Is someone leaving a car parking space always to blame for the accident ?
Andrew Norman
I find it hard to believe that what my insurance company is telling me
is true.
The car park is one way, with spaces on either side, at right angles
to the road. The road is roughly 15 feet wide. There is a bend in the
road, near where the accident happened. The car park has a 5mph speed
limit posted.
I had just pulled into a parking space. I wasn't happy that I was far
enough from the car next to me, so I decided to adjust my position. I
drive a Mazda MX5, which is relatively low to the ground and rear
three-quarters visibilty isn't great when the roof is up (which it
was). I could therefore not see past the car next to me to see whether
anything was coming.
So I backed up very slowly so that I could get to the point where I
could see if anything was coming before backing all the way out. I had
not yet got to the point that I could see what was coming when another
car collided with the rear of my car at right angles. The rear of my
car was less than 3 feet outside of the parking space at this point.
The car that hit was not visible behind me when I turned into the
space, yet a couple of seconds later it had covered the distance of
200 yards or so from the corner in the road. I suspect he was not
observing the 5mph limit (though I have no witnesses and therefore no
proof). There is no indication that he either braked or attempted to
avoid hitting me.
The accident was a glancing blow and little damage was done to either
car (though the repair bill on the other car for the minor damage to
his wheel arch is £1000).
My insurance company tell me that because he had the right of way
there is just about no circumstance where he could assume any
liability for the accident. They therefore are going to say I was 100%
liable for the accident.
I have no idea whether this is legally sound. Morally it appears crazy
to me. I am aware of nothing I could have done to have reduced the
chance of the accident (if I had reversed into the space I probably
would have ended up even further out of the space before I could see
anything coming).
He could have done several thing to avoid the accident. He could have
been driving closer to the speed limit. He should have been driving
more that 3 feet away from a line of parked cars (considering the one
way road is 15 feet wide). He could have been paying more bloody
attention :-(
Is this really the state of the law ? If so it is extremely unfair.
On top of it all I have just had a letter from the other party's
solicitor saying that I reversed into his stationary car. Hoping that
is just a mix up and not him trying it on even more.
P.S. I guess I could have reduced the chance of the accident by
stopping and lowering the roof on my car, if the law want me to do
that everytime I leave a parking space then it really is an ass...
--
Andy Norman tr...@norman.cx
http://www.norman.cx/
Replace the fish with my first name to reply
Mabon
"Andrew Norman" <tr...@norman.cx> wrote in message
news:4r8jd05k14hca0dmr...@4ax.com...
>
> The accident was a glancing blow and little damage was done to either
> car (though the repair bill on the other car for the minor damage to
> his wheel arch is £1000).
If you hit the wheel arch, surely the car would have been visible in your
wing mirror.
But what if it had been a child?
> My insurance company tell me that because he had the right of way
> there is just about no circumstance where he could assume any
> liability for the accident. They therefore are going to say I was 100%
> liable for the accident.
>
> I have no idea whether this is legally sound. Morally it appears crazy
> to me. I am aware of nothing I could have done to have reduced the
> chance of the accident (if I had reversed into the space I probably
> would have ended up even further out of the space before I could see
> anything coming).
>
> He could have done several thing to avoid the accident. He could have
> been driving closer to the speed limit. He should have been driving
> more that 3 feet away from a line of parked cars (considering the one
> way road is 15 feet wide). He could have been paying more bloody
> attention :-(
But what if it had been a child?
Dr Zoidberg
Thats pretty much correct.
If you are reversing out onto a road , be this from another road , a drive
or a parking space , then its your responsibility to check that its safe to
do so as you do not have right of way. Unless you have independent witnesses
to say that he was driving so fast that you could not possibly have seen him
coming , or to say that you had pulled out and had been stationary for some
time before he hit you then you will have to take the blame.
> I have no idea whether this is legally sound. Morally it appears crazy
> to me. I am aware of nothing I could have done to have reduced the
> chance of the accident (if I had reversed into the space I probably
> would have ended up even further out of the space before I could see
> anything coming).
>
> He could have done several thing to avoid the accident. He could have
> been driving closer to the speed limit.
From the description of the damage to the vehicles I can't see that he can
have been doing much more than 5mph at the time or your car would have been
pushed sideways into the vehicle in the next space and suffered much more
damage. That would count against your "He was speeding" claim.
> He should have been driving
> more that 3 feet away from a line of parked cars (considering the one
> way road is 15 feet wide).
Perhaps he was planning on turning into a space on the right and so moved
left to get a better angle?
Perhaps there was another car coming towards him so he moved over to let it
pass?
Just because it was a one way lane in a car park does not mean that this is
not possible?
> He could have been paying more bloody attention :-(
The same could equally be said of you.
>>
> P.S. I guess I could have reduced the chance of the accident by
> stopping and lowering the roof on my car, if the law want me to do
> that everytime I leave a parking space then it really is an ass...
The law wants you to check that it is safe to complete a manouever before
beginning it. If your choice of car means that removing the roof is
necessary to do this then that I'm afraid , is your problem. Knowing that
the rear visibility is poor you could have chosen a different space where
that was not a problem.
Sorry if this is not what you want to hear.
--
Alex
YZF 600
"I laugh in the face of danger"
"Then I hide until it goes away"
www.upce.org.uk
www.drzoidberg.co.uk
Steve
> I was involved in a collision in a car park a couple of months ago and
> I find it hard to believe that what my insurance company is telling me
> is true.
>
> The car park is one way, with spaces on either side, at right angles
> to the road. The road is roughly 15 feet wide. There is a bend in the
> road, near where the accident happened. The car park has a 5mph speed
> limit posted.
>
The point you need to make clear to them is that you were stationary, the
oncoming car hit you. It is his prerogative to avoid a collision with you
even if you were parked upside down!
Richard
Insurance companies rules have little or nothing to do with the law.
They make up rules between themselves to make their lives easier. It
is very difficult to get them to bend their rules without good
witnesses and good evidence to back you up. It could be argued that
given your complete lack of visability you should not reverse your car
at all!. That you should park elsewhere.... From their point of view
you were reversing without being able to see where you were going. Not
high in their list of desirable driving.
>
>On top of it all I have just had a letter from the other party's
>solicitor saying that I reversed into his stationary car. Hoping that
>is just a mix up and not him trying it on even more.
>
This could be more promissing. Where exactly did your two cars impact?
Can it be demonstrated from the damage that the other car was moving
(i.e. scrape damage) If you are lucky enough to be able to prove with
real damage evidence that the other party is lying (or shall we say
mistaken!) about a material fact than you MAY be able to get your
insurance company to consider the balance of liability.
Either way you should pass on all correspondence to your insurance
company, and not reply to it yourself.
Richard
dormouse
>
> So I backed up very slowly so that I could get to the point where I
By reversing from a parking space onto a road, you are to blame, end of
story.
