Unpleasant altercation - who was the most unreasonable?

[zerofeeling]

Took my dogs out today and was trying to park in a small space between two cars on a country lane. As I was inching back to fit into the space I heard a loud crunch 😖

The two men from the car behind had just set off on their walk, as I got out of my car one of them was heading back towards me shouting why did I try to park in such a small space. I said sorry and inspected the front of his car - couldn't see any damage at all, and apart from a tiny paint scuff nothing on my car. I said to him 'i can't see any damage, it doesn't look like I hit you'
Man just glanced over at his car then asked me for my details, I asked is that necessary and said again there's no damage. He said that's not the point you have to give your details if you've been in a collision. He was much taller than me and sort of fronting up to me repeating that he wanted my details and me refusing, saying I don't think it was a collision, I think I might have hit something underneath my car. (For info my Mum and a friend have both been scammed on their insurance by people who claimed all kinds of things after very minor prangs)

Then he took an ID wallet out of his pocket and flipped it open to show a photo and badge and said he's Police. I couldn't tell if it was genuine or not. He held his phone up and said he's filming me refusing to comply with the law.
By this time the other man had come back and also filming me and I started to worry - I'm in a secluded area, with two men who are much bigger than me. I told them I felt intimidated and are they trying to scam me?

I got in my car and tried to shut the door but 1st man held onto it to prevent me. I asked if he's trying to detain me and he said no but I will if you don't give me your details, I've identified myself to you as a police officer. I said you've got no right to detain me. Eventually he let go of the door and I had to turn the car round as the lane is a dead end. Once I turned round he said again that I'm breaking the law by refusing to give my details after a collision and he started to recite the Caution they give when you're arrested! I drove away very shaken up, no idea what consequences to expect.

But if you were paying attention you'd know there was no sign that I'd actually hit his car and I contacted Police and my insurance company within 24 hours, so I complied with the Law.

I believe that’s the first time you’ve actually said you have to,d your insurance even though you were asked a few times yesterday, you never answered. You said you rang to report it to the police but that the call handler said you didn’t need to so even that was unclear whether it had been reported or not though obviously if they didn’t take details and you’d tried that wouldn’t have been your fault.

But very bad and incorrect advice from the call handler, I hope you’re going to complain about them too because their advice could get someone into trouble if it isn’t recorded.

there was a sign you’d hit his car, the loud crunch you described is a major sign, then the scuff on your bumper. 🤷‍♀️.

This whole thread is bonkers.

OP you have some people that agree that police raising their voices, filming and putting their hand on your car is beyond their professional capacity (god knows what they'd think if police physically restrained a female murder who was alone!). Then you have a majority of people who think you were more unreasonable.....there's your answer, I dont know what more you want by arguing the toss with people that dont buy the "im a woman on my own therefore im not accountable" bullshit your spouting.

Make a complaint, dont make a complaint but dont continue trying change people's minds and using Sarah Everard's story as a direct comparison. It's not the same.

No, it's not the first time I've said I reported it to our insurance company.

@zerofeeling For the 1000th time, the signs that you hit the car were that you by your own admission "tried park in small space, heard a loud crunch when reversing, got out of the car and immediately apologised to the other car owner, saw a scuff mark on the bumper". There were many signs.
Despite this, even if you couldn't see any visible signs, you are not a mechanic and not able to make that assessment. It is not for you to decide whether there was any damage. It would probably be a good time to read up on what you should do if you have the misfortune to have a collision again. You cannot simply do as you please. Although I feel that is lost on you.

Ms Demolition Derby (aka @zerofeeling) feels perfectly entitled to crunch as many cars as she chooses.

Dare anyone challenge her cheeky fuckery and she will report them for 'INTIMIDATION!!'.

Not true. If you hit his car, which even you thought you had, you are obliged to provide your information. You can't just refuse and drive off. You should have exchanged information, yes got his info too, taken pictures of both cars and verified there was no damage. If you felt threatened, call the cops.

Very intimidating and inappropriate behaviour for a minor event it doesn’t sound like real police , and in a secluded area being filmed is awful , I would report to the police asap I hope you are ok

Exactly, if you impact another car, and no one sees it. It didn’t happen.

Like if driver isn’t paying attention or just not looking, the impact didn’t happen.

Run over that toddler you didn’t see … it didn’t happen.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of a police state. Police officers acting within the law, holding people accountable for potential law breaking is not a police state. Police officers using their lawful authority to act outside the law would be the core element of a police state. There’s no indication the police officers acted unlawfully, the OP just didn’t like being held accountable for whatever the heck did or didn’t happen between the car she was driving and the parked car. No visible damage does not mean no damage - a bumper can be internally trashed and look fine, because bumpers are designed to absorb impact. She refused to hang around or exchange information so she has no idea what damage was or wasn’t done to the parked car.

No idea of there's any evidence is the same thing as no evidence. In order to get evidence, you need a valid reason to investigate and a sound, in and of itself, does not qualify. Even if damage was found, there's actually no way to prove it was caused by a collision with that particular car. Three people did not hear a collision. They heard a noise that could have been a collision. I don't know how the law works where you are but where I am an accident has to be witnessed. You can't just hear a sound and assume it was car A hitting car B and then demand somebody pony up personal info based only on that. If that was possible to use a mere sound to make a claim of wrongdoing then just imagine the scams people could pull and the mistakes which could be made.

