My Wife, My Hero

[crgram]

"There's no law against "stopping suddenly for no reason"

What, where did you learn to drive? There certainly is a law specifically about this. There has been a big scam for years where some one will slam on the brakes in front of someone and then try too shake them or their insurance down. In the west street cameras have put a stop to much of this one.

Not that it's likely to help here in LOS without a good Samaritan like your wife, wtg.

cr

Edited December 5, 2010 by crgram

[caf]

"There's no law against "stopping suddenly for no reason"

What, where did you learn to drive? There certainly is a law specifically about this. There has been a big scam for years where some one will slam on the brakes in front of someone and then try too shake them or their insurance down. In the west street cameras have put a stop to much of this one.

Not that it's likely to help here in LOS without a good Samaritan like your wife, wtg.

cr

Well, enlighten us what is the "specific" law to which you refer.

Maybe "driving without due care and attention" but we do not know the full facts of the case. But of the two following vehicles, one was able to stop using her brakes. Was the other driver too close to do so or his brakes not sharp enough or was HE not paying too much attention.

On the driving side the odds are against the foreigner

But on the "cultural" side it's good to see a Thai not automatically sticking up for her own.

[amexpat]

Maybe "driving without due care and attention" but we do not know the full facts of the case. But of the two following vehicles, one was able to stop using her brakes. Was the other driver too close to do so or his brakes not sharp enough or was HE not paying too much attention.

There's the tear. None of us witnessed it.

One was able to stop using her brakes. Maybe because she saw the BRAKE LIGHTS of the falangs vehicle? Maybe a collision ahead is a visual clue that was absent for the other driver? Maybe there were other reasons, too.

In a perfect world we all keep lots of space between us and the next car so we can stop in any situation. In city traffic, not so much.

.

[caf]

Maybe "driving without due care and attention" but we do not know the full facts of the case. But of the two following vehicles, one was able to stop using her brakes. Was the other driver too close to do so or his brakes not sharp enough or was HE not paying too much attention.

There's the tear. None of us witnessed it.

One was able to stop using her brakes. Maybe because she saw the BRAKE LIGHTS of the falangs vehicle? Maybe a collision ahead is a visual clue that was absent for the other driver? Maybe there were other reasons, too.

In a perfect world we all keep lots of space between us and the next car so we can stop in any situation. In city traffic, not so much.

.

Quote from the op

"Some of you know that this corner can be dangerous for two reasons. One, it's a pick up and drop off point for lots of night bazaar patrons and two, traffic can wizz past from the right leaving just one lane to turn into from Sridonchai. Some drivers need more than one lane to turn .

Wifey braked suddenly and just missed the farang. Farangs brakes were not as good as hers! "

Not convinced by your logic. As he said farang's brakes were not so good as hers - and she was at the scene.

One should always drive at a distance within which you can pull up.

[Wallaby]

Not all cases of rear ending are the automatic fault of the driver behind. Just in the last month I was involved in a case here in Brisbane where the driver in front was given the majority of blame.

1. Driver takes exit from freeway and decides to reverse back out using the emergency lane (yeah bright). Accident occurs and driver of the reversing car has injuries. He was found to be 90% negligent and therefore only received 10% payout for injuries. Criminal case against him pending.

As Contractor alludes, in normal circumstances the driver behind is at fault but that fault can dramatically change when you consider the circumstances of the accident, alcohol, lights, registration etc.

It's not just a simple thing to say it's black and white and the guy behind is at fault. ALL circumstances must be considered as to what is REASONABLE behaviour. Whether the other driver can afford registration or to get his car fixed is of no consideration of fault.

[richard_smith237]

Yes the foreign guy is at fault for driving into the rear of another car.

The sonthaew, without break-lights was illegally on the road.

For those who have said you should leave sufficient space between you and the car in front may not have much experience driving in Thailand. Each time I leave sufficient space between myself and the car in front another car jumps in the gap.

But none of these issues are the point of the topic. The point the OP made was that his wife stepped in and prevented extortion of a foreigner. The foreigner took responsibility for the accident, or rather his insurance did. His premium will not be reduced, he will loose a no claims bonus, so there is some impact. However, with the songthaew not having insurance the foreigners insurance would have no choice but to cover him.

[crgram]

"There's no law against "stopping suddenly for no reason"

What, where did you learn to drive? There certainly is a law specifically about this. There has been a big scam for years where some one will slam on the brakes in front of someone and then try too shake them or their insurance down. In the west street cameras have put a stop to much of this one.

