http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28627165

I hate that there's a bit of an assumption you're faking it.

Not sure how much reliable data there is, but I'd dearly love to know just what percentage of whiplash claims are actually true.

I'd just ban whiplash claims unless you had undeniable medical proof that you had it.

I was under the impression that, as it's largely a soft tissue injury, it was basically impossible to definitively prove or disprove - hence it's populartity for insurance claims.

Perhaps someone should look for a correlation between premium price-gouging and numbers of whiplash claims?

My motorbike crash was classed as whiplash. I had 30% restriction in turning my head after a year. They paid out and closed the claim, saying it would heal over time. I now have around 40% restriction in movement and continual pain...





The payout was okay, but not earth shattering. Given that I will have to live with worsening plain for the rest of my life, the payout was a little on the low side. The advantages of hindsight.






Sent from my Lumia 1020 using Tapatalk

There is an assumption that it's faking it or exaggerating the severity, however it's nigh on impossible to prove you do/don't have it past showing full mobility.

3 years after my car got written off in traffic from someone driving into the back of me I still have bad days with my neck/shoulder (and consequentially lower back from overcompensating), gf seemed to be worse off as she was a passenger it's affected her right shoulder also.

Was the payout decent? Not really, after covering additional costs incurred it's basically where I was, but with a long term injury

Alternative is make insurance 1st party only and mandatory on your policy so you have to cover your own/passengers medical treatment (though I'd say pedestrians etc would still have to be covered), that way I suspect the claims will drop from those that don't really need it