Who is liable?

RS2000.

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.

Or looked but didn't see.

Cornucopia

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

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

Yes, because that's how it always plays out on Judge Judy.

RichardD1970

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.

Sorry, but OP hit the other party.

They hit the other car in the REAR door so obviously weren't looking behind whist reversing or they would have seen the other car behind them and stopped.

Cornucopia

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

You get more and more delusional by the second

That's usually what people say when they are losing the argument.

The OP had an obligation to ensure that the road was clear of traffic before pulling onto it...

Which they say they did. Why would you claim otherwise when you weren't even there?

Astronaughtwannabe

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's exactly my point.


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.

Points 1 & 3 are perhaps quite noble. Point 2 you are completely clueless about. It's obvious (no really really obvious).

Barny1979

PlumC wrote: »

This morning I was reversing off my drive like i have done every single day for the last 3/4 years

Reminds me of this, at 3:04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppQJcj6iUKc

Cornucopia

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Sorry, but OP hit the other party.

They hit the other car in the REAR door so obviously weren't looking behind whist reversing or they would have seen the other car behind them and stopped.

The damage suggests that both vehicles were moving, so to be correct, we would say they hit each other.

marleyboy

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.

It would have to be rocket science, particularly if the vehicle that hit him, managed to do it with their own rear door, maybe they were doing donuts as the OP reversed, it would seem (even by Ops admission) that OP's car hit the rear side of the car, else the very front end of this car would have sustained the brunt of the damage.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

So what is a plausible gap?

6 secs? The other car would have been around that 100m if they were doing 40mph.
4 secs? The other car would have been around that 100m if they were doing 60mph.
3 secs? The other car would have been around that 100m if they were doing 70mph.

The maths is helping you dig yourself further into the mire of presumption and prejudgement.

Cornucopia

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

Point 2 you are completely clueless about. It's obvious (no really really obvious).

Really? I'm intrigued. What in particular?