Not that it's likely to help here in LOS without a good Samaritan like your wife, wtg.

cr

Well, enlighten us what is the "specific" law to which you refer.

Maybe "driving without due care and attention" but we do not know the full facts of the case. But of the two following vehicles, one was able to stop using her brakes. Was the other driver too close to do so or his brakes not sharp enough or was HE not paying too much attention.

On the driving side the odds are against the foreigner

But on the "cultural" side it's good to see a Thai not automatically sticking up for her own.

http://apps.dlt.go.t...E-Learning2.swf

See page 8.

You'll notice I did not comment on following to close, only the statement that it's legal to stop for no reason in traffic, both are wrong and dangerous.

cr

[haybilly]

Well, well, well---isn't it the same old same old--I haven't wasted too much time on TV of late and this thread shows why--a guy starts a topic to show us that, in truth, he has got a lovely, genuine and kind hearted Thai wife--not a one-off but not something common to everyone--and off we all go getting as worked up as ever--dear me, why do we all bother?

I like this bit, and a few others but I can't fit them all in,

" But none of these issues are the point of the topic. The point the OP made was that his wife stepped in and prevented extortion of a foreigner. The foreigner took responsibility for the accident, or rather his insurance did. His premium will not be reduced, he will loose a no claims bonus, so there is some impact. However, with the songthaew not having insurance the foreigners insurance would have no choice but to cover him."

No vitriol, just good plain old common sense talk--I agree. Plus, your wife is a gem, too.

[ESB7]

Any rear end shunt is always the fault of the person that hits the one in front, no matter how suddenly they stop.....'dont be a fool and break the two second rule'.....he was either going to fast, not paying attention or tailgating.......excellent stuff from your Mrs to make sure he didnt get ripped off though.

[caf]

Well, enlighten us what is the "specific" law to which you refer.

Maybe "driving without due care and attention" but we do not know the full facts of the case. But of the two following vehicles, one was able to stop using her brakes. Was the other driver too close to do so or his brakes not sharp enough or was HE not paying too much attention.

On the driving side the odds are against the foreigner

But on the "cultural" side it's good to see a Thai not automatically sticking up for her own.

http://apps.dlt.go.t...E-Learning2.swf

See page 8.

You'll notice I did not comment on following to close, only the statement that it's legal to stop for no reason in traffic, both are wrong and dangerous.

cr

[/quote )

As Richard Smith said above "The foreigner took responsibility for the accident, or rather his insurance did. His premium will not be reduced, he will loose a no claims bonus, so there is some impact. " and the witness at the scene said his brakes were not working as well as the following vehicle. If that vehicle stopped why could he not do so. Driving too close with poor brakes. As the Thai lady had to break herself she was hardly likely to be supportive of the sawngtaeo driver was she?

[def1]

post edited

Edited December 6, 2010 by def1

[Tonto21]

Let nothing that follows subtract from my admiration for someone who will state the facts honestly to the authorities or insurance agents or for being a soul who refutes the general fear expressed by "not wanting to be involved." In fact, it is this last that made me smile. Betting involved - what a concept. And if an attempt at extortion was on the red truck driver's mind, I've no defense for him.

But I must support H2o's wonderment.

In the U.S. and I believe in the western world, striking a stopped vehicle from the rear is a cause for civil action and probably for a citation. Generally, the action will prevail. The missing brake light of course would relieve the driver of the car involved of the citation in most cases (as obviously it did here) and night time, of course, would be a different matter. But to suggest (here, I only speak of the law in the 50 divisions of the U.S.) that a missing brake light would relieve the insurance company of the auto driver of paying at least in part for damage is unlikely.

Suppose it had been a child on a bike - should I have no guilt, no sense of responsibility? If my rear brake lights have been damaged while I'm parked, unknown to me, that gives you the right to a smash into my car without any responsibility?

No matter. If I cannot keep myself from going into the back end of a red truck that has stopped ahead of me, brake light or not, I may be new to driving here.

Aside: I drive a motorbike and motorcycle through and around town daily. In judging risks, I regard the songtheau drivers as the safest those vehicles on the road. They move like turtles, except when they spot a customer. Then they stop. (My complaint is with Fortuners, Hiluxi, and Commuters - reckless or oblivious.

My hat's off to the lady!

