# BBC encourage insurance fraud.



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

Driven into a cyclist? No problem! Just don't tell the police or your insurer!


"Dennis couldn't have been nicer about the entire incident. We agreed he'd pay for repairs to my bike (£140), which he did, and leave it at that. No police, no insurance, no need really."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36159430

No, no need. You are asking your insurer to underwrite the risk of you driving into things. So a good way to save money is lie to your insurer and say you haven't driven into anyone.


----------



## fossyant (3 May 2016)

His picture is on the BBC, wonder who insures him. 

My bike got away with my crash, big scratch that will mean a fork replacement as they are carbon, not the same can be said for me.

He is stupid to settle like that. You just don't know for a while how bad things maybe.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (3 May 2016)

I read this article on the train this morning.

I'm not one for really caring about phrasing of sentences. But even this one, made me "wtf, did they actually print that?"

The quote in question is:
"It's never happened before and I worried about it," he said. For two or three weeks afterwards, he said, his driving was too cautious. *His wife would tell him: "You're half way across the road just to miss that bike.*"

Is this a suggestion that you shouldn't be far away from the bike to avoid them?! As that is certainly what it is suggesting. A shocking piece of editorial work in my opinion.

He is also worried about it, I wonder if his worry has extended to further driver training to refresh his abilities? Or whether his worry doesn't actually go that far to resolve the danger?


----------



## Globalti (3 May 2016)

The car windows are clear so the driver simply mustn't have looked carefully enough. I can't see anything wrong with the driver offering to fix the damage for cash; it's what I would do but he ought to notify his insurers because the victim might just change his mind in a few weeks when one of the claims "specialists" gets him on the phone.

As for the driver being "halfway across the road" that's a natural reaction to the accident; when I was a teenager my Dad was involved in an accident in which a cyclist died and it tramuatised him so bady that for the rest of his life he would flinch and go for the bake whenever he saw a cyclist nearby. 

Perhaps the cyclist ought to insist that the quite elderly driver gets an eye test.


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

Globalti said:


> he ought to notify his insurers because the victim might just change his mind in a few weeks



Er, no, he should inform his insurers because not doing so is insurance fraud that could leave him with no cover. That's the whole point. The article breezily endorses lying to conceal poor driving.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Driven into a cyclist? No problem! Just don't tell the police or your insurer!
> 
> 
> "Dennis couldn't have been nicer about the entire incident. We agreed he'd pay for repairs to my bike (£140), which he did, and leave it at that. No police, no insurance, no need really."
> ...




You're reading too much into that. 

The quote is from the cyclist in the context of being happy to accept the repairs being paid without recourse to the driver's insurance. What the driver does in relation to telling his insurers of a notifiable event is nothing to do with the cyclist, or the BBC.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> What the driver does in relation to telling his insurers of a notifiable event is nothing to do with the cyclist, or the BBC.
> 
> GC



I'm afraid you're wrong. If the rider accepts the £140 he has no further redress. You don't get a second go. So the beeb is breezily endorsing behaviour that could seriously impact those hurt by drivers' inattention.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> I'm afraid you're wrong. If the rider accepts the £140 he has no further redress. You don't get a second go. So the beeb is breezily endorsing behaviour that could seriously impact those hurt by drivers' inattention.



He could have had a second go if he didn't make it public with the BBC unless there's other evidence of it


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

This idea that drivers who say "Let's not go through the insurers" are harmless is very, very wrong.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> I'm afraid you're wrong. If the rider accepts the £140 he has no further redress. You don't get a second go. So the beeb is breezily endorsing behaviour that could seriously impact those hurt by drivers' inattention.



I'm not talking about further redress, I'm talking about the driver's obligation to notify his insurers of a collision. That is his responsibility and nothing to do with the cyclist or the BBC.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

A driver who fraudulently conceals his poor driving is nothing to do with cyclists?


----------



## classic33 (3 May 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> He could have had a second go if he didn't make it public with the BBC unless there's other evidence of it


No second go, the thing is settled from a legal standpoint.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> A driver who fraudulently conceals his poor driving is nothing to do with cyclists?



