Car Accident caused by a Local Council Dustbin Lorry

marlot

Nobody has yet mentioned the children, nuns and baskets of kittens which could have been run over by the panicked reversing!

Fortunately the driver just hit another car. Unfortunate, but not the worst outcome in the world.

TooManyPoints

I suppose if the event took place as described it could be argued that the presence of the bin lorry certainly contributed to the accident and so S170 may apply. Of course if the driver of the bin lorry was unaware of the goings on behind him he would have a defence if he faced a charge of Failing to Stop. He cannot be expected to stop following an incident of which he had no knowledge. In fact that seems likely because if he was so unaware of the vehicle behind him that he reversed regardless of its presence he is unlikely to have been aware of the resulting collision.

I must say the incident sounds a little odd. Why would the bin lorry reverse for a short distance before pulling away? Was he backing up to negotiate his way round an obstruction?

Car_54

There is no mention of “involvement” in the RTA. The question is whether the accident was as a result of the bin lorry’s presence. I’d suggest not.

Mercdriver

Annielou wrote: »

Well she wasn't that close - normal distance - until the lorry started reversing into her without seeming to see her or looking like it was going to stop. With hindsight she should have honked her horn instead of reversing out of its way. But hindsight is a wonderful thing and when you're in a little car with a huge great big beast reversing into you I guess instinct takes over sometimes for some of us

Could she see the lorry's mirrors? If she couldn't, then it is very unlikely that the lorry driver would have seen her, though some refuse lorries do have a camera and a screen for checking for foreign objects that should not be there.

Mercdriver

DUTR wrote: »

The OP isn't the underwriter and heard the news 3rd hand.
2 cars in a collision from my seat.

For once I am in agreement with Andy. You can cause an accident very easily without being physically involved.

Mercdriver

AdrianC wrote: »

Nobody's suggesting it didn't reverse.
That, alone, does not mean it was involved in the collision.

Equally, nobody's suggesting there was any physical contact with the OP's mum's car.
So - the question is when a vehicle that's merely in the vicinity becomes "involved" in somebody else's collision caused by a panicked over-reaction.

Hence drawing a parallel with a parked car being overtaken. Would you suggest the keeper of that parked car is "involved"?

I disagree. It was involved in the collision. It reversing caused the OP's mum to reverse. What is in dispute is whether the lorry was responsible or not. I think that the OP's mum has contributed to the accident by a) being too close and b) failing to sound her horn to show her presence. The lorry driver may be partially at fault.

DUTR

Mercdriver wrote: »

For once I am in agreement with Andy. You can cause an accident very easily without being physically involved.

I agree with your thoughts there, however in the case described in the thread, when asked why the OP's relative was so close to the vehicle in front, it is met with silence, if the refuse vehicle had reversed I suspect it was in service at the time.
Sometimes young persons and females can/never admit that sometimes they are not right

a.turner

DUTR wrote: »

I agree with your thoughts there, however in the case described in the thread, when asked why the OP's relative was so close to the vehicle in front, it is met with silence, if the refuse vehicle had reversed I suspect it was in service at the time.
Sometimes young persons and females can/never admit that sometimes they are not right

It's not relevant to the lorry's involvement in the accident although maybe when it comes to liability.

Maybe the OP's mum should join up just to answer why.

Richard53

Annielou wrote: »

As no damage was done to my mother's car she wants to keep it off insurance and just pay out of her own pocket for the car behind her to be fixed (£1,000 is the quote from the garage).

Is she going to declare the incident to her insurers, even if there is no claim? Check the insurance T&Cs. Most insurers require you to declare all incidents, whether a claim is made or not. Failing to do so can be a painful and expensive process.

Car_54

Mercdriver wrote: »

I disagree. It was involved in the collision. It reversing caused the OP's mum to reverse. What is in dispute is whether the lorry was responsible or not. I think that the OP's mum has contributed to the accident by a) being too close and b) failing to sound her horn to show her presence. The lorry driver may be partially at fault.

We don’t know how close she was. We don’t know that the lorry driver didn’t see her, and that he wouldn’t have stopped before he hit her. We can’t track down the lorry, as none of the witnesses had time to get the reg. no. (even though bin lorries aren’t famed for their speedy take off).
All we do know is that the lady panicked and reversed into the car behind. Simples.