Toyota: Gawd, I love my Echo...

"Philip®" <net> wrote in message
news:yMg3b.6939$news.pas.earthlink.net... 

I fully acknowledged that it was my fault, and told the other lady to give me
a call if she wants to make a claim. I could see just fine, but she was
going too fast, and approached me much sooner than she should have. So
actually we were BOTH wrong, but I was more wrong since I was making a left
turn.

Natalie


---
Outgoing mail is scanned by both Norton Anti-Virus and AVG
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

"Wickeddoll®" <com> doodled aimlessly
in news:biljba$a6emq$news.uni-berlin.de:
 


I was involved in a collision in 1987. It totalled my 1981 Corolla
Liftback, not three weeks after I bought it. A (very pretty) young girl in
a 1981 Chev Malibu turned left in front of me and I T-boned her on the
passenger side. The speed limit was 35mph and I was going around 50 (which
was stupid in retrospect).

She was found to be at fault. She told the cop I must have been going awful
fast, because she looked and didn't see me (bright yellow car). The cop
told her it didn't matter if I was going 100mph, the responsibility was
still on her to make the turn safely since she was crossing traffic; my
speed was a separate matter.

Had I approached the intersection more slowly, both she and I would have
had more time to react and correct for mistakes. I learned my lesson that
time, even if the law did not bother to impress that upon me.

--
TeGGeR®

Wickeddoll® wrote: 


Natalie, go buy her a can of brake cleaner and call it even. Tell her to
spray it on a rag, and wipe your black smudge off her bumper!

"Philip®" <net> wrote in message
news:kgw3b.7480$news.pas.earthlink.net... 

I am not getting into a tangle with you Philip, no matter how much you enjoy
it.

She was speeding, I didn't ask her if she was, I could tell. I took the
blame and left it at that.

I'm able to move on - why can't you?

Natalie


---
Outgoing mail is scanned by both Norton Anti-Virus and AVG
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

"Tegger®" <invalid> wrote in message
news:11.168.195... 

Think Philip will accept this?

I doubt it

Natalie


---
Outgoing mail is scanned by both Norton Anti-Virus and AVG
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

"MDT Tech®" <com> wrote in message
news:NSx3b.7628$news.pas.earthlink.net... 
way... 

LOL nah. If she wants a new bumper, she can have it

Natalie


---
Outgoing mail is scanned by both Norton Anti-Virus and AVG
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

Wickeddoll® wrote: 

Oh... so she did not make an admission of excessive speed. Ok. Just
take ownership of the fact that you misjudged the speed of oncoming
traffic. Staying in denial about your observation skills increases
the chances of this happening again, Natalie.
--

~~Philip

"Never let school interfere
with your education - Mark Twain"

Wickeddoll® wrote: 

The officer is quite accurate. You are expected to make sure the
lanes you are turning across are going to be UNOCCUPIED long enough
for you to execute your turn. Natalie failed to do this. But those
in denial seem to think that because oncoming traffic is approaching
at excessive speed, that they are now blameless if not actually a
victim in the collision. Ain't so. It is "magical thinking" to
believe that had the oncoming car been going slower that a collision
would not have occured.

--

~~Philip

"Never let school interfere
with your education - Mark Twain"



their responsibility for accurately gauging the speed of oncoming
traffic. Bzzzzzt... wrong thought process.