Car crash witness changed her mind about seeing it.

fivetide

brat wrote: »

Clearly (as you doubtless realise) the adage doesn't apply to every circumstance, but at least you recognise that blame can be apportioned to a stationary driver on their own side of the road -which was the only point I was making.

I never said any such thing. I said if one car can stop then the driver of the one that doesn't has questiosn to answer.

As the OP has been properly advised, keep it simple "my car was stationary. the other vehicle hit me"

That is precisely why I left that space there, to see if anyone would say that the car should move in.

So trolling then? Glad you put so much effort into it.

The action of slowing down to move in to that tiny gap would simply inconvenience both drivers. No, once your committed to passing the parked cars, then get past them, don't mess about by trying to tuck into a tight parking space in the belief that you're being helpful.

What I saisd is car 1 has no reason to keep lettign the car through when there is space for them to stop. As I said, courtesy, as you said convenience but still no legal requirement for the car you labeled as 1 to stop and wait.

Yet the 40mph speed and the car bouncing back are details that cast some doubt on the version we are being given.
I'd rather knock holes in a case so that the person can revisit, rethink and re-examine the truth of the event, than have someone try to use fawning support gained from a forum to bolster a case, perhaps to the detriment of the other party who might have done nothing wrong.

Feel free to advise if you must but think about the way in which you do it and whether your earlier, brief posts were actually of any use to the OP.

I'm sure you'll have a lot more to comment as of now but I'm not going to get drwn into an argument with someone who has admitted posting something just to get a reaction.

brat

fivetide wrote: »

brat wrote: »

but at least you recognise that blame can be apportioned to a stationary driver on their own side of the road -which was the only point I was making.

I never said any such thing. I said if one car can stop then the driver of the one that doesn't has questiosn to answer.

Oh, you did say it, you just chose not to write it down .

You questioned my statement that your point need not be true, implying that your point must be true.
That therefore means that you believe that if a vehicle was stationary on her own side of the road and another vehicle on the wrong side of the road hits it, the stationary vehicle cannot ever be at fault.
Do you stick by that assertion?

As the OP has been properly advised, keep it simple "my car was stationary. the other vehicle hit me"

The OP has been advised in a way that would strengthen her belief that her husband was completely in the clear. That may well be the case, but much of what she has said doesn't stand scrutiny, and a witness has backed off. We have no idea what the other party's version of events is, so perhaps 'simple' is simply wrong.

brat wrote:

]That is precisely why I left that space there, to see if anyone would say that the car should move in. The action of slowing down to move in to that tiny gap would simply inconvenience both drivers. No, once your committed to passing the parked cars, then get past them, don't mess about by trying to tuck into a tight parking space in the belief that you're being helpful.

So trolling then? Glad you put so much effort into it.

I was planning to develop that idea to show that perhaps the OP's husband has thought the same as you, that the other driver should have tucked himself into the gap - perhaps he has made the assumption that she would. It could explain a few things. But if it fits your contorted definition of trolling, ignore it.

What I saisd is car 1 has no reason to keep lettign the car through when there is space for them to stop. As I said, courtesy, as you said convenience but still no legal requirement for the car you labeled as 1 to stop and wait.

If a car is coming straight for you in the only available lane available to it, then you wait until that lane is clear. you certainly don't put your car in its path to force it out of the way.

Feel free to advise if you must but think about the way in which you do it and whether your earlier, brief posts were actually of any use to the OP.

I listen to many people explain how accidents happen, literally on a daily basis, and many people don't help themselves by embellishing a story, even when they are mostly innocent. Embellishment is often used to cover up for a mistake made that they don't want to admit to.

I'm sure you'll have a lot more to comment as of now but I'm not going to get drwn into an argument with someone who has admitted posting something just to get a reaction.

So your posting of numerous question marks as a response to my statement wasn't designed to be provocative?