Who's at fault?

who's fault

  • Me

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Them

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Both

    Votes: 19 90.5%
  • Total voters
    21
rjbell

rjbell

Messages
4,422
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Just had a bump with the neighbour which is awkward.

I think she was probably at fault but I'm not 100% what do you think.

I drove into a large gap between 2 cars. It wasn't necessary to reverse in however, I did not want to take up two spaces, so once in the gap I reverse up closer to the car behind. Then I hear the bang. My neighbour who had thought i was staying put and not reversing closer to the car behind decided to make a 3 point turn from the other side of the road and drove into the space i was reversing in. She pulled out before i got out of the car so i cannot tell if i hit her or if she hit me? I most likely hit her or at least hit each other. should i have seen her?
 
Last edited:
If it goes to insurance it will likely be knock for knock as it sounds like you were both in motion and both had a duty to be aware of your surroundings.
 
B1ts said:
If it goes to insurance it will likely be knock for knock as it sounds like you were both in motion and both had a duty to be aware of your surroundings.
Click to expand...
Yes i get what you're saying but has she not pulled into my path?
 
Or you hers from her perspective, as you say you cannot say who hit who I think you would struggle to prove either way hence I suspect knock for knock is best you would get.
 
B1ts said:
Or you hers from her perspective, as you say you cannot say who hit who I think you would struggle to prove either way hence I suspect knock for knock is best you would get.
Click to expand...
Even if I've already in the process of a manoeuvre and the drive into my path? would it matter if connected with her or the other way around? In a different scenario if someone pulled out on me and i hit them. The fact i hit them and not them hitting me is irrelevant surely they would be at fault regardless?

We've agreed we do not want insurance claims i'm just trying to gauge whether to take it on the chin or ask for a contribution to costs. Mine is £500 damage hers are a few scratches.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Even if I've already in the process of a manoeuvre and the drive into my path? would it matter if connected with her or the other way around? In a different scenario if someone pulled out on me and i hit them. The fact i hit them and not them hitting me is irrelevant surely they would be at fault regardless?

We've agreed we do not want insurance claims i'm just trying to gauge whether to take it on the chin or ask for a contribution to costs. Mine is £500 damage hers are a few scratches.
Click to expand...

"A few scratches", properly addressed, could also cost that much.
Sounds like neither of you were observing your surroundings.
If I were the neighbour, any request for a "contribution" would result in a no reply.
 
rjbell said:
We've agreed we do not want insurance claims i'm just trying to gauge whether to take it on the chin or ask for a contribution to costs. Mine is £500 damage hers are a few scratches.
Click to expand...

How about get both cars fixed .. combine the costs and pay half each... ... if you agree it's 50/50 on who did what then so should the cost of repairs?
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Even if I've already in the process of a manoeuvre and the drive into my path?

...In a different scenario if someone pulled out on me and i hit them. The fact i hit them and not them hitting me is irrelevant surely they would be at fault regardless?
Click to expand...


As I say from her perspective she could claim the same thing, she was after all also performing a manoeuvre, and not pulling out of a give way against her (I presume not as your description said she was just doing a 3 point turn).

Comparing to a mythical different scenario does not change your circumstance afaik.
 
Firstly, though you said she had pulled out before you could examine so you do not know who hit who.........it should not be rocket science i.e. where is the damage. It's location on each car should either give you a definitive indicator as to who was moving last.....though I can visualize that some locations of damage could infer "you hit each other".

Subject to how you get on as neighbours you might find it is cheaper in the long term to come a mutually agreeable arrangement rather go insurance claim route.
 
If you were looking in your rear view mirror would you have saw her heading towards you ?
 
I say both simply because unless you have full CCTV footage its pretty much impossible.
I would however support the 50/50 split on costs
 
Mr Bump said:
I say both simply because unless you have full CCTV footage its pretty much impossible.
I would however support the 50/50 split on costs
Click to expand...
That again depends on age and state of cars ,if I.e the o.p car is fairly new and the ladies car is a old banger then 50/50 would I think be out of the question ,a dilemma indeed
 
I was going to say you're both at fault. But on reflection I think there isn't enough information in your account.

A sketch of the layout would help. Also, it would be helpful to understand which areas of the cars were damaged. You could put that on the sketch.
 
My experience of insurance companies is that there’s no way on earth they’re going to fight your corner without firm irrefutable evidence.

Even if you went to them with a 20 page argument, they don’t care. Knock for knock is the easiest, cheapest and most efficient thing for them, and as with all legal arguments. A battle will double the costs, why should they bother? Right and wrong doesn’t come into it, insurance is all about £££S.

I’ve twice had claims on my insurance for things that were no fault of mine (and very obviously no fault too) but a b******t story from the other driver meant my insurance co would rather settle than argue.
 
No idea about fault but it is high time you invested into parking sensors.

It has saved my butt a few times like that. It is never fast action with reversing and that single beep really makes you look around harder.

If the damage is minimal then just sort it all out between yourselves. Usually it is only a minor paint scrape that is not even worth touching on an older car.
 
Technically the car 'behind' should be at fault as it is in control of the space in front of it - this is complicated by the fact you were moving in reverse so the alternative argument can be posted. But then again you wouldn't be expecting the other car to suddenly occupy the space you were reversing to, especially as you were concerned (as I would be) closeness to the car parked behind and the kerb.

They should've waited for you to actually come to a complete standstill before executing a 3 point turn between parked cars, this wouldn't be something I'd do one our road unless I was absolutely certain none of the other cars were moving.
 
Really hard to say for sure without knowing where the damage on her car is. Is it on her wing or the front of her car .
I can't help but think you should have seen her in at least one of your mirrors. If it had been a pedestrian walking and not a car would you still feel in the right. ?
Have to keep checking those mirrors.
Just my opinion though.
 
rjbell said:
should i have seen her?
Click to expand...
Yes! Plus you should have seen anyone trying to cross the road behind you as you reverse. You should never drive anywhere if you cannot see what is there.
 
rjbell said:
In a different scenario if someone pulled out on me and i hit them. The fact i hit them and not them hitting me is irrelevant surely they would be at fault regardless?

.
Click to expand...
Unless they have completely rewritten the Highway Code since i learnt to drive, you should always drive in a way that allows you to be aware of other road users and to stop in time.
 
john.margetts said:
Unless they have completely rewritten the Highway Code since i learnt to drive, you should always drive in a way that allows you to be aware of other road users and to stop in time.
Click to expand...

Also puts me in mind of something my instructor said to me, oh when would that have been......in 1971, "you should drive like you are about to meet yourself coming the from the other direction" i.e. are you driving defensively enough to be able to stop in all situations! Yes, incidents happen but to surmise that in the 'if they are puling out and they failed to see you, makes it their fault if you hit them...." is a poor way to drive.

PS something to consider as a way to improve ones observation skills ~ take a leaf out of the Police Driving Manual called Roadcraft. As you are driving give yourself a "running commentary of what you see all around you" and see how much it can sharpen your observation and improve your defensive driving. You might surprise yourself as to how much more you notice when you put thoughts into words ;)
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
Also puts me in mind of something my instructor said to me, oh when would that have been......in 1971, "you should drive like you are about to meet yourself coming the from the other direction" i.e. are you driving defensively enough to be able to stop in all situations! Yes, incidents happen but to surmise that in the 'if they are puling out and they failed to see you, makes it their fault if you hit them...." is a poor way to drive.

PS something to consider as a way to improve ones observation skills ~ take a leaf out of the Police Driving Manual called Roadcraft. As you are driving give yourself a "running commentary of what you see all around you" and see how much it can sharpen your observation and improve your defensive driving. You might surprise yourself as to how much more you notice when you put thoughts into words ;)
Click to expand...

We used to use that system over here on the fire service as well. We have since moved away from the running commentary, to a new emergency services driving standard (esds) but the road craft system has always stayed with me in my head.
 
Derek897 said:
We used to use that system over here on the fire service as well. We have since moved away from the running commentary, to a new emergency services driving standard (esds) but the road craft system has always stayed with me in my head.
Click to expand...

Roadcraft was the recommended 'bible' when I was doing my IAM and RoAD tests & qualifications back in the '70's..............and this was when I used my motorcycle more than a car + much greater need to learn how to survive as not protected by a metal box! ;)
 
Sound to me as if neither of you were looking around well enough.

Is there any point at all in choosing who is most at fault (unless the neighbour is going out of thier way to pick a fight with you).
The insurance companies will sort it out as whats cheapest to themselves and to hell with both clients, so why bother blaming each other?

Its important to remember that NO ONE wants to have an accident - its misery and hassle to all involved. We all do really silly errors at times.
At least no one was hurt or killed, hang on to that thought.
 
john.margetts said:
Unless they have completely rewritten the Highway Code since i learnt to drive, you should always drive in a way that allows you to be aware of other road users and to stop in time.
Click to expand...
They did rewrite it to change mirror-signal-manoeuvre to simply ‘manoeuvre’ but other than that I think it’s largly unchanged;)
 
Brazo said:
They did rewrite it to change mirror-signal-manoeuvre to simply ‘manoeuvre’ but other than that I think it’s largly unchanged;)
Click to expand...

Given by drivers these days I thought it was manoeuvre, mirror, see who you've hit/annoyed, hand signal (or point at the dash cam shouting CAMERAAAAAAA!!!!!!"
 
Byker28i said:
Given by drivers these days I thought it was manoeuvre, mirror, see who you've hit/annoyed, hand signal (or point at the dash cam shouting CAMERAAAAAAA!!!!!!"
Click to expand...
The inclusion of

‘pull out on someone, look in your rear view mirror, wonder why this ‘idiot’ behind you is so close to you, make appropriate hand gesture and drive off’

Wasn’t their finest hour either!
 
On second thoughts you said the other driver was a woman that settles it it was HER fault ,probably had pmt or summat like that :exit::exit:
 
Bottom line for me would be, were you looking in your mirrors as you reversed. If not, then for me you were at fault.
But :) there may be mitigating circumstances at play, but without knowing where the damage is on her car it's a tough call
 
Derek897 said:
Bottom line for me would be, were you looking in your mirrors as you reversed. If not, then for me you were at fault.
But :) there may be mitigating circumstances at play, but without knowing where the damage is on her car it's a tough call
Click to expand...
Mirrors only show a small part of the view and do not include anything coming from one side. You should be looking directly, not relying on mirrors.
 
john.margetts said:
Unless they have completely rewritten the Highway Code since i learnt to drive, you should always drive in a way that allows you to be aware of other road users and to stop in time.
Click to expand...

Box Brownie said:
........"you should drive like you are about to meet yourself coming the from the other direction" i.e. are you driving defensively enough to be able to stop in all situations! Yes, incidents happen but to surmise that in the 'if they are puling out and they failed to see you, makes it their fault if you hit them...." is a poor way to drive.
Click to expand...

This is 2018, not 1918. You cannot drive at such a speed that you can stop on a tuppence if required. Being prepared for other road users to do something erratic would mean slowing to almost a standstill when approaching junctions or roundabouts where other drivers are waiting to join the traffic. Driving requires you to assume that most of the other road users are going to drive responsibly, otherwise the roads would be more gridlocked than they already are. Yes, I know there are idiot drivers out there.
 
john.margetts said:
Mirrors only show a small part of the view and do not include anything coming from one side. You should be looking directly, not relying on mirrors.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're driving. Last driving test I did was a C licence so mirrors only.
But even in a car you should still be using all 3 mirrors surely.
Or have they now officially allowed you to use 1 hand on steering wheel for reversing. When I did my car test it was 2 hands on the wheel for reversing and using mirrors. Not turning around in the seat and physically looking out the rear.
By all means physically look before starting manoeuvre but then it's mirrors.
 
jakeblu said:
This is 2018, not 1918. You cannot drive at such a speed that you can stop on a tuppence if required. Being prepared for other road users to do something erratic would mean slowing to almost a standstill when approaching junctions or roundabouts where other drivers are waiting to join the traffic. Driving requires you to assume that most of the other road users are going to drive responsibly, otherwise the roads would be more gridlocked than they already are. Yes, I know there are idiot drivers out there.
Click to expand...

I, maybe, over emphasised the 'stopping' but that is the last evasive action. Observation and roadcraft are important in being able to as needed make decisive decisions to avoid an incident................in part it becomes something "6th sense like" when seeing what might happen ahead. I have been driving for 47 years.....................I do not dawdle but 'drive to the conditions' ;) When I was a member of the MG Car Club I liked that their magazine was called "Safety Fast" :)

Oh, driving as best you can to avoid the "idiot drivers" is cheaper in the long run.
 
MidnightUK said:
Sound to me as if neither of you were looking around well enough.

Is there any point at all in choosing who is most at fault (unless the neighbour is going out of thier way to pick a fight with you).
The insurance companies will sort it out as whats cheapest to themselves and to hell with both clients, so why bother blaming each other?

Its important to remember that NO ONE wants to have an accident - its misery and hassle to all involved. We all do really silly errors at times.
At least no one was hurt or killed, hang on to that thought.
Click to expand...

I believe the OP already stated tgat he and the neighbour have avreed not to involve the insurers.
 
stumac said:
If you were looking in your rear view mirror would you have saw her heading towards you ?
Click to expand...
I was in my rear view mirror she cut in on a right sngle from the opersite side of the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top