In essence apart from the right of way consideration by reversing out your
visibility was restricted and you must have known that before you began the
manoeuvre, you were driving carelessly in that you couldn't see where you
were going. There is even a good argument that such driving is dangerous
rather than simply careless.
Of course there is a good argument to suggest that the other driver should
have been able to stop in time (to avoid an accident) but again even if he
did so you would still fall foul of driving carelessly.
To avoid such an incident reoccurring possibly with more serious
consequences learn to control your vehicle and reverse into parking places,
learn how to assess hazards and improve your vision.
--
regards or otherwise,
dormouse
Cynic
> But what if it had been a child?
If the OP's description is accurate, then no injury would have been likely.
The OP has described a situation where he was reversing *very slowly* and
the damage was caused by the speed of the other car. Any injury to a child
would therefore be caused by the child walking or running into the car
rather than the car running over the child - the same as if the car had not
been moving.
I suppose if a parent had left a baby unattended lying on the road behind a
rear wheel, there could have been a fatal accident ...
--
Cynic
Andrew Norman
>
>"Andrew Norman" <tr...@norman.cx> wrote in message
>news:4r8jd05k14hca0dmr...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> The accident was a glancing blow and little damage was done to either
>> car (though the repair bill on the other car for the minor damage to
>> his wheel arch is £1000).
>
>If you hit the wheel arch, surely the car would have been visible in your
>wing mirror.
The car obviously was visible in my wing mirror for a fraction of a
second as it hit the rear of my car with a glancing blow at 90 degree
to my car. By that time he had already hit me though.
I didn't hit his wheel arch, he scraped his wheel arch across a two
foot wide stretch of my rear bumper.
>But what if it had been a child?
Then the child would have stepped out of the way or harmlessly come
into contact with my car. I was moving backwards at less than walking
pace. Just as I do whenever I have to reverse blind out of a parking
space.
>> My insurance company tell me that because he had the right of way
>> there is just about no circumstance where he could assume any
>> liability for the accident. They therefore are going to say I was 100%
>> liable for the accident.
>>
>> I have no idea whether this is legally sound. Morally it appears crazy
>> to me. I am aware of nothing I could have done to have reduced the
>> chance of the accident (if I had reversed into the space I probably
>> would have ended up even further out of the space before I could see
>> anything coming).
>>
>> He could have done several thing to avoid the accident. He could have
>> been driving closer to the speed limit. He should have been driving
>> more that 3 feet away from a line of parked cars (considering the one
>> way road is 15 feet wide). He could have been paying more bloody
>> attention :-(
>
>But what if it had been a child?
The child won't have been travelling at anywhere near 30mph, so either
I would have seen the child and stopped or the child would have seen
me and stopped.
To put it another way, what if I had been a child getting out of a car
and walking to the rear of the car to round the next door car. The guy
driving at 30mph, 3 feet from the parked cars could well have hit me.
Andrew Norman
wrote:
>>He could have done several thing to avoid the accident. He could have
>>been driving closer to the speed limit. He should have been driving
>>more that 3 feet away from a line of parked cars (considering the one
>>way road is 15 feet wide). He could have been paying more bloody
>>attention :-(
>>
>>Is this really the state of the law ? If so it is extremely unfair.
>Insurance companies rules have little or nothing to do with the law.
>They make up rules between themselves to make their lives easier. It
>is very difficult to get them to bend their rules without good
>witnesses and good evidence to back you up. It could be argued that
>given your complete lack of visability you should not reverse your car
>at all!. That you should park elsewhere.... From their point of view
>you were reversing without being able to see where you were going. Not
>high in their list of desirable driving.
I know you are just stating the facts, but that is just rediculous.
You don't often get to choose where to park and even if you do you
have no idea what will be parked around you when you come back to your
vehicle (I know this doesn't apply in this case). Following your
argument just about every driver would be stuck leaving their car in
the car park and walking home on a regular basis !
For the record I typically choose parking spaces away from other cars
for just this reason. You don't always have that option though.
>>On top of it all I have just had a letter from the other party's
>>solicitor saying that I reversed into his stationary car. Hoping that
>>is just a mix up and not him trying it on even more.
>>
>This could be more promissing. Where exactly did your two cars impact?
>Can it be demonstrated from the damage that the other car was moving
>(i.e. scrape damage) If you are lucky enough to be able to prove with
>real damage evidence that the other party is lying (or shall we say
>mistaken!) about a material fact than you MAY be able to get your
>insurance company to consider the balance of liability.
It can be demonstrated from the damage to the cars that he was moving
considerably faster than me and that he could not have been stationary
when the accident happened. He has a single point of damage to his
rear wheel arch, I have a 18 inch (or so) scrape along my rear bumper.
This could not have been caused by me reversing into his stationary
car. The cars were at 90 degrees to each other when the accident
happened, as he passed the rear of my car.
>Either way you should pass on all correspondence to your insurance
>company, and not reply to it yourself.
Yes, I had planned to do that.
Andrew Norman
wrote:
>> So I backed up very slowly so that I could get to the point where I
>> could see if anything was coming before backing all the way out. ...
>
>By reversing from a parking space onto a road, you are to blame, end of
>story.
>
>In essence apart from the right of way consideration by reversing out your
>visibility was restricted and you must have known that before you began the
>manoeuvre, you were driving carelessly in that you couldn't see where you
>were going. There is even a good argument that such driving is dangerous
>rather than simply careless.
Hmm. Can you tell me then what you would do if you came back after
some shopping and found two vans parked either side of your car. Would
you reverse out carefully and slowly to the point that you could see
what was coming ? Would you enlist a passer by to flag down the
traffic while you reversed ? Would you leave the car and walk home ?
Most of us have to live, and drive, in the real world.
>Of course there is a good argument to suggest that the other driver should
>have been able to stop in time (to avoid an accident) but again even if he
>did so you would still fall foul of driving carelessly.
I was not driving carelessly. Can you suggest how I could have taken
more care ?
>To avoid such an incident reoccurring possibly with more serious
>consequences learn to control your vehicle and reverse into parking places,
>learn how to assess hazards and improve your vision.
I explained in my original post that had I reversed into the space I
would have had to pull just as far out of the space (maybe a little
further) before I could have seen him coming. My car would also have
been visible to the other driver later, as the rear of my roof (which
would be visible above the boot and bonnet of neighbouring parked
cars) is closer to the back of my car than the windscreen is to the
front of the car.
I am a careful driver and I believe I assess hazards fairly well. I
wasn't then I would not have been backing slowly out of the space.
As to improving my vision, I'm afraid it is hard to see through solid
objects, however hard I squint.
Mabon
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cbd4m6$m5h$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> "Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>
> > But what if it had been a child?
>
> If the OP's description is accurate, then no injury would have been
likely.
