Car parked over my drive, clipped it, who is liable?

TheJP

shiraz99 said:

TheJP said:

[Deleted User] said:

TheJP said:

[Deleted User] said:

TheJP said:

[Deleted User] said:

TheJP said:

billy2shots said:

Can we all move on from the hedge please. 

The hedge is just deflection to justify hitting someone's car. 
Unless the op had to drive through the hedge making it act like a big theatre curtain slowly peeling back to reveal what's on the other side, the the hedge is irrelevant. 

The 50% blocking of drive is another red herring. The OP obviously had enough room to get his car out or they wouldn't have attempted to. The only alternative to that is they knew they couldn't get out and crashed on purpose. 

The OP ran out of skill or luck and caused damage to someone's property. 

Blocked driveways and hedges are being used to offset responsibility which is getting more common in today's world. 

That's a pretty wide accusation to throw out, why would i want to intentionally hit a car? If you have read my other posts you can see I've accepted responsibility. I can understand why its hard to visualise the drive but the way the car was parked and the angle of my drive and with the bush meant it was hard to see as i was reversing. Yes a bit of lack of concentration due to reversing out of the drive hundreds of times and not expecting a car parked in that way. Lesson learned.

Ive moved on.

Highway  Code Rule 201:
"Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."

Its a cul-de-sac not a main road.

The relevant part is the second sentence. "When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."

So what you are saying is no one in the UK can reverse out of their drive. 

Where did I say that?
I’ve merely quoted the Highway Code. Ignoring its rules may be used in evidence against the perpetrator either in criminal proceedings (e.g. careless driving), or in determining fault in a civil case.
BTW the HC only applies in GB, not the UK.

The part where you re-stated your quote about the second sentence, I've already said what type of road i live on multiple times. Your sentence states reverse in and drive out if you can (no context to what type of road)

Ok so everyone in the UK apart from N.I cant reverse out of their drive based on your fantastic insight.

I think you're being slightly obtuse. It's clear what @[Deleted User] is saying, ie, it's advisable, and clearly safer to reverse in and drive out, as exemplified by your little "incident".

No I'm not, @[Deleted User] comment was generalising that because the HC guides (not law) to reverse in that's what i should have done. I would say 90% of the population do not reverse into their drives.

TheJP

Grumpy_chap said:

shiraz99 said:

it's advisable, and clearly safer to reverse in and drive out, as exemplified by your little "incident".

I have also worked for many employers where they stipulate "reverse parking" policy and occasionally use it to sack someone.  

This must relate to company property or on company property because if it isn't that's just unbelievable and un-enforceable by a company.

TheJP

TooManyPoints said:

Ok so everyone in the UK apart from N.I cant reverse out of their drive based on your fantastic insight.

Are you generally able to reverse into your drive and were you able to prior to this particular occasion when you had the collision on the way out? There are not many circumstances where it's normally possible to drive backwards out of a space but not reverse into it. If it is possible but you generally don't then you have not taken the sensible advice offered by the HC. As mentioned, if you had driven out forwards it is doubtful this collision would have occurred. I know you have accepted responsibility but it is probably a collision that need not have occurred.

Yes i could reverse onto my drive but again its a shared drive so there is more risk of me hitting a parked car reversing in than reversing out. I also have 2 children, one is 5 months old and reversing in means i have more room to safely get the child out of the car seat due to the other neighbours parked cars. The HC is advise and the onus is on the operator of the vehicle to make the best safest decision which is what i do.

Grumpy_chap

TheJP said:

Grumpy_chap said:

shiraz99 said:

it's advisable, and clearly safer to reverse in and drive out, as exemplified by your little "incident".

I have also worked for many employers where they stipulate "reverse parking" policy and occasionally use it to sack someone.  

This must relate to company property or on company property because if it isn't that's just unbelievable and un-enforceable by a company.

Yes, company rules on company property.  Sometimes, they'll stack everywhere so full there is no room to turn so you drive in head first.  If they see that, and if they want you out, that's it.  Breach of "H&S" instruction which is an absolute if the boss wants it to be.  It is not a healthy industry and one I try to avoid taking contracts in.

TheJP

ontheroad1970 said:

TheJP said:

ontheroad1970 said:

TheJP said:

Car_54 said:

TheJP said:

billy2shots said:

Can we all move on from the hedge please. 

The hedge is just deflection to justify hitting someone's car. 
Unless the op had to drive through the hedge making it act like a big theatre curtain slowly peeling back to reveal what's on the other side, the the hedge is irrelevant. 

The 50% blocking of drive is another red herring. The OP obviously had enough room to get his car out or they wouldn't have attempted to. The only alternative to that is they knew they couldn't get out and crashed on purpose. 

The OP ran out of skill or luck and caused damage to someone's property. 

Blocked driveways and hedges are being used to offset responsibility which is getting more common in today's world. 

That's a pretty wide accusation to throw out, why would i want to intentionally hit a car? If you have read my other posts you can see I've accepted responsibility. I can understand why its hard to visualise the drive but the way the car was parked and the angle of my drive and with the bush meant it was hard to see as i was reversing. Yes a bit of lack of concentration due to reversing out of the drive hundreds of times and not expecting a car parked in that way. Lesson learned.

Ive moved on.

Highway  Code Rule 201:
"Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."

Its a cul-de-sac not a main road.

I rather suspect it's more main road than your drive.  The point is to never reverse from a minor road on to a major road

It’s a cul-de-sac within a minor road in which that road is in a minor road. I know what a main road is and what you shouldn’t reverse out into. 

The point is that you should not reverse into a more major thoroughfare than the one you come from.  So why do you reverse out on to the road from your drive when the HC clearly states that you should not do so?  If you had driven forwards out, I doubt the incident would have occurred, you would have had better visibility.  This is the reason I always reverse into parking bays.  Visibility is alway better when driving forwards.

The HC doesn't say you MUST not reverse off a driveway it merely advises not to if you can (the difference in the MUST NOT is enforceable) reversing off your driveway is not enforceable unless you are coming from a side road onto a main road, i don't.

TheJP

Grumpy_chap said:

TheJP said:

Grumpy_chap said:

shiraz99 said:

it's advisable, and clearly safer to reverse in and drive out, as exemplified by your little "incident".

I have also worked for many employers where they stipulate "reverse parking" policy and occasionally use it to sack someone.  

This must relate to company property or on company property because if it isn't that's just unbelievable and un-enforceable by a company.

Yes, company rules on company property.  Sometimes, they'll stack everywhere so full there is no room to turn so you drive in head first.  If they see that, and if they want you out, that's it.  Breach of "H&S" instruction which is an absolute if the boss wants it to be.  It is not a healthy industry and one I try to avoid taking contracts in.

So no relevance to my post.

Also unless the employer stated clearly that parking is defined in the H&S policy and gave adequate training then again highly unlikely they could sack you for not reversing in. Who would want to work for a company like that anyway!

TheJP

[Deleted User] said:

TheJP said:

billy2shots said:

Can we all move on from the hedge please. 

The hedge is just deflection to justify hitting someone's car. 
Unless the op had to drive through the hedge making it act like a big theatre curtain slowly peeling back to reveal what's on the other side, the the hedge is irrelevant. 

The 50% blocking of drive is another red herring. The OP obviously had enough room to get his car out or they wouldn't have attempted to. The only alternative to that is they knew they couldn't get out and crashed on purpose. 

The OP ran out of skill or luck and caused damage to someone's property. 

Blocked driveways and hedges are being used to offset responsibility which is getting more common in today's world. 

That's a pretty wide accusation to throw out, why would i want to intentionally hit a car? If you have read my other posts you can see I've accepted responsibility. I can understand why its hard to visualise the drive but the way the car was parked and the angle of my drive and with the bush meant it was hard to see as i was reversing. Yes a bit of lack of concentration due to reversing out of the drive hundreds of times and not expecting a car parked in that way. Lesson learned.

Ive moved on.

Highway  Code Rule 201:
"Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."

Do you actually understand this quote, its not law more guidance. Unless the HC stipulate 'must not' then its not part of the highway traffic act. 

TheJP

ontheroad1970 said:

TheJP said:

ontheroad1970 said:

TheJP said:

Car_54 said:

TheJP said:

billy2shots said:

Can we all move on from the hedge please. 

The hedge is just deflection to justify hitting someone's car. 
Unless the op had to drive through the hedge making it act like a big theatre curtain slowly peeling back to reveal what's on the other side, the the hedge is irrelevant. 

The 50% blocking of drive is another red herring. The OP obviously had enough room to get his car out or they wouldn't have attempted to. The only alternative to that is they knew they couldn't get out and crashed on purpose. 

The OP ran out of skill or luck and caused damage to someone's property. 

Blocked driveways and hedges are being used to offset responsibility which is getting more common in today's world. 

That's a pretty wide accusation to throw out, why would i want to intentionally hit a car? If you have read my other posts you can see I've accepted responsibility. I can understand why its hard to visualise the drive but the way the car was parked and the angle of my drive and with the bush meant it was hard to see as i was reversing. Yes a bit of lack of concentration due to reversing out of the drive hundreds of times and not expecting a car parked in that way. Lesson learned.

Ive moved on.

Highway  Code Rule 201:
"Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."

Its a cul-de-sac not a main road.

I rather suspect it's more main road than your drive.  The point is to never reverse from a minor road on to a major road

It’s a cul-de-sac within a minor road in which that road is in a minor road. I know what a main road is and what you shouldn’t reverse out into. 

The point is that you should not reverse into a more major thoroughfare than the one you come from.  So why do you reverse out on to the road from your drive when the HC clearly states that you should not do so?  If you had driven forwards out, I doubt the incident would have occurred, you would have had better visibility.  This is the reason I always reverse into parking bays.  Visibility is alway better when driving forwards.

A cul-de-sac isn't a thoroughfare, especially when I'm at the end of it. Also you are incorrect the HC does not clearly state that you mustn't reverse out of your drive, it suggests if you can, reverse in but its not part of the highways traffic act and thus not law. A lot of people quoting the HC and saying i am incompetent when they don't understand the very thing they quote.

ontheroad1970

TheJP said:

[Deleted User] said:

TheJP said:

billy2shots said:

Can we all move on from the hedge please. 

The hedge is just deflection to justify hitting someone's car. 
Unless the op had to drive through the hedge making it act like a big theatre curtain slowly peeling back to reveal what's on the other side, the the hedge is irrelevant. 

The 50% blocking of drive is another red herring. The OP obviously had enough room to get his car out or they wouldn't have attempted to. The only alternative to that is they knew they couldn't get out and crashed on purpose. 

The OP ran out of skill or luck and caused damage to someone's property. 

Blocked driveways and hedges are being used to offset responsibility which is getting more common in today's world. 

That's a pretty wide accusation to throw out, why would i want to intentionally hit a car? If you have read my other posts you can see I've accepted responsibility. I can understand why its hard to visualise the drive but the way the car was parked and the angle of my drive and with the bush meant it was hard to see as i was reversing. Yes a bit of lack of concentration due to reversing out of the drive hundreds of times and not expecting a car parked in that way. Lesson learned.

Ive moved on.

Highway  Code Rule 201:
"Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."

Do you actually understand this quote, its not law more guidance. Unless the HC stipulate 'must not' then its not part of the highway traffic act. 

The Highway Code can be used in line with Careless driving.  It could be considered that a driver not observing the recommendations of the HC that causes a collision would be falling below the standards expected of a competent driver.  With that bush meaning you couldn't see the car and therefore hit it, what if that had been a 2 year old toddler?  You are even less likely to see them than an object weighing over a ton.

prowla

As an aside, the point someone mentioned about reversing into your drive so you can drive forwards out is a good one.

Though it's not clear whether the 2nd sentence only refers to a main road, the advice in the Highway Code is:

201
Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.