Pot holes

[is200 Newbie]

My lad totalled his car this morning on the way to work – he is quite a responsible driver so I have no concerns over him messing about to be honest. Most important thing is that he came out of it without a single scratch – lucky is not the word..

 

The cause: raining / windy and pot holes in the road – in particular there is a bad pot hole on quite a sharp bend and it all points to him catching it and losing control ending up hitting the opposite verge and rolling over – not skidding down the road on the roof. Fair to say the cars a writeoff ! and its fair to say that he is very lucky nothing was coming down the opposite side.

 

Does anyone have any experience in pot hole claims as I am sure this is a classic case at the very extreme end of what can happen. I have drafted a letter to the council and also been in touch with the insurance company. Worries are now, he has only been driving for 3 years and is 26yrs old. No claims other than this which will be write off – insurance I imaging will sky rocket !!

 

I have all the pictures and dash cam video from my car driving down the same road today in both directions so I have that all covered but I cannot get out and measure any holes etc as it’s a bad road. The road is not signed sufficiently as well indicating cautions and concealed side roads.

 

I am more looking to see if anyone has any advice on pot hole claims as he has lost his car through no fault of his own really.

 

 

Below is the picture of the pot hole - does not seem much but in the rain on a sharp bend it seems to have been the cause of the accident

 

[Spacewagon52]

The main point is that no one was hurt. He is very lucky to come out of that without serious injury. Cars can be replaced, panels can be replaced, limbs and lives can't.

[rayaans]

Glad that no one was hurt, looks like a particularly bad incident ending up on the roof though.

It'd be difficult to claim for the pothole causing the incident. Whilst it may be quite large, it also appears to be too close to the edge of the bushes. On the face of it, it would be quite hard to get the wheels to go into that pothole unless the car was driven within a few inches of the bush and I would expect a full investigation from the insurance company as to how the incident happened for them to come to any conclusions. 

The road also appears to be fairly wide and driving in the middle of the lane would not have resulted in the wheel getting anywhere near the pothole.

I think it may be time to have a serious conversation about what actually happened to see whether it was indeed the pothole that caused the incident or something else.

[dougie175]

I deal with insurance companies all day everyday on insurance claims and to be honest they are not going to even attempt to fight a council looking at the photos. I would agree with above personally and any insurance assessor will probably do the same.

Is he 100% it wasn't just a slight lapse of concentration and he has his hit the banking more than the whole and tried to over correct? Did something very similar when I was 17

Looking at the pot hole how far over would the vehicle need to be to allow over 50% of the tyre to drop into the hole and that be the cause of loosing control, it looks from the photo as if you would be pretty much up the banking before you would slip into the hole

[VrmmVrmm]

On the road to Matlock???

He's lucky...looking at the car it held it's integrity and saved him.  Lucky too no oncoming traffic as the closing speed could well have proved fatal for someone.

Any day you can walk away unscathed is better than winning the Lotto...you might not think that today but you will in hindsight...put it down to experience count your blessings and let the Insurance pick up the pieces...unfortunate YES but in the 'Grand Scheme' of things...  thankfully fortunate.

[is200 Newbie]

To be honest I am just glad he is in one piece - he only came out of it with a scratch to his elbow which was from crawling through the window (and a hole in his coat !!)

I trust him to have been driving sensibly - if anything he is not brilliant with confidence.

He was actually at the time of passing the pot hole forced into it a bit from another car on the other side using up his lane and also driving over the centre white lines which is a very common occurrence on this road - he does have a witness which was a couple of cars back but no info on car reg's was taken as it happened too quick and the other car would be out of view as it went round the corner by the time the other driver stopped.

The police were not overly concerned about any speeding being involved, no skid marks and the distance he travelled from the pot hole to where he ended up was approx. 15 metres roughly. If he was travelling faster then he would have been a lot further down the road on the roof. Its not possible to speed round that corner on the side he was on as you cannot see what's in front of you but it is on the other side as your line of sight is ok for quite a bit of the road in front of you.

It was raining and had been for a while so its possible the pot hole could have been full of water and he did not judge it what with the other car travelling over the lines. So that alone would suggest there could be a claim I would have thought as there are no indications made along the road for either uneven road surface or beware of pot holes (especially in the rain) The road looks quite wide in the pictures but when theres another vehicle, especially a van on it who it trying to avoid the verge on their side and driving over the centre lines then the unfortunate person on the other side has no where to go other than closer to the verge.

