In reply to EZ:
> (In reply to the weegy)
is that the police will look for a conviction if there is no concrete evidence on either side and try to coerce you into acknowledging blame and so essentially convict yourself.
Agree. Exactly what occurred with me. I was going round a country bend with no hedges or intrusions into the sight line, just low grass, so whilst I could not actually see quite down to the road surface, I could clearly see the bend, how tight it was, whether there was any obstructing car, etc.
So I thought that 30mph was a reasonable speed based on experience, etc.
Police officer was having a right go at me, asking the same question again and again "so, if you were going at 1mph would the accident have occurred?". I eventually answered that "no it probably wouldnt, but I can't go around every bend at 1mph, you have to make a judgement based on experience".
At which point, of course, he had his "admission" and duly charged me with "due care and attention".
I'd obviously point out that if I'd been my normal self I would hopefully not have got caught this way, but driving head-first into a van rather unsettles one.
My advice to anyone approached for a statement by the police after an accident is to say nothing and say you'll give a statement later. You're not in the best state to think clearly and avoid someone pinning blame on you.