Report comment

Commented on: 19 November 2017 17:59 GMT
"The strange thing is that If you suffer minor injuries in an RTA the starting point is that you are a dishonest claimant and in any event deserve nothing. "

I read that and thought, yes I'm close to being one of those people (well perhaps not to the extent of suggesting Claimants are "dishonest" but something closer to "this must be exaggerated" on perhaps 8 out of 10 medical reports I've seen).

But, I wonder how many people who offer their opinions (either way) on such matters have ever had whiplash?

I have (sports injury) and it lasted for about a month and a half. I fully recall the absolute clattering I took which lead to that injury. I also know first hand how painful and disruptive whiplash can be.

I've also been a passenger in a couple of RTAs. Firstly going across a junction on a dual carriageway, transit coming from the opposite direction turned right (tried to pull a U-turn despite the no u-turn sign) and hit the front o/s wing/door. We were doing about 35 the van probably 5-10. Got thrown about a bit but not injured. Second one, the car I was in drove into the back of another car at about 20-25mph which changed lanes last second across a set of chevrons. Thrown forwards under heavy braking and caught by the seatbelt obviously. Again not injured.

I don't consider myself particularly thick skinned or tough, just an average person.

So based on my experiences, for me there's two options. A lot of minor injuries claims are at the least exaggerated and at the worst dishonest. Alternatively a lot of people are truly injured in this way and must be incredibly thin skinned.

This is just my opinion, and someone may come along with different experiences which cause them to lean the other way. That is their journey.

I think until the day comes when the two meet - i.e. I'm involved in a minor RTA which causes me a such an injury, I don't believe my opinion will significantly change.