Flash For Crash For Cash

[The Knimbies who say No]

You're waiting at junction, driver flashes you, you pull out, they drive into you and hit the jackpot:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23722573

Quite a worrysome development given the consequences of a crash as staged in the video report could be very serious indeed (an impact right into the driver's door). And, perhaps this is less likely to be recorded on a forward-facing in-car camera system.

If you get flashed out, make doubly sure that the car means it before accepting an offer.

Quite when the Govt. is going to get on top of this stuff is another matter.

[Bossybabe]

Simpler still, just ignore it when a car flashes you. How can you possibly tell the other driver's intentions?

The govt will never get on top of it.

[The Knimbies who say No]

Simpler still, just ignore it when a car flashes you. How can you possibly tell the other driver's intentions?

The govt will never get on top of it.

Good advice on the lights, I ought to have mentioned that the Highway Code is quite clear that flashing of lights should only be used as a warning.

I suppose there will always be people getting away with fraud, but the system set up as is positively invites it. Conditional fee arrangements allied to the slack burden of proof regarding whiplash injuries make's it a fraudster's delight.

[Bossybabe]

Good advice on the lights, I ought to have mentioned that the Highway Code is quite clear that flashing of lights should only be used as a warning.

I suppose there will always be people getting away with fraud, but the system set up as is positively invites it. Conditional fee arrangements allied to the slack burden of proof regarding whiplash injuries make's it a fraudster's delight.

And we the insured pay through the nose to help insurers satisfy the claims. Something certainly needs sorting out to end this situation.

[Bloo Loo]

The flashing of lights means the same as the horn warning....it means..I am here.

Pulling out remains the fault of the person pulling out into the path of the oncoming car.

Who is to deny the flasher saw the silly behaviour of the offender and flashed a final warning at them?

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Alternatively you can just bump your new car into a wall like I did. No assistance from another party required.

[Bossybabe]

The flashing of lights means the same as the horn warning....it means..I am here.

Pulling out remains the fault of the person pulling out into the path of the oncoming car.

Who is to deny the flasher saw the silly behaviour of the offender and flashed a final warning at them?

...and I thought flashing was illegal.

[Rachman]

The surefire solution to these fraudsters. Avoid Bradford and Luton.

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395429/Cash-crash-scam-Criminal-motorists-flash-lights-junctions-let-drivers-smash-them.html

It is estimated 'crash for cash' scams cost the insurance industry £1.7million a year.

100 a year?

[motch]

The flashing of lights means the same as the horn warning....it means..I am here.

Pulling out remains the fault of the person pulling out into the path of the oncoming car.

Who is to deny the flasher saw the silly behaviour of the offender and flashed a final warning at them?

But if someone pulls out and gets shunted up the rear (as apposed to the side) isn't it the car behinds fault in most cases?

[The XYY Man]

Simpler still, just ignore it when a car flashes you. How can you possibly tell the other driver's intentions?

I was taught that if you wish to allow another driver out in such situations - which is basically a good thing as it keeps traffic flowing - you should signal by making eye-contact with the other driver and waving them out using both hands.

The fact that your hands are off the steering-wheel shows clearly that you are not going to drive on when they pull out.

This method has served me well over the years, though I could see that a scammer could still ram you if they wanted.

I think the eye-contact is important - and maintaining it for as long as you safely can while carrying out the manoeuvre should go someway toward protecting you.

I also had eye-contact drummed into me when I did motorbike lessons, and my experience on the road once I passed my test proved that it is indeed a life-saver.

But as you say, if in doubt - then staying put is the safest thing to do.

XYY

[Butthead]

The surefire solution to these fraudsters. Avoid Bradford and Luton.

One might also be judicious when choosing whether to accept right-of-way from certain drivers, or following certain drivers too closely. I'll leave the reader to decide which drivers would be high risk and which would be low risk.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

The more this kind of fraud takes hold, the more common it will be to fit front and rear-view cameras to cars. A recording would expose such a scammer instantly and unarguably, so much so that in some countries, many insurers will not even accept crash claims unless you can provide a dashcam recording. I saw an ad the other day for a new car that includes rear-view mirror cameras (front and rear-view) as standard, recording the last 30 mintues onto an SD card.