> The OP has described a situation where he was reversing *very slowly* and
> the damage was caused by the speed of the other car. Any injury to a
child
> would therefore be caused by the child walking or running into the car
> rather than the car running over the child - the same as if the car had
not
> been moving.
The OP describes the damage as:
"The accident was a glancing blow and little damage was done to either
car (though the repair bill on the other car for the minor damage to
his wheel arch is £1000)."
If there is damage to the other car's wheelarch, it suggests that the other
car was directly behind the OP at the time of impact and should have been
visible in his wing mirror before then.
Also, at the time of impact, the OP suggests he had reversed three feet out
of the parking bay. Enough distance to knock over a child, which may have
been standing directly behind the car, and run over him/her with his rear
wheels. I can't see why the child would need to walk or run into the vehicle
to sustain injury, unless the vehicle was not moving. In this case, it was.
> I suppose if a parent had left a baby unattended lying on the road behind
a
> rear wheel, there could have been a fatal accident ...
But not a child standing directly behind the car?
Andrew Norman
wrote:
>"Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>
>> But what if it had been a child?
>
>If the OP's description is accurate, then no injury would have been likely.
>The OP has described a situation where he was reversing *very slowly* and
>the damage was caused by the speed of the other car. Any injury to a child
>would therefore be caused by the child walking or running into the car
>rather than the car running over the child - the same as if the car had not
>been moving.
Exactly.
Had a child been behind my car when I was backing up I would have been
able to stop when I saw them. I had perfect visibilty behind my car in
the direction I was moving, I just could not see from the parked
position cars moving along the line of cars.
Had a child had been walking along the car park at right angles to the
direction of my movement at worst they would have walked into the side
of my car (ok, there is the outside chance that in doing this their
foot might have become injured by my rear wheel if they were unlucky).
>I suppose if a parent had left a baby unattended lying on the road behind a
>rear wheel, there could have been a fatal accident ...
No problem there, I would have run over the poor infant as I turned
carelessly nose first into the space. It would have been dead before I
reversed over it...
Steve
> I was involved in a collision in a car park a couple of months ago and
> I find it hard to believe that what my insurance company is telling me
> is true.
>
No security cameras in the car park? Oh two months ago, probably deleted
if there were.
Mmm, time for some pictures of the 15 foot gap, showing a 5" car driving
down the middle, with your car backed out to the point where the impact
occurred - showing that the other party would have had to be driving like
a twat not to seen you and had plenty of room to pass - but you would
still be knackered because its a 50-50 thing - who can tell without
witnesses or sec cam - sorry!
GB
> I drive a Mazda MX5, which is relatively low to the ground and rear
> three-quarters visibilty isn't great when the roof is up (which it
> was).
I too drive a MX5, and to say the rear three-quarters vision isn't great
with the hood up is a huge understatement. It's absolutely dreadful. You
also sit so low that you can't see over the neighbouring car. You have to
reverse halfway out of the gap before you can see anything.
I reckon you take your life into your hands when attempting the sort of
manoeuvre you mentioned. There, but for the Grace of God, etc
It's much more fun driving with the roof down, and almost essential when
reversing in a car park. Sorry not to be more sympathetic.
Geoff
Mr B
Sure. But stepping out between two cars into the path of another is not wise
either.
Mr B
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:00:18 +0100, "Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andrew Norman" <tr...@norman.cx> wrote in message
> >news:4r8jd05k14hca0dmr...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>
> >> The accident was a glancing blow and little damage was done to either
> >> car (though the repair bill on the other car for the minor damage to
> >> his wheel arch is £1000).
> >
> >If you hit the wheel arch, surely the car would have been visible in your
> >wing mirror.
>
> The car obviously was visible in my wing mirror for a fraction of a
> second as it hit the rear of my car with a glancing blow at 90 degree
> to my car. By that time he had already hit me though.
>
> I didn't hit his wheel arch, he scraped his wheel arch across a two
> foot wide stretch of my rear bumper.
Only two feet? At 30 mph, the stopping distance would be approx 75 feet!
Perhaps our resident mathmaticians would care to compute the likely speed of
the other vehicle for you?
Andrew Norman
>> If the OP's description is accurate, then no injury would have been
>likely.
>> The OP has described a situation where he was reversing *very slowly* and
>> the damage was caused by the speed of the other car. Any injury to a
>child
>> would therefore be caused by the child walking or running into the car
>> rather than the car running over the child - the same as if the car had
>not
>> been moving.
>
>The OP describes the damage as:
>"The accident was a glancing blow and little damage was done to either
>car (though the repair bill on the other car for the minor damage to
>his wheel arch is £1000)."
>
>If there is damage to the other car's wheelarch, it suggests that the other
>car was directly behind the OP at the time of impact and should have been
>visible in his wing mirror before then.
>Also, at the time of impact, the OP suggests he had reversed three feet out
>of the parking bay. Enough distance to knock over a child, which may have
>been standing directly behind the car, and run over him/her with his rear
>wheels. I can't see why the child would need to walk or run into the vehicle
>to sustain injury, unless the vehicle was not moving. In this case, it was.
I know you are just trying to wind me up and I shouldn't reply, but...
If there had been a child standing behind my car I would have seen
them clearly in my mirrors and out of the rear window and would of
course not have hit them. The car that clipped the back mine was in no
way visible to me until a fraction of a second before our cars came
into contact. Even if I had stopped the exact instant that I saw him
in my mirrors he would still have hit me.
>> I suppose if a parent had left a baby unattended lying on the road behind
>a
>> rear wheel, there could have been a fatal accident ...
>
>But not a child standing directly behind the car?
Which of course I would have clearly seen in my mirrors and through
the rear window. Stop being silly.
Binary Era
>
>"Andrew Norman" wrote:
>
>>
>> The accident was a glancing blow and little damage was done to either
>> car (though the repair bill on the other car for the minor damage to
>> his wheel arch is £1000).
>
>If you hit the wheel arch, surely the car would have been visible in your
>wing mirror.
>
>But what if it had been a child?
>
I would have thought that this kind of response - which did nothing to
address the OPs point yet appears to be the start of a moralistic
crusade - would have been weeded out by the moderators as being
irrelevant and unhelpful.
--
Binary Era
Tim
> Hmm. Can you tell me then what you would do if you came back after
> some shopping and found two vans parked either side of your car. Would
> you reverse out carefully and slowly to the point that you could see
> what was coming ? Would you enlist a passer by to flag down the
> traffic while you reversed ? Would you leave the car and walk home ?
>
> Most of us have to live, and drive, in the real world.
>
> how I could have taken more care ?
You obviously were driving carelessly - reversing blind. That was your
choice at the time - a "real world", practical solution to the problem of
getting your car out of the space. Perhaps many people might have done
something similar if they were in the same position.
HOWEVER, you should realise that this *was* careless (driving blind cannot
be anything less) and accept that, on this occasion, you were unfortunate.
