Who is liable?

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Irrelevant.

(a) the car should have already been braking.
(b) the car will be slowed by the impact.
(c) we've already agreed that the HC figures are an over-estimate. I would expect a healthy BMW on a dry road to stop in one car length at 20mph.

I would say that achieving a 2 car length gap after a collision would put the original speed at impact much higher than 20mph, possibly considerably higher depending on the braking time already achieved.

Should is they key word.

What if it didn't brake until the point of impact?

You have no evidence (not that you think it's ever needed) of at what point the bmw started to brake.

Why do you think collision investigators attend collision scenes rather than just do some sums?

DTDfanBoy

Cornucopia wrote: »

Irrelevant.

(a) the car should have already been braking.
(b) the car will be slowed by the impact.
(c) we've already agreed that the HC figures are an over-estimate. I would expect a healthy BMW on a dry road to stop in one car length at 20mph.

I would say that achieving a 2 car length gap after a collision would put the original speed at impact much higher than 20mph, possibly considerably higher depending on the braking time already achieved.

:T:T:T:T:beer:

Cornucopia

Do you think anyone will visit this scene?

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Do you think anyone will visit this scene?

No point, it's too late now.

almillar

Well that escalated quickly...

She may also have already begun to brake, lessening the speed of impact.

Damage was to the side of the driven car, so was caused by the speed of the reverser.

The damage suggests that both vehicles were moving, so to be correct, we would say they hit each other.

Nope, it was to the side and rear of the driving car, so it was hit by the reverser.

If we're assuming 100m of clear visibility,

We're not. Why are you all going so mad with your arguments about how fast the other driver was going, and how far they can see, when about all the info you have is 'narrow streets, 20mph in an estate'. There could be parked cars and everything, so there's no point in arguing about visibility unless OP can provide more info.

However others chose to continue to chastise the OP, and here we are.

I'm not chastising the OP, and I don't think most people are, but most people think OP is in the wrong, based on the facts given. We've even given advice like, drive out of your driveway, to try to stop it happening again.

PlumC

:

Due to circumstances of the other driver actually admitting that she was not paying attention as she was on her mobile at the time I won't comment about me being a "careless driver"

Way to drop a bomb! When did you find this out?!

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

Again, there's no point in trying to apply science, as there's insufficient information.

I also fail to see how someone being on the phone, if true, can cause them to move sideways into the rear of another person's car. It's still clear to me that the OP is the one who did the hitting.

And therein hopefully endeth the thread?

Not a chance!

Cornucopia

almillar wrote: »

Damage was to the side of the driven car, so was caused by the speed of the reverser.

Nope, it was to the side and rear of the driving car, so it was hit by the reverser.
...

I also fail to see how someone being on the phone, if true, can cause them to move sideways into the rear of another person's car. It's still clear to me that the OP is the one who did the hitting.

This really doesn't work. If both vehicles were moving (as we pretty much know they were) then they hit each other.

Your "the reverser did the hitting" line is more about preconceptions over liability than an actual representation of the facts.

Again, there's no point in trying to apply science, as there's insufficient information.

With the necessary caveats, it can give quite a useful insight.

Cornucopia

Retrogamer wrote: »

Perhaps you should have a read into this thread and LoonR1's posts on it with his advice. He's been giving advice there for years and still does and the incident below is very similar to the OPs

It's not really similar enough, though. Not that we know enough about the OP's scenario to really tell either way.

I was kind of hoping for some kind of official reference, not another "chap on a forum", even if he does have a good reputation.

I'm also not entirely happy with the way he comes over. He seems a bit like some of the posters on this thread - all too keen to assume that the OP was in the wrong, without all the relevant facts, and based on questionable "principle".

In particular your man says: "Assuming another vehicle is going to stop (see OP) just because you are moving, is not acceptable driving." That's fine as a general principle of courteous driving. But there are a number of familiar situations where it clearly doesn't apply: in a car park, when using a passing place on a narrow lane etc.

He also says: "Trying to claim he was "drunk". Poor." How can he assume that the other party wasn't drunk, when the (other) OP explicitly said he was? What is the point of that?

I'm pretty sure that when people come on to a forum to ask for advice, they want it about the situation they have, not the one someone thinks they "really" have.

edit: I found this, which seems to have a lot of detail: http://reidblack.com/assessing-liability-general-situations/

audigex

I'm not sure why people are talking about reversing/not reversing... that's got no bearing on things. You could slide the car on it's roof if you wanted to and were under control. Criticising someone for reversing is nonsense, we all have to reverse regularly.

The important factor here is simply right of way. When you left your driveway you were not on the road. The BMW was. The BMW therefore had right of way and it was your responsibility to wait until it had passed.

The BMW may have been speeding, but you were also travelling too fast or weren't paying enough attention- otherwise you couldn't possibly have hit the side of the BMW, it would have either hit the side/back of you. Sounds pedantic, but it's a very important point relating to how fast you stopped your car on seeing the BMW (ie: not very)

dacouch

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's not really similar enough, though. Not that we know enough about the OP's scenario to really tell either way.

I was kind of hoping for some kind of official reference, not another "chap on a forum", even if he does have a good reputation.

I'm also not entirely happy with the way he comes over. He seems a bit like some of the posters on this thread - all too keen to assume that the OP was in the wrong, without all the relevant facts, and based on questionable "principle".

In particular your man says: "Assuming another vehicle is going to stop (see OP) just because you are moving, is not acceptable driving." That's fine as a general principle of courteous driving. But there are a number of familiar situations where it clearly doesn't apply: in a car park, when using a passing place on a narrow lane etc.

He also says: "Trying to claim he was "drunk". Poor." How can he assume that the other party wasn't drunk, when the (other) OP explicitly said he was? What is the point of that?

I'm pretty sure that when people come on to a forum to ask for advice, they want it about the situation they have, not the one someone thinks they "really" have.

edit: I found this, which seems to have a lot of detail: http://reidblack.com/assessing-liability-general-situations/

That link has a very brief summary, the purpose of the link being for google's benefit and also to hook potential customers.

The breach of statutory duty is incredibly over simplified and does not explain itself.

The examples they give under this section are not quantified by explaining that breaching a statutory duty such as tyre depths does not mean the other party is not liable for the accident as the lack of tyre depth may not have had any effect on the accident.

Equally not wearing a seat belt (I'm not really sure why they put seat belts into "Assessing Liability" as they have no effect on liability. Not wearing a seat belt if you were the innocent party & were injured would not prevent you claiming for your injuries. However not wearing the seat belt may have aggravated the injuries or even meant injuries occured which would not have had a belt been worn. This can mean any awards may be reduced or possibly denied where the lack of a seat belt meant injuries were sustained that would not have occured had a belt been worn.

Incidently this is post that should have finished this thread

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

As per post #58

Cornucopia

dacouch wrote: »

That link has a very brief summary, the purpose of the link being for google's benefit and also to hook potential customers.

It's one of about 30 pages. Some of them are very detailed.

The breach of statutory duty is incredibly over simplified and does not explain itself.
...

I think we all understand that.

Incidently this is post that should have finished this thread

No. That was just restating the negativity agenda.

BTW, I was reading a bit more of that PistonHeads thread. Your man is somewhat unpopular with some of his fellow FMs. Interesting how some of the same arguments and positions have come out, though.