Car accident - unlit supermarket carpark

rs65

JennieJen wrote: »

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?

The article seems ok in that certain circumstances the owner of the stationary object will have some blame. To apply the article to your situation is not realistic.

I would have stopped.

jjlandlord

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

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

No, that light is just to notify others that the car is reversing.

In fact, I've recently been told that it is not compulsory to have a working reversing light, but if you do have one it must be lit only when reversing.

pvt

jjlandlord wrote: »

No, that light is just to notify others that the car is reversing.

In fact, I've recently been told that it is not compulsory to have a working reversing light, but if you do have one it must be lit only when reversing.

I think the situation is the other way around. The light is not primarily there to warn other road users, it is there to illuminate the area you are reversing into.

That's why it is not compulsory to have one, nor for it to be tested as part of an MOT to ensure it is working.

jjlandlord

pvt wrote: »

I think the situation is the other way around. The light is not primarily there to warn other road users, it is there to illuminate the area you are reversing into.

Ok, so I'm going to say it's probably a bit of both.

DevCoder

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

At last, someone is thinking about the children .

Probably need one of these

InsideInsurance

Or perhaps we should go back to the red flag law

System

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.

A collision requires two moving objects.

You can only collide with a tree if it jumps out into the road in front of you.

Captaincodpiece

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

A collision requires two moving objects.

You can only collide with a tree if it jumps out into the road in front of you.

Maybe according to the dictionary definition but the road traffic act suggests other wise.

Captaincodpiece

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

A collision requires two moving objects.

You can only collide with a tree if it jumps out into the road in front of you.

Police won't need a collision report for this one then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-29830866

Maybe you can explain why to the Coronor.

londonTiger

I've done manoeuvres in the country, if there are no street lighting you do manouvers slower and give your sights a bit more time to look out for obstructions. Your reversing lights are bright enough to act as short tange lamps and allow you to see behind. Heck that's how you check your brake lights solo by backing into a wall and hitting the brakes.

If you want to avoid accidents you will be a bit more careful about this, you do not blame others for your shortcomings.

Seems like you were lazy and are one of those people who uses the rear view mirror to reverse with and got caught out.

Your fault entirely.