As another poster said, "what if it were a child?" ...
bigbrian
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:20:09 +0100, "dormouse" <bou...@britwar.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>> So I backed up very slowly so that I could get to the point where I
>>> could see if anything was coming before backing all the way out. ...
>>
>>By reversing from a parking space onto a road, you are to blame, end of
>>story.
>>
>>In essence apart from the right of way consideration by reversing out your
>>visibility was restricted and you must have known that before you began the
>>manoeuvre, you were driving carelessly in that you couldn't see where you
>>were going. There is even a good argument that such driving is dangerous
>>rather than simply careless.
>
>Hmm. Can you tell me then what you would do if you came back after
>some shopping and found two vans parked either side of your car. Would
>you reverse out carefully and slowly to the point that you could see
>what was coming ? Would you enlist a passer by to flag down the
>traffic while you reversed ? Would you leave the car and walk home ?
>
>Most of us have to live, and drive, in the real world.
>
>>Of course there is a good argument to suggest that the other driver should
>>have been able to stop in time (to avoid an accident) but again even if he
>>did so you would still fall foul of driving carelessly.
>
>I was not driving carelessly. Can you suggest how I could have taken
>more care ?
Do you know whether the reversing lights on your car work properly? If
not, it might explain a lack of awareness of your intentions on the
part of the other motorist. If they do work OK, it might provide some
evidence that he wasn't paying as much attention as he might have
been. That's what they're for, after all.
FWIW, when reversing from a parking space (which I don't do often as
I tend to reverse into them), I will typically wait a few seconds
after engaging reverse before moving the car to allow others time to
notice from the lights that I'm about to reverse.
Brian
Palindr☻me
As a bus (as well as car) driver, I find this attitude, that
it is apparently fine to blindly stick bits of their cars
into the potential path of other road users, totally
amazing. What would the OP be thinking about now if, instead
of a minor scrape, he had caused a young cyclist to swerve
and go under the wheels of his or another car?
It has been my experience (in a car as well as a bus) that
there are always people around more than willing to be
understanding and to help - even in the pouring rain. It
actually helps others - who will be less reluctant to ask
for help in turn. Asking for help in this case is not being
a wimp and is not an admission of inadequacy as a driver.
I am sure that, if the other vehicle involved had been a
police car, you would be on your way to court as well as a
repair garage.
Anyone who thinks that trusting to luck is a valid part of
driving should not be on the road, period.
Why I mentioned the bus driver bit is because, just as a
motor cyclist has better appreciation of road surfaces, a
bus driver has a much better awareness of blind spots and
planning ahead for future manoevures. My job is at risk if I
reverse at all on the public highway with passengers on board.
The road would be a much safer place if all drivers (that
physically could) had to pass the motorcycle and PSV
examinations. If the OP thinks that he was blameless, then
the current car test is very inadequate.
Mabon
"Mr B" <11846...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2jvbr0F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Andrew Norman" <tr...@norman.cx> wrote in message
> news:s32kd05iooe3jnu2s...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:00:18 +0100, "Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Andrew Norman" <tr...@norman.cx> wrote in message
> > >news:4r8jd05k14hca0dmr...@4ax.com...
> > >
>
> Only two feet? At 30 mph, the stopping distance would be approx 75 feet!
> Perhaps our resident mathmaticians would care to compute the likely speed
of
> the other vehicle for you?
Practically stationary?
Mabon
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:20:11 +0100, "Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> I know you are just trying to wind me up and I shouldn't reply, but...
No I am not. But if I can find discrepancies in your story, then an
insurance assessor/court would easily do so.
I am sorry if you don't agree with my view.
Mabon
"Binary Era" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:givkd0hvph2h2svoq...@4ax.com...
I had hoped it would be helpful to the OP if and when he is in a similar
situation.
Perhaps he will enlist help to reverse, instead of chancing to luck.
His estimation of the other cars speed doesn't hold water, as another poster
pointed out.
30 mph and only a two foot scrape to the back of his car.......
The other driver "took no evasive action"........ yet pulled up within two
feet?
The OP says he was moving at the time of impact. His car hit the SIDE of the
other car.
It could have been the side of a pram, or, as I stated, a child standing
behind the vehicle.
Demetrius Zeluff
>>"Andrew Norman" wrote:
>>
>> But what if it had been a child?
>
> I would have thought that this kind of response - which did nothing to
> address the OPs point
THe OP appears to be saying that reversing into the path of traffic without
being able to see what is coming is acceptable.
The post to which you're objecting is an example of why driving without
being able to see where you're going is a bad idea.
It doesn't seem to be completly relevant to the OPs situation, but the
general principal seems sound.
[snip]
> would have been weeded out by the moderators as being
> irrelevant and unhelpful.
I would have thought that this response, which did nothing to address the
OPs point woul dhave been weeded out by the mods as being irrelevant and
unhelpful.
But we might get stuck in a recursive loop.
bigbrian
Conversely, what if the OPs car had been a child walking out from
between the parked cars?
Brian
Adrian Boliston
news:2jua86F...@uni-berlin.de...
> By reversing from a parking space onto a road, you are to blame, end of
> story.
I don't think it's as simple as this. What about situations where you have
reversed part way out of a space and a car comes along so you stop as a
precaution, but that car still ploughs into you when it could easily have stopped
or gone round you?
Also what about roads where you need to get your bonnet a foot or two out into the
road before you can see what's coming along the road, which is often the case in
historic villages or historic towns with their narrow streets and tight corners?
If someone was racing at a silly speed and hit your bonnet then surely they would
be to blame if you were creeping out at a snails pace till you could see it's
clear?
Mabon
"Binary Era" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:90hld0lo8svbg8jue...@4ax.com...
> bigbrian wrote:
>
> >Conversely, what if the OPs car had been a child walking out from
> >between the parked cars?
>
> they? No-one to bash, I guess.
I think it was covered further up when someone said that a child walking out
between two cars would not be a smart move, either.
> But the witness had mentioned times and distances. When I calculated
> the speeds based on what he asserted, Car 2 could not have done what
> he alleged (IIRC, a standing quarter-mile in 4 seconds, and this in a
> Fiat Panda!). So I wrote a detailed critique, complete with
> calculations nicely set out, and sent it to my insurance company. Two
> weeks later I received a cheque from the third party's insurers, for
> more than I had claimed.
>
> I suggest the OP at initially pursues his case along the lines
> suggested. In view of the 200 yards and 5 mph speed limit, he may be
> able to do something similar to the above. HTH
Well, my arithmatic isn't Grade A, (and I am open to correction) but a quick
calculation shows that at 30mph, it would take around 13 secs to cover
200yds.
Alternatively, at 100mph, 200 yds could be covered in around 4 secs, but
then it would have taken nearly that distance for the other vehicle to stop.
His skid marks would have been more help to the OP than any witness
statement.
Palindr☻me
> bigbrian wrote:
>
>
>>Conversely, what if the OPs car had been a child walking out from
>>between the parked cars?