For example, imagine if a a nasty neighbour thinks (or pretends to think) she heard a sound that was you hitting your husband and calls the police. I actually had a neighbour who did something like that. It didn't go anywhere because an ambiguous sound that could be somebody hitting somebody else isn't enough cause to investigate. The same applies to an ambiguous sound which could have been car A hitting car B.

I don't disagree that it wasn't for her to decide if there was damage or not.

The toddler is not a valid analogy in the least and what you're saying is not at all what I was saying. Because something wasn't witnessed doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means you can't prove who did it. You follow me? To use your own analogy, imagine if you could just accuse and arrest a random person who happened to be nearby of hitting a toddler when you hadn't seen who did it. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

It's interesting that you use the word clue because it refers to an investigation. There was no investigation and insufficient cause to investigate based on a sound alone. Didn't she say the men didn't even examine the car?
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Unfortunately, police officers don't always follow the law themselves.

If you felt intimidated or in danger remove yourself from the situation, and once in a safe place phone the police or go to the nearest police station and explain what’s going on and why you felt it necessary to leave the scene. Whether or not you hit the car, put your safety first. A quick photo of the other car’s plate would provide identification for the police to pass on details if required.

Pretending to be a police officer is one of the oldest tricks in the book. wtf with all this “you’re obliged to give information”. If you’re in danger, do it another way.

Well self-evidently it wasn't a large enough space otherwise there would have been no contact unless, of course, it was sheer incompetence when trying to park!

"If you’re in danger, do it another way."

She wasn't in danger though was she? Most people would get irate, at the very least, if someone hit their car then attempted to drive off. I bet anyone would feel "threatened" by the other driver if they behaved like this.

OP most likely only reported the accident to the police because she realised / was advised on here it was a criminal offence not to, and more likely to be reported if it involves serving police

As a pp said she didn't inspect under both cars and hasn't confirmed whether they have now been inspected by a garage so was in no position to know that there was "no damage".

There's a good chance any car you hit these days is leased or on PCP and unseen damage could get very expensive down the line.

There's a strong sense of I got called out for my shitty behaviour so will now lodge a complaint here.

We’ve already established that you didn’t actually comply with the law, whether that bites you on the ass is another question.

@MuckFusk not sure which country on which planet you're from but in the UK the obligation to stop and provide details if an accident occurs does not require a witness to say "yes I saw it happen" and it does not require visible damage to be fully confirmed on the spot. If the sound and circumstances reasonably suggest there was contact & possible damage, the duty applies. The scuff mark on the car even if minor makes it very likely that damage did occur. Which triggers the legal duty to stop and exchange details.
We don't know that there wasn't damage to the other car because OP didn't stick around to find out. I imagine if it was a tight spot that she tried to park in, it would be very difficult to inspect underneath the bumper until OP had moved her car. Nevertheless she drove off so she doesn't know.

Not seeing damage does not mean there wasn't any damage. OP is not entitled to ignore the sound of a potential collision, or the request from the other party for her details or the visible signs like a scuff. It would make for a weak legal defence. If she wanted to contest the idea of damage occurring, the appropriate thing to do would be to exchange details and later dispute liability or damage if that was to happen. Not just drive off.

You're not being unreasonable. Yes, you should have provided your details but didn't because you felt intimidated. My advice is to call 101 and explain the whole situation. No action will be taken against you when you say that you left the scene because you felt threatened. I very much doubt he was a police officer and if he was, he would likely be reprimanded for making you feel so intimidated under those particular circumstances.

The point that is being missed is that they acted inappropriately towards a female on her own in a secluded area. !?? They could have said ok let’s separate the cars and have a good look at what has happened and go from there instead of videoing her and flashing “lpolice badges” honestly it’s not rocket science guys , there’s ways of handling situations fairly and intimidation is not one of them. Why the comments are attacking this poor woman is absurd ? She left because she felt intimated and ultimately unsafe that’s not ok
it was a minor incident that wasn’t dealt with correctly , and she acted in defence quite rightly

Well put.

"She left because she felt intimated and ultimately unsafe that’s not ok"

So she says, but many posters are giving her a hard time because we don't believe her.

She hit someone car.
They asked for her details.
She had decided there was no damage, so refused , and tried to drive off.
This led to the alleged "intimidation"

No @Olivio73 she left because she didn't want to give her details and used the narrative of feeling intimidated to try to validate her actions. There are so many holes in OPs story. We are only hearing 1 side of the story. Despite repeated requests for her to tell us what she said to them, what her tone was and how she behaved, she has kept quiet about that.
It was a perfectly cordial interaction up until the point where OP repeatedly refused to give her details and drove off.

"If the sound and circumstances reasonably suggest there was contact & possible damage, the duty applies"
@Hummusandcrisps what specific legislation are you citing there?

When I phoned 101 the evening of the incident to report it the call handler told me that I didn't need to report it to police. If you look at my early responses you'll see where I said that. She was more concerned about the man's behaviour which she said I could report as a possible Public Order Offence.