Ways to prevent erroneous claims from accident

[Agentwilson]

I already have camera in car. Hehe $170 only ($200 with installation), but can only see front. But if you kiasu, then put a few more loh.

 

Anyway, I don't think it helps to prevent extortion claim by workshop, more of preventing the other party to make false claim against you, or give false statement.

 

When talk about $$$, all the 7 core values we learn in SAF, & 好公民 & social studies in school all goes down the drain.

 

 

7core values ma

 

loyalty to country - we give coe money to fund LTA

leadership - ppl dun install cam, we install first. lead by example

discipline - lane discipline

professionalism -

fighting spirit - if got false claim against u, must fight!

ethics - dun false claim others

care for soldiers - care for fellow motorists, dun chut stunt

[Agentwilson]

someone help me fill professionalism

[Joseph22]

7core values ma

 

loyalty to country - we give coe money to fund LTA

leadership - ppl dun install cam, we install first. lead by example

discipline - lane discipline

professionalism - Keep Up or Keep Left? Aka dont road Hogged its very in-professional

fighting spirit - if got false claim against u, must fight!

ethics - dun false claim others

care for soldiers - care for fellow motorists, dun chut stunt

 

[A_korusawa]

I was just thinking, if LTA make it compulsory for every vehicle to install a camera for their car, and when any accident happens, it is mandatory to submit the video plus account within 24 hours, wont it solve the problems of erroneous claims?

 

the videos from both drivers will give a very accurate depiction of what actually happened from both positions, and we wont even need witness. Confirm objective.

 

If they can make every car install 3rd brake lights (cant rem when), and also the IU, maybe the cam will be a good move?

 

i think you got the whole point wrong.

puttin' the camera only save the little dispute costs in defining whose wrong or rite

having the camera reduces unnecessary disputable cases only, may or may not speed up the case.

even so, insurance will still jag up the claims in hiring lawyers to write this 'whose rite/wrong' on that paper that cost thousands

afterall, insurance themselves reserve their right to admit liabilities among themselves according to their premiuims installed.

then, it also bogs down to those 'authorised workshops', base on their confidence in the case, their deposit capacity to determine how much they wanna take from the insurance

surveyors here oni play the role as administration answers to both insurers'

 

example:

camera shows its a's fault to cause accident & damage on b

insurers will still engage 3rd party to handle this case - may end up 80-20% liabilities

if case gets complicated, lawyers will still be involved

if b's premium is very very low, a could be discounted in the claims, or worst: receive 5% liabilities just to absorb the extras

 

abovementioned do not include how much those "authorised workshop" wanna cut from this big pie

u shud know the difference these workshop charges bet. a claimed or self-paid repairs on the exact damages - >200% profit!!!

 

the oni way to claim down unnecessary claims at today's presence of automobil claims lies on the empowerment on the customer - in sillypore, customer rights on this instant is 100% fully negelected!

example:

- both a & b make their claims according to their evidents that have to be made transparent

- both a & b reserves the right for legal entries or challenges

- both a & b reserves the right for damages/repair, quality & cost

- insurers reserve the right for compensations according to above points

 

many a times, the points are handled and abused by the insurers and their counterparts etc.

 

 

years ago, it was encouraged to have a camera.

it left with many legal challenges on fotos that can oni be evidents of what had happened - what causes to happen is another story

 

now, video cameras come in.

soon, it will be challenged on the arouse of the accident rather whose fault on the instant of knocks/damages

 

as long as our garmen ignore this - insurance premiums will go up!

years before when accidents claims on police jurisdication - nobody dares to lie & those were the days when claims were clean & low

now . . . . no more!

 

 

cheerios!

Edited June 3, 2010 by A_korusawa

[Osiris]

why do you need the nanny to do things for you.

Install the camera yourself. It benefits you.

 

You can see on MCF & elsewhere how the cam settle dispute when the other party lied in the report.