Hi CMX, This is not meant to be picky, you say; "I drive a motobike and motorcycle though and around town daily" what's the difference? There one of the same.

[IanForbes]

It's been a good discussion with valid reasons for all actions. The ONLY thing wrong is the songtau driver trying to extort money from the man who hit him. That is what insurance is for. There can be many valid reasons why a person might hit another or be hit by someone else. Cutting in front of someone and then hitting the brakes suddenly is one cause for being rear-ended. Just stopping in traffic suddenly does not give the follower any right to hit the person stopping... brake lights or no brake lights. But, being hit by someone from any direction does not give the one being hit the right to extort money from the one doing the damage. That is why we have insurance and lawyers.

[caf]

It's been a good discussion with valid reasons for all actions. The ONLY thing wrong is the songtau driver trying to extort money from the man who hit him. That is what insurance is for. There can be many valid reasons why a person might hit another or be hit by someone else. Cutting in front of someone and then hitting the brakes suddenly is one cause for being rear-ended. Just stopping in traffic suddenly does not give the follower any right to hit the person stopping... brake lights or no brake lights. But, being hit by someone from any direction does not give the one being hit the right to extort money from the one doing the damage. That is why we have insurance and lawyers.

The is no evidence of extortion.

If you read back in the thread the faarng admitted his guilt. It would only be extortion if the red cab driver was asking for more than the cost of the damage to his truck. And we dont know that.

We do know that the op's wife had to break sharply to avoid an accident so she would hardly have been supportive of the sawngkaew driver

Some months back there was a post where a thai witness supported a farang against a thai where the farang was completly blameless. Now that is newsworthy and to be respected. This case the farang was bang to rights anyway and admitted it. No extortion

[richard_smith237]

It's been a good discussion with valid reasons for all actions. The ONLY thing wrong is the songtau driver trying to extort money from the man who hit him. That is what insurance is for. There can be many valid reasons why a person might hit another or be hit by someone else. Cutting in front of someone and then hitting the brakes suddenly is one cause for being rear-ended. Just stopping in traffic suddenly does not give the follower any right to hit the person stopping... brake lights or no brake lights. But, being hit by someone from any direction does not give the one being hit the right to extort money from the one doing the damage. That is why we have insurance and lawyers.

The is no evidence of extortion.

If you read back in the thread the faarng admitted his guilt. It would only be extortion if the red cab driver was asking for more than the cost of the damage to his truck. And we dont know that.

We do know that the op's wife had to break sharply to avoid an accident so she would hardly have been supportive of the sawngkaew driver

Some months back there was a post where a thai witness supported a farang against a thai where the farang was completly blameless. Now that is newsworthy and to be respected. This case the farang was bang to rights anyway and admitted it. No extortion

Quote from the Opening Post: "The songtaew driver proceeded to attempt the usual Thai extortion upon the farang"

There is the evidence, the foreigners wife observed what she felt was extortion and went to bat for the foriegn guy thus preventing the attempted extortion.

Lets face it we can defend the songthaew drivers actions all we like, but those of us who have been here long enough will understand this opportunistic reaction from 'some' Thai's when a foreigner is involved.

Edited December 7, 2010 by richard_smith237

[caf]

~

I am always respectful of people who have the courage to voluntarily stand up for someone when they think they have been wronged.

You GO, girl!

That being said, I have to go with H2oDunc on this one. As the operator of a vehicle in motion, YOU are ultimately responsible for allowing sufficient braking space for ANY eventuality. The rare exceptions are circumstances where a person or vehicle suddenly appears from a blind spot and instantly invades the braking space of your vehicle. This was not the case, at least from the description, and was an avoidable accident.

I am not a big fan of songtheaus either when I am in a hurry but simply bashing into one because it stopped suddenly is no excuse. Vehicles DO stop suddenly - for a huge variety of reasons - and anyone who has driven for any amount of time knows this. I am sure that we all have had to hit the brakes hard when a motorbike suddenly cuts straight across 3 lanes RIGHT in front of you and similar circumstances. I would certainly NOT accept that as an excuse for some tailgater (someone following closer than their vehicle braking distance allows) slamming into my rear.

In the States, consideration is given for lack of registration and the "victim" is also cited for causing an accident because his/her vehicle should not have been on a public roadway in the first place.

Having flown commercial helicopter for many decades, I know that there is

no excuse what-so-ever for running into something that you KNEW was there!

