Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Do You Think? Little Shunt In Car Park.


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Ascii

Ascii

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,174 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:43 PM

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?

Edited by Ascii, 17 February 2012 - 03:43 PM.


#2 bergkamp N4

bergkamp N4

    HPC Poster

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:48 PM

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

#3 GloomMonger

GloomMonger

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Location:North London
  • About Me:Waiting for the capitulation

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:51 PM

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?
"For who has served me more faithfully than you with your coward's hope?" said he, "And where are the others that might have stood side by your side in the common good?"

"Dead," I whispered; and amiably "Murdered," the Hangman corrected me; "First the alien, then the Jew... I did no more than you let me do."

Beneath the beam that blocked the sky, none had stood so alone as I - and the Hangman strapped me, and no voice there cried "Stay" for me in the empty square.

#4 Conrad

Conrad

    HPC Regular

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:52 PM

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

#5 libspero

libspero

    Frijolero

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,436 posts
  • Location:Lancashire

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:02 PM

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.

And I tell you we have learned from past mistakes.
Just as you cannot spend your way out of recession, you cannot, in a global economy, simply spend your way through recovery either.

(Gordon Brown, Labour Party Annual Conference, 29 September 1997)

So, housing affordability is better than it has ever been, but no-one can take advantage of this because they can't afford the houses. I see.
cybernoid - 7th August 2010

Gambling promises the poor what property promises the rich - something for nothing
George Bernard Shaw


#6 The Ayatollah Buggeri

The Ayatollah Buggeri

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,562 posts
  • Location:Redlands, CA, USA (expat - formerly Yorkshire)

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:03 PM

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.

#7 Ascii

Ascii

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,174 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:47 PM

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.

#8 hedgefunded

hedgefunded

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,092 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:52 PM

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


Every little helps

#9 Lazybones

Lazybones

    HPC Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Location:PR8

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:00 PM

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)

Edited by Lazybones, 17 February 2012 - 05:03 PM.


#10 hotairmail

hotairmail

    Tired of life

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,950 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:02 PM

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)

"The chicken is radiating disorder out into the wider universe."


#11 Ascii

Ascii

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,174 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:05 PM

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.

#12 inflating

inflating

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,253 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:05 PM

It was Car 3

#13 Ascii

Ascii

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,174 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:07 PM

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.

#14 8 year itch

8 year itch

    I am not an INTJ

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,689 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:11 PM

Move house

There is no ladder.

JY


No need to sell up, the next phase of the economics cycle is going to be very positive for anyone that owns property.

All I'm sayings is, don't listen to the property bears people, they are wrong.


#15 SNACR

SNACR

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,109 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:13 PM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users