He was lucky - the picture looks actually worse than the accident as when you consider he was not going that fast the car has taken all the force and done its job in protecting him - cant complain with that.

The road is in North Wales between Denbigh and St.Asaph (B5381) and is in a bad way - there is another well maintained one which we will all be using in the future which only adds a few minutes to the commute so in the great scheme of things its nothing really.

My issue is: the Highways Act, Section 58 states overall that the road should be up to the use its meant for ... in each of the statements in the section it is not compliant with each.

It is a main road between a town and a very busy industrial estate so it carries heavy goods / farm vehicles / HGV / 7.5 tonners and cars. It does not indicate hidden entrances / it does not indicate warnings or cautions for sharp bends / the speed limit for most of the stretch of road is 60mph - this should be 50mph for the heavy goods but countless times I have kept up with these vehicles at 60mph / there are areas of the road with the actual tarmac missing (quite common in the UK unfortunately) / the road has two different cambers for a long stretch which is not indicated with any warning or caution signs. It does however in one area that's no where near a narrow stretch, indicate its a narrow stretch or theres one coming up but at approx. a mile and a bit before it does noticeably get narrower - the road is definitely not suited to the traffic that travels down it and definitely not  up to the compliance of giving drivers good warnings. Another issue which can be applied throughout the UK is that when it rains or in winter then the road is covered in mud etc from farm vehicles, yes, its due diligence from drivers to notice this but again theres no indications made to reflect there are hazards. The road is not wide enough sufficiently for two heavy goods passing each other and this is evident at quite a few areas along the stretch of road where they have had to go onto the verge to pass each other - had one on dash cam footage from yesterday doing exactly that when I video'd the road after the accident and it leaves the verge churned up and slowly breaks down the edge of the road which is evident in places.

This is what I am arguing with the council (I have a bit more also) - if I only get to the point where they fill the holes and it prevents someone else having an accident then that's my job done but I do also have (on record) a local councillor admitting that its a bad road and its about time something is done with it ??!

If they admit liability (we will see) but in doing so my lad can have his incident wiped from his record but to be honest I don't think the will admit any liability. I take on board the comments above but as unfair as it seems to me I have got to go down the route of trying. I think the days are gone where your road tax actually paid to the maintenance of the roads !!!

[is200 Newbie]

What I have not shown in the pictures is the fact that the pot hole sits on a bit of a sharp bend (turning left) so the road ahead cant easily be seen

 

[Linas.P]

Glad your friend is not hurt. However, on pothole claim I am with others - it is non-starter. You can potentially claim blown tire or bend wheel, but if the car rolled over any court will tell you that there were more to the accident than a just pot hole. The best outcome would be that "pothole might have played a role, but the driver did not choose the safe speed for road conditions" - that is cliche answer which any police officer, court, insurance investigator going to throw. Now if there would be magic, HD video of the pothole blowing his tire which in turn made him lose control there might be a slim chance, but otherwise statement stays "too fast for road condition". I am really infuriated by it myself - because sometimes road conditions are such that you basically need to stop - but answering the question again - the case of the pothole is a non-starter.

[dougie175]

Genuinely hope you get somewhere with this as i would love to see the roads improved around here also but i guess there is a risk of once they admit fault with one would it open the flood gates for others blaming the road surface for their accident. 

Good luck with it and totally understand you have to try and fight for your lads innocence on his driving record but don't be too shocked if they just point blank deny any liability. If you manage to get the pot hole sorted you can at least take pride in that as it may be the difference between someone else's life and death you just never know. 

[Linas.P]

22 hours ago, dougie175 said:

...I guess there is a risk of once they admit fault with one would it open the flood gates for others blaming the road surface for their accident. 

1

Very accurate... this would open "floodgate" -  that this is why they will never take any responsibility... and no matter what blame speed for the accident. I personally believe that "floodgate" should be opened (but they won't allow it) - barely 30% of taxes collected directly from motorists (VEH, Fuel duties etc.) goes back to infrastructure and even then not necessary to improve it.

What I am trying to say - we have paid for infrastructure, but we getting a rough deal as a motorists and we being punished for driving without a right to ever complain - that is the current setting.

My previous response was not to determine the cause, but to clarify the cause was pre-determined as drivers fault by fraudulent councils and other officials. As such default position is that is your fault (even if it isn't) unless you can prove them wrong with undeniable evidence (which does not exists in this case).

[Vintagesixtysix]

 

Glad your boy is ok as could have been so much worse in many ways.

