No, it's not what you said. There is no way for a stationary object to cause a crash. But a driver of the moving vehicle can crash into it if they aren't obeying the rules of the road or are incompetent.
redhead96,
Jun 19, 11:05am
If they had enough time to use the horn why didn't they also use that time to move!
smac,
Jun 19, 11:25am
People seem to struggle with the fact that both people can be at fault in an accident. Somebody parked or stopped can be contrary to the law (Part 6 of the Road User Rule), as can somebody leaving a park or otherwise driving into a stopped vehicle. Just because one driver is breaking a law, doesn't mean the other isn't, and is magically absolved of their own breach.
don_logan, which bit are specifically wanting the law about! Parking! Stopping! Running blindly into somebody who is parked! In the situation you have described they may both be at fault, in which case let the insurance companies sort it out, that's why you pay their fees.
msigg,
Jun 19, 12:50pm
Yes reversing persons in the wrong, obviously did not look where they were going. If they did they would have seen the car and stopped.
elv,
Jun 19, 12:58pm
It depends on how long the car has been stationary. If it was stationary at the time of the crash but moved into the path of a reversing vehicle that was moving at a speed where it cannot stop in time to avoid a crash there can be circumstances where it is liable. Generally a moving vehicle - especially when reversing and hitting a stationary vehicle - is at fault.
johnf_456,
Jun 19, 1:52pm
They probably didn't think the person would hit them, why should they have to move! The person reversing is in the wrong!
modie61,
Jun 19, 2:23pm
They probably had no room to get out of the way,someone was porobably parked up their koit.
don_logan,
Jun 23, 7:38am
Thanks to most for the constructive answers to the question. "Why was she blowing the horn!" duhhh! to alert the other driver as there was neither time nor available space to avoid the impact in time. Does that answer your question dickhead96!. Now, for the update, it went to disputes this week and she won. the legal finding being that there is a higher duty of care expected while reversing regardless of situation, and because the other driver was obviously NOT checking the mirrors while reversing,the accident was caused through negligence, and was ordered to pay for the damage. thanks again Don.
kazbanz,
Jun 23, 7:56am
Hey don-logan I have to say The thought occurred to me too. It is a legitimate question. I dunno about fault etc but last night I saw a situation that from my vantage point walking back to my carlooked totally avoidable by the "stationary" driver. In a parking building someone was walking the last couple of meters to their parked car. Another car seeing this pulled up and stopped. the parked car started to reverse up and round towards the stopped car. -all was fine n dandy-heaps of room. But then another car aproaching from the other way stopped and indicated to pull into the parking space. The previously stopped car then drove an extra 3 feet forward and stopped again this time in the reversing cars blind spot. -as the reversing parked car was swinging out. Thye inevitable happened and the left rear of the reversing car hit the left front of the "stopped' car. Yea responsibility is with the reversing car but they did not expect a previously stopped car to decide to move that 3 feet forward.
redhead96,
Jun 23, 8:23am
Oh you are so witty and pathetic. Pity there's not an icon with a one finger salute.
don_logan,
Jun 23, 8:23am
I guess that why we should have our side mirrors adjusted and use them while reversing. Another senario. rather than a car being in that spot. it could have been a child escaping from mum or dad. Personally I dont buy the blind spot arguement while reversing. Left and right mirrors should give a clear line of sight down both sides of the vehicle, impossible to hit the left front of a car with the left rear, If you looking down the left side of a car with your left mirror. Maybe some drivers need to brush up on reversing skills!. But to go back, my question was regarding what legislation or law covers reversing. NOT to debate the mechanics of the accident, but I take your comments on board. thanks Don.
don_logan,
Jun 23, 8:26am
'
:-)
smac,
Jun 23, 11:26am
.and as I've already asked, which bit do you want the law for! There are regulations covering stopping, parking (different), driving, due care etc etc. It is possible all three apply, but probably only stopping, and the reversing driver being careless.
All are subject to interpretation though, and that will depend on who is doing the interpreting (insurance, versus JP or judge), and what actually happened.
For example, if a driver stops behind a row of angle parked cars, and one of them reverses into them, the natural reaction would be to say it's solely the reversing cars fault. But what if they had already started to move out before the car stopped, and the stopping driver KNEW that. Then there's an argument that the stopping driver has breached the rules around using consideration when stopping. Just because a car is reversing doesn't mean you can ignore it - you wouldn't expect to stop immediately in front of a car driving forward and not have some blame if they hit you. Also as above, just because one did something wrong, doesn't automatically mean the other didn't.
The point is it's not black and white, despite what some of the armchair experts who weren't even there claim. It depends on the scenario, who did what, who knew what etc etc. Saying "what law covers this" is overly simplifying it. If it were possible to cover it like this we wouldn't need courts, or insurance assessors.(yeah I know saying that is asking for trouble around here!).
mrfxit,
Jun 23, 11:57am
In most cases of reversing vehicle causing damage being the guilty party, it would be presumed in the 1st instance that the stationary vehicle HAD been stationary for more then a few seconds/minutes & parked "as if" it was or isparked legally/ considerately & correctly with the presumption of being intended to be or WAS in fact unattended at the time of the event.
Facts after that would have to be considered as extenuating circumstancesto shifting the blame
don_logan,
Jun 23, 12:03pm
Thanks smac, I didn't see your qusation above unit after it had gone to disputes.Because of this, I didnt want to add further comment until I had heard the result.
msigg,
Jun 23, 12:03pm
Well if they have already started to back out and they see the car in the space behind them then the driver reversing should stop. That is black and white. Reversing is at fault. The problem is, not many people reverse properly by turning there whole shoulders and head so they can see out the back window.
smac,
Jun 23, 4:41pm
The reason I've gone to lengths to explain this is I personally know somebody who reversed into a stationary car, and was not charged. Police WERE called to the scene. It's never black and white.
xs1100,
Jun 23, 4:49pm
i always thought that because you were reversing which is a unnatural thing when in a car and also the fact that you dont have the same instincts or visual that you were automatically at fault
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.