Car Accident caused by a Local Council Dustbin Lorry

shaun_from_Africa

Rover_Driver wrote: »

According to the OP's first post, the accident occurred because of the presence of the reversing lorry, and that caused the action of the lady driver - if the lorry had not been present and reversing, the accident would not have occurred .

And if the OP's mother had signaled their presence with their horn or checked the space into which they were reversing, the accident may not have happened.

But where do you draw the line?
If I was driving along a road and came to a parked car that required me to pass it on the opposite side of the carriageway but I misjudged the distance/speed of an oncoming vehicle and hit it, was the parked car partly at fault as if it hadn't been present, I wouldn't have needed to overtake into the path of another vehicle?

Or as AdrianC mentioned, I slow down because of a braking vehicle in front of me and get rear ended by someone behind me.
Surely the car in front has some responsibility as without their presence, I wouldn't have slowed down.

shaun_from_Africa

DUTR wrote: »

So...years ago I was driving along one summer, some eye candy was passing I looked at her and ran into the rear of the car in front, is the eye candy responsible for the shunt?

Only if you were brave enough to refer to the passing eye candy as a vehicle and could convince your insurers of this.

unholyangel

a.turner wrote: »

Are you saying you don't have a duty of care to other motorists?

No. I said the sticky wicket would be the breach of duty. Not establishing a duty.

THC (and some legislation) establish a duty of care as a road user to any other road user. What satisfies the legal test is thy neighbour test - there must be proximity of some sort.

unholyangel

Mercdriver wrote: »

Is grossly negligent the same as gross negligence? I would say, not necessarily. There is a subtle difference. Gross Negligence is a legal term. Saying that someone is grossly negligent isn't necessary a legal definition.

Saying someone is grossly negligence is saying they have committed gross negligence.

Negligence = noun
Negligent = adjective
Gross = adjective
Grossly = adverb.

My point was that its only gross if its been so reckless that it can be seen to be wilful/intentional.

a.turner

unholyangel wrote: »

Saying someone is grossly negligence is saying they have committed gross negligence.

Negligence = noun
Negligent = adjective
Gross = adjective
Grossly = adverb.

My point was that its only gross if its been so reckless that it can be seen to be wilful/intentional.

So what is reversing into something?

societys_child

a.turner wrote: »

So you're another that cannot see a connection between the bin lorry reversing and mum doing the same.

Oh, I see the connection, but mum over reacted and was in the wrong. It's surely easier and quicker to sound the horn than select reverse and drive into someone else . .

Do you regularly reverse without checking it's clear, and hit whatever happens to be there?

a.turner

societys_child wrote: »

Oh, I see the connection, but mum over reacted and was in the wrong. It's surely easier and quicker to sound the horn than select reverse and drive into someone else . .

Do you regularly reverse without checking it's clear, and hit whatever happens to be there?

I've never said she's without blame but I have said the bin lorry is connected to the accident according to the Road Traffic Act.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

Saying someone is grossly negligence is saying they have committed gross negligence.

Negligence = noun
Negligent = adjective
Gross = adjective
Grossly = adverb.

My point was that its only gross if its been so reckless that it can be seen to be wilful/intentional.

Thank you for that unnecessary grammar lesson.
The lady in question either (1) reversed without looking or (2) looked, and then reversed into another vehicle regardless.
I’d suggest that either is grossly negligent.

buglawton

Why isn't it a legal requirement for bin lorries, in fact all large vans that operate around humans and residential areas a lot, to have rear cameras? You'd think we live in the Stone Age.

custardy

buglawton wrote: »

Why isn't it a legal requirement for bin lorries, in fact all large vans that operate around humans and residential areas a lot, to have rear cameras? You'd think we live in the Stone Age.

You have one persons word the vehicle was going to hit them whilst reversing.
There's every chance it does have cameras/sensors.

If you really want to get into the questionable safety of large trucks manoeuvring in urban areas, (especially tipper rucks) then I'm all for it.