>
>
> Well, the moralist safety-crusaders didn't want to know that one, did
> they? No-one to bash, I guess.
Because it was irrelevant. The approaching driver could
easily be entirely blameless, in this situation also. You
might hope that the OP would show more sense than a child in
not blindly venturing forth in the hope that nothing was
coming.
>
> But, more seriously, the OP was asking about his insurance company's
> attitude in basically washing their hands of the matter.
Insurance companies have better things to do with their time
and money than chase lost causes. In my experience, if there
is any doubt at all, they will opt for shared blame (and two
lost NCBs). From what I have read, there is no question of
the other driver travelling at excessive speed or otherwise
driving unreasonably. This incident was just "bad luck" in
that the other driver happened to be close at the time. But
the OP should not have been relying on luck in making his
manoevure.
The OP is right to feel unlucky but not guilt-free. Everyone
does this sort of manoevure but, luckily, mostly there isn't
someone passing as they pull out or, if there is, nothing
more than noise pollution results.
<snip>
Andy Norman
> > I didn't hit his wheel arch, he scraped his wheel arch across a two
> > foot wide stretch of my rear bumper.
>
> Only two feet? At 30 mph, the stopping distance would be approx 75 feet!
> Perhaps our resident mathmaticians would care to compute the likely speed of
> the other vehicle for you?
Our cars didn't end up touching. He hit my car with a glancing blow
and then carried on for another 20 or 30 feet before coming to a halt.
Am I right in thinking that the 75 feet given in the Highway code for
stopping from 30mph is based on 1960's cars and therefore a little
over stated ?
Andy Norman
> "Andrew Norman" wrote
> > Hmm. Can you tell me then what you would do if you came back after
> > some shopping and found two vans parked either side of your car. Would
> > you reverse out carefully and slowly to the point that you could see
> > what was coming ? Would you enlist a passer by to flag down the
> > traffic while you reversed ? Would you leave the car and walk home ?
> >
> > Most of us have to live, and drive, in the real world.
> >
> > I was not driving carelessly. Can you suggest
> > how I could have taken more care ?
>
> You obviously were driving carelessly - reversing blind. That was your
> choice at the time - a "real world", practical solution to the problem of
> getting your car out of the space. Perhaps many people might have done
> something similar if they were in the same position.
Do you know of a motorist that would have done something different to
reversing carefully to the point that they could see what is coming ?
If so can you ask them what they would have done instead. I am not
trying to be funny, I really would like to know what I could have done
differently.
Andy Norman
> >I was not driving carelessly. Can you suggest how I could have taken
> >more care ?
>
> Do you know whether the reversing lights on your car work properly? If
> not, it might explain a lack of awareness of your intentions on the
> part of the other motorist. If they do work OK, it might provide some
> evidence that he wasn't paying as much attention as he might have
> been. That's what they're for, after all.
My reversing light does work properly.
> FWIW, when reversing from a parking space (which I don't do often as
> I tend to reverse into them), I will typically wait a few seconds
> after engaging reverse before moving the car to allow others time to
> notice from the lights that I'm about to reverse.
That wouldn't have helped I'm afraid. He was approaching my position
at right a right angle to my car, so would not have been able to see
the light on the rear of my car, even if my car hadn't been hidden by
the neighbouring car until I started to move.
Peter Parry
>Hmm. Can you tell me then what you would do if you came back after
>some shopping and found two vans parked either side of your car. Would
>you reverse out carefully and slowly to the point that you could see
>what was coming ?
Personally I would have reversed in to the space in the first place
rather than just driven in to avoid this sort of situation. I note
your comments about bits of your car being more visible going
backwards but it isn't the other drivers responsibility to avoid you
but yours to avoid them. Going out forward would at least have given
you better visibility.
Quite simply it is your responsibility to be able to see where you
are going. How you achieve this or avoid situations where you can't
see what you are doing is also your responsibility.
>I was not driving carelessly.
You couldn't see where you were going or traffic approaching you yet
you continued? I suspect that meets the criteria for counting as
driving carelessly.
>Can you suggest how I could have taken more care ?
By not putting yourself in a position where you had to blindly
reverse into traffic which has right of way either by choosing
another parking place or reversing into the space in the first place.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
Andrew Norman
wrote:
>>Hmm. Can you tell me then what you would do if you came back after
>>some shopping and found two vans parked either side of your car. Would
>>you reverse out carefully and slowly to the point that you could see
>>what was coming ?
>
>Personally I would have reversed in to the space in the first place
>rather than just driven in to avoid this sort of situation. I note
>your comments about bits of your car being more visible going
>backwards but it isn't the other drivers responsibility to avoid you
>but yours to avoid them. Going out forward would at least have given
>you better visibility.
I have talked about this in other posts. I agree that in many cars
reversing into the space would have meant having to drive less
distance out of the space before being able to see what was coming. I
my car however the length of the bonnet and the shortness of the boot
means that this is not the case.
Also driving forward out of the space would not have helped my initial
visibilty of the oncoming car. It was the line of parked cars next to
me (including large 4x4s and vans) that blocked my view of what was
coming.
>Quite simply it is your responsibility to be able to see where you
>are going. How you achieve this or avoid situations where you can't
>see what you are doing is also your responsibility.
>
>>I was not driving carelessly.
>
>You couldn't see where you were going or traffic approaching you yet
>you continued? I suspect that meets the criteria for counting as
>driving carelessly.
I admit that I could not see what was coming until I was part way out
of the space. I could however see exactly where where I was going, as
I was reversing straight back so could see where I was going both in
my mirrors and over my left shoulder (though clearly not both at the
same time).
>>Can you suggest how I could have taken more care ?
>
>By not putting yourself in a position where you had to blindly
>reverse into traffic which has right of way either by choosing
>another parking place or reversing into the space in the first place.
I would love to hear of anyone who has flagged down a bystander to
guide them out of a parking space in a normal parking situation like
this, which seems to be the only thing that I could have done to be
sure nothing was coming (and even then I would be relying on the
judgement of a stranger to tell me what was safe).
In this case the other bystander was the other driver, so clearly
flagging him down to help me reverse would have avoided this
particular accident. I suspect I know what the response would have
been had I flagged him down and asked him to watch while I reversed
out, given that most people seem to rush to queeze part you when you
attempt to back into a parking space...
--
Andy Norman tr...@norman.cx
http://www.norman.cx/
Replace the fish with my first name to reply
.
Andrew Norman
The discrepancy over the distance from the corner and my estimated
speed of the other car is down to a combination of my writing 200
yards when I meant 200 feet and saying "a couple of seconds" when I
should really have said "a few" or "several".
For anyone who still cares, here is a picture of the scene of the
accident showing that it is in fact about 200 feet to the corner in
question, not 200 yards as I incorrectly (and accidentally) stated.
http://norman.cx/photos/links/ntl_accident/overview.jpg
FYI, the road that we are talking about the other car driving down is
the one stretching from bottom left to middle right.
