Fraudulent Claim Against Us

[Lum]

Yeah, I usually leave at least that much. It's perfectly doable.

You must only drive in very light traffic. If you leave 40m, at least three cars will fill it as soon as the lane to your left slows down a bit.

Just yesterday evening on the M6 after a bit of heavy braking meant I was only 1 1/2 car lengths off the back bumper of the car in front at 40mph some **** in a bright red Audi A4 decided that was enough to squeeze his car into.

 

[deadfreak]

Correct, this is the kind of thing everyone is discussing.

Everyone else's scenario: Driver A looks for Driver B to be a bit too close, and even entices him into accelerating. Then slams on the brakes with the intention of causing an accident. Driver A is at fault.

I still dont agree , Driver B still has to take some reponsibility for their driving when already too close and then accellerating.


Taken from the highway code:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

* leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances PDF below)

 

[Duke]

Hope you get sorted - keep us updated!

 

[Outcast]

Sometime last year ( I think) whilst night trunking to Liverpool, I had a security guard fall asleep at the wheel and slammed into my diesel tank on the M62 westbound.

Lots of witnesses etc.. Police called.

Mersey side Police use these Postcard style forms which we all filled in and I ticked the box to be kept informed of what happens.

i didn't hear anything for ages then received a letter telling me he got done six points and £200. I thought no more of it.

About 6 months later...however.... I received a letter from a solicitor saying I had collided with their clients vehicle and they are seeking damages..

£7000 for the vehicle
£500 courtesy car
Injury to be determined

I was gobsmacked.

But something didn't seem right. The letter wasn't signed and there was a coffee ring on the back !!
I phoned my boss up and told him and he asked me if I could find that letter that told me what happened to him in court...I searched high & low and.. SUCCESS... I found it in my guitar bag which I keep at work. It had all the reference numbers on it.. everything.

My boss then called our legal dept and it turned out we hadn't bothered claiming against them. "We'll sort THAT out" came the reply !!

New 400 litre diesel tank
Vehicle off road - Rental
Damage to trailer side bars
Trailer off Road - Rental
Labour

I haven't heard anything since

doesn't look much damage to me but it destroyed the car (He hit me at about 80 mph according to witnesses).

Beware if you're around Redditch late at night too. There's a couple of smucks driving around doing the same thing as the op described

 

[Tute]

I don't understand, so there was a police investigation which found him guilty etc. yet months after he claimed that you hit him?

Did he suffer brain damage in the crash or something?

 

[osc89er]

I still dont agree , Driver B still has to take some reponsibility for their driving when already too close and then accellerating.


Taken from the highway code:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

* leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances PDF below)

Ah. I see you want to quote the highway code and so on. I want to base my decision of fault on common sense and justice.

Lets try an analogy. Say you are in a gym and shadow boxing. There is a guy who wants to join the shadow boxing so you make room for him. As soon as starts throwing punches you jump in front of him and get punched as a result.

The new guy has a duty of care not to punch someone while shadow boxing. However, I don't see how it could possibly be his fault if someone waits for the perfect timing and jumps in front of the punch.

The same thing happened here. Driver A enticed driver B into thinking that accelerating was okay and then slammed on the brakes to cause an accident.

If driver A DELIBERATELY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT then driver B is an innocent bystander even if he was too close to brake properly. Any other ruling is an injustice.

 

[miniyazz]

Ah. I see you want to quote the highway code and so on. I want to base my decision of fault on common sense and justice.

Lets try an analogy. Say you are in a gym and shadow boxing. There is a guy who wants to join the shadow boxing so you make room for him. As soon as starts throwing punches you jump in front of him and get punched as a result.

The new guy has a duty of care not to punch someone while shadow boxing. However, I don't see how it could possibly be his fault if someone waits for the perfect timing and jumps in front of the punch.

The same thing happened here. Driver A enticed driver B into thinking that accelerating was okay and then slammed on the brakes to cause an accident.