Glenn, you're being deliberately obtuse here. I've expressed very clearly my point.

Have you any evidence that the driver has not yet informed his insurers of the collision?


GC


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

And then the insurers can set a premium that reflects the risk of a driver who fails to see other road users, rather than the premium being artificially lowered by dishonesty. So good driving is rewarded and bad driving is penalised. Something this cyclists doesn't seem bothered about.


----------



## classic33 (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> A driver who fraudulently conceals his poor driving is nothing to do with cyclists?


Just the same as swapping insurance companies used to be.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (3 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> No second go, the thing is settled from a legal standpoint.


It was a little bit of humour. Take the cash, then go to no-win-no-fee.

Certainly wasn't a serious comment


----------



## classic33 (3 May 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> It was a little bit of humour. Take the cash, then go to no-win-no-fee.
> 
> Certainly wasn't a serious comment


He gets carried away at times. Others managed to reply before me.


----------



## Globalti (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> And then the insurers can set a premium that reflects the risk of a driver who fails to see other road users, rather than the premium being artificially lowered by dishonesty. So good driving is rewarded and bad driving is penalised. Something this cyclists doesn't seem bothered about.



In support of what you write, I recently met somebody who works in motor insurance. She told me: "Off the record and I never said this.... but if you do ever have a small fender-bender and you decide to pay cash, don't tell your insurance company because they will put you down as what they call an 'accident magnet' ".


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

They will do nothing of the kind. An at fault claim would bump premiums, which is exactly what they're supposed to do. It's one of the principles of insurance, Utmost Good Faith. Honesty, in other words.

You are asking a company to underwrite your risk. If you fail to notice people and drive into them your irsk, and premiums, should be higher. That's how insurance works.


----------



## classic33 (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> They will do nothing of the kind. An at fault claim would bump premiums, which is exactly what they're supposed to do. It's one of the principles of insurance, Utmost Good Faith. Honesty, in other words.
> 
> You are asking a company to underwrite your risk. If you fail to notice people and drive into them your irsk, and premiums, should be higher. That's how insurance works.


You'd be suprised at just how much dis-honesty there is within the insurance trade.
"Deny any and all responsibility" being their first to the customer, in the event of a possible claim.

There's one or two on here fallen foul of that one, myself inclcuded.


----------



## Markymark (3 May 2016)

Your insurance can go up for non fault claim. You are deemed more likely to make a claim if you have a bump which is non-fault.


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

That's right. So claiming your insurer consider you an "accident magnet" is a load of old trousers. And this was not a non-fault claim.


----------



## subaqua (3 May 2016)

GF is Migrantwing and ICMFP . 

how long will this current bee in bonnet broken record run Glenn ? 1 , 2 , 5 years or more ?

even a blind man can see that what Mort wrote in support of " becoming an accident Magnet" is correct based on the linky posted as well but you know so much better than research.

so must mean you are insurance underwriting specialist now as well as having the knowledge that ALL lorry drivers are murderous barstids . Where do your skills end , we should put you in charge of transport safety immediately and we would instantly be better than the Dutch and the Danish.

shakes head at how sad a life you must have to be like this. I do pity you .


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (3 May 2016)

"It's never happened before and I worried about it," he said. For two or three weeks afterwards, he said, his driving was too cautious. His wife would tell him: "You're half way across the road just to miss that bike."

OMG the horror of having to give room!!!


----------



## bozmandb9 (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> I'm afraid you're wrong. If the rider accepts the £140 he has no further redress. You don't get a second go. So the beeb is breezily endorsing behaviour that could seriously impact those hurt by drivers' inattention.



I don't see why not, unless he's signed an agreement to indicate that the £140 is in full and final settlement, and indemnifies the driver against any and all future claims. If not, it's an admission of accepted liability, and if the cyclist subsequently suffers medical problems, should ensure that the question of liability is already settled, and the £140 is simple viewed, correctly, as a payment in respect of damage to the bike.


----------



## Profpointy (3 May 2016)

I dropped a cup once and smashed it. I never told my insurance company. Am I committing fraud as they might have wanted to class me as accident prone.


