It's just difficult to prove the intention to cause the accident. When I started driving auto's I accidentally hit the brake thinking it was the clutch, which otherwise seemed like an emergency stop - no intention to cause an accident but easily possible for one to occur from something like that.
Crash for Cash
- Thread starter Trig
- Start date
Without CCTV, or even witnesses I'm sure you would be screwed as it would be your word against theirs.
Read the thread. There's cctv. Just like there is all over the place these days. The wonders of being in one of the most surveillance heavy countries in the world.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Doesn't matter, all she has to say is something like "I thought I saw a child about to run out".
Even if there was no child in sight, verified by the CCTV, her thinking there was is enough justification to slam her brakes on, then it's up to the car behind her to stop in time.
Except it's not.
First result in google; http://www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/news/is-it-ever-the-car-in-fronts-fault-for-a-crash-from-behind-3402
Another one was the scottish case of bellingham v todd - bloke thought (for no reason) that a car was going to pull out in front of him. It didn't but he jammed his brakes on anyway.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-car-s-brakes-just-inches-lorry-motorway.html
Do you not think the people in the examples above would just say the same thing?
She'd have to prove that she thought she saw a child run out. Obviously difficult to do, however if she's seeing things that aren't there you can take it down a whole new route - is she physically/mentally fit to drive?
I think the point the OP is trying to make is that if a few minutes before the exact same car comes along and slams on the breaks at the same point, with someone narrowly missing the back of them, it shows a clear and deliberate pattern.
No need to get hot under the collar about it.
Intentionally causing an accident is an offence.
Not driving at a suitable distance from the car in front is also poor driving form (and can also reveal an offence when a collision occurs)
Both points are valid and correct. Whilst she may have emergency braked intentionally, she may have also had a genuine reason. In either case the driver behind should have been driving at a distance in which they could safely stop in the distance seen to be clear.
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,568
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
Nah I'm not agreeing with this tbh
If she goes past more than once and there's video proof that she brakes hard on more than one occasion then Imho that shows she thought about it and was deliberately trying to cause an accident.
I'm sure the insurance would be glad to jk now that one of the cars they cover is driving around I technically causing accidents.
Might have no holidays left to book at work and fancied a bit time off
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,148
- Location
- South
This woman, assuming she is up to no good, could potentially cause a fatal accident, or at least a very serious one. Not to mention that crash for cash contributes to everyone's premium going up. If op has evidence that suggests she's been trying it on, then fair play to him for doing his bit to help make the roads safer for everyone.
I'm sure you'd be pleased if a helpful stranger submitted evidence that proved someone had done this to you.
Yup, the whole world would be a better place if people didnt stick their noses into business that doesnt concern them
Deliberately causing an accident is an offence (Failing to take reasonable measures to avoid one should also be, Like with maritime law, but it doesn't seem to be the case with motoring law)
Deliberately causing an accident so as to make a false insurance claim is also an offence.
However, The scam only works because the scammer/criminal is able to exploit somebody else's poor driving.
It is actually very rare for there to be any totally innocent parties in a motor accident/collision (IE ones where the victim not only made no errors but also had no possibility of mitigating somebody else's)
Personally I would like to see the whole motor insurance business reformed to recognise this but that is a topic for a different thread.
How's the new Fiat 500?
Ha I was expecting that.
Just seems OP is meddling to me. If the police (or the driver of the car behind, or his solicitors) approach him for CCTV footage of the accident, then great. But if not, it's none of his business.
Also, I'm wondering how he intends to work out who either driver is insured with to approach with the "evidence".
Must be a slow day in the CCTV control room.
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,568
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
Or alternatively hes showing an interest in preventing insurance fraud and C4C scams that ultimately increase everyone's premiums?
How is this any different to offering dashcam footage of an accident you've witnessed? Or even offering to be a witness yourself.
The police aren't going to approach everyone in a 5 mile radius asking if they happen to have any CCTV footage...
Insurance will side with him if it's clearly a crash for cash scam. If you can find the guy hand him the footage 
The usual one seems to be they start pulling out on to a slip road, slow down and then suddenly move back out in front of someone and slam the brakes on. This is where a dashcam saves the day.
The usual one seems to be they start pulling out on to a slip road, slow down and then suddenly move back out in front of someone and slam the brakes on. This is where a dashcam saves the day.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
[TW]Fox;29627992 said:
I was thinking this myself...
I have had someone attempt to get me to slam into the back of them before, twice, but I'm smart and leave a gap so it did not work. They gave up after the second attempt and pulled over back on the inside lane, so I nervously overtook and got away from them.