US they tend to insure the vehicle and it's based on the area and condition of the car alone, not the driver, age, statistic etc.all new Phil wrote:Possibly not the place for this, but I think the entire system of car insurance is shit. It is obligatory, and so the insurance companies can put the prices as high as they like because there's no choice but the pay it. Most of the time, you are paying them money for nothing. How does it work in other countries?
Where did all the cars go?
Yeah, the only way you can do that is if you've both got fully comprehensive insurance.In Australia the car gets insured, not the driver - so you can drive any car as opposed to just the one you're insured on. That's a good idea as it means somebody else can drive your car home if you're drunk - doing that here would be illegal I think?
It's not so much the cost of treatment that get claimed, but the lost earnings.3. No cash payouts whiplash - just free treatment from a private hospital.
Knight knight
The whole whiplash thing is a racket. it's hard to prove, the lawyer scum often end up getting even more money than the people claiming, and insurance companies usually just pay out rather than contest it because it's easier. And who's paying for this nonsense? The rest of us!
a surprising number of comprehensive insurance policies have a little footnote at the bottom "this does not entitle you to drive other cars". Yet another nasty trick.Sput wrote:Yeah, the only way you can do that is if you've both got fully comprehensive insurance.
"He has to be larger than bacon"
-
Dr Lobster*
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14
the other thing about car insurance which doesn't make a lot of sense is that 3rd party or third party fire and theft policies aren't significantly cheaper than fully comprehensive. when my policy came up for renewal in october i debated whether to just put it 3rd party only given the car wasn't really worth much more than the excess - but as it turned out it was about £30 cheaper for the year and the being able to driver other peoples cars if they are insured is useful - i don't need to do it very often but it has come in handy - although - i suspect the chances of you getting caught if you didn't have the cover is pretty minimal if the car itself is insured, it would only be if you actually had an accident.
but another nasty trick insurance companies now play on you is they charge you a rather exorbitant fee to amend your policy - if you need to change your car hastings charge £35, that never used to be the case.
but another nasty trick insurance companies now play on you is they charge you a rather exorbitant fee to amend your policy - if you need to change your car hastings charge £35, that never used to be the case.
Upload service: http://www.metropol247.co.uk/uploadservice
I think the whiplash racket is something which needs looking in to. It would only require a few background checks to dismiss many of these claims - if I were to genuinely suffer whiplash in an accident this wouldn't in itself prevent me from attending work because the job I do is desk bound and adjustments to my working environment can easily be made to make me more comfortable. Yet I'm fairly sure if I claimed loss of earnings from whiplash this would go through unchallenged because no one would consider whether or not a whiplash injury would genuinely be a barrier to the job I do.
Two other things I'd introduce are firstly some sort of minimum damage level. If a car is totalled then fair enough, whiplash could have occured, but if someone wants to persue a whiplash claim on the basis that someone went up the back of them at 2MPH at some traffic lights then this needs looking into more closely.
I would also start to introduce some sort of due dilligence requirement into how head restraints are set up. If I am driving without a seat belt and someone hits me which causes me to be hurtled through the windscreen and paralised, but if I had been wearing a seat belt I would have just got some bumps and scrapes, then the other driver would likely have a good defence against a claim from me.
It also follows that if someone claims whiplash but it then transpires that their head restraints (which are provided to protect you from whiplash after all) are not properly adjusted then this should affect the validity of the claim. Similarly, if someone chooses to drive an old car where the seat backs only go up to the shoulders and their are no head restraints, there needs to be some sort of legal footnote that states you drive such a vehicle at your own risk as regards to whiplash and cannot claim against other drivers as the vehicle does not meet basic modern safety standards which would have protected you against such an injury.
Finally, I don't understand why 'difficult to prove' seems to have given anyone carte blanche to get out of their car holding with their hand on their neck and claim damages for whiplash. Surely the whole point of 'difficult to prove' should mean it is difficult for THEM to prove they were injured and (rightly or wrongly) difficult to succesfully claim. I don't understand why insurers have adopted a 'difficult to disprove' position in that it is difficult for their insured to prove they did not cause an injury and so they will just pay rather than fight these claims. If the claimant actually had to go through with arguing their injury, potentially in court, then I doubt whiplash claims would be so rife.
Two other things I'd introduce are firstly some sort of minimum damage level. If a car is totalled then fair enough, whiplash could have occured, but if someone wants to persue a whiplash claim on the basis that someone went up the back of them at 2MPH at some traffic lights then this needs looking into more closely.
I would also start to introduce some sort of due dilligence requirement into how head restraints are set up. If I am driving without a seat belt and someone hits me which causes me to be hurtled through the windscreen and paralised, but if I had been wearing a seat belt I would have just got some bumps and scrapes, then the other driver would likely have a good defence against a claim from me.
It also follows that if someone claims whiplash but it then transpires that their head restraints (which are provided to protect you from whiplash after all) are not properly adjusted then this should affect the validity of the claim. Similarly, if someone chooses to drive an old car where the seat backs only go up to the shoulders and their are no head restraints, there needs to be some sort of legal footnote that states you drive such a vehicle at your own risk as regards to whiplash and cannot claim against other drivers as the vehicle does not meet basic modern safety standards which would have protected you against such an injury.
Finally, I don't understand why 'difficult to prove' seems to have given anyone carte blanche to get out of their car holding with their hand on their neck and claim damages for whiplash. Surely the whole point of 'difficult to prove' should mean it is difficult for THEM to prove they were injured and (rightly or wrongly) difficult to succesfully claim. I don't understand why insurers have adopted a 'difficult to disprove' position in that it is difficult for their insured to prove they did not cause an injury and so they will just pay rather than fight these claims. If the claimant actually had to go through with arguing their injury, potentially in court, then I doubt whiplash claims would be so rife.
-
bilky asko
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Sat 08 Nov, 2008 19.48
I thought the problem with whiplash was that it's entirely subjective. Doctors can only judge if there is whiplash based on what the patient says.
I managed to get whiplash as a result of a 5mph collision with a bollard. The driver was convinced I was faking it and was about to sue him; I didn't and it eased off after a couple of days.cwathen wrote:Two other things I'd introduce are firstly some sort of minimum damage level. If a car is totalled then fair enough, whiplash could have occured, but if someone wants to persue a whiplash claim on the basis that someone went up the back of them at 2MPH at some traffic lights then this needs looking into more closely.
Claiming for whiplash should be based not only on having it, but on any hardship it's caused you too. If all you had is a stiff neck for a couple of days, but were still able to live your life normally, why do you need 2 or 3 grand of compensation?
Because it's cheaper than litigation to prove it's not affecting your life.james2001 wrote:Claiming for whiplash should be based not only on having it, but on any hardship it's caused you too. If all you had is a stiff neck for a couple of days, but were still able to live your life normally, why do you need 2 or 3 grand of compensation?
Knight knight
That is, no doubt, the reason, but can nothing be done about it?Sput wrote:Because it's cheaper than litigation to prove it's not affecting your life.james2001 wrote:Claiming for whiplash should be based not only on having it, but on any hardship it's caused you too. If all you had is a stiff neck for a couple of days, but were still able to live your life normally, why do you need 2 or 3 grand of compensation?
From what I can see, it's the minority who are actually making these complaints (unless my friends are liars or nicer people than most)?