Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
I guess I have a different take on admitting guilt.
I would say that if it is quite obvious you are guilty, there is no harm in admitting your mistake and proceeding from there. I can think of two seperate accidents as examples. First one I was at fault, I rear ended a guy. First thing I did was appologize sincerely. The guy looked at the damage, saw that I was sorry, and told me not to worry about it. I gave him my name and number just in case he changed his mind, but then never heard from him again.
The other accident I was rear ended, and the guy also was appologetic. We exchanged info, he even asked a few times if I was sure I was OK and didn't need to go to the hospital. At the end of it the damage was minor and I didn't suffer any permanant injury so I called the guy up and told him not to worry about the accident.
In my mind the only reason to not admit guilt when you were clearly at fault is to try and get out of responsibility. Sure, if it's a close call then maybe don't offer anything incriminating. But most of the accidents I've been involved in they have been clearly one person's fault.
|
I agree with what you're saying and am glad things worked out so well with that approach. However, that's only something that works when everyone involved are civil and well-meaning people. I would argue that at least 50% of the people you could potentially be in an accident with will not be that way. Always cover your ass and let the police/insurance company handle the liability without giving away any sense of guilt or responsibility.
I was in a six car pile up 7 years ago. There was a stalled car in a hidden location in a turning lane off of Crowchild. The first car saw this stalled car way too late and had to hammer on the breaks and make a quick stop. The person behind had even less time, and I barely braked in time to not hit the car in front of me (Left about a foot inbetween cars). The car behind me wasn't so lucky and smashed into me so hard that her car popped my breaks drove me into the car in front of me. The force between her ploughing into me and cars behind her crashing into her wedged her car underneath my mini-van. She got out of her car and cried to me that "she was so sorry." She was very distraught.
The kicker here though is how the insurance companies were to issue fault. We had soft-tissue damages and damaged vehicles and the amount of fault per person would have had a significant effect on future premiums and possible traffic infractions. The girl behind me after the fact contended that she was hit and driven into me by the drivers behind her before hitting me. Since she admitted she was "So sorry" and other drivers had heard her she was attributed 100% fault for my car and the two cars in front of me as opposed to pushing fault to the driver behind her. I for the life of me couldn't tell whether or not she was hit before hitting me or not, but her admission of guilt was the only shread of evidence needed to refute her claim to have been fully stopped before hitting my car. If this is actually how it went down, her empathy and saying she was sorry increased her premiums needlessly.