Had an Accident

[-Ian]

Just remember, though, that a dashcam produces impartial evidence. If YOU are at fault, it will show that too.

True. But if that's the case the camera wasn't turned on. It's not rocket science.

 

[ivandraganov]

The other driver can't claim for his injuries as it was his fault..

 

[renault12ts]

Just remember, though, that a dashcam produces impartial evidence. If YOU are at fault, it will show that too.

The main reason I haven't bought one...

True. But if that's the case the camera wasn't turned on. It's not rocket science.

...but might now.

 

[markjay]

True. But if that's the case the camera wasn't turned on. It's not rocket science.

In most cases, perhaps. But if involved in a serious or fatal crash... the police will investigate, and anyone caught deleting footage from SD card might be charged with obstructing justice.

 

[markjay]

Just out of curiosity I got quotes for TPFT and Fully Comp on my car.

TPFT was more expensive by ~£50.....

TPFT these days is no longer the low cost alternative for insuring old bangers as it used to be.

It is an expensive form of basic mandatory insurance forced on those who can't get full comp for a range of reasons. Also, if the insurer writes off your car and you decide to keep it and use it (ie take the insurance payout then fix the car anyway) it is likely that you will only be able to get TPFT cover after that.

 

[-Ian]

In most cases, perhaps. But if involved in a serious or fatal crash... the police will investigate, and anyone caught deleting footage from SD card might be charged with obstructing justice.

I think we are delving a bit deep here. This has gone from a minor prang where nobody was hurt which I was commenting on.

All I'm saying is that in my 25 years of driving I've been involed in a couple of minor accidents that insurance companies have argued between each other for months with people changing stories, mystery witnesses turning up etc. With simple film footage things get sorted very quickly.

Same reason I don't have the gps speed activated. If I was for example pulled out on and I was doing 1 mph over the speed limit I can see an insurance company trying to argue 50/50 blame.

For what they cost I think dash cams are cracking bits of kit. Install and forget about it. Mine is nicely hidden so I don't have to remove it whenever I park up.

 

[219]

In most cases, perhaps. But if involved in a serious or fatal crash... the police will investigate, and anyone caught deleting footage from SD card might be charged with obstructing justice.

Even if a card is formatted at the scene , usually it has just wiped the directory and the files are still there to be recovered .

Only a full multi-pass erase , with every sector overwritten multiple times ( time consuming ) would do the job .

Those who genuinely drive in a safe and reasonable manner have little to fear and much to gain .

 

[markjay]

With regards the OP, firstly it is important to understand what the other driver is saying, i.e. what is his version of events.

It is all good and well if he does not contest the location of the crash and the position of the vehicles, but without photographic evidence or witnesses it can get tricky if the other party provides a completly different account

The damage to the vehicles would have been recorded by the insurers, but this only points to the nature of the collision, not to who had right of way.

The location of the incident is very relevant for establishing liability, if this is disputed then the claim may end up as 50%-50% liability or undecided.

So it all depends on what the van driver actually told his insurer.

 

[markjay]

Even if a card is formatted at the scene , usually it has just wiped the directory and the files are still there to be recovered .

Only a full multi-pass erase , with every sector overwritten multiple times ( time consuming ) would do the job .

Those who genuinely drive in a safe and reasonable manner have little to fear and much to gain .

Indeed. The driver can secure-delete footage, destroy the SD card, or simply deny he ever had a dashcam in the car. All of which would be illegal.

Said that, statistically a good and safe driver is more likely to benefit from having a dashcam than be worse-off for having it.

But either way, if a dashcam is present, then I would not advice anyone to deliberately delete or destroy evidence even if it might work against them.

 

[markjay]

...today I got a letter from his solicitor that he got neck injury, loss of work etc. etc. so he claimed £10K
while he was perfectly fine there...

Just to say that whiplash injury is very real, and can often go unnoticed for a couple of days or even weeks.

Just because some people fake whiplash injury, does not mean that everyone who claims it is a fraud.

 

[ajayjain]

driver was a black guy was in boots van, was going to deliver medicine to a carehome on that street, he had accidents before, I spoke to his boss (boots branch manager), Pakistani guy, he said don't worry, we will sort this out etc.etc.
So I even did not take too much stress as I felt they have accepted their fault.
my family had bump on their head, I had 2 kids including 9 month infant as well that time, it was around 10PM.
I used to think, insurance is just a waste of money
I always taken TPFT but this time as it was C class, so luckily Insurance company declined for TPFT only, so I had to take fully comprehensive
I hope Allianz are good.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

How culturally diverse.