There were more parked cars on the day of the accident, a mixture of
"normal" cars, tall 4x4 cars and vans (the car park belongs to a large
telecoms firm and their engineers park in the car park). Meaning of
course that I could not do what I would normally try to do and look
through the side windows of neighbouring cars to see what was coming.
I did of course attempt to see what was coming this way before
reversing.
>The other driver "took no evasive action"........ yet pulled up within two
>feet?
The other car did not pull up in two feet. The other car finally came
to a halt some distance past my car, the two foot scrape was caused by
a glancing blow as the other car passed the back of my car at right
angles.
Am I not being clear in my description of this ?
>The OP says he was moving at the time of impact. His car hit the SIDE of the
>other car.
The rear of my car contacted the side of the other car, that is true.
>It could have been the side of a pram, or, as I stated, a child standing
>behind the vehicle.
It could have been, but we have already covered the ground that I was
moving too slowly to cause any damage to anything that was stationary
behind me and also I would have seen anything stationary behind me and
not reversed in the first place.
I reversed backwards a grand total of three feet, other a period of
several seconds.
Andrew Norman
wrote:
>Well, my arithmatic isn't Grade A, (and I am open to correction) but a quick
>calculation shows that at 30mph, it would take around 13 secs to cover
>200yds.
>Alternatively, at 100mph, 200 yds could be covered in around 4 secs, but
>then it would have taken nearly that distance for the other vehicle to stop.
>His skid marks would have been more help to the OP than any witness
>statement.
I'm going to regret that slip of writing yards when I meant feet
aren't I...
The 200 was an estimate (walking the distance today in the same car
park it was probably accurate give or take 30-40 feet). The "yards"
was simply a cock up on my part.
It was 200 feet or less, so we can put the 100mph car theory to bed
;-)
For those that still care you can satisfy yourselves that it wasn't
200 yards by looking at this photo. The black car in the foreground is
my car in roughly the position it was in after the accident, the
corner in question is the one at the end of the line of cars on the
right side of the picture. There are 20 parking bays to the corner,
each probably just over six feet wide, with a short stretch of flower
bed beyond that to the corner.
http://norman.cx/photos/links/ntl_accident/overview.jpg
Andrew Norman
<adr...@boliston.co.uk> wrote:
>Also what about roads where you need to get your bonnet a foot or two out into the
>road before you can see what's coming along the road, which is often the case in
>historic villages or historic towns with their narrow streets and tight corners?
>If someone was racing at a silly speed and hit your bonnet then surely they would
>be to blame if you were creeping out at a snails pace till you could see it's
>clear?
Not according to my insurance company. I tried all these arguments on
them and they basically said "no, it would be your fault, they have
right of way".
They took a different tack when I asked the question "what if it had
been a child stepping out from between the parked cars". In this case
they seem to think that the driver who was passing close at speed to
the parked cars would then carry some liability for the accident, but
could not provide me with any logical reasoning as to why a child
stepping out three feet from the cars and me reversing out three feet
should be treated differently.
It just doesn't make any logical sense that the other driver can't be
partly liable for the accident.
Andrew Norman
wrote:
>Is this really the state of the law ? If so it is extremely unfair.
So the conclusion seems to be that there are two things I could have
done to reduce the chance of the accident happening.
I could have reversed into the space. Because of the dimensions and
layout of my car I don't believe this would actually have helped in
this case.
I could have got out of the car and found someone to help me reverse
out. In this case the only other person in sight was the other driver.
I agree that this is a thing you could do in this situation, in
theory. In practice there is often no one around to help and I fear
that you wouldn't get a positive response if you asked most people.
Quite how you apply this approach to the similar case of junctions
that are blind because of parked cars I don't know. The suggestion
would be that you must park your car on the junction, get out and find
someone to look out for you and then attempt the manouver. Not a very
practical (or safe) proposition. I'm sure I am not alone in having to
negociate such junctions on a daily basis.
So this brings me to admit that there is at least one thing, however
impractical, I could have done to reduce the chance of the accident.
I still don't understand how the other driver can have no liability
for what happened though. That's just life I guess.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>"Tim" <m...@home.com> wrote in message news:<cbe13f$s22$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
>> "Andrew Norman" wrote
>> > Hmm. Can you tell me then what you would do if you came back after
>> > some shopping and found two vans parked either side of your car. Would
>> > you reverse out carefully and slowly to the point that you could see
>> > what was coming ? Would you enlist a passer by to flag down the
>> > traffic while you reversed ? Would you leave the car and walk home ?
>> >
>> > Most of us have to live, and drive, in the real world.
>> >
>> > I was not driving carelessly. Can you suggest
>> > how I could have taken more care ?
>>
>> You obviously were driving carelessly - reversing blind. That was your
>> choice at the time - a "real world", practical solution to the problem of
>> getting your car out of the space. Perhaps many people might have done
>> something similar if they were in the same position.
>
>Do you know of a motorist that would have done something different to
>reversing carefully to the point that they could see what is coming ?
That's not the point. The fact that most people, in the same
circumstances, would take the same risk is irrelevent. Most times,
people take these kind of risks and get away with it. In this case,
you didn't. So you can justifiably blame the accident at least partly
on bad luck, but you can't blame it on anyone else involved.
>If so can you ask them what they would have done instead. I am not
>trying to be funny, I really would like to know what I could have done
>differently.
The most sensible option is not to drive forward into parking spaces.
Once you've made the decision to do so, you've made the choice to
trade convenience for increased risk. OK, so that's entirely your
decision - and lots of other people, including me at times, make the
same choice - but having made the choice, you can't complain if, on
this one rare occasion, it results in bad consequences.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"Life is bigger, it's bigger than you"
Tim
> > You obviously were driving carelessly - reversing blind. That was
> > your choice at the time - a "real world", practical solution to the
> > problem of getting your car out of the space. Perhaps many people
> > might have done something similar if they were in the same position.
> >
> > cannot be anything less) and accept that, on this occasion, you were
> > unfortunate. As another poster said, "what if it were a child?" ...
>
> Do you know of a motorist that would have
From what you have said, you were *not* reversing "carefully" - you were
driving blind!
> ... to the point that they could see what is coming ?
> If so can you ask them what they would have done
> instead. I am not trying to be funny, I really would
> like to know what I could have done differently.
(1) Personally, I would have reversed into the space. Having driven in
forwards, other posters have suggested that you could have enlisted help to
watch while you reversed. How many options do you need?
(2) What's that got to do with it anyway? Even if *everyone* else would
have been careless (in the same situation), that doesn't mean that you are
not guilty of being careless!
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>I have talked about this in other posts. I agree that in many cars
>reversing into the space would have meant having to drive less
>distance out of the space before being able to see what was coming. I
>my car however the length of the bonnet and the shortness of the boot
>means that this is not the case.
