Who is liable?

dacouch

Cornucopia wrote: »

Breaches of the Law and the Highway Code are a key consideration in assessing liability... but presumably you know that?

Indeed they are, however the chances of a someone who is reversing off a drive placing blame onto a third party due to speeding are incredibly rare.

Being on a mobile phone does not mean the other party is automatically at fault.

Cornucopia

Retrogamer wrote: »

The speeding thing is just a guess. I didn't see them therefore they must have been speeding isn't evidence. That's evidence you haven't seen them.

When most people hit cyclists who rarely break speed limits they always say "i never seen them"
Most cases where people haven't seen something approaching is because they have been unobservent.

There's a big difference between not seeing a car and not seeing a cyclist.

I don't why you're continuing to flog this particular dead horse. Assuming the other car wasn't speeding, the OP had an estimated 27m of observation space to see a car which can probably stop dead in 8 or 9m. There was no need for the accident to happen, unless the other driver was distracted and/or speeding.

The other party may have been on her mobile via a hands free kit.

Clutching at straws.

Either way, the OP's insurance will pay out and hold her 100% liable.

That's still possible, but at least the OP has something to go to the with. Hopefully the insurer's grasp of physics is better than some of the people on this forum.

To dispute it would mean going to court...

No it doesn't.

Cornucopia

dacouch wrote: »

Indeed they are, however the chances of a someone who is reversing off a drive placing blame onto a third party due to speeding are incredibly rare.

Do you have the statistics?

I can imagine that some people are thinking of this as a domestic driveway leading on to a main road. But the OP said at the outset it was a narrow estate road with a 20mph limit.

Being on a mobile phone does not mean the other party is automatically at fault.

It will definitely push the liability in their direction. To be honest, if that is determined as the sole reason why she couldn't stop inside 27m, then I think she should accept liability entirely.

Retrogamer

Cornucopia wrote: »

There's a big difference between not seeing a car and not seeing a cyclist.

Not if you're not looking properly, which appears to be the case.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't why you're continuing to flog this particular dead horse. Assuming the other car wasn't speeding, the OP had an estimated 27m of observation space to see a car which can probably stop dead in 8 or 9m. There was no need for the accident to happen, unless the other driver was distracted and/or speeding.

So who has the greater onus of responsibility?
The person driving on the road, with right of way
Or
The person joining the road?

Cornucopia wrote: »

Clutching at straws.

Nope, just a plausible suggestion. It's a null point regardless as the OP has no evidence the other person was on the phone so unless they admit it, it doesn't matter.

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's still possible, but at least the OP has something to go to the with. Hopefully the insurer's grasp of physics is better than some of the people on this forum.

The insurer will want to settle the claim at the least cost to them whilst abiding by the regulations set out to the. A lot of the time that involves paying out.

Cornucopia wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Right so if neither insurance company accept liability, where do you think they take it with all their evidence to get a decision?

Cornucopia wrote: »

It will definitely push the liability in their direction. To be honest, if that is determined as the sole reason why she couldn't stop inside 27m, then I think she should accept liability entirely.

She doesn't need to stop. She's traveling along a road with right of way. The OP needs to stop before driving into people.
If the OP's car was half way onto the road already, and the third party hit into the side of it then that might hold true, but the OP is the one that drove into the side of the other car.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Do you have the statistics?

I can imagine that some people are thinking of this as a domestic driveway leading on to a main road. But the OP said at the outset it was a narrow estate road with a 20mph limit.

Makes no difference whether it's an estate road or the A1. Reverse off it and have a crash you're at fault.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I can see that certain posters aren't letting the science interfere with their "judgement". Negativity reigns apparently.

With the new info about mobile phone use (as I predicted, BTW), I would say the OP should easily get this to 50/50, and may even get 100% non-fault, if it can be shown that the other party was probably speeding as well.

Not a hope in hell of that.

AdrianC

It might be worth remembering this post at this stage...