 

[zoros]

Insurance companies are phasing TPFT out. It is due to EU regulations not aligned with UK ones. 5 years from now there will be NO TPFT available. Most companies are now offering FC as the cheaper option for more cover to help you along with this.

I've been sitting on the fence about Dashcams (they record what you get up to ...too!).....big brother and all that. Anyway, is there a thread about the best dashcam to buy?

 

[meeeb]

One important aspect is location of damage on the respective vehicles, which may, or may not support one or the other versions of the people involved.

For example if yours is damaged to the front offside and the van somewhere along its nearside it may go some way towards proving that he pulled across you, whereas if damage is to the front of your car and the rear of the van the issue may be more clouded.

 

[meeeb]

On the subject of insurance I've recently discovered that adding a second driver, spouse for example, reduces in some cases the premium. I've done Comparethemeerkat with and without spouse and for the same vehicle, and the spouse added has reduced the premium.

 

[Bellow]

Indeed. The driver can secure-delete footage, destroy the SD card, or simply deny he ever had a dashcam in the car. All of which would be illegal.
.
But either way, if a dashcam is present, then I would not advice anyone to deliberately delete or destroy evidence even if it might work against them.

In most cases, perhaps. But if involved in a serious or fatal crash... the police will investigate, and anyone caught deleting footage from SD card might be charged with obstructing justice.

Not sure if the above is absolutely correct. Property of the individual not the state (as, eg, speed enforcing camera is) and data protection laws surely apply?
In a recent fracas where the (alleged) perpetrator of a road rage offence photographed the other vehicle on his phone (thus providing some evidence of his presence at the scene - should he choose to deny all knowledge) the police told me they had no automatic right to view what he held on his phone (data). I got the sense that a warrant was required before interrogating the public's data devices.

 

[Bellow]

One important aspect is location of damage on the respective vehicles, which may, or may not support one or the other versions of the people involved.

For example if yours is damaged to the front offside and the van somewhere along its nearside it may go some way towards proving that he pulled across you, whereas if damage is to the front of your car and the rear of the van the issue may be more clouded.

Hence the sense in seeking access to aforementioned photographs. The ease with which they can be obtained or destroyed would also prove/disprove the dash cam owner's right to withhold footage.
I get the feeling those photographs will never be seen...

 

[markjay]

Not sure if the above is absolutely correct. Property of the individual not the state (as, eg, speed enforcing camera is) and data protection laws surely apply?
In a recent fracas where the (alleged) perpetrator of a road rage offence photographed the other vehicle on his phone (thus providing some evidence of his presence at the scene - should he choose to deny all knowledge) the police told me they had no automatic right to view what he held on his phone (data). I got the sense that a warrant was required before interrogating the public's data devices.

Firstly, under anti-terrorism legislation, police have the powers to view photographic images taken by members of the public, though I agree that it would be improper for them to apply this to road traffic incidents.

Then, data protection is tricky. Police are not allowed to access personal data of anyone who is not suspected of having committed an offence. With regards suspects, they may take the device as evidence, but inspect its contents later and with either the owner's permission or after obtaining a suitable warrant. Doing so will not conflict with data protection requirements. However, this does not give anyone the right to knowingly destroy evidence, even if it is incriminating evidence against themselves. I know this is odd, but if a killer destroys the murder weapon and burns his clothes, then he will get done for both murder and for obstructing justice.

 

[Dryce]

driver was a black guy was in boots van, was going to deliver medicine to a carehome on that street, he had accidents before, I spoke to his boss (boots branch manager), Pakistani guy, he said don't worry, we will sort this out etc.etc.

None of this matters.

So I even did not take too much stress as I felt they have accepted their fault.

Sadly this may not matter either.

I hope Allianz are good.

Check all the details sent to you by your insurer so that there are no discrepancies. Make sure you are very clear in communicating what happened and how the damage in the vehicles relates to the incident.

What we have found in the past is that the people handling the incident in the insurance companty (or on their behalf) don't pay much attention to the detail.

Also be aware that people lie. And even where it is obvious that they are lying (eg. because it counters the laws of physics) that their insurer or representatives may just keep at it - it's a process of wearing down.

Our experience is it can take 18 months if the other party is stupid and decides they'll try and take it to court. It's a process of wearing down.

So don't allow yourself to get too stressed or emotional. Just be diligent and firm with your insurer and let them handle it - and if they choose to try and make you settle and you don't want that then talk it through with them *unemotionally* to see if they will support you given the facts.

 

[ajayjain]

1 more thing I wanted to ask
if this matter does not solve in next 3 months and my insurance renew is due
I will not get NCB so what will I tell in next insurance.
Should I stick with Allianz for my next Insurance, even they are costlier than others on
compare websites?