Who is liable?

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

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

Ah, there you go, you've obviously heard all this before and been able to come to a conclusion about what happened here, because it'll obviously have been exactly the same.

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

Like I said: assuming that the OP's observations were those of a reasonably competent driver, what more was he supposed to do? Assuming that no banksman was available, of course.

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

Who is claiming that anything was stationary?

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

CSI - yes, that was me. "CSI Petrol Station". That's the one where they forensically examine minor insurance claims for tell-tail signs of blame. Not.

And yes, you are right, the insurers are not going to spend more than 5 minutes on this.

However, in that 5 minutes, the suggestion (if made in good faith) that the other party was driving recklessly ought at least to get the OP to 50/50.

In the general scheme of things, I can certainly empathise with the OP, and remember awkward parking maneouvres where people have passed recklessly and without due regard for my vehicle as a stationary hazard. Not to mention those country lane turns, where you pull up, turn the radio off, and open the windows, because listening is the only way to tell if something is coming, assuming that it's not a Prius, of course.

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.

How?

There is no evidence, unless you are suggesting the OP saw the car for long enough to form the opinion it was speeding and still reversed into its path. Not sure it would make it 50/50.

Astronaughtwannabe

Cornucopia wrote: »

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

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.

Avoid costs may well be true and Balance of probabilities is all they have (nothing wrong with that). As for Charge more, yup you're probably right on that too.

Now, moving on... Yes of course it's commonplace for the other driver to admit excess speed to their insurer! :T

Cornucopia

RS2000. wrote: »

How?

There is no evidence, unless you are suggesting the OP saw the car for long enough to form the opinion it was speeding and still reversed into its path. Not sure it would make it 50/50.

Because he checked and saw that the road was completely clear, then began reversing into his "safe gap" and the other party hit him.

It's not rocket science. He can estimate the speed of the other vehicle based on how long it was between observing the clear road and being hit, and the distance of the clear observation.

i.e. if he could see the road was clear for 75m, and the observation gap was 5 seconds, then the other party must have been driving at more than 30mph.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

i.e. if he could see the road was clear for 75m, and the observation gap was 5 seconds, then the other party must have been driving at more than 30mph.

Is reversing into a gap you haven't even glanced at for five seconds the act of a "reasonable, competent" driver?

Sorry, there's only one person trying to fit the discussion to their preferred conclusions here.

Cornucopia

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

Now, moving on... Yes of course it's commonplace for the other driver to admit excess speed to their insurer! :T

She may well unwittingly admit to 30, not knowing the actual limit is 20.

TBH, now that I've done the maths, I think it's quite likely that she was speeding, assuming that the OP wasn't distracted between checking the road and proceeding to reverse.

To get to 20mph, with say, 100m of clear observation, would require an observation gap of 11 seconds, which seems wildly implausible.

OnanTheBarbarian

The speed argument is a double-edged sword and is most difficult to argue around.

Put it like this

"She was speeding" -

"Oh so you saw the speeding vehicle and decided to continue with your reversing anyway?"

"well no"

"so you did see the approaching car?"

"No"

Didn't see the car = not keeping a proper and continuing duty of care to look around you at all times = fault.

Saw the car = you decided to continue reversing into it = fault

Either way you are screwed and in the event you could argue some contributory negligence against the BMW driver, the % of fault you would get against them is absolutely minimal and not worth the effort.

I would put this one behind you, let your insurers deal and move on.

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

Is reversing into a gap you haven't even glanced at for five seconds the act of a "reasonable, competent" driver?

That's exactly my point.

Sorry, there's only one person trying to fit the discussion to their preferred conclusions here.

Given that you've just twisted the point I was trying to make... I assume that person is you.

I'm just trying to do three things:-

1. Give a Newbie a fair reception on the forum

2. Correct some of the misconceptions about insurance, the law, driving and physics that some people seem to be labouring with.

3. Providing appropriate advice to the OP, as best I can.

Astronaughtwannabe

I think there's many explanations lacking Cornucopia. Let's start with easy to remember acronyms such as SMIDSY (sorry mate I didn't see you) or the Transport Research Lab would likely give it a less friendly LBFS (looked but failed to see). There's been years of research by TRL on this but a lot of it could be summarised as 'too !!!!!! lazy to look properly (TLLP)... See what I did there ;-)

You're idealistic world of traffic accidents is somewhat a far reach from how they are actually dealt with (rightly or wrongly) but as also been mentioned in another post, cost comes into the final conclusion. That's life hey?

DTDfanBoy

Cornucopia wrote: »

Because he checked and saw that the road was completely clear, then began reversing into his "safe gap" and the other party hit him.

It's not rocket science. He can estimate the speed of the other vehicle based on how long it was between observing the clear road and being hit, and the distance of the clear observation.

i.e. if he could see the road was clear for 75m, and the observation gap was 5 seconds, then the other party must have been driving at more than 30mph.

You get more and more delusional by the second

The OP had an obligation to ensure that the road was clear of traffic before pulling onto it, they clearly failed as they drove directly into the side of a vehicle travelling on the road, none of your theories will change those facts