 

 

Couple of things....and please just take this in the spirit of helping...... I apologise in advance if any are not relevant.

 

 

-If you can "SAFLEY" get any dimensions/ photo graphs using a school type ruler in photographs it can help evidence your claim.

 

- The photograph of the verge shows the discolouration in the vegetation on the verge which shows the water/ silt throw so your son is not alone in being on that part of the road..... it depends how big the water collection could have been.

 

- is there any other road condition..... faint white line/ another pot hole / poor lighting / signage that puts the car more into that side of the road on the corner?

 

- Ask the local police if that road is a particular black spot.... they're not obliged to help..... but you never know.

 

- Have a frank chat with him and ensure there are no received or made mobile phone calls texts received or made or social media comments / likes / anything similar at the time...... also anything post the crash....even a bit of bravado about speed or risky driving.

 

- while perception & statistically thing are against him as young and male..... if he has clean licence, good insurance history and any maintenance bills for the car......ensure to mention these when relevant as evidence he's not a boy racer.

 

 

Hope helps.....& good luck.

 

If it doesn't go your way.......just be thankful he's fit & well.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Lexus OC

 

[Vintagesixtysix]

This might help.....even if just for structure of claim or areas to concentrate on.

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/pothole-claims

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Lexus OC

[is200 Newbie]

Thanks for the comments - no issues at all in the questions - the more the better really

-If you can "SAFLEY" get any dimensions/ photo graphs using a school type ruler in photographs it can help evidence your claim.

I thought about this but due to the bend in the road its not possible as its too dangerous to take any measurements. If its required it can be done as I have been talking to different parties over this.

- The photograph of the verge shows the discolouration in the vegetation on the verge which shows the water/ silt throw so your son is not alone in being on that part of the road..... it depends how big the water collection could have been.

I have been down the road after a rain shower (no where near as heavy as the rain on the day of the incident) and the hole was partially filled with water - the picture I have of the hole is some time after the rain stopped on the day - it will be easy enough to establish if it fills to the top and becomes "invisible" to the user as my dashcam has picked up the pot hole on a couple of occasions since when passing it so I can establish it when the good old British weather returns. My only issue is that I have established a time line that it will be filled in by and if the council deem it to be a priority 1 then it will be filled within 10 days.

- is there any other road condition..... faint white line/ another pot hole / poor lighting / signage that puts the car more into that side of the road on the corner?

There are a few .... on the oncoming side there is an unmarked opening to a farm - not used at the time of the incident though. Oncoming cars will "cut" the centre white line forcing the other side into the verge a bit (what happened on the day) and this is evident on all the bends on the road. The road is not marked at all to indicate the "safe" area, width, of the road to drive upon (the road while locally treated as a main road is actually, I have found out, an unclassified one. There are numerous pot holes / the road is unlit but it was during day time that the incident happened / there are no sufficient signs to establish that the road is either uneven or in a state where the user is warned about its surface

- Ask the local police if that road is a particular black spot.... they're not obliged to help..... but you never know.

I did ask at the time (I sat in the police car with my lad as he has never had an accident before and got chatting) They would not commit to any thoughts as to what the definite cause could have been but established he was not under the influence of drugs or drink, he wasn't speeding (skid marks and distance travelled from the pot hole and indications of damage to road surface such as scratches in surface etc)

- Have a frank chat with him and ensure there are no received or made mobile phone calls texts received or made or social media comments / likes / anything similar at the time...... also anything post the crash....even a bit of bravado about speed or risky driving.

I have talked to him about the incident and as it was his first accident, I thought i needed to - he done everything correct, taking pictures etc, I did actually check his phone as I had heard of it being done before to someone in the same circumstances - he made two calls after the incident, both to people who have since mentioned he called to say he had been in an accident and he was safe. There are no media comments at all. Nothing before either. I would not think he would do that anyway and its good to have checked and see he didn't.
 

- while perception & statistically thing are against him as young and male..... if he has clean licence, good insurance history and any maintenance bills for the car......ensure to mention these when relevant as evidence he's not a boy racer.

That's the thing - the picture reflects what you would see as a result of losing control when speeding. Its quite easy to establish at the scene what the factors are that LED to this and it is more relevant with everything coming together like a perfect storm to initiate the accident. He is 26, clean license but only has 3 years of driving history although he has had his license for longer. Car is maintained, all the relevant components that could have caused the incident were checked by the police and found to be in order.

