Who is liable?

dacouch

Cornucopia wrote: »

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


I think we all understand that.


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.

LoonR1 is very respected on Pistonheads as he knows his stuff, he's unpopular with some posters due to his brough style which is partially caused by ending up repeating the same answers to various posters who perpetuate myths about Insurance they've heard up the pub.

Your link is one of about thirty pages all designed for the benefit of achieving a higher place on google by writing stuff classed as relevant by google. The added benefit to the site is it can also attract customers.

All of the pages are very basic, I would hardly say they're very detailed

Retrogamer

Cornucopia wrote: »

No. That was just restating the negativity agenda.

Unfortunately it's also the realistic one.

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

His forum etiquette with social skills is lacking, but he's rarely wrong.
I can only recall him ever being wrong once and i've been using it around 3 years.

almillar

Cornucopia-

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

I disagree, you're ignoring direction, and points of impact, which are clear to see. OP moved backwards, has damage to rear. Other driver driving forwards, has damage to rear side. OP moved TOWARDS other driver, whilst other driver was moving perpendicular to OP. OP hit other driver. I'm not talking about what insurance companies do, but physics.

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

Agreed, but we went a bit out on a limb and wasted a few pages here!

negativity agenda

I've got no agenda, and I can make up my own mind. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon or ganging up on anyone, but it's my opinion that it was OP's fault. Fair play to you for trying to help them, but I haven't seen anything that stops it being their fault.

audigex

I'm not sure why people are talking about reversing/not reversing

You're right it has no impact on blame, but OP would have seen better, and might have avoided the accident, if they drove out of their driveway, which I hope they do now.

Cornucopia

almillar wrote: »

I've got no agenda, and I can make up my own mind. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon or ganging up on anyone, but it's my opinion that it was OP's fault. Fair play to you for trying to help them, but I haven't seen anything that stops it being their fault.

Actually, the more that I look at it, and the PistonHeads thread, the more I see it like those viral memes based around different interpretations of common information. e.g. the colour of the dress "puzzle", or the incomplete maths (non-)formula.

We've got an incomplete set of information, which some people are trying to augment with other information of variable relevance, importance and accuracy. We've got different levels of expertise, and indeed, different fields of expertise being exploited.

The end result is that we disagree on the facts and their consequences.

Fascinating... but not surprising.

Cornucopia

Retrogamer wrote: »

Unfortunately it's also the realistic one.

Since we don't have a clear and complete set of facts, the whole scenario is open to optimistic and pessimistic flavours of interpretation.

Unfortunately, the OP is probably wary of coming back, now, so we may never know the full facts.

More generally, I've become aware that what I regard as common sense may (a) not be shared by other drivers and (b) and more importantly, may not be the way insurers will interpret things.

In particular, I think I will exercise more care (perhaps asking to be "seen out") in those situations where an initially unseen passing vehicle could collide with my vehicle during maneouvres.

dacouch

Cornucopia wrote: »

Actually, the more that I look at it, and the PistonHeads thread, the more I see it like those viral memes based around different interpretations of common information. e.g. the colour of the dress "puzzle", or the incomplete maths (non-)formula.

We've got an incomplete set of information, which some people are trying to augment with other information of variable relevance, importance and accuracy. We've got different levels of expertise, and indeed, different fields of expertise being exploited.

The end result is that we disagree on the facts and their consequences.

Fascinating... but not surprising.

I like your how you use "Some people"

Barny1979

What are the odds the OP doesn't come back and give an update on the outcome and insurance company view?