Who is liable?

tykesi

So if people don't tell you what you want to hear it's 'criticism'?

Nobody that I can seehas criticised you, they have pointed out what you should have done (and what the Highways Code advises you to do).

As others have already pointed out this is entirely your fault and I'd be very surprised if this goes anything other than 100% fault when the insurers start their work.

If it's adviCe you want, stop being lazy and reverse onto your drive.

[Deleted User]

Your question is 'Who is liable?' The answer is 'You'.

I reverse from my drive onto my road. I'm well aware that everyone else has right of way over me. I've got a camera on the back of the car and it vastly improves the visibility of the road for me as I reverse (especially because of my hedge). It actually gives me better views than if i'm driving forward due to it's wide angled lens and low level. I especially don't want to hit a child walking right near my bonnet or boot - i wouldn't be able to see them through the windows or mirrors.

Sorry; you should be ultra careful reversing from a drive onto a road since you don't have the right of way.

stator

You'll both put in your claims on the insurance but I'm afraid it's likely to go against you. Don't admit liability though, just let the insurance sort it out. Take photos of the road if you think she should have seen you. It's possible it might go 50/50

AdrianC

PlumC wrote: »

...so I am aware of my surroundings.

Umm, sorry, but frankly if you were as "aware" as you think, this thread wouldn't need to exist, because you'd have seen this approaching car and not reversed into it. A car is considerably larger and more visible than a child.

Astronaughtwannabe

The burden does fall on the reversing driver but it's rebuttable in exceptional circumstances.

The thing is OP, you say the other driving was speeding, yet you describe little damage. The problem with that is it takes more time to slow/stop from a higher speed - in turn that means you had more time to see it.

I'm afraid this will likely be an expensive lesson.

almillar

If she was going a normal speed i would have seen her!

If she was going faster she would have been past you by the time you got out and you would have missed her!

Sorry, but you were entering a road, and she was on it. The rear of your car shows damage as does the side of hers. She can't drive sideways, so it's 100% your fault, and you've got no info on what speed she was doing.

I would echo the advice to reverse INTO your driveway. if you drive out, you can see much better instead of relying on mirrors.

MEM62

PlumC wrote: »

its not a main road its a narrow street on a small estate?

The point is still valid. It is safer (and therefore better practice) to reverse onto your drive so that when you leave your house you are driving forward into the road and not reversing into it.
I think that, in this case from the information your have provided, the collision will be put down to you. Your opinion of the other drivers speed is irrelevant.

Cornucopia

MEM62 wrote: »

Your opinion of the other drivers speed is irrelevant.

I disagree. We all know how this goes, and I think some posters are being somewhat disingenuous or naive about it.

The insurers are not going to go into a forensic investigation on this - the Police would do that if the incident had been serious enough, but it wasn't.

Therefore the insurers will (at best) look at the statements of the two drivers and try to come up with a fair interpretation of events. In that context, an allegation that the other driver was going too fast for the conditions is probably the OP's best gambit (possibly his only gambit). It will be taken on board as part of his statement.

Quite clearly, if the other driver drove around a blind corner at such a speed that neither she or the OP could stop within the time that the hazard was visible, then she will bear some of the blame.

The OP may well have disappeared for good, now, but if not, these questions may help settle some of the disquiet...

1. What speed do you think the other vehicle was doing before the impact?

2. Did they audibly brake? Were there tyre marks on the road surface?

3. What is the nature of the gap you were reversing through? Are there obstacles like walls, hedges and/or parked cars that would obscure the view of your car from on-coming traffic?

4. What is your estimate of the length of road for which you think the other party should have had a clear view of your vehicle?

DTDfanBoy

Cornucopia wrote: »

I disagree. We all know how this goes, and I think some posters are being somewhat disingenuous or naive about it.

The insurers are not going to go into a forensic investigation on this - the Police would do that if the incident had been serious enough, but it wasn't.

Therefore the insurers will (at best) look at the statements of the two drivers and try to come up with a fair interpretation of events. In that context, an allegation that the other driver was going too fast for the conditions is probably the OP's best gambit (possibly his only gambit). It will be taken on board as part of his statement.

Quite clearly, if the other driver drove around a blind corner at such a speed that neither she or the OP could stop within the time that the hazard was visible, then she will bear some of the blame.

The other drivers speed is irrelevant, either the OP saw the other car speeding, yet decided not to stop, or they never saw the other car so can't say that it was speeding.

Cornucopia

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

The other drivers speed is irrelevant, either the OP saw the other car speeding, yet decided not to stop, or they never saw the other car so can't say that it was speeding.

No. Still not true. See my edit, above.

The OP can conclude from his observations, that the other vehicle was speeding, or at least going too fast for the circumstances. He alludes to this in Post #1, when he says that she was going so fast that he didn't see her. So assuming his observations were those of a competent driver, how was he supposed to avoid the collision?