Forum menu
[i] benz - Member
The other parties vehicle [b]was not[/b] fully into the space behind me....evidenced by the fact that it was sitting at an angle with the rear half of it into the roadway[/i]
[i] aracer - Member
It [b]was[/b] fully in the space you were trying to occupy, that's the only thing which is really relevant.[/i]
oh dear! 😕
Ok.
For clarity.
Car indicating to pull out of space on opposite side of road.
Van lights were noted coming up the road from the opposite direction.
I passed the car indicating to pull out then slightly further down indicated left to go into a parking space.
I checked behind me and proceeded to reverse to avoid blocking a driveway. I was using my mirrors at this point.
During this maneuver, I then looked forward to ensure suffient space to clear driveway.
At this point the rear parking sensors in my car became audible followed by a CRUMP.
Once stopped I noted the other vehicle sitting at an angle of approximately 45 degress, with the rear of it still in the roadway. No lights were visible, although the car was stationary.
In order to clear the roadway and allow the previously mentioned van to pass, the other party had to reverse their vehicle back into the space on the opposite side from which they originally pulled out from.
The distance reversed by me between the start and finish of my maneuver was approximately 1/2 the length of my vehicle.
That is about it.
TBH I'm happy enough to pay for any damage caused - if my fault. However, at this juncture I don't actually know if it was 100% my fault....
It was fully in the space you were trying to occupy, that's the only thing which is really relevant.oh dear!
Sorry, but I would agree if said vehicle was fully parallel parked behind me, but it was not.
My sense is that said vehicle, in order to get across to the correct side of road to 'beat' the van coming in the opposite direction coincided with me reversing back at the same time. I guess we were both competing for the same space at the same time.
People have given their opinion which you don't agree with and unfortunately for you it's down to the insurance companies that you will need to argue with.
[quote=benz ]My sense is that said vehicle, in order to get across to the correct side of road to 'beat' the van coming in the opposite direction coincided with me reversing back at the same time. I guess we were both competing for the same space at the same time.
Presumably by "competing" you're trying to suggest that you were both moving towards each other? It's at least as likely that whilst driving forwards into the space the other driver realised that you were reversing and so stopped, which is why as I suggested them not being fully in the space isn't all that relevant. Given you didn't even know the other car was there, you have no idea whether or not it was moving, though given you were moving when the collision happened, at best it's partly your fault - though as I wrote in my first post, there's not really enough information to be sure either way.
Though as craig pointed out, I'm not sure why you bothered asking us.
@benz - my last post saying 'oh dear' was pointing out that aracer had clearly misunderstood the fact that other car [b]was not[/b] in the space.
and yes, from what you've said above that is exactly my conclusion, hence asking if she was fully parked at the time of crunch. It seems to me that she was originally parked on the wrong side of the road, and knew that's not a good idea. She then saw the space over the other side of the road, saw you lining up for it, saw the van, and made a rush to dive into the space - at the same time you were reversing into it, thinking she would beat you and you would see her already there.
100% your fault OP. Sorry.
Vehicles that are reversing have absolutely zero priority and as above it could've been a baby robin/child's face.
Grab the 50/50 settlement with both hands
Sounds like she was rushing to get into the space that you were reversing into. Hard to say without seeing the exact situation, but pretty stupid of her to drive into a space that you are reversing in; assuming your reversing light is working. It should have been obvious to her where you were going.
But, on the flipside you weren't looking in the direction you were travelling in at the point of impact. It's a tricky one because I often look forwards, sideways & backwards when reversing to make sure there is nothing I have missed, or there aren't new factors I need to take into account (a pedestrian getting close to my car while reversing from a supermarket parking space, for example).
Can you measure how much distance your parking sensors give you as a warning. I know the ones on our c3 Picasso probably give 5-6ft when they first beep.
You state there was only a short indication from the parking sensors before the impact occurred, so were you going at a speed sufficient enough to cover that much ground before impact, or was she moving forwards at the same time as you were moving backwards. I suspect this is what happened; you drove backwards into her and she drove forwards into you.
For me, at my typical 'reversing speed' I think there would be at least 3 seconds of ignored warning signal before an impact occurred against a stationary object.
I can obviously only state my recollection of events.
If the other driver states that they had stopped and I reversed into them so be it.
Unfortunately, as a number have noted, it's not 100% clear-cut who was wrong or right.
An unfortunate start to the day, but not life or death, so it's a minor inconvenience.
We have agreed that we will each get quotes to repair the noted damage and then decide whether the insurance companies need to be involved or not.
[quote=Keva ]@benz - my last post saying 'oh dear' was pointing out that aracer had clearly misunderstood the fact that other car was not in the space.
Ah - I did wonder what your point was, but no I did understand the other car wasn't parked, I was just suggesting that it was irrelevant as it's still your fault if you reverse into a non-parked stationary car.
TBH I do tend to agree with others on balance that the most likely thing is that you were both moving when the collision happened, but as you weren't looking where you were going you have no way of proving (even based on your own evidence) that she hadn't stopped as she claims.
Her fault she clearly drove into the back of you ignored your reversing lights and failed to alert you to her presence with her horn. Your fault you failed to observe her presence and reversed without checking .
The clearest 50/50 imaginable , sort it out yourselves.
sounds right to me
Cheers folks for the thoughts and guidance.
Just did a check of my car. There is a notable scuff on the rear bumper at the rear close to the outside driver side. The scuff is horizontal.
I was reversing straight back.
The other vehicle numberplate (and potentially bumper) was cracked at the passenger side.
The parking sensors start activating at a distance approximately 5ft from the rear of the car.
So, we probably were both moving at the time.
Benz - you are arguing with yourself trying to get the outcome the one you want to hear from us. There is no way on earth that you would be cleared of fault so you either agree with the other party to sort yourselves out and not involve the insurance companies or, if she refuses to do that, you will have to inform them and leave them to decide what is inevitably going to be classed as both of you being at fault.
I'd say 50/50, driving in the dark without lights and causing a collision mmm.
From current personal experience if someone runs into you diagonally from behind whilst you are slowly travelling in your own lane the insurance companies will try and go 50/50 as they can't be arsed to fight the claim. So in this case shes not got a hope of anything other I'd say.
driving in the dark without lights
But she may have switched her engine off after the collision – I haven't seen any posts that confirm that the OP noticed that she didn't have any on whilst she was driving, just afterwards.
And OP - did you take any pictures at the time? It would certainly help your claim if you did.
And OP - did you take any pictures at the time? It would certainly help your claim if you did.
No, no pictures at the time as dark plus the poor lady involved appeared very stressed and stated a number of times "I've had a really bad morning already and have no time to discuss this. I need to get to work".
Benz - you are arguing with yourself trying to get the outcome the one you want to hear from us. There is no way on earth that you would be cleared of fault so you either agree with the other party to sort yourselves out and not involve the insurance companies or, if she refuses to do that, you will have to inform them and leave them to decide what is inevitably going to be classed as both of you being at fault.
With some hindsight, I actually believe that we were both at fault and hence the appropriate path forward is we both agree to sort our own cars and keep the insurance companies out of it.
hence the appropriate path forward is we both agree to sort our own cars and keep the insurance companies out of it.
I agree - and perhaps a gentle nudge to her that you know her car isn't taxed might make her see that is the appropriate course of action.
Someone did similar to what you did to them, to me several years ago. It was deemed their fault.
"I've had a really bad morning already and have no time to discuss this. I need to get to work".
Or..... “my car isn’t taxed. Please don’t involve the police”
We're going to need a crudely drawn MS Paint diagram of this one
Why was she going from one parking space to another on the other side of the road? Sounds suspicious.
Why was she going from one parking space to another on the other side of the road? Sounds suspicious.
I don't think she was moving parking space.
I believe the lady was on her way to work and had decided to drive out of her parking space and unfortunately as she was on the 'wrong' side of the road, could not clearly see if anything was coming in the opposite direction to the one she wanted to travel in. When she pulled out the van coming in the opposite direction may have been a 'bit of a surprise' and as the only space available - apart from reversing directly back into the space she had just come out of, was to aim for the space at my side of the road which I happened to be also reversing in.
It was in a residential street with cars parked on both sides of the road and only sufficient roadway for a single vehicle - i.e. pull over into any available space and allow the oncoming car to get past before travelling along said street.
100% your fault. Always advisable to actually look where you are going.
As for her not having a reflective screw cap on her number plate? Would you have seen her if she did have one?
To insurance - you were stopped, not reversing. She drove into the back of you. Simple.
Yup simple dishonesty is always the way to go. Though if the OP does end up having to pay out, perhaps he could rob an old lady to pay for it.
😆 you KNOW that's what someone else would do to you in that situation...
First time I ever drove a car, someone pulled out of a side road and scraped the side of my old man's car. I saw them looking down (I can still see it now 35 years later) not looking at the road. And yet when my dad tries to claim against them... oh no we drove into [i]them[/i].