Reversing driver always at fault?

Retrogamer

repeatoffender wrote: »

They would not have seen the car out of their rear mirror as it approached from the side so it would have been their right wing mirror or looking right that should have alerted them

This is why it's always best to turn around and face the rear of the car.
When you drive forward you look towards the front of the car. When you drive backwards you should look towards the rear where possible, rather than depend on the limited visibility of the mirrors

AdrianC

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.

Perhaps you missed that the damage is rear bumper on the reversing car, and front wing on the car on the road.

Mojisola

AdrianC wrote: »

Perhaps you missed that the damage is rear bumper on the reversing car, and front wing on the car on the road.

I didn't - but the car coming round the corner was on the wrong side of the road. While the reversing driver should have checked in all directions, he wouldn't have been expecting a car on that side of the road. It would only take a matter of seconds to look one way, see it is clear and continue reversing only to find the car behind you, having come from an unexpected place. It's not possible to look everywhere at once. It's also easier to see what's in front of you - didn't the other driver see the reversing car?

I think it would have been fairer to go 50/50 but that isn't the way the insurance companies look at it.

Iceweasel

Mojisola wrote: »

I didn't - but the car coming round the corner was on the wrong side of the road. While the reversing driver should have checked in all directions, he wouldn't have been expecting a car on that side of the road. It would only take a matter of seconds to look one way, see it is clear and continue reversing only to find the car behind you, having come from an unexpected place. It's not possible to look everywhere at once. It's also easier to see what's in front of you - didn't the other driver see the reversing car?

I think it would have been fairer to go 50/50 but that isn't the way the insurance companies look at it.

At risk of sounding smart after the event - he SHOULD have expected and checked for a vehicle coming from any direction on any side of the road.

I think he will in future.

Nottsdoglover

You should expect the unexpected when driving.

Mojisola

Iceweasel wrote: »

At risk of sounding smart after the event - he SHOULD have expected and checked for a vehicle coming from any direction on any side of the road.

I think he will in future.

But you can't be looking in every direction at once. If a driver looks one way and sees it is clear and looks the other and sees it is clear, how many more times should he look before reversing?

AdrianC

Mojisola wrote: »

how many more times should he look before reversing?

Your question seems to presuppose that _continuing_ to look _whilst_ reversing is not required.

Iceweasel

Mojisola wrote: »

But you can't be looking in every direction at once. If a driver looks one way and sees it is clear and looks the other and sees it is clear, how many more times should he look before reversing?

As many times as is necessary, because as you say, you can't be looking in every direction at once.

I think you should by now be beginning to realise why it's not a good idea to reverse from a drive onto the road.

If you must park head first and reverse out you really need someone to help you.

If you don't have assistance you might hit another vehicle - oops isn't that where we started in post #1?

arcon5

The guy that was reversing is being given quite a hard time. The guy coming round the corner on the wrong side of the road is an idiot. Sadly common sense and liability arent always in sync

Mojisola

AdrianC wrote: »

Your question seems to presuppose that _continuing_ to look _whilst_ reversing is not required.

Can you look to the right and the left at the same time?