Your front windscreen still gives better visibility than the rear,
though.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"Here we are now, entertain us"
Neil Ellwood
You forgot 'or getting someone to guide you out'
--
neil
Delete delete to reply
Neil Ellwood
> Mabon wrote:
>
>>
>>"Andrew Norman" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The accident was a glancing blow and little damage was done to either
>>> car (though the repair bill on the other car for the minor damage to
>>> his wheel arch is £1000).
>>
>>If you hit the wheel arch, surely the car would have been visible in your
>>wing mirror.
>>
>>But what if it had been a child?
>>
>
> I would have thought that this kind of response - which did nothing to
> address the OPs point yet appears to be the start of a moralistic
> crusade - would have been weeded out by the moderators as being
> irrelevant and unhelpful.
I think it is a valid point as pedestrians of all ages use car parks.
Neil Ellwood
You could have got someone to 'see' you out. This might be old fashioned
but is still worthwhile.
Ian Henden
"Andy Norman" <andy....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeb03286.04062...@posting.google.com...
It *might* have helped. If you had waited a second or three (as AP
suggested) then he would have passed harmlessly by the back of your car.
Then, when you reversed out, you might have hit someone more reasonable,,,,,
Tim
> Quite how you apply this approach to the similar case of
> ... I'm sure I am not alone in having to
> negociate such junctions on a daily basis.
Do you normally reverse out of such junctions?? :-(
R D S
"Palindr?me" <sb38...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:2jvimqF...@uni-berlin.de...
>As a bus (as well as car) driver, I find this attitude, that
>it is apparently fine to blindly stick bits of their cars
>into the potential path of other road users, totally
>amazing.
'Other road users'?
He is on a car park with a 5 mph speed limit.
Presumably the 5 mph speed limit is in place because as it is a car park it
isnt unheard of for people to be leaving parking spaces with limited
visibility.
At 5 mph if i see somebody backing into my path i can almost instantly come
to a halt, no problem.
If the guy who hit the OP had been playing by the rules no collision would
have taken place.
Rick
dormouse
news:443kd0pcpjdll4g16...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:20:09 +0100, "dormouse" <bou...@britwar.co.uk>
> wrote:
...
>
> Hmm. Can you tell me then what you would do if you came back after
> some shopping and found two vans parked either side of your car. Would
> you reverse out
No, I reverse into parking spaces and drive out. Its a little more
inconvenient to me with regards to loading the car with shopping however it
does mean that I can see where I'm going when I pull out.
> carefully and slowly to the point that you could see
> what was coming ? Would you enlist a passer by to flag down the
> traffic while you reversed ? Would you leave the car and walk home ?
>
> Most of us have to live, and drive, in the real world.
Well I don't live on Mars
> >Of course there is a good argument to suggest that the other driver
should
> >have been able to stop in time (to avoid an accident) but again even if
he
> >did so you would still fall foul of driving carelessly.
>
> I was not driving carelessly. Can you suggest how I could have taken
> more care ?
By reversing into the parking space and driving out when safe to do so.
...
> I explained in my original post that had I reversed into the space I
> would have had to pull just as far out of the space (maybe a little
> further)
Rubbish, your windscreen is glass, your side windows are glass whereas the
back of your roof isn't. You can see through glass, you can't see through
the material that makes up your roof. You said so in your initial post,
another MX5 driver has made the same point, I've also driven a MX5.
> before I could have seen him coming. My car would also have
> been visible to the other driver later,
But again you miss the point, you shouldn;t have been doing what you were
doing and it was for you to give way to traffic on teh road, not the other
way round.
> as the rear of my roof (which
> would be visible above the boot and bonnet of neighbouring parked
> cars) is closer to the back of my car than the windscreen is to the
> front of the car.
>
> I am a careful driver and I believe I assess hazards fairly well. I
> wasn't then I would not have been backing slowly out of the space.
Sorry but if you were a careful driver, if you did assess hazards, if you
did keep your vision up - you - wouldn't have caused an entirely avaoidable
accident.
It's a shame I don't have my copy of "Roadcraft" to hand, you'd find chapter
1 "Drivers Attitude" interesting. It makes the point that drivers rarely
accept responsibility for being the cause of accidents and thus tend to
learn from their mistakes. What may be of greater concern for any passengers
you may carry in the future is that drivers involved in an accident have a
much higher probablity of being involved in a similar accident within the
next 5 years.
> As to improving my vision, I'm afraid it is hard to see through solid
> objects, however hard I squint.
Well as I point out above, try looking through the glass windscreen and your
side windows next time rather than your roof.
--
regards or otherwise,
dormouse
R D S
"Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2jvodoF...@uni-berlin.de...> news:i4vkd0t0423sr2bep...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:20:11 +0100, "Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I know you are just trying to wind me up and I shouldn't reply, but...
>
> No I am not. But if I can find discrepancies in your story, then an
> insurance assessor/court would easily do so.
> I am sorry if you don't agree with my view.
>
>
FWIW i agree with the op and (i choose my words carefully as this is a
moderated NG) you are being a trifle silly and possibly trying to stir
things up a little.
Andrew Norman
<ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> That wouldn't have helped I'm afraid. He was approaching my position
>> at right a right angle to my car, so would not have been able to see
>> the light on the rear of my car, even if my car hadn't been hidden by
>> the neighbouring car until I started to move.
>
>It *might* have helped. If you had waited a second or three (as AP
>suggested) then he would have passed harmlessly by the back of your car.
>
>Then, when you reversed out, you might have hit someone more reasonable,,,,,
Heh, I like that solution ;-)
dormouse
news:2k11beF...@uni-berlin.de...
chapter
> 1 "Drivers Attitude" interesting. It makes the point that drivers rarely
> accept responsibility for being the cause of accidents and thus tend to
> learn from their mistakes.
Should have read ...
"... that drivers rarely accept responsibility for being the cause of
accidents and thus tend to *fail to* learn from their mistakes. ..."
... apologies, long hours, no sleep (no I'm not driving!) leading to poor
keyboard skills.
Andrew Norman
No, but I do have to blindly nose slowly out into the traffic until I
can see what is coming, exactly the same as when reversing out of a
parking space with large vehicles on each side.
dormouse
news:2k11iqF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2jvodoF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Andrew Norman" <tr...@norman.cx> wrote in message
> > news:i4vkd0t0423sr2bep...@4ax.com...
> > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:20:11 +0100, "Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I know you are just trying to wind me up and I shouldn't reply, but...
> >
> > No I am not. But if I can find discrepancies in your story, then an
> > insurance assessor/court would easily do so.
> > I am sorry if you don't agree with my view.
> >
> >
> FWIW i agree with the op
Setting aside for the moment the matter of careless/dangerous driving and
concentrating only on his admissions.
