so a car is going to reverse out of a drive

[rozia]

on a busy main road, and someone backs into it, who is to blame? She told the police her kids were all in the car and were wearing seatbelts, when only one child was in the car with no seat belt on (he told me himself). No car seat either, child is 9 years old, she wants to make a whiplash claim, and i think this is morally wrong, as she isn't hurt and the car isn't damaged, and why claim on people that are not in the car. Surely there must be a law against that, also the old couple that backed into her were in shock, ambulances had arrived.

[ojread2]

the person reversing

[factor-fiction]

So the original post incorrectly described what happened. The car driving down the road was driving forwards and therefore didn't back into the car that reversed out of the drive. The driver who reversed out seems at fault as I understand it.

[boxtops]

what nobody's said is that if the child (or anyone else) has whiplash, they need to get to the doctor straight away, as no insurance company in the world (surely) will pay out on a whiplash claim without sound medical evidence backing up that the person HAS got whiplash, and that it arose as a result of the accident. If the child had no seat belt, that's a reason why the insurers are very likely not to pay out, or to reduce the claim if it were successful. Were the police involved? it would seem to be sensible if the old couple notified them, this sounds like it could get messy - not only was she backing onto a main road without due care, but her child wasn't belted up.

Btw I have lived in houses where I have had to back out onto a main road - backing in would have been even more complicated - you do it very careful!

[boxtops]

^ and the ambulance crew would also be able to report on how many people were in the car.

It's her fault, she's trying it on. If any sort of claim is made it must be in writing, the couple shouldn't do anything about it themselves, just pass it straight to their insurance company. It would be a wise precaution for them to report it to their insurers anyway, if they haven't already. Did they exchange insurance details? This woman will probably go to one of those no in, no fee places, and try it on!

[Baldric]

Given the lack of clarity on the part of the OPer I don't think they would make a good witness for either party involved.

[hc4361]

boxtops, it is not unusual for whiplash symptoms to show two days after the accident.
Insurance companies do pay up without much evidence because:
a) it is cheaper than investigating the claim
b) a quick, relatively low pay out on the basis of 'full and final settlement' prevents the claimant from claiming for later complications that could potentially run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Hopefully the law will be changed so that claims for whiplash alone will not be allowed without proper supportive evidence of a more serious injury.

[hc4361]

There was a news report recently about a man who had been prosecuted for reversing on the pedestrian crossing zig zags that were directly across his drive, so he has no choice but to drive on and reverse out.

[boxtops]

HC, you amaze me - when I was in a rear-shunt accident the third party's insurers wanted medical reports from my GP and the consultant I saw at the hospital (which my insurance company paid for). I used to work in motor claims and we'd never take it at face value. I agree that symptoms don't show straight away but they still need to be identified as whiplash!

I have just read again that the old couple were driving on the other side of the road, too - the woman must have reversed into the opposite lane then. If this is the case then this is entirely her fault, unless she was planning to reserve onto the opposite lane and go the same way as the couple, which is a risky manouevre anyway.

[cathfromsaron]

did you take pics?

this is an old scam!

hopefully your insurance company will listen!

[gollysailor]

Is'nt he reversing out onto the xing?

[hc4361]

Whiplash payouts was discussed recently on the Jeremy Vine Radio 2 programme and this reflects what the insurance representative said:

Disgracefully, car insurers are, in most cases, simply rolling over and paying up for exaggerated and fraudulent motor claims. They argue that whiplash, as a soft tissue injury, shows few physical symptoms and therefore it is very difficult for them to disprove that somebody is not genuinely injured.

Read more: http://www.dailymail....rs.html#ixzz1k5jM6Yr7

[boxtops]

Crumbs.

[Twenty20]

I think the answer to this whiplash 'scam' that goes on is for the alleged 'victim' not to get any financial compensation but to be simply offered physio treatment. I bet the numbers claiming whiplash would drop significantly if there was no cash reward on offer.

[joko]

it is not illegal to back out of your driveway onto a main road!

sometimes in traffic it would cause more trouble to try to reverse into your drive than to back out... when backing out you can wait for a gap...when stopping to reverse you just ha
ve to hope the car behind doesnt stop too close behind, and then the car beind does the same etc etc

[rozia]

i wasn't a witness, and i would make a good one, but takes me a bit of time to explain things sometimes. And i do hope this is investigated!!!! premiums have shot up, and so many are claiming whiplash for no reason. I just described what the 9 year old told me.......maybe i should have been more clearer.

[shoota]

joko - it may not be illegal per se but it is against the highway code, contravening which may be evidence of driving without due care or reckless driving depending on the severity.