Just an update on this - it has been reviewed by the local council and has been passed to the Insurance and Risk department. I have received the risk report from them which is very poor in its content. The road is reviewed on a 6 monthly basis with the last reviews taking place October 2016 and April 2017 and the report stated no issue. There are a lot of issues on the road that don't stack up to the report but the main one is I have checked Google map images against the road surface and these are date stamped from September 2016 (before the two recent risk assessments) the image shows quite clearly the pothole and all of the other road defects. I have a lot of indications of risk throughout the road so I don't think it has been done effectively. To that point I don't think the claim will be upheld as it will be a bit damming to both the council and the risk assessment company but I will bet you the hole is filled in by next week and just that in itself, isn't that an indication there is a risk there and a good indication of liability? 

[Vintagesixtysix]

Welcome...

I spelt safely wrong and highlighted it....😬

 

Good to hear on the phone point before you go any further on time or legal investment. My wife was a witness in a very minor RTA that went all the way to sitting in front of a judge with two barristers because neither side would yield and one parties personal damages added up to a significant sum ( psychological claim, whiplash, blah,blah) .....anyway cut a long story short the opposing barrister destroyed them on social media content alone showing before during and afterwards the incident he was posting all kinds of BS.

We could have left after my wife's very straight forward testimony......but it was fascinating to watch......and restored some faith in that maybe not all personal injury claims are just signed off.

 

Do you think it's a combination of the water & pothole that has hooked him.....spun him out...and then flipped as bounced off the other verge?

 

From the photos.....and this could be light trickery....... it looks like there is quite a camber on the road?......where I'm going with this....if this part of the road is narrow and has had previous repairs should they have introduced drainage..... even as just a simple soak away?

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Lexus OC

[is200 Newbie]

34 minutes ago, Vintagesixtysix said:

 

Do you think it's a combination of the water & pothole that has hooked him.....spun him out...and then flipped as bounced off the other verge?

 

From the photos.....and this could be light trickery....... it looks like there is quite a camber on the road?......where I'm going with this....if this part of the road is narrow and has had previous repairs should they have introduced drainage..... even as just a simple soak away?

Definitely a combination of both - speed was not a major factor. The car did not flip at the point of hitting the pot hole but about 10 metres away after hitting the verge and rolled over at the spot or within a couple of metres or so.

Very good point - thanks - I never considered that point before regarding drainage - Yes it does have a camber and does have one on quite a long length of the road (both sides) preceding the corner and when it does rain water just runs off into the verge.

[mikeyv]

Firstly, glad your son is ok.

It strikes me that there seems to be no damage to either front wheel/tyre, is that the case?

If so, I think you'll be hard pushed to blame the pothole for such a dramatic outcome, or to be more accurate, to prove liability.

We are, however, missing the most important image, which is the pothole, in the dry, with previously mentioned ruler.

I can see why you'd be reluctant to take that risk though.

[Linas.P]

As above... you fighting uphill and you lack the right tools. Surely, as directed by highway code you can stop at the side with hazard lights, if needed put red triangle as directed to further raise awareness and get some evidence. I personally came from an environment where potholes are much larger and much more common and therefore the one in your foto maybe doesn't look as big or sharp to cause any issue, but I see where it can cause issues.

Honestly, I see how that could have happened - you driving along the road maybe not 100% concentrating when suddenly you hit a pothole or any uneven surface for that matter which pulls you to an unexpected direction. In an ideal world (and especially considering how much we pay for f******* roads to be repaired) it is fair to expect them to be free of potholes and any uneven patches to cause it. You are right to be angry and point the finger to the road, but proving it is another matter.

Now again... sorry for being pessimistic, but I don't see you gaining any ground for predetermined people in council. If pothole would have blown the tire before the accident you would have a slightly better case, but even then you would need to prove somehow that tire was blown indeed by the pothole and not because of car overturning. And it is fair to say that pothole not necessary needs to puncture the tire to be dangerous, but that is definitely the case when we talking about evidence and making council liable for anything.

Finally, don't take it as advise as it would be legally incorrect (and probably too late). In such case I would have simply called wreckers to collect the car, ideally without police being involved (because that is automatic 3 points and £100 fixed) and would definitely skip insurance, the value of the car is several times smaller than compounded increases in insurance premiums due to the accident (even non-fault one).

