I read with concern Jon Dye's article "Clearing the road crash Mist" (C-Zone, 12 May).
The premise of the article is that the public ought not to claim for personal injuries that arise from a motor accident.
Furthermore, that whiplash claims are prolific and easily 'manufactured', and therefore to be treated with the utmost suspicion.
I do not find such general statements helpful. In a climate where the 'compensation culture' is bandied about by the media as a sure sign that society is riddled with spurious claims, Jon's comments inflame the situation and fail to address the rights of the individual.
Everyone seems to be the subject of Jon's ire: the claimant, the medical profession and claims management firms.
We on the claimant side are well used to the entrenched view that the insurance industry has of claims. The solution appears to be to resist them wherever possible using the Mist DIY kit.
Claimants are just ordinary people who do not fit into pigeon-holes as conveniently as is suggested.
We all know those who are tardy when it comes to buying a round at the bar or go to their sick-bed at the slightest sniffle.
These are the same people who are legally obliged to buy motor insurance from the insurance industry. They are not fraudulent.
My firm deals with several thousand claims every year and we have no evidence whatsoever that there is anything more than a sprinkling of claimants given to over-egging the pudding, let alone being downright fraudulent.
Using indicators such as minimal damage to the vehicle as to whether injury was sustained is plainly wrong.
Thatcham confirms that the increasing emphasis on constructing vehicles that efficiently manage energy from trauma (by reducing bent metal damage and repair costs) leads to a corresponding increase in energy levels to occupants.
Minimal damage does not per se prove or disprove injury.
My daughter Amy sustained a whiplash injury at the age of eight from a slow, glancing blow to the vehicle in which she travelled.
I watched the incident take place and the damage to my car was absolutely minimal.
Amy had no knowledge of the 'have a go' philosophy, nor of what a whiplash injury was. She just felt very unwell for some weeks and suffered all the classic symptoms that the insurers want to refuse to compensate.
Who's kidding who as to the existence of the whiplash-type injury?
Gorman Hamilton Solicitors
Chairman - Motor Accident