As an old biker, I know that the rule is, "Expect the unexpected or die."

A songtheau suddenly stopping, brake lights or no, is NOT unexpected behavior by any stretch of the imagination..

Awareness beats excuses any day of the week...

Dustoff

The most sensible resume of this incident in my view, Dustoff

I know Thais can often try to stitch up a farang and I applaud the Thai in this case stepping in. But the facts sre as you say. Sometimes these threads get emotive and people take firm views from which no amount of factual debate will budge them. Your post is therefore very refreshing

More information just to hand. As per normal (and this is one of the many reasons I love my wife, as frustrating as it can be sometimes) wifey has given me some important information re the accident. This information in my view does not change the nature or premise behind my original post - that I am proud of my wife for assisting a person in need.

The songtaew driver had been drinking and is subsequently in a bit of trouble with police. The accident took place at night time around 7.30pm.

This information may change one's opinion but the essence of the post remains the same.

Foot note: when I catch a songtaew I always tip. If I know they are chargIng me "local price" I tip very well because I appreciate the fact that they see me as an equal - like any other passenger.

Why new information just "coming to hand". The story is being adjusted to answer some of the comments made by the majority of posters. Just look at the entire thread.

As I and others have said we applaud thais standing up for farang when they are right. But the evidence and changing story line don't add up in THIS case. Understandably, having braked strongly, your wife would be anti the sawngtaew driver.

You made a good point but picked a bad example ansd you don't know want to lose face despite the posts criticising the farang.

[lingnoi1977]

~

I am always respectful of people who have the courage to voluntarily stand up for someone when they think they have been wronged.

You GO, girl!

That being said, I have to go with H2oDunc on this one. As the operator of a vehicle in motion, YOU are ultimately responsible for allowing sufficient braking space for ANY eventuality. The rare exceptions are circumstances where a person or vehicle suddenly appears from a blind spot and instantly invades the braking space of your vehicle. This was not the case, at least from the description, and was an avoidable accident.

I am not a big fan of songtheaus either when I am in a hurry but simply bashing into one because it stopped suddenly is no excuse. Vehicles DO stop suddenly - for a huge variety of reasons - and anyone who has driven for any amount of time knows this. I am sure that we all have had to hit the brakes hard when a motorbike suddenly cuts straight across 3 lanes RIGHT in front of you and similar circumstances. I would certainly NOT accept that as an excuse for some tailgater (someone following closer than their vehicle braking distance allows) slamming into my rear.

In the States, consideration is given for lack of registration and the "victim" is also cited for causing an accident because his/her vehicle should not have been on a public roadway in the first place.

Having flown commercial helicopter for many decades, I know that there is

no excuse what-so-ever for running into something that you KNEW was there!

As an old biker, I know that the rule is, "Expect the unexpected or die."

A songtheau suddenly stopping, brake lights or no, is NOT unexpected behavior by any stretch of the imagination..

Awareness beats excuses any day of the week...

Dustoff

The most sensible resume of this incident in my view, Dustoff

I know Thais can often try to stitch up a farang and I applaud the Thai in this case stepping in. But the facts sre as you say. Sometimes these threads get emotive and people take firm views from which no amount of factual debate will budge them. Your post is therefore very refreshing

More information just to hand. As per normal (and this is one of the many reasons I love my wife, as frustrating as it can be sometimes) wifey has given me some important information re the accident. This information in my view does not change the nature or premise behind my original post - that I am proud of my wife for assisting a person in need.

The songtaew driver had been drinking and is subsequently in a bit of trouble with police. The accident took place at night time around 7.30pm.

This information may change one's opinion but the essence of the post remains the same.

Foot note: when I catch a songtaew I always tip. If I know they are chargIng me "local price" I tip very well because I appreciate the fact that they see me as an equal - like any other passenger.

Why new information just "coming to hand". The story is being adjusted to answer some of the comments made by the majority of posters. Just look at the entire thread.

As I and others have said we applaud thais standing up for farang when they are right. But the evidence and changing story line don't add up in THIS case. Understandably, having braked strongly, your wife would be anti the sawngtaew driver.

You made a good point but picked a bad example ansd you don't know want to lose face despite the posts criticising the farang.

Wow - what a wonderful imagination Caf.

Wasn't going to reply your dribble but you do need correcting.

My wife gave me this extra info after I made the post. Like most Thais, detailed information in one hit is not a forte.