[VrmmVrmm]

I anyone's defence I can testify that a car hitting a brink of the road does not need to be speeding to turn over as per photographs provided.  I remember an incident going to work one morning on frosty roads, I was a passenger and the driver was really going easy fully aware of the road conditions...doing only 25-30 mph max, crawling.  In any event we passed a gateway into a field at the top of a hill and the wind coming through the gate had frozen a solid sheet of ice across the full width of the road at this spot and yes you've guessed the car in which we were in took off literally crossed the road mounted the brink which flipped the car and we were actually on the roof revolving like an ice skater in the middle of the road.  Unbelievable!! I could not believe that the outcome was what it was.  I do believe your lad wasn't speeding because if he was the car would have rolled several times...it didn't it just flipped over.  As I said previously...walked away....better than winning the lotto.  No wheelchair for the rest of his life and a hard lesson learned.  We pay insurance for such eventualities...they'll sort it.

 

[Linas.P]

23 minutes ago, VrmmVrmm said:

We pay insurance for such eventualities...they'll sort it.

 

Agree with all above, except insurance. Very true - you don't need to be speeding for an accident to happen, but my point is - to shift liability on the road you would need very very strong evidence.

In terms of insurance, sadly they are not there to sort it. That I guess would be in the ideal world, but in reality, in UK insurance is a big scam, they are there only to take as big as possible premium and find any opportunity to get away from liabilities. In the scenario like this... if you had FC cover obviously they will pay 70% of the value.. what is that for 2003 Astra (~£700)? But because you made claim and it was your fault they will increase your premium for £500 for next 5 years.... And even if you prove there was issue with the road and what they refer as "non-fault" accident, they would still increase your premiums regardless... madness.

Honestly, if I would have an option to drive without insurance, based on current circumstances I would choose to drive without it. 

[is200 Newbie]

Thanks for the replies

I think what I am trying to establish (and I think I am there) is that the road is not being maintained and it is not fit for the traffic that's travelling on it - in doing so I can prove "negligence", pretty harsh word but the best one in this instance as the road has been neglected for so long and is in a state. The hole in the picture is one of many - in another stretch of the road at another bad spot there is a good depth of tarmac missing off and on for a few metres and again, this is on a bend in the road. Verges are crumbling and there's evidence heavy lorries use the verges either to stop or to avoid oncoming traffic judging by the tyre tracks on the, what is now mud, on the verge.

All the info I have is coming together to suggest this and its becoming quite obvious there's an issue from all the different scenarios I have and the road is not being maintained. For two reasons, its an unclassified road with HGV routing down it with no indication of road markings etc - secondly, there has been a risk report made on the road, its reported on a biannual basis and was done Oct 16 and Apr 17 both reports indicated no issue yet I have evidence that there are issues pre-dating the Oct 16 risk report so it has not been done effectively enough to ensure the road is safe to drive on and/or the risks presented on the road when undergoing the assessment have not been assessed correctly.

A pot hole will not necessary need to puncture a tyre to cause anyone to lose control of a car, it will obviously make the situation worse but different scenarios will result in different issues. This one involves a vehicle turning left on a bend in a road, hitting an unexpected hole, over compensating to correct the initial issue trying to avoid one oncoming car and maybe a lack of experience in doing so, ending up hitting the opposite verge and turning the car over. Point here is the initial risk to the user as the pot hole - no indication its there, no indication the road is on a camber, no indication the road is uneven, no indication of hidden access roads (not applicable to the incident but applies in this instance to the oncoming traffic as its on their side of the road) I am trying to prove it is not maintained and hence being a dangerous issue to the road user (who ever is using it)

A dashcam would have been so useful but he doesn't have one but will get one now!

We have done all the sums last week and pretty much straight away decided the best route would be to scrap the car. We avoided making a claim, excess costs and the hike in future premiums vs' the piddling amount of the insurance he would receive back was not worth is to we informed the insurance and dealt with it ourselves. Recovery, holding and scrappage charges came to £270 ! Paid £900 for the car 3 years ago - worth now as a guestimate £700 with a £250 excess so the likelihood he would have been awarded £200 or so back at the end of the claim and the hike in premium of £200 decreasing over the 5 year notification period so it just was not worth it. The point of the "cheap" car was to build up a no claims "pot" for him so he had a good base to start when he looked for something in the future. As we didn't do down the insurance route there is no hike in premium but there is a record on file that there has been a no blame incident which for now, does not make any difference to the policy. He has just organised another car and this has shown to be the case.