----------



## Markymark (3 May 2016)

Well, your insurance may go up if you have a non-fault claim. Unfair but true. You also have a responsibility to tell your insurance company of any collision, again even if non fault. You will almost certainly be in breach of their terms if you don't.


----------



## Profpointy (3 May 2016)

Markymark said:


> Well, your insurance may go up if you have a non-fault claim. Unfair but true. You also have a responsibility to tell your insurance company of any collision, again even if non fault. You will almost certainly be in breach of their terms if you don't.



whilst that may well be true in theory, I'd hazzard a guess that 99% of cars on the road have scratches on them from hitting, or being hit by something and few of these are of sufficient consequence for claiming or reporting. And yet, even a small scratch would likely cost far more than the £140 mentioned upthread if claimed under a fully comp policy


----------



## Markymark (3 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> whilst that may well be true in theory, I'd hazzard a guess that 99% of cars on the road have scratches on them from hitting, or being hit by something and few of these are of sufficient consequence for claiming or reporting. And yet, even a small scratch would likely cost far more than the £140 mentioned upthread if claimed under a fully comp policy


Yes, however having money exchange hands makes it more serious than a scratch which is just ignored.


----------



## nickyboy (3 May 2016)

Markymark said:


> Well, your insurance may go up if you have a non-fault claim. Unfair but true. You also have a responsibility to tell your insurance company of any collision, again even if non fault. You will almost certainly be in breach of their terms if you don't.



It's an interesting situation. Your teacups are (presumably) insured just as your car is insured. Break a teacup and, because it is below the excess, you just replace the teacup and that's that. I am struggling to see the difference between that and, say, repairing some damage to a car also below the excess

Quantum is different of course, but I don't think there's anything in the T&Cs about that. So aren't we invalidating our home contents by not reporting the broken teacup in the same way we are invalidating our motor insurance by not reporting some damage?


----------



## Crandoggler (3 May 2016)

What a shoot world it would be if we followed every rule put in place for us. We're humans, not robots.


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

Driving a ton of metal into someone is not the same as dropping a cup.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 May 2016)

If the individual concerned is sorted, feels that the driver has learned from the experience and drives more safely because of it then that is a decision only they can make


----------



## Lonestar (3 May 2016)

No accidents in 55 years,is someone telling porkies?


----------



## growingvegetables (3 May 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> If the individual concerned is sorted, feels that the driver has learned from the experience and drives more safely because of it then that is a decision only they can make


Hmm.



> For two or three weeks afterwards, he said, his driving was too cautious. His wife would tell him: "You're half way across the road just to miss that bike." .....


....suggests the driver MAY have driven more safely for 2-3 weeks afterwards. And that his wife learned NOTHING.

And the cyclist - three weeks off his bike? On public transport, here in Leeds, that's £40 of his deal eaten up.


OK - his choice. Doesn't mean I have to like it.


----------



## bozmandb9 (3 May 2016)

nickyboy said:


> It's an interesting situation. Your teacups are (presumably) insured just as your car is insured. Break a teacup and, because it is below the excess, you just replace the teacup and that's that. I am struggling to see the difference between that and, say, repairing some damage to a car also below the excess
> 
> Quantum is different of course, but I don't think there's anything in the T&Cs about that. So aren't we invalidating our home contents by not reporting the broken teacup in the same way we are invalidating our motor insurance by not reporting some damage?



Breaking a teacup, or anything in your house, and not claiming, statistically does not make you more likely to make a major claim. Actuaries make up the rules in insurance, and they know that those who make a claim are much more likely to make another (at least this is what they extrapolate from the statistics). 

This is why they require policyholders to report notifiable incidents. After all, even a minor collision between two road users is a small step away from a personal injury claim, which can escalate very quickly. Broken teacups, or even the vast majority of household claims do not have anywhere near the potential for third party liability (OK, in theory the potential is there, but not in the statistics from which the actuaries are working).


----------



## ufkacbln (3 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Hmm.
> 
> 
> ....suggests the driver MAY have driven more safely for 2-3 weeks afterwards. And that his wife learned NOTHING.
> ...



