Car crash witness changed her mind about seeing it.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Well stationary and no obstructions, I'd say you've nothing to worry about.

Sgt_Pepper_2

brat wrote: »

Cars don't bounce back unless it's a very minor head on bumper knock. They might roll back post impact, but the momentum that takes them into the collision will follow through, unless the other vehicle's momentum forces them back.

If it went backwards post impact, that would suggest the momentum of your vehicle was greater than theirs, and I understood that yours was stationary (perhaps I'm wrong).
Post up a picture or two if you can.

Or the mass greater. Which it was.

brat

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Or the mass greater. Which it was.

Mass is only relevant if it has speed. If stationary it has zero momentum.

I'm struggling with the idea that the Peugeot hit the side and wing of the car, then bounced back.

Kmf_3

Our car was doing exactly zero (0) mph, other car doing approx 40 mph Our car a big 5 door 08 vectra with two 15 stone adults in plus a boot full of the childrens Xmas presents, other car 2000 106 with a small teenage girl driving... That's the difference in weight... ( if I can figure out how to post a pic I will) it didn't bounce, like leap, backwards it just wasn't touching our car when my DH got out and took the pic, it's a very small gap but it is there never the less. I can not think of a better word than bounced... Maybe moved away from our car by about5 inches will describe the distance better? Our car moved,her car moved. If a 106 hit a wall, the wall would become damaged and the car would move in backwards direction to the way it came.
Is that easier to understand now brat?

brat

What speed was the car doing when it hit yours?

Kmf_3

He's not completely sure, said it was too fast prob about 40 mph before she slammed her brakes on and was sliding towards ours car and hit it. Maybe she pushed the front of our car forward, impact and came to a stop and ours kept moving slightly? He's not sure as he was in shock with the initial impact.

jaydeeuk1

A bundle of £20 notes might help them change their mind

Sgt_Pepper_2

Kmf wrote: »

He's not completely sure, said it was too fast prob about 40 mph before she slammed her brakes on and was sliding towards ours car and hit it. Maybe she pushed the front of our car forward, impact and came to a stop and ours kept moving slightly? He's not sure as he was in shock with the initial impact.

Don't bother with brats attempts to do a forum recon. He should know its all speculation and of no use to you.

Car A hits stationary car B. Car B is to blame. As I said keep it simple.

brat

Kmf, The point I'm trying to make (which Pepper will have missed in his rush to diss me) is, if you say to your insurance company that you collided, and as a result of the collision the other car bounced backwards, they will not believe that your car was stationary, indeed they may very well believe that your car was travelling faster than the other.

So yes keep it simple, as Sgt Pepper suggests, but ensure that you are not shooting yourself in the foot by describing a version of events that make it look like you are partly or mostly to blame.

copystuff

Maybe witness was paid off.