Whiplash research quashes some of the claims myths

Message

TC · #1 Post by TC » Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:13 pm

Thought some of you may be interested in some recent research regarding whiplash claims.

Lawyers have called for ‘sanity’ in the national whiplash debate after claims dropped by 24,000 in the last year.

And an independent survey, commissioned by the not-for-profit Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) also found that almost 40 per cent of people who have suffered a whiplash injury have never claimed compensation for it.

The new information “injects some sanity into a national debate characterised by overblown and inaccurate rhetoric,” said APIL president Karl Tonks. “The Government appears to have been persuaded by the insurance industry that the answer to rising car insurance premiums lies in ‘tackling’ whiplash claims, but the Government’s own figures show there has been a drop in these claims in the last year,” he said.

“Before the Government embarks on a potentially damaging reform agenda, it’s critical that ministers have a clear picture about whiplash, and that they recognise that most injured people are genuine and therefore have every right to expect proper access to justice when they need it.”

The research reveals new information, including:

Only one in a hundred people suffered a whiplash injury in the past year

One in five people who have had a whiplash injury suffered symptoms for more than a year

90 per cent of sufferers are diagnosed by a medical professional

Almost 30 per cent of people were encouraged to claim compensation by insurance companies

The independent survey also found that almost 30 per cent of respondents were encouraged to claim compensation by insurance companies.

“Instead of pointing the finger at everyone else, insurers really need to stop and look in the mirror,” said Tonks. “They need to stop paying compensation without even asking for a medical report. And they need to start sharing the information they hold about fraudsters to help claimant lawyers identify them early in the process.

“Of course there will always be people who try to cheat the system. That’s obviously wrong, and we need a universal commitment to working to reduce fraud in whiplash cases,” he said. “That’s why we have produced a ten-point plan which could do just that and which we hope to discuss with the Government.

D-Rider · #2 Post by **D-Rider** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:48 pm

Alongside this, for many years most vehicles have had to have head restraints.
If many people were suffering whiplash injuries (especially for low speed impacts) then
a) The head restraints would be of poor design - with potential for action against the car manufacturers
b) The head restraints would have been incorrectly adjusted by the users - giving at least some contributory negligence

I haven't got the data but I'm betting that the instances in which either of the above have been brought up can be counted on the fingers of one hand (possibly even a hand without the "Norfolk Bonus")

#3 Post by **Kwackerz** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:52 pm

I think a lot rides with dealers with regards correct use and adjustment.
As they are in essence a safety feature, there should be some form of requirement for secondhand (and new) car dealers to provide a fact sheet for the correct use and on manufacturers to provide them free gratis for all makes and models, separate from handbooks, etc.

I have had countless cars (no really) and the majority have had headrests. Have i know how to set them correctly? Nope. All guesstimation and assumption.

Willopotomas · #4 Post by **Willopotomas** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:05 pm

Insurance. Possibly the largest extortion racket in the world. It would be nice to set up an insurance company and charge a fair price. Some of the quotes people get (especially younger people) are just plain ridiculous. A friend of mines' son (17) bought himself an 01' Peugeot 205 after passing his test. Nothing special and only cost him £400. Quotations he got back ranged from £3500 to £8500!! He would have to work a full time job just to pay insurance..

It's no wonder that people don't bother, and I do in some ways sympathise. But if the time ever came around that I couldn't afford to insure what I use on the roads, then I wouldn't use them.

BikerGran · #5 Post by **BikerGran** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:42 pm

The high cost of insurance for young drivers/riders contributes in no small measure to youth unempolyment. In this area buses are infrequent and take a long time because of going round the villages. In our town we do have a railway station but there's a small town not far from here that has little employment, busesthat take hours to get anywhere, and no trains. That'll be benefits then.

lazarus · #6 Post by **lazarus** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:07 am

Insurance is a very competitive business - there is no way that the companies would quote unnecessarily high premiums for young drivers. If they did so, you can be certain that someone would break ranks, quote better prices and make a killing. Instead the reality is that a large proportion of young drivers have an accident within 12 months of their test and a few of them are very expensive 3rd party injury claims. Think of the young guy who recently had damages awarded of £5 million with, if I remember right, an annual payment of £150k in just one accident. By the time you have added the ambulance chasers silly fees onto that it would wipe out the income from maybe as many as 15000 non claiming policy holders.

If you doubt me, have a look at the audited published accounts of the insurance companies and then try to convince yourself that they are making excessive profits. Many of them pay out more in claims than they receive in premiums making up the difference by investing the premiums in the stockmarket until the claims come along.

D-Rider · #7 Post by **D-Rider** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:17 am

Sorry but I have to disagree with the logic about the premiums charged to young drivers.
I certainly agree that a proportion of them have expensive accidents but that does not necessarily mean that the extortionate insurance costs that are charged to them need to be.

The whole point of insurance is to spread the cost of accidents across a wide range of drivers so that the unaffordable costs of single accidents can be paid to those that have suffered loss.
The insurance companies do have a choice about how they spread the cost. For example they could spread it evenly across all drivers so that we all pay the same.
That gives no encouragement to drivers to drive carefully so some enhancement is given to those that are seen to be in lower risk groups and those that have proved a lower level of risk through years of accident-free driving.
However the situation we have now distorts things far too much pushing premiums for young people to astronomical levels. This is very counter-productive as it leads to lack of mobility for the young (rural kids cant get to where the work is) and a rise in uninsured drivers. Don't forget that young people are generally those with the least financial resources to afford premiums and that the great majority of them don't have expensive accidents (the risk factor is being unfairly applied to all young people).

