Car accident - unlit supermarket carpark

antrobus

InsideInsurance wrote: »

...The only time it would is if you had RTO cover which almost totally unheard of and cannot remember ever seeing anyone actually having it....

RTO = Road Trafffic Act Only insurance?

InsideInsurance wrote: »

....There is no obligation for lighting in carparks nor any requirement for lighting to be working....

The standard disclaimer ' The users of this car park do so at their own risk....' might also be of relevance.

JennieJen wrote: »

...Is there anyone who can corroborate the legality of the below article: traffic accident advice your-rights-as-a-driver-if-you-hit-a-stationary-object ?? (to view google the above as this site will not allow a new user to post links!) As this suggests some fault may be attributable to the driver who parked in the unlit 1/4 of the car park when there were spaces available in the lit areas of car park. .....

I believe that the OP is referring to this article;

Your Rights as a Driver if You Hit a Stationary Object
http://www.trafficaccidentadvice.co.uk/your-rights-as-a-driver-if-you-hit-a-stationary-object.html

I'd say that the general thrust was fair enough; if someone (say) leaves a skip in the middle of a road without taking steps to warn people that there is a skip in the middle of a road, it could be argued that the someone in question was negligent for failing to do so, and might be held (at least partly) liable for an accident, should one occur.

But I don't see how that applies to someone who has parked their car in a designated car space in a car park. You can hardly claim that you didn't expect that there would be a car parked there, since it is a car park after all.

It is my practice, when reversing, to do so slowly, irrespective of the conditions. Just in case you understand. That way, even if you haven't spotted that stationary object, you will make contact with it with minimal damage.

System

Isn't this why cars have reversing lights, so that the driver can see where he is going when driving backwards?

Tiddlywinks

molerat wrote: »

Many years ago I reversed into a tree in an unlit car park, one person was at fault - me ! If you can not clearly see what is in your path do not carry out the manoeuvre ......... it could have been a nun or a child or a puppy or even a nun holding a child's hand carrying a basket full of puppies.

At last, someone is thinking about the children .

InsideInsurance

antrobus wrote: »

RTO = Road Trafffic Act Only insurance?

Yes, no idea why it isnt RTAO but I'm sure someone at some point in history had a reason for dropping the A from the acronym

InsideInsurance

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Isn't this why cars have reversing lights, so that the driver can see where he is going when driving backwards?

Good question, is it that though or so that others can see which direction you are travelling in - ie you always have white lights in the direction of travel?

I know with most of my cars the reversing light never provided any meaningful amount of light. My current car is slightly better but the brake lights actually provide much more illumination still than the reverse light

System

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

At last, someone is thinking about the children .

Yes but what about the kittens?

The nun has got the puppies, so who has got the kittens?

JennieJen_2

Travel was slow so damage should be minimal but doesn't mean no collision nor that insurance repairers won't choose to replace full bumper to obtain maximum payout. We live in a claim culture nowadays! Reverse light is one side only and yes minimal light especially where dark car in dark location simply wasn't seen. Accidents do happen that's why they are accidents.

All comments appreciated, but it was the legal standing of the article I was looking for rather than opinions. How many of you would have stopped? No need to add posts stating just a question for each of those reading to answer honestly on a personal level.

Very interesting point regarding white lights in direction of travel both ways. Thanks all for contributions.

Captaincodpiece

JennieJen wrote: »

Travel was slow so damage should be minimal but doesn't mean no collision nor that insurance repairers won't choose to replace full bumper to obtain maximum payout. We live in a claim culture nowadays! Reverse light is one side only and yes minimal light especially where dark car in dark location simply wasn't seen. Accidents do happen that's why they are accidents.

All comments appreciated, but it was the legal standing of the article I was looking for rather than opinions. How many of you would have stopped? No need to add posts stating just a question for each of those reading to answer honestly on a personal level.

Very interesting point regarding white lights in direction of travel both ways. Thanks all for contributions.

Interesting that the police now call them collisions are there is always an element of fault. In this case yours so it wasn't really an accident.

ACG

I dont think the issue is whether people would or would not have done it - I would have. I think the issue is that your trying to pass the buck.

InsideInsurance

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Interesting that the police now call them collisions are there is always an element of fault. In this case yours so it wasn't really an accident.

"Accident" normally would mean that there isnt intent rather than meaning all parties are blameless.

Obviously not all collisions are accidental though as some do intentionally ram others.