If driver A DELIBERATELY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT then driver B is an innocent bystander even if he was too close to brake properly. Any other ruling is an injustice.

The difficulty is in proving that driver A deliberately caused an accident. I'm not entirely sure how driver A would 'entice' driver B into accelerating, but anyway, supposing he did, and then a child ran out into the road causing driver A to slam on his brakes, and B goes into the back of A, it's entirely driver Bs fault for being too close/too fast; it's also an entirely legitimate reason to slam on the brakes.
Now, supposing the driver saw movement out of the corner of his eye which he thought was a child running out into the road, so he slams on the brakes. He's not intending to cause an accident, so if B goes into A it's Bs fault, as it's a legitimate reason to slam on the brakes.

Here we have the difficulty. How can it be proven that driver A deliberately caused an accident? He may have been in similar situations before, but that's not proof. If fraud is a criminal offence, it'll need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that's surely tricky..

 

[deadfreak]

The same thing happened here. Driver A enticed driver B into thinking that accelerating was okay and then slammed on the brakes to cause an accident.

If driver A DELIBERATELY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT then driver B is an innocent bystander even if he was too close to brake properly. Any other ruling is an injustice.

If your driving too close you are not an innocent bystander, whether driver A braked for no reason or due to a child walking into the road. Its still a contributing factor to the accident.

Can you give an example of how you can entice someone into accelerating so they drive into the back of your car because I havent experienced that.

 

[osc89er]

A lot of reasoned stuff about blame

I have been debating who is at fault, not who will be blamed. A driver who stops for a child is stopping for traffic which is not what we're discussing.

Proof and evidence don't show fault. Proof and evidence relate to blame.

Driver A is at fault.
Due to lack of evidence Driver B will get the blame.

This, regardless of what evidence or proof you have, is an injustice.

 

[osc89er]

If your driving too close you are not an innocent bystander, whether driver A braked for no reason or due to a child walking into the road. Its still a contributing factor to the accident. .

Again, your scenario didn't happen. The driver stopped TO CAUSE AN ACCIDENT THAT THEY WOULD PROFIT FROM!

Can you give an example of how you can entice someone into accelerating so they drive into the back of your car because I havent experienced that.

See post 1. Because you obviously didn't understand what happened.

I'll give you another one. You sit in the outside lane of a motorway to annoy the person behind. You signal left to go into a smallish gap to entice the other driver to start accelerating to get past you so you can pull out. As soon as this starts to happen you slam on the anchors. Bob's your uncle.

 

[oneale90]

Hope this all gets sorted and that he gets what is coming to him! These people are the lowest of the low !

 

[Eriedor]

Again, your scenario didn't happen. The driver stopped TO CAUSE AN ACCIDENT THAT THEY WOULD PROFIT FROM!



See post 1. Because you obviously didn't understand what happened.

I'll give you another one. You sit in the outside lane of a motorway to annoy the person behind. You signal left to go into a smallish gap to entice the other driver to start accelerating to get past you so you can pull out. As soon as this starts to happen you slam on the anchors. Bob's your uncle.

Driver B is still at fault, you shouldn't accelerate until the road in front is clear. Don't make assumptions about other drivers behaviour.

 

[osc89er]

Driver B is still at fault, you shouldn't accelerate until the road in front is clear. Don't make assumptions about other drivers behaviour.

Driver B has been foolish and in an accident is at fault. When driver A is trying to cause a collision then there is no accident and driver B is not at fault for causing one. There has been a collision, with the aim of fraud, caused by driver A.

So, again, you also seem not to care about the cause of the collision you just want to trot out the stock answer of driver B should be more careful. Yes, driver B should have been more careful, but he didn't cause an accident because there was no accident.

EDIT: For an outrageous(!) analogy, if driver A was an old man and driver B a ***** then driver A would be Tony Martin.

