Who at fault reversing out of car park space and car hits rear side of my car?

mickdw

If I grasp this correctly, the reversing car was well out into the road. The other car came along and hits the side of the reversing car. If that is the situation, IMO the fact that the car is slowly reversing has little to do with the accident as if the reversing driver had actually stopped and was completely blocking the road, it would seem that this other driver would still have hit the side of the OP in a similar manner.
I cant see this as being as clear cut as its being made out here. If the act of reversing in itself didnt cause the accident, there must be some liability on the part of a blind driver who drives into the side of a near stationary car. Unfortunately insurers may just settle as you were the reversing driver but it would appear that there is a great deal of stupidity on behalf of the other driver.

Anan1

Ah come on, lads. We know that the OP never even saw the other car, and we know that the OP was still moving when they were hit. We also know that the other car was very close to being able to stop in time. I'm going to take a wild punt here and suggest that the other car expected the OP to stop at the centre line, rather than blindly reversing into their path.

2 stroke

marylou123 wrote: »

I WAS ALMOST OUT AND PASSED TH HALFWAY MARK ON THE ROAD AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAR LANE WHEN I FELT A BUMP.

53 posts and only 2 notice that the OP didn't see the other car.

Overheal

Personally I was unaware of this, my defensive course simply told me that in practice give right of way to almost anything in front of you so long as it is in your flow of traffic (ie not necessarily always yielding to people coming on from a sideroad). And that in a collission you are pretty much always at fault if you rear-end someone. But if they're reversing that's a special case eh. I like this. Usually I worry about insurance scammers trying to reverse into me at the grocery store to get a payout.

Overheal

Henry Ford III wrote: »

This won't help Op's situation but why not reverse into parking spaces?

It's a LOT easier to reverse back out into (what is almost always) open space than it is to reverse in-between what can be 2 or even 3 other vehicles with no more than 2ft of clearance on each of 3 sides.

Cookie_Monster

Overheal wrote: »

It's a LOT easier to reverse back out into (what is almost always) open space than it is to reverse in-between what can be 2 or even 3 other vehicles with no more than 2ft of clearance on each of 3 sides.

It's a lot harder to see around two parked vehicles when reversing out of a space though. I'd always find it easier to reverse into a space in tight situations like car parks

robbie_998

i always reverse into all parking spaces

or

i have my car that i can drive straight out rather than reverse out of anywhere.


i think it was on boards here that someone was saying its harder for an engine to reverse when cold ?

2 stroke

The problem is drivers are rarely trained to reverse into parking spaces, I know a lady that had seven years of lessons, before passing her test, yet was never taught how to reverse into a space or to parallel park

robbie_998

2 stroke wrote: »

The problem is drivers are rarely trained to reverse into parking spaces, I know a lady that had seven years of lessons, before passing her test, yet was never thought how to reverse into a space or to parallel park

we could talk all week about the irish driving test being flaud - but thats for another thread !

Vertakill

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It's a lot harder to see around two parked vehicles when reversing out of a space though. I'd always find it easier to reverse into a space in tight situations like car parks

Exactly. The parked cars you're reversing in between are not going to magically start moving... whereas if you're reversing out of a parking space, the traffic behind you is most definitely moving.

Of course, some car parks are designed specifically for people to drive into because it's easier for most people to drive in to a diagonal space (note: easier for most, but most definitely not safer).

marylou123 wrote: »

I WAS EDGING OUT OF A CAR PARKING SPACE AT TWO MILES ON HOUR, I WAS ALMOST OUT AND PASSED TH HALFWAY MARK ON THE ROAD AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAR LANE WHEN I FELT A BUMP.

Sorry, a bump is possibly clipping a kerb or bouncing into a pothole... NOT another car.

It sounds like both yourself and the other woman need to pay a HELL of a lot more attention when driving around car parks in future because both you and her observational skills are seriously in question in this scenario.

It sounds like either you just blindly reversed out and clipped someone because you think that everyone should stop/slow when they see you reversing, or the other woman was one of these "I'm just going to bully on by them and force them into stopping coz I can't be arsed waiting for her to reverse at 2 miles on hour [sic]" people and you didn't notice them, which meant you collided.

guitarzero

bluewolf wrote: »

legally and liability wise, she had right of way and it's your fault

in practise, i would expect someone to have the cop on to stop when they see a reversing car
but that doesn't make any difference for liability as i said so... sorry

+1

She should have been watching, you were wrong to pull out but she was clearly in the clouds. You should have asked her did she hit anyone who wrongly crossed the road without the green man. She sounds like a right b*tch.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

It's a LOT easier to reverse back out into (what is almost always) open space than it is to reverse in-between what can be 2 or even 3 other vehicles with no more than 2ft of clearance on each of 3 sides.

I used to park cars as a job, its easier to reverse into a tight parking space than drive into one unless of course the space can be driven straight into. That's thanks to side mirrors obviously.

2 stroke

2 stroke wrote: »

53 posts and only 2 notice that the OP didn't see the other car.

AT least 3 people had

TJJP

Anan1 wrote: »

Ah come on, lads. We know that the OP never even saw the other car, and we know that the OP was still moving when they were hit. We also know that the other car was very close to being able to stop in time. I'm going to take a wild punt here and suggest that the other car expected the OP to stop at the centre line, rather than blindly reversing into their path.

Haven't read the rest of the thread yet - but I wasn't there, were you? (historical modification (modding) only applies to bored.ie as far as I remember, in real life things are different sometimes) in my personal opinion.

TJJP

2 stroke wrote: »

53 posts and only 2 notice that the OP didn't see the other car.

Do teach me this jedi-mind-vision round-the-corner behind-you in a carpark trick. I mean have you ever actually driven a car?

Cedrus

Overheal wrote: »

It's a LOT easier to reverse back out into (what is almost always) open space than it is to reverse in-between what can be 2 or even 3 other vehicles with no more than 2ft of clearance on each of 3 sides.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It's a lot harder to see around two parked vehicles when reversing out of a space though. I'd always find it easier to reverse into a space in tight situations like car parks

And you (almost) never get surprised by someone hammering down a parking space at 50kmph.

TJJP

So.. Pulling all of my above into one coherent (I hope whole).

I always (yes always) reverse park for two reasons 1) I Can 2) Other A-holes

In this case perhaps 1) OP reversed out at a low speed and some cracker-head ploughed into them or 2) OP is a cracker-head who reversed out at speed into the path of an oncoming freight train; but as a further alternate maybe 3) OP was looking over their shoulder reversing at a leisurely pace and 4) a rally grandma came round the corner on two wheels. But of course none of us will ever know the real scenario.

The outcome is that as someone wasn’t observing the three ‘C’s’ of the road Care, Courtesy, and Consideration fenders got benders. In the heel of the hunt OP might get stung, but I wouldn’t wish it on him/her, as on the other hand the other ditzy driver might just as well have ran into the OP. I doubt there is a cure here on boreds here either way. It’s for OP and driving miss ditzy to sort out. I wouldn’t give too much ground if it were me, but them’s the breaks (or lack of) for OP to work out.

Minimal damage repaired on a ‘full and final settlement of all and any costs and damages arising’ basis by agreement leaves all free to progress on their merry way. It’s a new year after all.

ps. Sorry 2 stroke, I was a bit harsh to you above - peace and love to all men for new year and all that.

2 stroke

TJJP wrote: »

Do teach me this jedi-mind-vision round-the-corner behind-you in a carpark trick. I mean have you ever actually driven a car?

Drive, so that you can stop, within the distance that you can see. Yes, I do drive, I have driven for a living, and I can reverse an articulated truck just about anywhere over 8' 6" wide.

Tragedy

Personally, I feel the other driver is at fault. Where insurance is concerned, it's probably going to be the OP. Shame!

Cookie_Monster

2 stroke wrote: »

The problem is drivers are rarely trained to reverse into parking spaces, I know a lady that had seven years of lessons, before passing her test, yet was never taught how to reverse into a space or to parallel park

That's the whole point of the reversing around the corner bit in the test.
can't exactly just use random parked cars in case you fuck it up though

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

That's the whole point of the reversing around the corner bit in the test.
can't exactly just use random parked cars in case you fuck it up though

..... strange logic.

keithclancy

This thread will go nowhere.

Total decension into the first b1tchfest of 2012.

I'd say don't admit liability and let the insurance sort it out OP, you'll never get a correct answer on here.

I wasnt there so I cannot say if your in wrong (sounds like you are) or if its shared responsibility (which I could only see happening if you were completely stopped)

Cookie_Monster

RoverJames wrote: »

..... strange logic.

how so?

Mr. Presentable

It seems to me that you should only reverse out when the way is clear. Naturally the way may not remain clear, so once you are partly onto the road other traffic must react appropriately. Unfortunately for the OP she did not see the other car, so she really has no idea if the other woman was still moving or in fact had stopped.

My conclusion is that the other driver may well have reacted correctly (albeit perhaps late) by stopping and the OP, having not seen her, hit her. I didn't see it, so I don't know what happened, but on the testimony of the OP she failed in her observation.

2 stroke

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

That's the whole point of the reversing around the corner bit in the test.
can't exactly just use random parked cars in case you fuck it up though

I'm not talking about the driving test. I'm talking about driving instruction. Learners could be trained to reverse into a marked space in an empty carpark.
Regarding the maneuver you mention, absolutely rediculous training learners to reverse into oncoming traffic.

keithclancy

2 stroke wrote: »

I'm not talking about the driving test. I'm talking about driving instruction. Learners could be trained to reverse into a marked space in an empty carpark.
Regarding the maneuver you mention, absolutely rediculous training learners to reverse into oncoming traffic.

If I had my way they'd have to drive an assault course with dudes chasing them in a pickup truck firing guns at them while a drill instructor is screaming in their ear.

That should get them ready for a trip to Limerick with their mam.

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

That's the whole point of the reversing around the corner bit in the test.
can't exactly just use random parked cars in case you fuck it up though

RoverJames wrote: »

..... strange logic.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how so?

You seem to think they don't request you to reverse into a parking space in the driving test just in case you feck it up and damage randomly parked cars.

I find this a strange logic considering during the driving test there is ample opportunity to feck up and hit plenty of non stationary random cars.

eddieham

Similar thing happened to me a couple of years ago,as I was reversing into the space.Unfortunately OP your insurance co will accept liability because you were reversing.

Were you in the process of driving into the space and it happened she would be liable!

here's a reply I posted in a similar post two years ago.

Exact same thing happened to me, except we did collide!
In a multistory private car park.
Prior to beginning manoueuvre I looked behind and she definitely wasnt there, began moving and was looking over left shoulder as reversing then bang.
She tried to squeeze between me and the parked cars as I was moving
Gards were called by me, but as it was private property wouldnt get involved.
Insurance said as I was reversing I would beat least 80% liable regardless.
Still cannot believe this 1) that she was so impatient to try and squeeze between as I was moving 2) she was adamant I should have stopped to let her go 3) As I was reversing I am considered at fault.
I do appreciate that had I repeatively scanned all round I would have saw her, but if I ever see some one parking or manoeuvring I will wait and let them complete especially in multistories.

PS her husband arrived towards the end and went through her in front of everyone for being so impatient

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63432618

2 stroke

On the issue of the person reversing, being automatically at fault. I believe this applies if the person reversing, is reversing across traffic lanes, or against the normal flow of traffic in a driving lane i.e. basically driving on the wrong side of the road.

eddieham

eddieham wrote: »

Similar thing happened to me a couple of years ago,as I was reversing into the space.....................

Prior to beginning manoueuvre I looked behind and she definitely wasnt there, began moving and was looking over left shoulder as reversing then bang.
She tried to squeeze between me and the parked cars as I was moving
......................

Were you driving a truck?
You should be able to reverse into a space without having room between you and the parked cars big enough for another car to try and squeeze between

keithclancy

So basically if you want a dent repaired for free, just wait for someone reversing and crash into them.

ARGINITE

Something similar nearly happened to me a few months ago. But instead of pulling out of the space I was reversing into a parking space in a nearly empty car park. Then from out of no where someone drove between me and the wall that formed the outside of the car park.

If I had hit them who's fault would it have been?

Bruthal

2 stroke wrote: »

On the issue of the person reversing, being automatically at fault. I believe this applies if the person reversing, is reversing across traffic lanes, or against the normal flow of traffic in a driving lane i.e. basically driving on the wrong side of the road.

Having the right of way on roads is to enable as smooth a flow of traffic as possible in general.

Its is not there to allow drivers with the right of way to blindly drive through any other cars or obstacles that might be in their path, safe in the knowledge that they had the right of way.

ARGINITE

ARGINITE wrote: »

Something similar nearly happened to me a few months ago. But instead of pulling out of the space I was reversing into a parking space in a nearly empty car park. Then from out of no where someone drove between me and the wall that formed the outside of the car park.

If I had hit them who's fault would it have been?

Bit scant on the detail there
Was the wall in front of you, behind you, define out of nowhere etc etc etc etc etc etc

keithclancy

ARGINITE wrote: »

Something similar nearly happened to me a few months ago. But instead of pulling out of the space I was reversing into a parking space in a nearly empty car park. Then from out of no where someone drove between me and the wall that formed the outside of the car park.

If I had hit them who's fault would it have been?

I've drawn a crude artists impression based on the description of the incident.

samina

A car can't just come out of nowhere. Idiots often drive behind reversing cars the onus is on the driver to watch out for them. if I were the op I'd just be grateful it wasn't a small child running behind the car and be more ovservant in future

ARGINITE

RoverJames wrote: »

Bit scant on the detail there
Was the wall in front of you, behind you, define out of nowhere etc etc etc etc etc etc

Wall was behind me I was reversing into the space (so the other car drove through the parking space and not on the road). Was about one third of the into the space when a car came from the right and drove behind me at speed. Other then I just happened to look to my right I would have completely missed the car and reversed into him.

ARGINITE

ARGINITE wrote: »

Wall was behind me I was reversing into the space (so the other car drove through the parking space and not on the road). Was about one third of the into the space when a car came from the right and drove behind me at speed. Other then I just happened to look to my right I would have completely missed the car and reversed into him.

They must have been decent sized spaces if when you are a third of the way in a car can approach at speed and fit between you and the wall

ARGINITE

RoverJames wrote: »

They must have been decent sized spaces if when you are a third of the way in a car can approach at speed and fit between you and the wall

Ok maybe I was less then a third of the way in. Any more nit picking?

2 stroke

ARGINITE wrote: »

Other then I just happened to look to my right I would have completely missed the car and reversed into him.

You are supposed to look to the right, also left, front and rear. The person that claims that a car, truck, pedestrian, tree or wall 'came out of nowhere' is usually at fault as it shows lack of observation.

ARGINITE

2 stroke wrote: »

You are supposed to look to the right, also left, front and rear. The person that claims that a car, truck, pedestrian, tree or wall 'came out of nowhere' is usually at fault as it shows lack of observation.

So if you have checked in all direction for on coming "car, truck, pedestrian, tree or wall" and then commence reversing, this is then shortly followed by someone driving behind you through the parking space who would be at fault if there was a crash?

keithclancy

ARGINITE wrote: »

So if you have checked in all direction for on coming "car, truck, pedestrian, tree or wall" and then commence reversing, this is then shortly followed by someone driving behind you through the parking space who would be at fault if there was a crash?

Your supposed to look where your going, i.e. actually have your head in the direction the car is moving.

ARGINITE

ARGINITE wrote: »

Ok maybe I was less then a third of the way in. Any more nit picking?

Nit picking?
You initially posted a fairly vague description of events and asked for folks views, when asked for more detail you then posted what I would describe as utter horsesh1t

ARGINITE

keithclancy wrote: »

Your supposed to look where your going, i.e. actually have your head in the direction the car is moving.

Ok lets make the scenario theoretical and give it a perfect driver who is paying attention to what is around him and what is behind him, then who is at fault in this theoretical scenario?

ARGINITE

ARGINITE wrote: »

Ok lets make the scenario theoretical and give it a perfect driver who is paying attention to what is around him and what is behind him, then who is at fault in this theoretical scenario?

The perfect driver sees the car approach, and stops

2 stroke

ARGINITE wrote: »

Ok lets make the scenario theoretical and give it a perfect driver who is paying attention to what is around him and what is behind him, then who is at fault in this theoretical scenario?

No collision. so nobody at fault.

2 stroke

ARGINITE wrote: »

So if you have checked in all direction for on coming "car, truck, pedestrian, tree or wall" and then commence reversing, this is then shortly followed by someone driving behind you through the parking space who would be at fault if there was a crash?

You are suposed to check all around while maneuvering.

keithclancy

2 stroke wrote: »

You are suposed to check all around while maneuvering.

Your supposed to check all around you for hazards and then look in the direction your moving. If your unsure then stop, check and then look in the direction again before you move.

All to often i've seen someone looking out the front window and using their rear view mirror to reverse.

ARGINITE

keithclancy wrote: »

Your supposed to check all around you for hazards and then look in the direction your moving. If your unsure then stop, check and then look in the direction again before you move.

All to often i've seen someone looking out the front window and using their rear view mirror to reverse.

2 stroke wrote: »

You are suposed to check all around while maneuvering.

I'm looking for an answer to who is at fault not what you should do before, during, and after you are reversing into a parking space.

So I'll make my perfect drive a little less perfect and a crash happens in the above situation, who is at fault?

Henry Ford III

Overheal wrote: »

It's a LOT easier to reverse back out into (what is almost always) open space than it is to reverse in-between what can be 2 or even 3 other vehicles with no more than 2ft of clearance on each of 3 sides.

Take the easy option and sometimes it'll go wrong - as in this case.