Reversing driver always at fault?

force_ten

repeatoffender wrote: »

Thanks - when reversing driver started to reverse the road was clear the other driver then drove in to the street on wrong side of road. I just had not realised that a reversing driver was always to blame. Yes I think all of our neighbours may start reversing on to their drives now

this sounds good in theory but you are still in the same situation, if somebody hits you when you are reversing onto your drive then it will still be deemed to be your fault

Highway code rule 201 says

Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.

the ideal situation would be drive onto the drive turn on the drive and drive off but for most people this is impossible, you can insatll a driveway turntable for about six grand but that is a cost which is inhibitive to most people

Mojisola

Iceweasel wrote: »

The driver needs to make sure that it's clear during the entire time they are reversing.

A car on the 'wrong' side of the road is irrelevant.

If the driver coming round the corner into the street couldn't see that his way was clear, he should have been going slowly enough to do an emergency stop. If he could see the car across the road, he should have stopped.

Iceweasel

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't agree with this. If I checked that the road was clear and started reversing off my drive, it wouldn't matter how many times I looked round if a car came round the corner on the wrong side of the road and drove into me. There's no way I could get out of the way in time to prevent the collision.

Just as the reversing driver has to look out for vehicles, children, etc, the driver going forwards has to look out for things on the road.

That's not how it works - avoiding the collision is not what decides it.

If you were to stop then it would be the other driver at fault for colliding with a stationary vehicle.

I was always told imagine that round the corner is an elephant having a sleep in the middle of the road - could you stop?

A moving elephant would be different.

On this forum we talk about nuns and kittens - same thing.

The reversing driver is normally not at fault if they come to a halt, as soon as an oncoming vehicle appears. It's the continuing to reverse because they think that they have started a manouvre and are entitled to complete it, that makes it their fault.

repeatoffender

neilmcl wrote: »

You keep saying this but it doesn't matter at what point the road is clear.

When reversing you have to be aware at ALL times during the manoeuvre, and that means using mirrors AND physically looking round (which very few seem to do these days), and only proceeding with caution, especially when reversing onto a road. Had driver A been doing the above I very much doubt an accident would have occurred, despite what driver B was doing.

I did not intend to repeat myself I was replying to another poster. I am neither trying to excuse driver A nor blame driver B. I think that they were both careless - however my opinion does not matter.

The reason I posted was that I had not realised that the reversing driver was always by definition held to blame. Originally I thought this may be unfair to automatically apportion blame and I asked if this was always the case.

It would seem that it is - as the driver should take extra caution when reversing. However I have also learnt that even where a driver is blameless then their insurance premiums are affected - and surely that is unfair.

Mojisola

Iceweasel wrote: »

That's not how it works - avoiding the collision is not what decides it.

If you were to stop then it would be the other driver at fault for colliding with a stationary vehicle.

I was always told imagine that round the corner is an elephant having a sleep in the middle of the road - could you stop?

A moving elephant would be different.

So the car coming round the corner hit a pedestrian crossing the road, it would be the pedestrian's fault?

force_ten

Mojisola wrote: »

If the driver coming round the corner into the street couldn't see that his way was clear, he should have been going slowly enough to do an emergency stop. If he could see the car across the road, he should have stopped.

in the ideal world this would always happen but for some reason a large percentage of drivers are very impatient and wont give an inch in any situation

the driver coming into the street may have been at fault or part at fault but in the eyes of the law it was his right of way, and the onus was on the driver entering the road from his driveway to make sure it was clear for him to do so

repeatoffender

Mojisola wrote: »

Just as the reversing driver has to look out for vehicles, children, etc, the driver going forwards has to look out for things on the road.

This is why I thought that both drivers were partially responsible - however the reversing driver must check, keep checking and stop.

Iceweasel wrote: »

It doesn't matter at all that the way was clear when the manouevre was started.

The driver needs to make sure that it's clear during the entire time they are reversing.

I see this sort of thing in supermarket car-parks all the time - heated arguments in Tescos over near misses - folk who start reversing don't stop when someone else passes along the row of parked cars - they expect the car to stop and wait until they have finished reversing.

All very well in Tescos but that doesn't work in a public street.

A car on the 'wrong' side of the road is irrelevant.

if you can't keep a proper lookout - you need a 'banksman' - someone outside the car checking that it's clear to proceed.

I've even seen that being done badly - driver kept the windows shut so couldn't hear the banksman shouting desperately for them to stop.

Yes - during the whole reverse manouvre everything is your fault - it would seem that if you reversed out of a car park and someone kept driving and you hit them then you are to blame - even if they saw you. Neighbours were told that these type of collisions happen every day in car parks.

Mojisola wrote: »

So the car coming round the corner hit a pedestrian crossing the road, it would be the pedestrian's fault?

No because the car would have hit the pedestrian - although I have been in court where the pedestrians actions were taken into account when calculating compensation.

neilmcl

Iceweasel wrote: »

The reversing driver is normally not at fault if they come to a halt, as soon as an oncoming vehicle appears. It's the continuing to reverse because they think that they have started a manouvre and are entitled to complete it, that makes it their fault.

^^^^ This ^^^^

neilmcl

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't agree with this. If I checked that the road was clear and started reversing off my drive, it wouldn't matter how many times I looked round if a car came round the corner on the wrong side of the road and drove into me.

The OP didn't say this though. He/she stated that, yes whilst the driver b was on the wrong side of the road, driver a reversed into it.

DUTR

neilmcl wrote: »

The OP didn't say this though. He/she stated that, yes whilst the driver b was on the wrong side of the road, driver a reversed into it.

The point is the driver reversed into it, not that a car on the road collided with a reversing vehicle.
From what I recall the driver is not deemed in full control of the vehicle unless it is in a forward motion.