Ascii Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'll not say which I was driving; after some impartiality if possible. Busy carpark (Tesco mega store) Car parked nose in to bay reversing out. (CAR1) Car driving along the bay access road (acess road is two cars wide with diving white line) at 90 degrees to the car reversing. (CAR2), coming from the passenger side or driver's left. CAR1 and CAR2 collide. After impact, CAR1 (reverser) is approximately 2/5 of the way out - this is an Octavia Estate so approx 6 feet out into road. CAR2 is on wrong side of white line with a towbar scrape along the length of the car 5-6 feet further on from CAR1. ---------------------------------------------------------- ....................................|.........2.....| ....................................|..............,.| <<<< travelling from right to left ================================= ...............................................................|....1......| ^ ...............................................................|............| ^ reversing ----------------------------------------------------- ...............................................................|............| ...............................................................|............| what do you reckon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bergkamp N4 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 A shunt made into something that the finest minds of NASA would struggle to decipher! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GloomMonger Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 So Car 2 drove past the reversing Car 1 and scraped the side of his car along the tow bar of Car 1? I would say Car 2 is at fault but wouldn't be surprised if the insurance go 50:50. Any witnesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Where was the intial point of impact of tow bar on CAR1 on CAR2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I would also expect it would go 50:50. To start apportioning levels of blame, I would say it depends largely on the behaviour of the driver reversing, If the driver reversed out quickly without looking.. it is probably his fault. If the driver couldn't see through a vehicle beside him, so was inching out very slowly I would say it was more the fault of the other driver. Sorry to hear about your prang though.. nothing more annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Unless Car 2 was doing something stupid we don't know about (e.g. driving at night without lights on, or significantly in excess of the speed limit), Car 1 is definitely at fault. It is up to you to ensure that a road is clear before pulling on to it. Incidentally, the risk of that happening is why I always reverse in to car parking spaces, not out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ascii Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Unless Car 2 was doing something stupid we don't know about (e.g. driving at night without lights on, or significantly in excess of the speed limit), Car 1 is definitely at fault. It is up to you to ensure that a road is clear before pulling on to it. I had checked, it was clear; the point at which I was clipped was shortly after I looked forward to check the nose of the car as I had started the turn into the road. My best guess is that she was significantly in excess of the 5mph limit. No means of proving that of course. Incidentally, the risk of that happening is why I always reverse in to car parking spaces, not out of them. Which is what I will be doing in future. It is though, cut and dried as far as the insurance company is concerned, CAR 1 is at fault. They're not remotely interested in any other circumstances. Oh well - you win some you lose some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedgefunded Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I would say Car 2 is at fault but wouldn't be surprised if the insurance go 50:50. Every little helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazybones Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I have heard of cases where car parks are described as private land and this leads ot arguments over what is covered and who is at fault usually ending in a 50/50 split. You may want to talk to a solicitor or citizens advice. Is there CCTV that may prove the speed issue or that the path was clear when you reversed? From your description you must have been at least over the white dividing line when the accident happened, they really should have seen you reversing (lights working etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ascii Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 I have heard of cases where car parks are described as private land and this leads ot arguments over what is covered and who is at fault usually ending in a 50/50 split. You may want to talk to a solicitor or citizens advice. Is there CCTV that may prove the speed issue or that the path was clear when you reversed? Probably, but given my insurers have already apportioned blame, I can't see that I have any chance of getting the CCTV coverage. In any event, it's not worth my time - bigger fish to try. Just a little costly, and irritating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inflating Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 It was Car 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ascii Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 The car reversing definitely at fault. 100%. Every time. In insurance land. Same as if someone was turning onto a busier road. That road has right of way. Or a parked car turning onto the road. (I don't know by the way - I just thought if I sounded positive, it would help more) You're correct - it's cut and dried as far as they are concerned. Logically I can see some sense it that stance - arguing a low speed (relatively inexpensive) claim in the small claim courts will cost them more even if they win. I guess it's a commercial decision as much as anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Move house Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Insurers can be right wet wipes when it comes to fighting claims - (there are also anomalies if both parties are ultimately underwritten by the same co) We've had plenty not go our way with trucks and vans reversing (where the drivers definitely can't see anything) even when tachographs have shown the vehicle to be barely moving they've still said 'it was their right of way' - which they certainly wouldn't if they'd rear-ended a stationary car at a junction. I would say it was a case of poor observation, on behalf of the faster vehicle, possibly even driving without due care and attention. I'd like to see something in the highway code about, especially longer, vehicles having priority if they're forced to do blind reverses without a banksman and they're travelling below 5mph. Anyway, what's worth pointing out is this was actually on private land. You could have refused to give the other party your insurance details. They will then probably contact the filth with your number plate. They will then write with a blah-di-blah failing to stop letter requesting you reply. They won't really be that interested in adjucating on minor supermarket car park shunts off the public highway so if you ignore it they'll typically go away. The other party will usually then be forced to claim off their own insurance and their insurance co may or may not try and pursue you through the small claims court. If it becomes apparent that you are prepared to defend the claim well and see them in court they'll typically go away as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Probably, but given my insurers have already apportioned blame, I can't see that I have any chance of getting the CCTV coverage. In any event, it's not worth my time - bigger fish to try. Just a little costly, and irritating. Someone also posted about private land/civil action whilst I was. I would say that route could be a PITA for a busy private individual but makes a lot more sense for big fleets/Co with fleet managers/solicitors etc on hand to deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
