Who is liable?

DTDfanBoy

Cornucopia wrote: »

Or if you want to make a sensible point: how long a gap do you look for when turning into a traffic stream that is moving at 30mph compared to 60mph?

When reversing into a stream of traffic travelling at 60mph I'd be looking for a really substantial gap

shaun_from_Africa

Cornucopia wrote: »

Or if you want to make a sensible point: how long a gap do you look for when turning into a traffic stream that is moving at 30mph compared to 60mph?

Irrespective of the speed of the oncoming traffic, if driving forwards into the traffic stream it will depend on many factors such as the weather, condition of the road surface, type of car you are driving and how experienced you are at driving and reading the traffic conditions.


If reversing into the traffic, I don't think that any sensible driver would consider doing this if that traffic was moving at 60mph unless they had a good couple of hundred metres clear to allow them to reverse out, change to a fwd gear then accelerate away.

Strider590

For it to be the other drivers fault, you'd have to prove she could have taken action to avoid the incident.
From what you've said, i'm betting she could have, but you have no way at all to prove it.

In the same way that some drivers speed up and "create" a situation when you pull out a safe distance in front of them, you'd have a hard time proving anything.

Cornucopia

Strider590 wrote: »

For it to be the other drivers fault, you'd have to prove she could have taken action to avoid the incident.

No.

You have to suggest that it's likely she was negligent and you have to have the insurers believe that (on whatever basis they will apply).

Cornucopia

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If reversing into the traffic, I don't think that any sensible driver would consider doing this if that traffic was moving at 60mph unless they had a good couple of hundred metres clear to allow them to reverse out, change to a fwd gear then accelerate away.

Exactly.

So... what if there isn't a couple of hundred metres of visibility? And what if the speed limit is 20, making it a reasonable assumption that vehicles will be travelling at 30 at the most?

Cornucopia

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

There's nothing to stop the OP claiming that but if it's just verbiage in a statement, it'll not get him 50/50. There would have to be at least a slight shred of proof, either by way of witness(es) or dashcam or something similar.

Yes, it'll help. It also depends on the nature of the damage, and what the other driver says.

Astronaughtwannabe

True, but the old maxim of "abc" applies...Accept nothing, Believe nobody, Check everything.

Now is there any proof of excess speed?

OnanTheBarbarian

Potted - end of

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think sometimes people here are too quick to judge, and in doing so overlook common sense and recognisable aspects to an OP's story.

Au contraire. The OP's story has all the usual rings to it.

"I reversed, I didn't see them before I hit them, so they _must_ have been going too fast"

Strange how often it's stationary objects that must've been going too fast, too.

Cornucopia

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

True, but the old maxim of "abc" applies...Accept nothing, Believe nobody, Check everything.

I think it's more likely to be the insurers' ABC: Avoid costs, Balance of probabilities, Charge more in the future.

Now is there any proof of excess speed?

Not relevant at this stage. The other party may well admit speeding or excess speed, in the light of the accident damage being suggestive of it.