Car accident - my fault - but witness disagrees.

[krylekathe1]

I had an accident this morning.

I was swinging into a car park, misjudged and hit the rear right hand corner ute tray with the left front of my car.

Totally my fault, as far as I am concerned.

Talked to the ute driver, who was lovely, exchanged details. No issues. He bent out the but of his ute tray I hit & said no worries, no damage to his car (like I said, he was really nice).

As I was walking back to my (pretty damaged) car, a man approached me & told me to photograph the ute as it wasn't parked within the parking lines, so therefore not my fault.

I had already taken photos.

But I'm pretty sure that's not true. I haven't rung the insurance company yet, as I'm pretty upset.

Does it make a difference as to if the other driver is illegally parked? Technically, I hit a stationary vehicle. Isn't it still my fault?

Anyone have any ideas?

[kopenhagen5]

The point Bob was to merely curb a potential argument that probably didn't exist anyway due to it being a potential misunderstanding.

Safer to suggest it and if it's not, then it can be ignored with no harm done. Certainly no condenscension from here.

I am a peacemaker, always have been always will be. Sorry can't change. 

[krylekathe1]

I was simply asking, as a witness said something to me that I didn't think was true. I wondered if, as the witness stated, it made a difference, but as I stated, I didn't think it did.

If people decide to "read between the lines", or in this case, make stuff up to suit their strange agenda, they have to be prepared for other people to call them out on their trolling.

I mean come on, get a hobby.

Sometimes a question is just a question.

No hidden meanings, no agendas.

[cherry*135]

No need to read between the lines it is there in black and white. I only posted because I can see where super and bob are coming from.. they were commenting on content in your posts. No agendas, no conspriacy. Certainly not trolling. If you have read a lot of supernova's posts you would never come to that conclusion. Bob likes to be controversial but I agree with his posts in this thread.

Would you have started a thread about your prang, if a witness hadn't planted the seed in your mind about you may not be responsible for the damage as the other party was not parked correctly?

Why did you mention the incorrect parking to the insurance company? In the hope you wouldn't be responsible for damage?

[*pepe]

---

@krylekathe wrote:
I was simply asking, as a witness said something to me that I didn't think was true. I wondered if, as the witness stated, it made a difference, but as I stated, I didn't think it did.

If people decide to "read between the lines", or in this case, make stuff up to suit their strange agenda, they have to be prepared for other people to call them out on their trolling.

I mean come on, get a hobby.

Sometimes a question is just a question.

No hidden meanings, no agendas.

---

you don 't need to defend yoursef, its quite plain you were taking responsibility for the incident.
the way i read it you weren't looking for a way to blame the other person, just looking for clarification that you were right and what the witness said is incorrect.

[youcandoityoucandoityoucandoit]

I thought you were also only asking what did other people think..?

Maybe the clue was in the OP- 'car accident - my fault - but witness disagrees.'

sheesh!

Note to self: dont ask others opinions- they may think you are being tricky..

PS what I learnt from X-Files: sometimes a conspiracy is just a misunderstanding..

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@kopenhagen5 wrote:

The point Bob was to merely curb a potential argument that probably didn't exist anyway due to it being a potential misunderstanding.

Safer to suggest it and if it's not, then it can be ignored with no harm done. Certainly no condenscension from here.

I am a peacemaker, always have been always will be. Sorry can't change. 

---

So you were being disingenuous. You actually agreed with Nova yet you made excuses to the contrary blaming it on her lack of language comprehension. How noble of you. 

[serendipityricho]

Krylekathe-bet you are having second thoughts about starting the thread.............Richo.

[azureline**]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@kopenhagen5 wrote:

The point Bob was to merely curb a potential argument that probably didn't exist anyway due to it being a potential misunderstanding.

Safer to suggest it and if it's not, then it can be ignored with no harm done. Certainly no condenscension from here.

I am a peacemaker, always have been always will be. Sorry can't change. 

---

So you were being disingenuous. You actually agreed with Nova yet you made excuses to the contrary blaming it on her lack of language comprehension. How noble of you. 

---

I think it's because he is a gentleman..........................

[youcandoityoucandoityoucandoit]

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@kopenhagen5 wrote:

The point Bob was to merely curb a potential argument that probably didn't exist anyway due to it being a potential misunderstanding.

Safer to suggest it and if it's not, then it can be ignored with no harm done. Certainly no condenscension from here.

I am a peacemaker, always have been always will be. Sorry can't change. 

---

So you were being disingenuous. You actually agreed with Nova yet you made excuses to the contrary blaming it on her lack of language comprehension. How noble of you. 

---

I think it's because he is a gentleman..........................

---

and helpful.................

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@kopenhagen5 wrote:

The point Bob was to merely curb a potential argument that probably didn't exist anyway due to it being a potential misunderstanding.

Safer to suggest it and if it's not, then it can be ignored with no harm done. Certainly no condenscension from here.

I am a peacemaker, always have been always will be. Sorry can't change. 

---

So you were being disingenuous. You actually agreed with Nova yet you made excuses to the contrary blaming it on her lack of language comprehension. How noble of you. 

---

I think it's because he is a gentleman..........................

---

All this time I thought Kopen was a girl.