I thought the brake lights issue would be common sense for most readers but I thought it important to add that it was indeed night time.

There is no fabrication of events as far as I know but your detective ears and eyes tell you otherwise. Your problem, not mine.

"Losing face" on an annonymous forum...now there is an interesting one. Start a thread on it and see how you go.

[richard_smith237]

The Songthaew driver broke the law by a: Driving with no brake lights. B: Driving under the influence. C: Driving dangerously (erratically).

IF I were to drive down a road in the UK and slam my brakes on without due cause I could be charged with dangerous driving.

That said the western guy is also at fault for driving into the back of the songthaew, but the fault certainly appears not to be solely his as some are suggesting.

The point of this Op however still remains: The guy is proud of his wife for preventing a potential case of dishonesty and extortion by the Songthaew driver.

[Berkshire]

The other thing of course is that songthaew drivers have a hard time of it these days. They have to drive all hours every day to earn enough for their family. Just only six years ago or so, petrol was three times cheaper. They knew what a reasonable life was back then. Now they and their families are often in debt because they can't earn enough to pay their family's way. And those money lenders certainly charge their buck of interest.

Meanwhile when somebody bashes into the back of their car, the very thing that they earn their living from, they are not meant to feel in some way aggrieved? And when they end up paying for the damage due to the intervention of somebody on a crusade, they may well have to borrow more money at exhorbitant interest rates. Bloody racist i tell you.

Oh, the brake lights? Yeah, maybe the driver knew, but perhaps he had some kind of school money to pay for for his kids. Not to mention getting the food in for dinner. I'll get them fixed when i have a good day's income...

Some farang who come here and live here find it absolutely impossible to see things as they are in this country.

A very sensible perspective, FF. Which is probably why you were largely ignored by the readership.

[Daewoo]

OP, good for you and your wife for standing up for the farang... even if it was just to support him until the police/insurance came and made a proper decision... I am a bit that an uneducated Songthaew driver might have been bullied by the Insurance Company, but I expect/hope the decision was made following a proper process...

I am with most of the other posters here, as far as I am concerned, there is no excuse for hitting another car from behind, unless that car has cut into your braking space... (cut you off and braked at the same time)... In Australia, even then, the driver that hit the car from behind is at fault... happens to trucks all the time, the cops/courts saying the truck should have left even more space/driven even slower, expecting that a car would jump into the gap...

In Australia, in multi-vehicle nose to tail accidents, they ask the driver in front whether they felt one hit or two, to determine if the last car pushed the middle car into the one in front... to determine who is at fault...

A mate in Australia "Brake Checked" a car that was tailgaiting him... and the car hit him... turned out to be an unmarked police car (they do this to encourage you to drive faster, then give you a speeding ticket)... the cop arrested my mate for dangerous driving... it took two years in court, but basically, the judge upheld that, even though my mate admittedly "Brake Checked" the cop, there is no excuse for running into him, and all costs were paid by the police (and the cop was demoted)...

What if the Songthaew braked suddenly because a kid ran onto the road??? Is it still OK to run into him???

Cheers,

Daewoo

Edited December 10, 2010 by Daewoo

[Berkshire]

"There's no law against "stopping suddenly for no reason"

What, where did you learn to drive? There certainly is a law specifically about this. There has been a big scam for years where some one will slam on the brakes in front of someone and then try too shake them or their insurance down. In the west street cameras have put a stop to much of this one.

Not that it's likely to help here in LOS without a good Samaritan like your wife, wtg.

cr

Bizarre logic. The reason that this scam worked was because the laws in the US are generally that the person who rear ends another car is at fault. There aren't near enough street cameras in the US to catch this sort of thing (not sure where you came up with that). The only reason that the frequency of this scam has declined is that the insurance companies have become wise to it.

[Berkshire]

What if the Songthaew braked suddenly because a kid ran onto the road??? Is it still OK to run into him???

Cheers,

Daewoo

Good point. Which is why the person who rear ends another car is almost always at fault.

[Berkshire]

On a sad but all but ture not to the post it just goes to show how bad racism really is here in Thailand.

I am far too much a coward to start a thread on this, but if I were a brave man, the title would be something like:

Thai People's Tolerance: It's a Wonder That They Don't Beat and/or Kill Several of Us Each and Every Day...

