yourself.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I investigate these types of claims. It's not simply a matter of leaving a safe braking distance. Many of these "accidents" occur at roundabout on the M61 corridor in the Bolton area, and what happens in many of them (ones where a decoy car is not involved) is the front car sets off from the roundabout when the way is clear, the driver behind looks to the right, sets off too, and finds the other car has slammed on in front for no reason whatsoever.

It's not a simple matter of claiming £1k for a car and a couple of £2k whiplash claims. We've had hire claims of over £50k, storage and recovery claims of up to £3k, plus injury claims, including those for bogus passengers. These claims can cost up to £1/4 million each, on a worst-case scenario, so we are talking about big money here. It's a whole industry, not just some cheeky scam.

We have been very successful recently in defending such claims, in that it has to be more than coincidence that over 20 identical incidents occur at one roundabout in the space of three months, all involving the same accident management companies and solicitors (and very often, the same driver of the front car - the real owners rarely drive them; they have drivers employed to cause the crashes).

That's still the fault of the driver behind though - yes the car in front has slammed on for no reason, but there's still no excuse for not looking where you're going.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

It saddens me to say that I've doen that....... VERY easily done.

Mine wasn't a scam but a Welsh woman who thought she saw an HGV coming round the roundabout 80 yards away.

Ho hum.

I agree that it is the person behind's fault, although I'd happily maim anyone who inflicted this surprise on me as a means of getting money. I am glad that insurance companies are wising up to this fraud.


Incidently Sally - you say there has been success.... what happens to the "victims" no claims as a result of a successful prosecution of such a scam? As Sixy says they are still technically at fault and in my experience insurance companies will try anything to reduce no claims entitlement.

_________________

I have been hit from behind at a T junction.
I started to go forward and saw a car coming toward me at some speed so I stopped driver behind hits me, gets out and states "I thought you'd gone"
No I thought I'm quite clearly here - he saw me start to move then didn't look in front again but looked to the right result rear end shunt.
Motto Look where you're going!