The famous case is that such recording not only settle an accident but also caught the sob who vandalised

the victim's car after the incident.

 

In an accident, if you have cam, the other don't. advantage is yours.

 

If one is a typical capital L stomper, can post video and kpkb about crap drivers

If someone drive dangerously, One tulan, can report to police.

 

 

[A_korusawa]

why do you need the nanny to do things for you.

Install the camera yourself. It benefits you.

 

You can see on MCF & elsewhere how the cam settle dispute when the other party lied in the report.

The famous case is that such recording not only settle an accident but also caught the sob who vandalised

the victim's car after the incident.

 

In an accident, if you have cam, the other don't. advantage is yours.

 

If one is a typical capital L stomper, can post video and kpkb about crap drivers

If someone drive dangerously, One tulan, can report to police.

 

 

u r not wrong, but i cannot agree with you 100%

the examples u quoted is on vandalism, not accident disputes, & its the few successful ones

there are hundreds of cases wih filmed; are still pending or with no actions taken accordingly

 

[Vhtfhwlego]

Would you like to forward me the details where you got the cameras?

[Osiris]

u r not wrong, but i cannot agree with you 100%

the examples u quoted is on vandalism, not accident disputes, & its the few successful ones

there are hundreds of cases wih filmed; are still pending or with no actions taken accordingly

i am citing the benefit of the cam aside from capturing accident.

i have use a cam to claim successfully for accident.

 

u spoke of hundreds of cases pending or no action taken. What is the source of this info?

 

I can only speak of verifiable claims from my experience and others in this forum

[Chrispie]

i had encountered drivers who were clearly in the wrong and yet tried to cook up stories against me (if you seen my other thread on my recent accident). yes, the cost of premium is more dependent on the workshops rather than whose at wrong, but i am just wondering, will the installation of camera actually reduce unnecc accidents from taking place due to the fact that each driver would want to be on the safe side, so as not to be the one at fault in case of an accident? By vitue of the fact that there are lesser accidents, the overall claims should reduce..

 

Or when one knows that he is at fault, and to protect his NCD, he may choose to settle it privately at his workshop, which thus reduce the possibility of the workshop jacking up the price of the repair. That too should reduce the paid out from insurers, and everyone could potentially benefit. Unless its really a 50/50 case where both parties cannot resolve, then it is really up to the insurers to decide. Considering the exising situation, there could be many cases where it is a clear cut case but due to the lack of rock solid evidence, it had to be subjected to 3rd party settlement (insurance).

 

My gf encountered the case, where a driver actually rear ended her vehicle, and he admitted on the spot, only to deny the whole accident actually took place when my gf wanted to claim against him. Meeting with an accident is just unfortunate, and if you still have to hope the other driver is one with integrity, that just sucks big time. I wonder how many driver will be willing to sign on the spot an agreement, admitting fault. Most times like this, everyone just love to point fingers and change their stand faster than the cook flips a burger.

 

The camera serves as a deterence and in times of need, it will prove valuable. I do seriously think the driving style and attitudes of drivers will change once that is implemented. Just imagine the scenario a guy tried to twist the story and you just tell him on the spot you captured the whole incident on video. I wonder if he will still dare stick to his story. So if you know every corner virtually is watched on the road, you will def think twice before performing stunts, or driving dangerous without regard of others' safety in the heat of the moment.

[Beehive3783]

i had encountered drivers who were clearly in the wrong and yet tried to cook up stories against me (if you seen my other thread on my recent accident). yes, the cost of premium is more dependent on the workshops rather than whose at wrong, but i am just wondering, will the installation of camera actually reduce unnecc accidents from taking place due to the fact that each driver would want to be on the safe side, so as not to be the one at fault in case of an accident? By vitue of the fact that there are lesser accidents, the overall claims should reduce..

