Crash for Cash

Glanza said:
Anyway of getting in touch with the Seat driver? If so I'd pass the footage on so they can let the insurance have a look and see how they want to take it.
Click to expand...

if you know the reg, call around insurance co's and tell them you have evidence they may want.

Once of them may ask you to send it over ?
 
Diddums said:
If I was a victim of a C4C incident I'd be very grateful for a "meddling" person to help me prove that my collision was intentional, thus preserving my NCB, higher premiums and a LOT of unnecessary bother.
Click to expand...

Nobody actually knows for sure this is a C4C incident though?
 
We don't know it isn't though, and that's the point. I couldn't care less if someone wants to sit and watch CCTV footage of me driving past his place all day. If he does and it saves me all this nonsense, bonus. If not, and you enjoy watching me pick my nose in traffic, then by all means go for it.
 
Dis86 said:
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?
Click to expand...

You're talking about two road rage incidents there, where there had been previous altercations between the drivers before those accidents - not the same scenario as this at all.
 
amigafan2003 said:
You're talking about two road rage incidents there, where there had been previous altercations between the drivers before those accidents - not the same scenario as this at all.
Click to expand...

The overall scenario isn't the point. You can break (no pun intended) it down in to individual actions but the end result is the same. They had no reason to hit the anchors, just like this woman. They were prosecuted for it. They weren't prosecuted for their prior altercation.
 
Dis86 said:
No. The point is it's a criminal offence. It's irrelevant how close or far the person is. If someone intentionally causes a crash then they are at fault.
Click to expand...


No, the point is that the scam would stop working if people drove at the correct distance. I already agreed that the other person committed an offence. But it's like people who say speed cameras are a scam. Well, in both cases driving legally will fix the problem. In this case the emergency stop was probably designed to cause an accident. But what if there was a genuine reason? Just stop tailgating. It's not hard.
 
Meridian said:
No, the point is that the scam would stop working if people drove at the correct distance. I already agreed that the other person committed an offence. But it's like people who say speed cameras are a scam. Well, in both cases driving legally will fix the problem. In this case the emergency stop was probably designed to cause an accident. But what if there was a genuine reason? Just stop tailgating. It's not hard.
Click to expand...

So you've never had someone pull in front of you where there wasn't sufficient space?
Not saying that was the case here, we don't know!
 
Cyber-Mav said:
Why doest the op post up the footage here so we can see and decide if it is a c4c
Click to expand...

Will do, need to cut it into chunks as the owner of the car, or the driver at least, who sits in her car and doesn't move for 2 and a half hours, runs up to get car that the police moved to the side of the road, jumps in and drives off at just gone 3pm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom