Car incident

Steve182

[Deleted User] said:

rosiesmith11 said:

One is reversing down a straight driveway, the other reversing around a corner - arguably wouldn't have been able to see anything in their wing mirrors because they are so tightly parked on the corner. 

Neither driver should have been relying on their mirrors - they should have been looking back in the direction they were going, as they would have been taught before passing their tests.

This is precisely because mirrors, unlike eyes, do not have peripheral vision which might have averted the collision.

I don't dispute the logic behind this. When I was 18 and had a flexible neck, a ford cortina with no headrests and a large rear window I would always turn round when reversing. 

Some 30+ years on, less flexible neck, driving an SUV with headrests, fairly poor rear visibility, good reversing camera, reversing sensors etc. I've not once turned round to reverse since I bought the car over a year ago. 

Edited to answer the original question - 50/50

Cash-Strapped.T32

AdrianC said:

Neither of them have any actual evidence as to what happened...?

Then absolutely straight split liability.

As much as we all enjoy dissecting somebody else's incident to work out exact liability, I suspect this is the most accurate answer the OP will get.

Regardless who was more at fault, or which party was using correct reversing technique, neither insurance company will have any financial incentive to fight unless the driver can somehow hand over hard proof that it wasn't their fault.

I would imagine the best way to mitigate their costs will be to go straight 50/50, job done.

BOWFER

[Deleted User] said:

rosiesmith11 said:

One is reversing down a straight driveway, the other reversing around a corner - arguably wouldn't have been able to see anything in their wing mirrors because they are so tightly parked on the corner. 

Neither driver should have been relying on their mirrors - they should have been looking back in the direction they were going, as they would have been taught before passing their tests.

This is precisely because mirrors, unlike eyes, do not have peripheral vision which might have averted the collision.

And how are van drivers supposed to reverse?
I never look behind me, I'm not twisting myself round like that.
I use rear and side mirrors only.
I personally think twisting round gives a far worse view.

daveyjp

The only way she can not be at fault is if she has evidence that at the point of the collision she was stationary.