[Ascii]

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?

This post has been edited by Ascii: 17 February 2012 - 03:43 PM

[bergkamp N4]

A shunt made into something that the finest minds of NASA would struggle to decipher!

[GloomMonger]

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?

[Conrad]

Where was the intial point of impact of tow bar on CAR1 on CAR2?

[libspero]

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.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

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.

[Ascii]

The Ayatollah Buggeri, on 17 February 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

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.

The Ayatollah Buggeri, on 17 February 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

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.

[hedgefunded]

GloomMonger, on 17 February 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

I would say Car 2 is at fault but wouldn't be surprised if the insurance go 50:50.

Every little helps

[Lazybones]

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)

This post has been edited by Lazybones: 17 February 2012 - 05:03 PM

[Grrrr I'm a tiger]

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)

[Ascii]

Lazybones, on 17 February 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

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.

[inflating]

It was Car 3

[Ascii]

!EURO!, on 17 February 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

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.

[SeeYouNextTuesday]

Move house

[Soon Not a Chain Retailer]

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.