 

Or when one knows that he is at fault, and to protect his NCD, he may choose to settle it privately at his workshop, which thus reduce the possibility of the workshop jacking up the price of the repair. That too should reduce the paid out from insurers, and everyone could potentially benefit. Unless its really a 50/50 case where both parties cannot resolve, then it is really up to the insurers to decide. Considering the exising situation, there could be many cases where it is a clear cut case but due to the lack of rock solid evidence, it had to be subjected to 3rd party settlement (insurance).

 

My gf encountered the case, where a driver actually rear ended her vehicle, and he admitted on the spot, only to deny the whole accident actually took place when my gf wanted to claim against him. Meeting with an accident is just unfortunate, and if you still have to hope the other driver is one with integrity, that just sucks big time. I wonder how many driver will be willing to sign on the spot an agreement, admitting fault. Most times like this, everyone just love to point fingers and change their stand faster than the cook flips a burger.

 

The camera serves as a deterence and in times of need, it will prove valuable. I do seriously think the driving style and attitudes of drivers will change once that is implemented. Just imagine the scenario a guy tried to twist the story and you just tell him on the spot you captured the whole incident on video. I wonder if he will still dare stick to his story. So if you know every corner virtually is watched on the road, you will def think twice before performing stunts, or driving dangerous without regard of others' safety in the heat of the moment.

 

I wouldn't sign anything that says I'm at fault. This is akin to opening up my ass for ppl to fark. Factual reporting of the chain of events leading to the accident should be done, and that's it.

 

[Chrispie]

Like you said, FActual.. and that is usually the biggest problem..

[Beehive3783]

Like you said, FActual.. and that is usually the biggest problem..

I get your point. So it will be best if you have supporting tools to back up your reporting, such as photos or even videos. But whether it is accepted by the insurer for investigation is another matter.

[Wahlin]

I really don't hope to see every car in Singapore got this camera. I only hope I am the only one in Singapore that put up this camera. LOL.

 

Any way I bought one from oversea and getting another one (full HD) soon. Those sell locally way too expensive. I can get the same model for about half the price.

 

In the past, I do denfensive driving. Meaning giving my right of way to other and something e-braking is necessary. With the camera, I drive more relax. I can slow down to give way as far as I can but if you need me to do e-braking just because you cut into my lane abusively then good luck to you.

[Iisterry]

The only realistic way is to nationalize the motor insurance industry and make it criminal for false declarations.

 

This way they can have the insurance float to "invest" too. However it wont be easy politically/commercially to undertake such a move.

[Osiris]

I get your point. So it will be best if you have supporting tools to back up your reporting, such as photos or even videos. But whether it is accepted by the insurer for investigation is another matter.

why is it people can accept photos as evidence but not video?

using these 2, it tells the whole story.

 

Adrianli case, he claimed successfully against another driver for accident,

even police use it for investigation for his vandalism case.

 

 

[Kenney]

Just to add on a few more points....

 

1) When you have evidence, go straight for third party claim. It's best not to have insurers involved.

 

2) Lately, I damn suay. kena 2 accidents in two months. Before, I kept accident free for 6 years! [sorry, before that, I am reluctant to announce this]

Well, I dun want to discuss anything on video recorders.

However, video evidence did helped me claimed 100% from both accidents. That's a fact.

 

That's all i wanna say.

[Shanhz]

Just to add on a few more points....

 

1) When you have evidence, go straight for third party claim. It's best not to have insurers involved.

 

2) Lately, I damn suay. kena 2 accidents in two months. Before, I kept accident free for 6 years! [sorry, before that, I am reluctant to announce this]

Well, I dun want to discuss anything on video recorders.

However, video evidence did helped me claimed 100% from both accidents. That's a fact.

 

That's all i wanna say.

 

not as sueh as me.. accident free for 15 yrs, and kenah 2 accidents in 2 weeks..

[Chrispie]

not as sueh as me.. accident free for 15 yrs, and kenah 2 accidents in 2 weeks..

 

 

i feel for you.. when u kena first one, you think it sucks big time.. until.. you tot u are more careful, another idiot hit you again..