200p Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 In my experience, the insurance companies don't have time to decide who's fault it is (and they probably don't care). They just pay out, and both parties premiums will go up next year. In a supermarket car park - I always par far away from the entrance where possible, where it is quiet. You walk further, it's good exercise, and there's less chance of an accident, and less cars moving in and out, and doors opening and closing denting your car. Think risk and think probabilities! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Ditto. (Same for drives, especially on busy roads.) Indeed +2 Sorry to hear about the prang. The driver already on the road has right of way just like any junction. Unless you live in France. Then anything seems to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blobloblob Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 According to the BBC, it was Iran's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gardener Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'll not say which I was driving; after some impartiality if possible. Busy carpark (Tesco mega store) Car parked nose in to bay reversing out. (CAR1) Car driving along the bay access road (acess road is two cars wide with diving white line) at 90 degrees to the car reversing. (CAR2), coming from the passenger side or driver's left. CAR1 and CAR2 collide. After impact, CAR1 (reverser) is approximately 2/5 of the way out - this is an Octavia Estate so approx 6 feet out into road. CAR2 is on wrong side of white line with a towbar scrape along the length of the car 5-6 feet further on from CAR1. ---------------------------------------------------------- ....................................|.........2.....| ....................................|..............,.| <<<< travelling from right to left ================================= ...............................................................|....1......| ^ ...............................................................|............| ^ reversing ----------------------------------------------------- ...............................................................|............| ...............................................................|............| what do you reckon? Personally I would blame the driver of car 2. That driver had clear forward vision, and unless car 1 shot out of the parking space at high speed and rammed into the side of car 2, then the driver of car 2 should have had plenty of time to react, i.e. stop and sound horn. Driver 2 was probably staring into space, gabbing away on a mobile phone, not paying attention at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albimac Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 1329509056[/url]' post='3264533']In my experience, the insurance companies don't have time to decide who's fault it is (and they probably don't care). They just pay out, and both parties premiums will go up next year. In a supermarket car park - I always par far away from the entrance where possible, where it is quiet. You walk further, it's good exercise, and there's less chance of an accident, and less cars moving in and out, and doors opening and closing denting your car. Think risk and think probabilities! I had a similar accident a number of years back. One driver stopped to let me reverse out, but an old lady either didn't see me or decided she could slip past. I took a number of photos of the crash scene, as I believed she was clearly at fault. Then the insurance company gave me the bad news. Reversing party is always 100% to blame. It's almost considered dangerous driving. Your right both insurance premiums will rise, no matter who was in the wrong. Apparently you are statistically more likely to have another accident. This is the reason both premiums rise. I'm now utterly paranoid whenever I reverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Personally I would blame the driver of car 2. That driver had clear forward vision, and unless car 1 shot out of the parking space at high speed and rammed into the side of car 2, then the driver of car 2 should have had plenty of time to react, i.e. stop and sound horn. Driver 2 was probably staring into space, gabbing away on a mobile phone, not paying attention at all. I agree. You've written exactly what I was thinking. When driving through car parks like that, I consider it my responsibility to avoid any reversing cars. And obviously there are a LOT of them. When reversing you're vulnerable, and have very poor vision. You take a small leap of faith hoping other drivers will see you & not try to zip past. Hasn't it always been the case that insurance companies blame the driver behind anyway? Apparently not in this case. But on the roads if you go into the car in front, you can expect the bill. Incidentally, the risk of that happening is why I always reverse in to car parking spaces, not out of them. So how do you get your trolley to the rear & put your shopping in the boot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 With the view that it was probably not the fault of the reversing car unless they did it very fast or started right in front of the other car. If you're not capable of avoiding cars carefully reversing out of parking spaces you shouldn't be driving and although the points about reversing into spaces makes sense (although that would probably result in more dents if everyone did it due to bad reversing ability) in a supermarket going nose-in is more practical if you're going to be loading the boot up with lots of shopping. I don't expect insurance companies to act any better than they have done in this case. Scum, the lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxe Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 As others have said, it is the fault of the reversing car every time. If you are pulling out into a road, it is absolutely your responsibility to ensure that the road is clear for the duration of the manoeuvre. We've had plenty not go our way with trucks and vans reversing (where the drivers definitely can't see anything) even when tachographs have shown the vehicle to be barely moving they've still said 'it was their right of way' - which they certainly wouldn't if they'd rear-ended a stationary car at a junction. I would say it was a case of poor observation, on behalf of the faster vehicle, possibly even driving without due care and attention. I recognise the problems of reversing a large truck, but can you see the absurdity in your first sentence? The driver is effectively saying "I can't see a damn thing, but I'm going to reverse anyway". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Didn't the fury have a knock very much like this a while back? How did that end up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 As others have said, it is the fault of the reversing car every time. If you are pulling out into a road, it is absolutely your responsibility to ensure that the road is clear for the duration of the manoeuvre. I recognise the problems of reversing a large truck, but can you see the absurdity in your first sentence? The driver is effectively saying "I can't see a damn thing, but I'm going to reverse anyway". Not sure you are totally recognising the visibility restrictions and how little can be seen in most circumstances. In articulated vehicles you will never have full visibility for any reversing manoeuvre bar a straight line reverse back. Whilst delivering store staff can act as banksmen but this isn't going to be an option when roads are closed/diversions/wrong turns/parked car obstructions. Those reversing bleepers are like a siren call to local busybodies who will 'help' with a lot of arm waving but mostly you'd be safer without them and very few members of the public or store staff understand the dynamics of the manoeuvre and are much help at all. Once upon a time you could call the Police to shut the road but you could imagine the response these days. Anyone who approaches a vehicle with reversing lights on and can't make eye contact with its driver is an idiot if they don't proceed with caution. This sort of thing is part of the hazard perception element of the current driving theory test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.