I agree

It reminds me of a couple of cases where I have taken up complaints with Companies as opposed to the Police


----------



## nickyboy (3 May 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> Breaking a teacup, or anything in your house, and not claiming, statistically does not make you more likely to make a major claim. Actuaries make up the rules in insurance, and they know that those who make a claim are much more likely to make another (at least this is what they extrapolate from the statistics).
> 
> This is why they require policyholders to report notifiable incidents. After all, even a minor collision between two road users is a small step away from a personal injury claim, which can escalate very quickly. Broken teacups, or even the vast majority of household claims do not have anywhere near the potential for third party liability (OK, in theory the potential is there, but not in the statistics from which the actuaries are working).



Don't worry I'm not trying to cause an argument (goodness there is enough of that going on on this thread already). What is a "notifiable incident"? I can't find any sensible information on this. Is it the case that every vehicle "incident" is notifiable? But no house contents "incidents" are notifiable?


----------



## doog (3 May 2016)

Markymark said:


> Well, your insurance may go up if you have a non-fault claim. Unfair but true. You also have a responsibility to tell your insurance company of any collision, again even if non fault. You will almost certainly be in breach of their terms if you don't.



You and the OP work for insurance companies I guess ?

There's the real world then there's Glenn and MarkeyMarks faux outrage....the two latest comedians to inhabit this forum...

(btw I stepped on a crack in the pavement yesterday....do I report it)


----------



## Markymark (3 May 2016)

doog said:


> You and the OP work for insurance companies I guess ?
> 
> There's the real world then there's Glenn and MarkeyMarks faux outrage....the two latest comedians to inhabit this forum...
> 
> (btw I stepped on a crack in the pavement yesterday....do I report it)


Eh. I think glen is an old fuss pot. But there's nothing in what I say that is wrong. If you have a collision and it's their fault, if you pass money and don't tell the insurance company then you're in breach of their terms.

Nothing to do with anything outside a car, but your car insurance are buggers.

It is entirely possible that failing to notify, in breach of their terms can be a reason not to pay out in future claim. 

Edit. It s not fraud, as the op suggest, but most likely in breach of your insurance policy potentially leaving you out of pocket if they find out by refusing to payout future claims.


----------



## classic33 (3 May 2016)

doog said:


> You and the OP work for insurance companies I guess ?
> 
> There's the real world then there's Glenn and MarkeyMarks faux outrage....the two latest comedians to inhabit this forum...
> *
> (btw I stepped on a crack in the pavement yesterday....do I report it)*


Was the crack any worse when you lifted your foot off it?


----------



## lutonloony (3 May 2016)

Might of missed it in the43 posts, but what about informing the police of of an RTC.


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

nickyboy said:


> What is a "notifiable incident"?



Any incident that causes damage or injury, because there is a potential for a claim from the TP.

This idea that telling nobody about collisions isn't fraud needs examination.

Once again, you are paying the insurer to cover your risk. If you fail to notify them that you have driven into a cyclist by not yielding at a junction, got ripped to the tits on Emma and Special Brew and crashed the car or have a conviction for punching a copper then you have breached the terms of your policy and have tried to obtain financial advantage by lying.


----------



## doog (3 May 2016)

Markymark said:


> Eh. I think glen is an old fuss pot. But there's nothing in what I say that is wrong. If you have a collision and it's their fault, if you pass money and don't tell the insurance company then you're in breach of their terms.
> 
> Nothing to do with anything outside a car, but your car insurance are buggers.



Of course mate and I was being slightly obtuse...the failure to report any 'incident' is indeed in breach of their terms, however sometimes they dont need to know.

My daughter had a minor 'incident'..non injury, minimal damage that involved a door and an alloy wheel, no claim from either party but the other party towed the party line and reported it. It was reported as an 'incident' and for three years she suffered in her premiums and I daresay the other driver did as well.

The thing I kind of take issue with is that every incident on here is taken to the extreme...reality land as you know is that this doesnt happen and for good reason. The Police for example would rather you sorted things out amicably without their involvement, Insurance companies I dare say would like full involvement - as to them its a money earner and an 18 year old clerk will more often than not decide liability for minor cases over the phone without any witness evidence.