[SNACR]

The surefire solution to these fraudsters. Avoid Bradford and Luton.

When we ship orders untracked and the customer claims non-receipt or damage to the goods either people with muslim sounding names make up 75% of the population or........

I'm seriously considering some sort of software solution to scan for those names and then automatically ensure the order is sent tracked.

[little fish]

Alternatively you can just bump your new car into a wall like I did. No assistance from another party required.

I did this too. Reversed into one of those permanent traffic bollards and then left the car there all night while I went out partying. Not claiming of my insurance as it was intentional (bollard had been annoying me for years). Have to pay DOE to repair bollard also ...

It was a bad day... worst thing is though, that I am stuck driving a wreck with gears and me and gears do not agree.

[Bloo Loo]

But if someone pulls out and gets shunted up the rear (as apposed to the side) isn't it the car behinds fault in most cases?

I expect so, but I have no stats.

[okaycuckoo]

Has anyone watched the report? It is complete b'shit.

There is not an ounce of evidence to prove the report's claim, just some assertions by insurance and police industry spokesmen.

The law on this is clear - you have to make sure the road is clear before making a turn. Plus, if a flasher runs into you, how are you going to prove it was deliberate? And if you can't prove it, how do you know it?

The rear-ender scam is an issue - but that still comes down to the fact the victim was driving badly by tail gating.

[Hail the Tripod]

I was told by an Italian that in Italy, flashing your lights is a warning - "Watch out I'm coming through!" if that's the principle in other parts of Europe there could be a lot of mixed signals.

[Rave]

The rear-ender scam is an issue - but that still comes down to the fact the victim was driving badly by tail gating.

...until someone you're about to overtake swerves into the overtaking lane and slams on the brakes 2ft in front of you. Crocked a family of 7 with your shit driving there dintcha.

I need a car cam.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

But if someone pulls out and gets shunted up the rear (as apposed to the side) isn't it the car behinds fault in most cases?

Dunno what UK law says officially, but here in California it is always the fault of the driver doing the rear-ending, the one and only exception being if the vehicularly sodomised car was in reverse gear at the moment of impact. The driving instructor who is giving me a couple of lessons in preparation for the California test told me about someone she knew who was stopped at traffic lights on a steep hill and 'front ended', when the car in front rolled backwards and hit him (the driver was distracted by misbehaving kids and let his foot off the brake). Even though only the car with rear-end damage was moving at the moment of impact, the insurers still decided that the driver behind was at fault, because the other car wasn't actually in reverse gear: the hill was so steep that it rolled backwards, even in D.

[The Knimbies who say No]

...until someone you're about to overtake swerves into the overtaking lane and slams on the brakes 2ft in front of you. Crocked a family of 7 with your shit driving there dintcha.

I need a car cam.

The V300HD available with GPS for £110 below, or less without is an ok starter, it's the same as my Livue one I got recently. Only 720p, but decent enough. I think I'll upgrade to 1080p 2 channel system later.

http://www.ipixi.com/cameras/

[corevalue]

Dunno what UK law says officially, but here in California it is always the fault of the driver doing the rear-ending, the one and only exception being if the vehicularly sodomised car was in reverse gear at the moment of impact. The driving instructor who is giving me a couple of lessons in preparation for the California test told me about someone she knew who was stopped at traffic lights on a steep hill and 'front ended', when the car in front rolled backwards and hit him (the driver was distracted by misbehaving kids and let his foot off the brake). Even though only the car with rear-end damage was moving at the moment of impact, the insurers still decided that the driver behind was at fault, because the other car wasn't actually in reverse gear: the hill was so steep that it rolled backwards, even in D.

Some bl**dy woman reversed into me one day, smashing my radiator with her tow-hook. We'd stopped at a T-junction to join a main road, when she decided she was over the stop line, engaged reverse and promptly backed into me (I was stationary). She then panicked and drove off fast, forcing a driver in the main road to brake and swerve to avoid her. Left the two of us there cursing and spitting and waving hands.

I think a web-cam would have sorted that for me here, would it work in the US?