You see, I am originally from Appalachia (Isaan America). If farang equivalents (foreigners with much greater incomes/wealth) were to move into Appalachia, many of the Appalachian people would resent their farang presence greatly. Farangs would often be beaten and or killed. The Appalachians would consider it well within their rights to strip the farangs of their wealth using any means necessary. They would not, however, do this to their fellow Appalachians.

This is a thread about a traffic accident, and I won't hijack it. But I am truly surprised that you apparently have no idea why many Thai people might resent the farang presence. Not every place and not every people are as cosmopolitan as you. In truth, the Thai people are remarkably tolerant of the significant farang presence. Far more tolerant, I guarantee you, than the people of Appalachia would be in similar circumstances.

Hey kpm, you should start a thread about that very topic. Foreigners in Thailand don't realize how good we have it. As for dansat, he's pretty much a lost cause.

[crgram]

"There's no law against "stopping suddenly for no reason"

What, where did you learn to drive? There certainly is a law specifically about this. There has been a big scam for years where some one will slam on the brakes in front of someone and then try too shake them or their insurance down. In the west street cameras have put a stop to much of this one.

Not that it's likely to help here in LOS without a good Samaritan like your wife, wtg.

cr

Bizarre logic. The reason that this scam worked was because the laws in the US are generally that the person who rear ends another car is at fault. There aren't near enough street cameras in the US to catch this sort of thing (not sure where you came up with that). The only reason that the frequency of this scam has declined is that the insurance companies have become wise to it.

And the US is the only place west?

[Wallaby]

OP, good for you and your wife for standing up for the farang... even if it was just to support him until the police/insurance came and made a proper decision... I am a bit that an uneducated Songthaew driver might have been bullied by the Insurance Company, but I expect/hope the decision was made following a proper process...

I am with most of the other posters here, as far as I am concerned, there is no excuse for hitting another car from behind, unless that car has cut into your braking space... (cut you off and braked at the same time)... In Australia, even then, the driver that hit the car from behind is at fault... happens to trucks all the time, the cops/courts saying the truck should have left even more space/driven even slower, expecting that a car would jump into the gap...

In Australia, in multi-vehicle nose to tail accidents, they ask the driver in front whether they felt one hit or two, to determine if the last car pushed the middle car into the one in front... to determine who is at fault...

A mate in Australia "Brake Checked" a car that was tailgaiting him... and the car hit him... turned out to be an unmarked police car (they do this to encourage you to drive faster, then give you a speeding ticket)... the cop arrested my mate for dangerous driving... it took two years in court, but basically, the judge upheld that, even though my mate admittedly "Brake Checked" the cop, there is no excuse for running into him, and all costs were paid by the police (and the cop was demoted)...

What if the Songthaew braked suddenly because a kid ran onto the road??? Is it still OK to run into him???

Cheers,

Daewoo

If I had a mate that brake checked he would no longer be a mate. A very very dangerous thing to do and whilst I'm not one to go driving too fast it really annoys me to see people in the fast lane holding up traffic when there is no reason to be there. On the drive from Brisbane to the Gold Coast, about 1 hour, we have 4 lanes, I find the fastest lane to be the 2nd from the left because for some reason idiots sit in the fast lane without overtaking.

As for the driver braking suddenly because a kid ran onto the road, well in this case there wasn't and I don't read any acceptable reason why the guy braked suddenly.

You are correct about courts blaming the guy behind, but in civil cases where injuries occur you will find that, in this case, the driver in front would have been held contributory negligent for the most part and would only receive a small percentage of what he would normally have received.

So while a civil court will only allow a very reduced percentage, technically the driver behind will be at fault and have to pay, reduced substantially, but still have to pay.

[Berkshire]

"There's no law against "stopping suddenly for no reason"

What, where did you learn to drive? There certainly is a law specifically about this. There has been a big scam for years where some one will slam on the brakes in front of someone and then try too shake them or their insurance down. In the west street cameras have put a stop to much of this one.

Not that it's likely to help here in LOS without a good Samaritan like your wife, wtg.

cr

Bizarre logic. The reason that this scam worked was because the laws in the US are generally that the person who rear ends another car is at fault. There aren't near enough street cameras in the US to catch this sort of thing (not sure where you came up with that). The only reason that the frequency of this scam has declined is that the insurance companies have become wise to it.

And the US is the only place west?

Ok,, you got me. I thought you were referring to the scam that was occurring in the US years ago. Perhaps they have cameras everywhere in Europe and elsewhere, including the highways. Not so in the US.