The police were there as I guess someone called them but not only that, the accident was on a bad area of the road and the traffic did need to be controlled. I must admit, the police were great during this. There was no charge, cost wise, from the police, no points either as there was no indications of any law being broken (speeding, high, drunk or on phone etc) no 3rd party damage either (to the road or property) and no one needed hospital treatment on the scene

I have to agree with Paul above - different circumstances can lead to different issues - the car does look bad in the pictures but the accident wasn't - where the issue would have changed would have been if there was any oncoming traffic involved and that would have changed the situation and would more than likely have been lights out !!

 

The car done its job and he walked away more wiser I guess at having experienced an accident (first one) so its not always a bad thing as it puts into perspective if you get to "comfortable" in driving roads - shows you always need to be concentrating.

I guess I will find out this week if they are looking at this in a more serious light - not necessary for the accident but as a minimum to repair the road so it doesn't happen to anyone else.

 

 

[VrmmVrmm]

8 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Agree with all above, except insurance. Very true - you don't need to be speeding for an accident to happen, but my point is - to shift liability on the road you would need very very strong evidence.

In terms of insurance, sadly they are not there to sort it. That I guess would be in the ideal world, but in reality, in UK insurance is a big scam, they are there only to take as big as possible premium and find any opportunity to get away from liabilities. In the scenario like this... if you had FC cover obviously they will pay 70% of the value.. what is that for 2003 Astra (~£700)? But because you made claim and it was your fault they will increase your premium for £500 for next 5 years.... And even if you prove there was issue with the road and what they refer as "non-fault" accident, they would still increase your premiums regardless... madness.

Honestly, if I would have an option to drive without insurance, based on current circumstances I would choose to drive without it. 

That's all very well regards material damage that can be fixed...both my comments have pointed to what was a most fortunate outcome all things considered.  In my second post I mentioned one word in particular to remind us what insurance is really about "wheelchair"...insurance costs but so does everything else.  Premiums are not really about the material damages, premiums are high because of the cost of fixing injuries if possible....if not they are about lifelong support for the injured parties.  If anyone is killed that hardly means anything to insurance companies (sadly) but if someone is paralysed it means £££Millions in each such case.  So your point about choosing to drive without insurance and I accept you make it clear only if an option is in my view taking a narrow view of why we pay.  Material things are all that are involved in this case...I would make the claim at least the cost though high would be clawed back over time as no-claims bonuses would kick in.  The lad may have been driving a car that cost a few grand, it's now totalled and is worth a few grand in a claim if Comprehensively covered...unless you're rich you can't just keep putting your hand in your pocket to pay premiums and also ignore claims...£500 for 5 years=£2500 (not my figures...previous post)...claim every time to avoid having to come up with BIG money up front...otherwise certainly pointless ever having Comprehensive cover to cover your own interests...just purchase Third Party to cover the points I've made about other road users any driver (not you personally) might maim for life. Please do not take this point of view as an attempt to undermine your post I'm just discussing the valid points we both believe we make as we share experiences.  Safe motoring is the goal of ALL.

 

[Linas.P]

It is not a narrow view, but stated in regards to specific circumstances e.g. it is wrong that person wrecking the car chooses not to claim insurance, because it would ultimately cost more money - why insure? Equally, it is wrong that your premiums will go up even if an accident is "non-fault" or even if somebody else crashed into you - why no claim bonus? I had my car vandalised and similarly didn't even bother to go to insurance (as many millions of motorists each year).

I completely agree with you that there are more in life than just money of goods, but don't forget we already pay health insurance, so if insurance covers injuries we are already double-paying for the same thing. There are many more arguments like - insurance is cheap in rural areas where the majority of casualties/injuries happens, but it is most expensive in the cities where major deadly or life-threatening accidents are extremely rare... and many more which would require separate topic.

Finally, I would be happy with third party, considering how useless comprehensive cover is, but TP costs me £3400 while FC costs £800... interpret as you wish... 

Thanks and safe motoring for you as well, but it doesn't need to start from ripping off people for insurance - it could rather start with improving roads to reduce the number of accidents as highlighted OP..

[is200 Newbie]

Says a lot on how the council value life over money ...

Another two accidents on this stretch of road today - both resulting with cars ending up on their roofs !!!. One approx. 30 metres from my lads original accident and the other at the exact spot.

No information on injuries or the causes but passed police my contact details for one of the incidents for them to contact me.

Just hope no one was injured and hope they now realise this is a dangerous stretch of road and get it repaired !!!!

[dougie175]

Fingers crossed they sort it now!!!!!!!

[is200 Newbie]

REEEEZULT !!!

Road closed for 3 weeks from 24th This month

If anything its being repaired - need to chase insurance company now.