PlumC wrote: »

The car had traveled a further 2 car lengths after i had hit it and the damage was from the back passengers door side all the way to the back of the car, so yes i do think it was speeding in a narrow 20mph estate.

The car Plum hit stopped roughly two car lengths - ten metres - from the point of impact.

For a stopping distance - reaction plus braking - of only around two car lengths, 20mph is about right. So if Plum's last look in that direction had been five seconds before impact, it would have been only 44m away. Remember, minimum eyesight for a driving licence is to read the plate within 20m.

Maybe it was travelling at a higher speed, and had braked way before impact in a vain attempt to stop. If so, then we can ignore the "On the phone, wasn't paying attention" claim that's suddenly appeared on page five of the thread.

Look at the three things Plum's told us... "other driver was on phone, not paying attention", "must have been speeding", "stopped two car lengths away" - they just don't add up, do they?

Add in that the back door was "pushed in", and Plum's own car wasn't just edging gently out. To push the panel in, rather than just scrape it, takes a fair whack.

Astronaughtwannabe

AdrianC wrote: »

The HC stopping distances are notoriously pessimistic, and haven't changed (apart from being metricated) since the '60s. They are rumoured to be based on the unservoed drum brakes of an old Ford Anglia on crossply tyres. Which seems about right, given their length relative to the distances even a modest modern car can achieve.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/vauxhall/corsa/performance
48m braking distance from 70mph to rest, in a Vauxhall Corsa. The HC reckons 75m.
...or...
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/s60/performance
53m stopping distance for a big heavy Volvo, on winter tyres on a day far warmer than they're recommended for use. Even in the wet, it stopped more quickly than the HC dry distance.
...or...
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2012-Autobild-50-Tyre-Braking-Test.htm
A tyre test showing 35m braking distances - and 44m wet - from 60mph, compared to the HC's 55m.
(The 70m wet braking distances of some of those tyres says more about how bad some budget tyres are than the HC distances, but that's another thread)

Well I just checked out your first... 70 mph in 48 metres (I'm not gonna bother with the others). That gives greater traction/friction/mu (call it what you like) than 1g.

The problem here is that these media tests are mostly done on aircraft runways, and if you hadn't guessed it already, they are built with with 'anti-skid' in mind, no expense spared. They might be mostly disused runways but still far better than your average road. Secondly, Autocar et Al don't tend to use chalk guns or accelerometers to establish the start of the skid (which is not usually visible to the human eye) they would just bang the good old tape measure along the thick black mark and hey presto! Couple that with a bit of casual rounding and 'that's close enough'... bingo! 48 metres ala 1g. Except it's not!

I'm happy to concede that since The HWCt was written, tyres will afford greater than the .66 value but they certainly ain't topping 1g on a typical road in a Corsa.

dacouch

Cornucopia wrote: »

Do you have the statistics?

I can imagine that some people are thinking of this as a domestic driveway leading on to a main road. But the OP said at the outset it was a narrow estate road with a 20mph limit.


It will definitely push the liability in their direction. To be honest, if that is determined as the sole reason why she couldn't stop inside 27m, then I think she should accept liability entirely.

Being on a mobile does not make you liable for an accident.

It could make you liable for the accident if the act of being on the phone contributed or caused the accident. But it's perfectly possible to be involved in an accident whilst on the phone and it have no effect on who was liable.

The chances of the OP placing liability for the accident at the third parties door are very remote

Cornucopia

Retrogamer wrote: »

Not if you're not looking properly, which appears to be the case.

On what basis?

So who has the greater onus of responsibility?
The person driving on the road, with right of way
Or
The person joining the road?

In this case, these are estate roads, so there may not even be a right of way.

Right so if neither insurance company accept liability, where do you think they take it with all their evidence to get a decision?

They won't disagree. IIUC, if there is a dispute, then each company will determine the liability of their own client, and proceed accordingly. It certainly won't go to Court.

She doesn't need to stop. She's traveling along a road with right of way.

This is nonsense of the highest order. If there is a hazard ahead you avoid it or stop. Basic common sense, Highway Code and principle of insurance.