 

[Eriedor]

Driver B has been foolish and in an accident is at fault. When driver A is trying to cause a collision then there is no accident and driver B is not at fault for causing one. There has been a collision, with the aim of fraud, caused by driver A.

So, again, you also seem not to care about the cause of the collision you just want to trot out the stock answer of driver B should be more careful. Yes, driver B should have been more careful, but he didn't cause an accident because there was no accident.

EDIT: For an outrageous(!) analogy, if driver A was an old man and driver B a ***** then driver A would be Tony Martin.

In an ideal world yes, unfortunately that is not a world we live in. We have to take a pragmatic approach and say that all cars should adopt a position behind the vehicule in front such that no matter what that vehicule does, malicious or not you can stop in time without hitting them.

In the real world we of course know that doesn't happen, as said before whenever you leave a 2 second gap with the car in front someone decides to fill it it , annoying!

 

[osc89er]

Again you seem not to understand.

Fault is when you cause something.

Blame is when someone else says you caused it.

Driver A caused it. The insurance company will say driver B caused it.

Tada. The real world has been explained. There is no idealism involved, just your inability to understand the difference between fault and blame.

 

[Eriedor]

Driver A caused it...

Prove it.......

 

[Lum]

I'll give you another one. You sit in the outside lane of a motorway to annoy the person behind. You signal left to go into a smallish gap to entice the other driver to start accelerating to get past you so you can pull out. As soon as this starts to happen you slam on the anchors. Bob's your uncle.

There's even valid reasons for someone doing this, if as you go to pull into L2 from L3, someone in L1 decides they're going into the same gap, it's a reasonable reaction to pull quickly back into L3 to avoid a collision.

If you then spot the Talivan coming into view on the next bridge, it's pretty common to slam on the anchors, especially if you had sped up a bit in L3 to avoid inconviniencing the guy behind who wanted to go faster.

 

[osc89er]

There's even valid reasons for someone doing this, if as you go to pull into L2 from L3, someone in L1 decides they're going into the same gap, it's a reasonable reaction to pull quickly back into L3 to avoid a collision.

If you then spot the Talivan coming into view on the next bridge, it's pretty common to slam on the anchors, especially if you had sped up a bit in L3 to avoid inconviniencing the guy behind who wanted to go faster.

This was a scenario that someone could use to force a collision to occur. What has this to do with "valid reasons"? It doesn't matter if there is a valid reason. It's got nothing to do with the discussion.

I've got a valid reason for opening my car door. It doesn't make it right if I wait for a cyclist to be passing before I do it.

 

[Lum]

This was a scenario that someone could use to force a collision to occur. What has this to do with "valid reasons"? It doesn't matter if there is a valid reason. It's got nothing to do with the discussion.

Well the point is the driver behind should never really put themselves in a situation where they can be caught out by such a scam (in this case accelerating before the car has actually changed lanes) as there are legitimate reasons why the car in front may do this.

I've got a valid reason for opening my car door. It doesn't make it right if I wait for a cyclist to be passing before I do it.

There's another thread for that one

 

[osc89er]

Well the point is the driver behind should never really put themselves in a situation where they can be caught out by such a scam (in this case accelerating before the car has actually changed lanes) as there are legitimate reasons why the car in front may do this.



There's another thread for that one

But the cogent point is not about whether you have made a mistake and made yourself vulnerable. The cogent point is that someone has gone out to deliberately cause a collision. When that happens the fool who is too close is a victim. They haven't caused an accident or a collision. Without an accident then the usual logic of the person behind being too close does not apply. The collision was caused by the person in front who did it deliberately with that in mind. Because of the intent, this is not an accident, the person behind was RAMMED.

Anything else is ridiculous. It smacks of dogmatic adherence to IAM/ROSPA standards which are for safe driving and avoiding accidents. They don't take into account situations where someone has aimed their car at yours.

What if you parked behind someone at the lights and they reversed into you? It's the same thing. They suckered you into being close enough to cause a collision where you would be blamed.