----------



## classic33 (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Any incident that causes damage or injury, because there is a potential for a claim from the TP.
> 
> This idea that telling nobody about collisions isn't fraud needs examination.
> 
> Once again, you are paying the insurer to cover your risk. If you fail to notify them that you have driven into a cyclist by not yielding at a junction, got ripped to the tits on Emma and Special Brew and crashed the car or have a conviction for punching a copper then you have breached the terms of your policy and have tried to obtain financial advantage by lying.


This from Allianz Insurance
_"A "notifiable incident" relates to:_

_the death of a person_
_a serious injury or illness of a person_
_a potentially dangerous incident_
_Significant penalties apply if you fail to notify an incident."_


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

doog said:


> Of course mate and I was being slightly obtuse...the failure to report any 'incident' is indeed in breach of their terms, however sometimes they dont need to know.
> 
> My daughter had a minor 'incident'..non injury, minimal damage that involved a door and an alloy wheel, no claim from either party but the other party towed the party line and reported it. It was reported as an 'incident' and for three years she suffered in her premiums and I daresay the other driver did as well.
> 
> The thing I kind of take issue with is that every incident on here is taken to the extreme...reality land as you know is that this doesnt happen and for good reason. The Police for example would rather you sorted things out amicably without their involvement, Insurance companies I dare say would like full involvement - as to them its a money earner and an 18 year old clerk will more often than not decide liability or not over the phone without any witness evidence for minor cases.



There's an awful lot wrong with this. First, the idea that driving into people is a trifling matter. It bloody isn't. Second motor insurance doesn't make money. More is paid out in claims than is taken in premiums. £1.4m paid out every single day. Third, FNOL employees don't decide liability. No insurance company has iability settled by the person who takes the First Notification Of Loss. That would create uproar and lots of follow-ups. Insurers don't like follow-ups.

The feeling I'm getting from reading this stuff is that peoples' relationship with their insurer is far from an open one. It's a sort of casual dishonesty that's depressing. It may not be fraud, although telling lies for money sounds like fraud to me, but it's certainly a breach of your terms and from reading this article it doesn't sound like an omission or mistake, it sounds deliberate. Insurers don't like deliberate liars either.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

It most certainly is something the insurers need to know, because if you fail to notify them you are asking them to cover your risk but you are lying about your driving record.


----------



## classic33 (3 May 2016)

[QUOTE 4263660, member: 259"]So you wouldn't bother with that one then?[/QUOTE]
No mention of damage to items though!


----------



## doog (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> There's an awful lot wrong with this.



probably


----------



## classic33 (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> The feeling I'm getting from reading this stuff is that peoples' relationship with their insurer is far from an open one. It's a sort of casual dishonesty that's depressing. It may not be fraud, although telling lies for money sounds like fraud to me, but it's certainly a breach of your terms and from reading this article it doesn't sound like an omission or mistake, it sounds deliberate. Insurers don't like deliberate liars either.
> 
> http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm
> 
> It most certainly is something the insurers need to know, *because if you fail to notify them you are asking them to cover your risk but you are lying about your driving record*.


I don't have one to lie about.

As for not liking liars, if it supports their case, I'd say they'd use them. Personal experience on that part, preventing a payout.


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> This from Allianz Insurance
> _"A "notifiable incident" relates to:_
> 
> _the death of a person_
> ...



Ballcocks. Post the link where you found this. I think you're a bit confused.


----------



## doog (3 May 2016)

Give over Glenn...

Why should I report a non reportable road traffic accident to my insurance company when there is absolutely no onus on me to do so *by law.
*
You can bluster away with your fraud nonsense but its just that....(btw the phone operator did say my daughter was liable- just read your ramblings).


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 May 2016)

doog said:


> Give over Glenn...
> 
> Why should I report a non reportable road traffic accident to my insurance company when there is absolutely no onus on me to do so *by law.
> *
> You can bluster away with your fraud nonsense but its just that....



