Reply to Auto Collision = No Photos????

Forum Index » Cars and Transportation

Reply to "Auto Collision = No Photos????"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don’t even understand the question. For decades we all got along without any photos at all. The car damage tells the story. [/quote]

I have to disagree with this.
People have always taken photos and used them as solid evidence after a car crash.
It’s just that they had to use Poloroids or wait for the film to develop.
But pictures have always been used to prove guilt or innocence.

In this day and age, a person who files an accident claim with their auto insurance would need a good explanation why they did not have any photos of the aftermath.
Most people carry smartphones on them which have cameras.

I am sorry but without any photographic evidence there is a huge chance your cousin’s case will be incomplete and she will lose.[/quote]

What are you talking about? Cameras/Polaroids were never standard items people drove around with in their car in case they might get into a crash. Silly. [/quote]

I disagree.
After getting into a car accident, most motorists needed to take photos of the physical damage done to their vehicle at the accident scene.
So for cases of emergencies - they would carry disposable cameras in their glove compartments.
Because in filing an accident claim with their auto insurance, how else could they document evidence that an accident even occurred??

Especially without a police report or any witness accounts.[/quote]
I’ve been driving for 30 years and no this is not something that “most motorists” did. At all. How long would a disposable camera last in a glove compartment in the DC heat?  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics