Driver reversed into me from driveway

unholyangel

AdrianC wrote: »

He was hit on the front wing.

How far did he need to reverse? A metre? A metre and a half?

Yes to the other drivers passenger rear - meaning at an angle & the other driver could have went back considerably further to straighten if OP's car hadn't been there to stop him

unholyangel

Also (not going to edit since you're active and might respond in between) whether 1m would be too far to reverse back would depend entirely on circumstances.

If he was only 4m from the junction to start with, it joined a main road & visibility was restricted (whether by fences, walls, buildings or other vehicles) etc.

Im not saying doing nothing was the OP's only option. Just that it might have been his smartest one.

MEM62

Bananacustard wrote: »

Don't jump to conclusions without knowing the story.

Then post the whole story instead of deleting your original post.

BananaRepublic

AdrianC wrote: »

Yet he didn't hit you until after he continued to reverse, giving you time to hoot several times.


It's a road too narrow to pass by him? Of course he's going to reverse at an angle...


He didn't expect you to be there. The difference is you know he was there and what he was doing and where he was going - so you could have got out of his way.


That goes without saying. That still doesn't mean it's a good plan to sit stationary and hoping in the path of somebody who clearly isn't paying the slightest attention to where they're going.


No conclusions at all. I'm simply trying to make sense of your story. Because, right now, it sounds to me like you just stopped, assuming, then looked surprised when the inevitable happened - even though you'd have had opportunity to avoid it.

Couldn't you have reversed...?

What ridiculous remarks. The onus is on someone reversing to look in their mirrors, not on those behind them to move out of their way.

I was in a car park, stopped, and someone reversed into the side of me, causing £1,500 of damage to a door and the frame. The online experts said 50/50. I won. But only because I had dashcam footage that confirmed my version of events. The damaged driver’s door was probably not enough proof on its own, as I could have reversed into the path of the other car.

Without dashcam footage, or any convincing evidence, the insurers will agree to share costs because that is cheaper than fighting in court. Over the years that approach works out cheaper for them even if they sometimes concede cases they might have won. If the OP has convincing proof, then he can complain to the financial ombudsman. But it sounds like he hasn’t, sadly. Unless the other party admits fault, or makes a statement that implicates him.

shaun_from_Africa

BananaRepublic wrote: »

What ridiculous remarks. The onus is on someone reversing to look in their mirrors, not on those behind them to move out of their way.

The onus is on the person reversing to make sure that it's safe for them to do so but any sensible driver would move out of the way of the reversing vehicle if it was safe to do so.

You can be 100% in the right but as the OP has now found out, still end up with a damaged car and having to fight to prove that you were not partially or fully at fault.

zagubov

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

The onus is on the person reversing to make sure that it's safe for them to do so but any sensible driver would move out of the way of the reversing vehicle if it was safe to do so.

You can be 100% in the right but as the OP has now found out, still end up with a damaged car and having to fight to prove that you were not partially or fully at fault.

Absolute need of a dashcam here. Been in a situation where people pulling out of the way of ambulances have reversed into me and then shrugged to say "how can you prove it".

Hermione_Granger

BananaRepublic wrote: »

What ridiculous remarks. The onus is on someone reversing to look in their mirrors, not on those behind them to move out of their way.

So, am I correct in assuming that if you were on foot and using a zebra crossing and you saw a car coming towards you and you were of the opinion that it wasn't going to stop, you would simply stand there and allow it to hit you?

After all, isn't the onus on the car driver to make sure that there is no one on the crossing and if there is, to ensure that they stop their vehicle to allow the pedestrian to cross safely and not for the person to move out of their way?

BananaRepublic

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

So, am I correct in assuming that if you were on foot and using a zebra crossing and you saw a car coming towards you and you were of the opinion that it wasn't going to stop, you would simply stand there and allow it to hit you?

After all, isn't the onus on the car driver to make sure that there is no one on the crossing and if there is, to ensure that they stop their vehicle to allow the pedestrian to cross safely and not for the person to move out of their way?

I don’t understand why you write such silly remarks.

The point I was making earlier is that if someone reverses into you, then in general that person is at fault from an insurance point of view. But as I and others have said, proving that is what happened can be impossible without some form of independent witness, and avoiding an accident in the first place is best if possible.

As I said earlier, all the onlne experts said I was at fault when someone reversed into the side of my car. The insurers thought otherwise, largely due to dashcam evidence supporting my version of events. I suspect reversing into someone is rather like driving into the back of someone from an insurance point of view.

And I’ve been on a pedestrian crossing and had to run to avoid being killed by a high speed van that saw the green lights 10m before the crossing but not the red lights at the crossing. Someone at work has a good saying: What matters isn’t who’s right, it’s who’s left.

AdrianC

BananaRepublic wrote: »

And I’ve been on a pedestrian crossing and had to run to avoid being killed by a high speed van that saw the green lights 10m before the crossing but not the red lights at the crossing. Someone at work has a good saying: What matters isn’t who’s right, it’s who’s left.

And that's EXACTLY what Shaun and I are saying, and you're calling "ridiculous".

BananaRepublic

AdrianC wrote: »

And that's EXACTLY what Shaun and I are saying, and you're calling "ridiculous".

What you and others are repeatedly saying is that the OP was (at least partially) at fault for not having moved out of the way. You may well believe that but what is relevant here is the attribution of fault from the insurance point of view and of course proving what happened.

Surely we are not discussing what would have been expedient at the time (it's too late for that) but the insurance implications and how to help the OP if that is possible.

Some of the remarks about pedestrian crossings are plain daft.