I expect your insurance company is the same as everyone else's in that, come renewal time, they'll ask you if you've had any accidents, claims or convictions since your last application. Lying to them at that point is fraud. Your choice.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

doog said:


> .(btw the phone operator did say my daughter was liable- just read your ramblings).



I know. You said your daughter reported it. So liability wasn't disputed. It was a reported incident so would impact premiums. 

I'm still a bit staggered by the casual acceptance of this, sorry to be like a dog with a bone but...

You are asking a company to carry your risk, right? You are asking them to underwrite your potential liability. How in the name of left-handed Greek buggery is the fact that you failed to give way to a cyclist and drove into them not a material consideration that could effect the insurer's decision?


----------



## bladesman73 (3 May 2016)

i see we have the same old morons stirring again! everytime i come onto this forum its the same posters going out of their way to stir it up. as for the article, i read it today, worried me what the drivers' wife said more than their actions after the accident. insurance companies are leeches and their actions lead to dishonesty like this. my problem is that the next time the driver might not be so lucky and end up killing someone, hopefully he tells his wife to stfu and gives cyclists a wide berth from now on


----------



## doog (3 May 2016)

[


glenn forger said:


> I know. You said your daughter reported it. So liability wasn't disputed. It was a reported incident so would impact premiums.
> 
> I'm still a bit staggered by the casual acceptance of this, sorry to be like a dog with a bone but...
> 
> You are asking a company to carry your risk, right? You are asking them to underwrite your potential liability. How in the name of left-handed Greek buggery is the fact that you failed to give way to a cyclist and drove into them not a material consideration that could effect the insurer's decision?



No the other reported it because they had a scratch on their alloy....and I go back to cracks on pavements and reality land.

My example is evidence of how an insurance company will hammer someone for their honesty even in the most minor cases....hence its no surprise that people will do anything to avoid reporting something to their insurance company...


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

doog said:


> [
> 
> No the other reported it because they had a scratch on their alloy....and I go back to cracks on pavements and reality land.
> 
> My example is evidence of how an insurance company will hammer someone for their honesty even in the most minor cases....hence its no surprise that people will do anything to avoid reporting something to their insurance company...



Your daughter caused damage to someone else's property. This means that the company that carry her risk adjusted her premium. This is as basic as I can explain the concept of insurance to you. The fact that you find it wildly unfair makes me wistful and restless.


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2016)

Read the small print then. Or ask them. You can insist upon honesty as much as you like, just the same as insurers can.


----------



## doog (3 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Your daughter caused damage to someone else's property. This means that the company that carry her risk adjusted her premium. This is as basic as I can explain the concept of insurance to you. The fact that you find it wildly unfair makes me wistful and restless.



Loads of assumptions in there glenn, 'causation', 'wildly unfair 'but im more worried about you being ' wistful and restless..'.I'll leave it at that, clearly your enthusiasm to educate others about insurance law exceeds you ability to comprehend the point I was making....anyone reading this and realising what farkwittery awaits when they deal with an insurance company will surely not bother to lift up the phone ...which of course was my initial point....


----------



## ufkacbln (4 May 2016)

[QUOTE 4263731, member: 9609"]I remember doing this once; Holiday Insurance - in the policy it stated that they would not meet any claim that had arisen out of alcohol, I asked did that mean I would have to be teetotal for the entire holiday, they told me over the phone not to worry it was only meant for really really really drunk people. Hmmm, as far as I am concerned trip over an empty wine bottle and they have a potential get out clause! Shop around I hear you say; surprising how similar the wording is on different policies.[/QUOTE]

See who it is underwritten by - you will be surprised. Wiggle fo instance use a company in Gibraltar


----------



## steveindenmark (4 May 2016)

At least it should be reported to the police as this is an RTA which caused injury. Which means an RTA booket would be filled out which would include the drivers insurance details. It would be a starting point for the cyclist.

"*And, physically, I'm fine. A few bumps and bruises, a sore neck but a quick trip to A&E, in and out within an hour - I got away lightly."*


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 May 2016)

bladesman73 said:


> i see we have the same old morons stirring again!



Hang on, weren't you the guy who put himself above personal abuse?


GC


----------

