I don't believe this to be the truth.
Brother was rear ended (car crash) insurance claim it was his fault.
- Thread starter terley
- Start date
I don't believe this to be the truth.
Associate
What was the slogan... Only a fool 'brakes' the 2 second rule. Something went wrong with the engine, does he have the mechanical (Garage) report to back his storey up. Proving the engine failed etc. Personally it is always best just to slow down with hazards on and pull over.
The van driver I would guess would be at fault from an insurance perspective but I can see where they are coming from..
The van driver I would guess would be at fault from an insurance perspective but I can see where they are coming from..
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
An absolutely perfect story to illustrate the benefits of a dash cam (with sound recording to pick up the sound of stuttering and ungodly noises from the engine) . . . of course if your brother had had a rear facing dash cam as well that might have helped his version of the story.
Man of Honour
Evidently, neither does the insurance company.
Unless we can see the dash cam footage we wont be able to tell.
The fact the insurance company think it was intentional makes me think said brother was brake checking someone and it backfired spectacularly.
Who emergency brakes on a dual carriageway from speed? Nobody. Apart from scammers and brake checking *****. Hear a dodgy noise? You don't slam the breaks on you drop the clutch and pull/roll over to a stop.
The fact the insurance company think it was intentional makes me think said brother was brake checking someone and it backfired spectacularly.
Who emergency brakes on a dual carriageway from speed? Nobody. Apart from scammers and brake checking *****. Hear a dodgy noise? You don't slam the breaks on you drop the clutch and pull/roll over to a stop.
Caporegime
I have before. Granted it was for a deer that jumped out of the adjacent field. Fortunate that the road behind me was clear, but then any pretentious road-warrior camera footage would have shown the deer anyway.
Soldato
Me too.
Soldato
There's no need to brake 'hard and fast' if the engine starts making odd noises.
no it's not, everything in the highway code stipulates you should be in control of the vehicle and able to stop w/out incident. if you're driving so close that you can't it's your fault. this is, of course, for normal driving and not including when, eg, someone might cut into your lane w/out warning and jam the anchors on.
obviously i can't comment on why the guy thought he needed to brake so hard rather than slowing and getting to the hard shoulder, or whether any investigation has corroborated the engine issues, but my view would be the transit driver shouldn't have been driving so close.
Associate
If the car made strange noises there must be something faulty, so he needs to prove that with a mechanic report. Otherwise he will have no chance.
Soldato
This. I think this is what happened.
Who emergency stops on a dual carriageway because their engine apparently starts stuttering? It sounds suspicious to say the least.
It's not as simple as "the van driver should have left more room". You simply cannot go emergency stopping on motorways/dual carriageways for no reason then claim the guy behind you was at fault when he couldn't stop.
It'd be interesting to see the dash cam footage from the van as insurance companies generally won't fight rear end collisions unless they've got some good evidence to do so.
I think given the van driver supplied the footage to his insurance company, it's safe to work on the assumption he was happy he was generally maintaining a safe distance and driving in a safe manner.
If I'd just rear ended someone because I was tailgating them, the last thing I'd do is send my own insurance video footage incriminating myself.
If I'd just rear ended someone because I was tailgating them, the last thing I'd do is send my own insurance video footage incriminating myself.
Soldato
Sounds more like brake checking, even if the engine died completely you would continue rolling to a safe spot or gradually slow down not suddenly slam the brakes on to come a 'fast and hard' stop.
Associate
Your Brother is a buffoon who needs taking off the roads!
Associate
+1
Why would you assume this? The brother's insurance company have gone from advising him he'll certainly get compensation, to telling him they think he caused the crash on purpose on the basis of the third parties video evidence (reviewed by their internal fraud team judging by the OP).
Given this means they'd be accepting 100% liability for all costs, the evidence must be pretty damning, they wouldn't just cough up without a fight if there was a way to avoid paying out.
Soldato
How does this work - Will they even pay for his repairs if they're convinced he did it on purpose? Will they sue him for the cost of the third party repairs?
