Who is liable?

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

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

They've already answered that. They don't know, they didn't see it.

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?

They've already answered that. Their car was parked so as to be visible for the "entire length" of the street.

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?

They've already answered that. The entire length of the street.

And, of course, if their car was visible to the other car's driver for the entire length of the street, it stands to reason that the other car was clearly visible to them along the length of the street.

I repeat - 60mph is 27m/s. I don't think it unreasonable to say that a car is visible from 150 metres away, do you? That's six seconds visibility. It's also twice the total HC stopping distance from 60mph.

DTDfanBoy

Cornucopia wrote: »

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?

What nonsense, unless the car was travelling at the speed of light, " I didn't see the car because it was travelling too fast " isn't going to fool anyone.

AdrianC

It's also worth remembering that, if this other car really HAD been travelling fast, the damage would extend a considerable distance along the side. The driver would also, quite probably, have lost control and hit some of the cars parked along this narrow street.

OP - how far from where you hit them did they stop? How far down the side of their car does the damage extend?

Cornucopia

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

What nonsense, unless the car was travelling at the speed of light, " I didn't see the car because it was travelling too fast " isn't going to fool anyone.

You look once, no car. You look again 2 seconds later and it is right on top of you because it is travelling too fast.

It's not rocket science.

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

It's also worth remembering that, if this other car really HAD been travelling fast, the damage would extend a considerable distance along the side. The driver would also, quite probably, have lost control and hit some of the cars parked along this narrow street.

OP - how far from where you hit them did they stop? How far down the side of their car does the damage extend?

Not necessarily. Too fast is too fast to respond properly to the hazard. She may also have already begun to brake, lessening the speed of impact.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

You look once, no car. You look again 2 seconds later and it is right on top of you because it is travelling too fast.

It's not rocket science.

At 60mph, it travelled 54m in that two seconds. Ten car lengths. Two and a half times the distance you should be able to read the plate at. If you didn't see a car doing 60mph that close to you, you weren't looking.

PlumC

AdrianC wrote: »

It's also worth remembering that, if this other car really HAD been travelling fast, the damage would extend a considerable distance along the side. The driver would also, quite probably, have lost control and hit some of the cars parked along this narrow street.

OP - how far from where you hit them did they stop? How far down the side of their car does the damage extend?

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.

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

At 60mph, it travelled 54m in that two seconds. Ten car lengths. Two and a half times the distance you should be able to read the plate at. If you didn't see a car doing 60mph that close to you, you weren't looking.

Yes, in a straight line with clear line-of-sight. Is that what we're dealing with here? I'm glad you know, because I certainly don't.

Hence the question about how much of the road distance could be seen from the OP's vantage point.

What we are trying to establish is which of these scenarios is the most likely:-

1. The OP wilfully or negligently reversed into the path of an oncoming vehicle that had no possibility of stopping, despite exercising due caution in accordance with the circumstances.

2. The other driver was driving at a speed that meant she was outside her own stopping distance in terms of the presence of potential hazards, and she consequently hit the OP's car despite it being a visible, near-stationary hazard.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not necessarily. Too fast is too fast to respond properly to the hazard. She may also have already begun to brake, lessening the speed of impact.

Then the approaching car would have been even nearer than if we assume a constant speed and no attempt to brake.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes, in a straight line with clear line-of-sight. Is that what we're dealing with here? I'm glad you know, because I certainly don't.

Hence the question about how much of the road distance could be seen from the OP's vantage point.

The OP has told us. The entire length of the road.

2. The other driver was driving at a speed that meant she was outside her own stopping distance in terms of the presence of potential hazards, and she consequently hit the OP's car despite it being a visible, near-stationary hazard.

Small problem with that scenario - the rear of the OP's car hit the side of the other car.