I know how much these premiums can be - I have had my sons on the insurance on one of our cars. It's a little Fiat Punto, it's insured in my name and I have maximum NCD on it. We've at last got the premium down to about £1200 but when they were first starting to drive we had quotes up to more than £6000. If they were to apply for policies in their own names without my NCD the premiums would be even more crazy.
It IS absolutely crazy. We need to spread the cost more equitably so that the majority of careful young drivers are not faced with unaffordable premiums.
Unfortunately, the thing really driving this is that it is a competitive business and the insurance companies have worked out that they are better off cutting premiums for the majority of drivers and spreading the cost of the expensive new driver claims across all of the young drivers rather than everyone taking a share of this. There is a strong argument to say that society would be much better off in spreading the cost more equitably - after all, that's the point of insurance - to spread the cost so that claims that are beyond the resources of an individual (of any age) can actually be met.

Gio · #8 Post by **Gio** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:07 am

Well I can't complain, my daughter is getting a smart car when she passes her test, the reason being that it offered the best insurance rate through my ins co. fully comp with an introductory discount was just over £1100, this is imo a good rate as my insurance on our car Jag XF is almost £700 with 65% no claims.

On the note of whiplash is it right to cal them "headrests" this imo suggests a mobile bed fitted with pillows, I thought they were "headrestraints"

One further note, my youngest son was involved in an accident 6 years ago, the person claimed whiplash injuries even though the police estimated the collision speed at under 5mph (her car had scraped paint on the rear bumper).
She was eventaully awarded £125,000 compensation for loss of earnings and inconvienience.

My son appealed against this (along with his insurance co) and 2 weeks ago it was thrown out of court.

Should we claim against her for the increased premiums he's been forced to pay since! IMO its a waste of time.

paddyz1 · #9 Post by **paddyz1** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:20 pm

I have just had an 83 year old man drive into the back of my car when it was parked up safely on the road. My car got off lightly and i could still drive it and could also fix it myself. The other car was not as fortunate and the police wher called as a matter of course..
I advised the insurance what had happend and that i can sort it with the oter party but they insisted that i go through them. Next thing i know is that i am getting a car off them (getting delivered today) and that it is a 100% non fault and they will claim it back from the other partys insurance.

No one has yet contacted me from the other party's insurance and i don't know where this is going to lead. I believe that my insurance will try and screw the other for all it can get...

What i don't want is to cause distress to this old guy even though it is his fault. Don't know what the insurance company will be like though. I just hope they deal with it amongst themselves with minimal input to myself and the other guy.

My car

His car

snapdragon · #10 Post by **snapdragon** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:26 pm

interesting, as I continue to suffer from a whiplash injury sustained umpteen years ago, nothing was ever claimed for as whiplash didn't exist in 1970 apparently

Aladinsaneuk · #11 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:42 pm

Ouch - that's a well 'ard car Paddy

And I can understand your views but ask why the accident occurred - if the old boy swerved to avoid something and that's why he hit your car fine but what I he fell asleep.... Or had a small blind spot in his vision..... Bit different then - he may have missed your car but hit you walking on the pavement....

And his car repair is going to be very expensive!

#12 Post by **mangocrazy** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:23 pm

And just think how you'd feel if he'd run into you while you were on the bike... To be honest, a lot of old people are a potential nightmare when behind the wheel of a car. My mum (now departed) knocked a chap off his bike and regarded it as a minor inconvenience. I went ballistic at her when I found out. Eventually she was 'persuaded' to hand in her licence when it became clear she'd have it taken off her and punitive sanctions applied if she didn't.

Your concern for the old guy is well-intentioned, but I suspect he may be more than just a danger to himself...

randomsquid · #13 Post by **randomsquid** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:26 pm

paddyz1 wrote: What i don't want is to cause distress to this old guy even though it is his fault.

Might be time for him to hang up the keys and this could be his prod in the right direction. I think your car won on points.

paddyz1 · #14 Post by **paddyz1** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:00 pm

All good points and he was in the wrong. What happened was he was driving to a farm at 9.00am and his windows were still steamed up. He said they just steamed up and he was trying to demist them when he hit my car. Yes it could have been someone he hit and i know he is totally wrong (he also knows that) but i don't want him to be anymore distressed over this than he already is.....shit happens and all i can say is 'ahh well'. Admittedly i would be a lot more pissed of if it was the Scirroco that was on the road and not my car.

Anyway lets get back to insurance.....They delivered my car at 6.30pm tonight......I was correct..they are out to screw the other company as the dropped off a top of the range all singing all dancing gadget happy 2.0L Peugeot 508 tdi 12 plate with only 5000 miles on the clock.
"Call us when you are fed up with it"

So as well as the kids that are supposed to bump up the premiums it is also the insurance companies and old people that are helping too.....

#15 Post by **mangocrazy** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:41 pm

One thing that always comes back to me when I think about old people and the damage they can unintentionally cause on the roads is the death of Pete de Freitas, drummer with Echo and the Bunnymen. He died just outside Lichfield in Staffordshire when an OAP pulled out right into his path from a side road on a dual carriageway.

That road was on my way home from work and I remember seeing the bike (a bevel drive Ducati) at the side of the road with the front wheel pushed back under the engine. I winced as I went past on my bike, and only later found out who had been the hapless victim.