He described driving into another car (from the description of damage he
gave - the back of his car hit the *side* of the other car) and now he's
upset that as the cause of the accident his insurance company have laid the
blame at his door and paid up.
My turn to choose my words carefully; What is it that you agree with? That
persons responsible for damaging other peoples property shouldn't be held to
blame and suffer the consequences of their actions?
--
regards,
dormouse
Ricardo
> I really would like to know what I could have done
> differently.
Wound down your window and listened.
I used to drive regularly across a junction in a narrow street with cars
parked each side, such that the junction (which was also on the crest of
a hill) was essentially blind - a normal saloon car would completely
block it before the driver could see to the right. I used to inch
across it. Then some prat doing well over the 30 mph limit very nearly
killed me - I would have had a hard time convincing the insurance
company that I wasn't to blame. After that I took to winding down the
window and turning the tape player off so I could hear the boy racers
coming.
R.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>I have talked about this in other posts. I agree that in many cars
>reversing into the space would have meant having to drive less
>distance out of the space before being able to see what was coming. I
>my car however the length of the bonnet and the shortness of the boot
>means that this is not the case.
However you would have been better placed to see around you.
>Also driving forward out of the space would not have helped my initial
>visibilty of the oncoming car. It was the line of parked cars next to
>me (including large 4x4s and vans) that blocked my view of what was
>coming.
If you can't see you don't drive out.
>I admit that I could not see what was coming until I was part way out
>of the space. I could however see exactly where where I was going, as
>I was reversing straight back so could see where I was going both in
>my mirrors and over my left shoulder (though clearly not both at the
>same time).
You could not see that it was safe to initiate or complete the
manoeuver. Nonetheless you drove blindly out. If this isn't
careless what is?
>I would love to hear of anyone who has flagged down a bystander to
>guide them out of a parking space in a normal parking situation like
>this, which seems to be the only thing that I could have done to be
>sure nothing was coming (and even then I would be relying on the
>judgement of a stranger to tell me what was safe).
You are missing the point - it is your responsibility to drive your
car so it doesn't hit others who have the right of way. How you
achieve this is your problem, no one elses.
Cynic
> If there is damage to the other car's wheelarch, it suggests that the
other
> car was directly behind the OP at the time of impact and should have been
> visible in his wing mirror before then.
No, it means nothing of the sort. My understanding of the OP's description
is that at the time of the collision, the *other* car was the vehicle that
was moving the fastest, whilst the OP was practically stationary. It is
perfectly possible to hit a wheelarch on a stationary object - as I know
very well when I hit one of those small 1 foot concrete bollards with my
offside wheelarch in a car park. Fortunately a very minor dent that pulled
out by hand.
> Also, at the time of impact, the OP suggests he had reversed three feet
out
> of the parking bay.
Yes. That's what people do in a car park, and there is nothing wrong with
it. I *expect* cars to edge out of parking bays ahead of me in a car park,
and drive at an appropriately slow speed because of that. It is unusual if
I do not have to stop for a car that has edged out of a parking space in a
busy supermarket car park on a Saturday morning. The usual sequence is that
a car begins to reverse whilst I am hidden from the view of the driver. I
slow to a crawl. The driver of the reversing car either sees me, stops and
lets me past after we have exchanged positive eye contact, or I stop leaving
sufficient space for the car to reverse out and drive away. I expect that
it's what you do also.
> Enough distance to knock over a child, which may have
> been standing directly behind the car, and run over him/her with his rear
> wheels. I can't see why the child would need to walk or run into the
vehicle
> to sustain injury, unless the vehicle was not moving. In this case, it
was.
>> I suppose if a parent had left a baby unattended lying on the road behind
> a
> > rear wheel, there could have been a fatal accident ...
> But not a child standing directly behind the car?
No, because (a) a child standing directly behind the car would be visible to
the driver and (b) even if neither the driver nor the child were looking,
the child would move very sharpish as soon as the very slow moving car
touched it.
I think it is more case that either you or I have misunderstood the
circumstances.
This is what I believe the situation to be:
The car was parked in a normal supermarket style car park, with cars on each
side. In that situation, the driver can only see a very short section of
the access road before the view is blocked by the vehicles on either side.
Nevertheless, there is sufficient in view to determine that there is nothing
directly behind nor for a small distance to either side. Such distance
being sufficient to ensure that a car driving at a safe speed along the
access will have plenty of time to see the OP beginning to reverse, and
either drive around it (if there is sufficient room), or to stop.
I once witnessed a similar accident, and in that case placed the blame fully
on the vehicle (in that case a motorcycle) that was speeding along close to
the line of parked cars when one of the cars began to reverse *extremely*
slowly at a time when the motorcyclist was a considerable distance away.
The driver of the reversing car became aware of the motorcycle when it was
about 3 cars away, and stopped completely. The combination of excessive
speed (I estimate at least 30MPH) and inattention caused the motorcyclist to
see the now stationary obstruction too late, he swerved, missed the car but
dropped his bike. Fortunately no significant injury, and the bike did not
appear too damaged either.
To those who criticise such reversing with limited visibility, I ask that
next time you visit a supermarket on a busy day, take a look at what *you*
do when reversing out of a parking space. I have *never* seen a driver ask
someone to stand in the road to guide them out. It is a totally different
situation to reversing into a normal road where you might expect cars to be
both travelling at speed and also not on the lookout for such movement.
--
Cynic
Cynic
> His estimation of the other cars speed doesn't hold water, as another
poster
> pointed out.
Incorrectly.
> 30 mph and only a two foot scrape to the back of his car.......
> The other driver "took no evasive action"........ yet pulled up within two
> feet?
Faulty logic. Just because the scrape was 2 feet long, does not imply that
the other car stopped within 2 feet. The OP has since explained that the
car in fact stopped some considerable distance further. You can hit the
barrier on a motorway a glancing blow at considerable speed and yet the
damage is only a few feet in length.
> The OP says he was moving at the time of impact. His car hit the SIDE of
the
> other car.
A wheelarch often protrudes, and so you cannot conclude which car hit the
other. Although had I needed to claim on my insurance when I damaged my
wheelarch on a bollard, I would have wanted you as the insurance assessor,
as I could have claimed that the bollard jumped out and hit me, and you
would have believed it.
> It could have been the side of a pram, or, as I stated, a child standing
> behind the vehicle.
Both would have been visible to the driver *before* he began moving, because
they are not moving rapidly from his blind spot into his path of travel.
--
Cynic
Cynic
> Personally I would have reversed in to the space in the first place
> rather than just driven in to avoid this sort of situation. I note
> your comments about bits of your car being more visible going
> backwards but it isn't the other drivers responsibility to avoid you
> but yours to avoid them.
No, all drivers have that responsibility.
--
Cynic
Cynic
> THe OP appears to be saying that reversing into the path of traffic
without
> being able to see what is coming is acceptable.
It is a question of degree. We all reverse into roads without being able to
see what is coming. I might reverse into a road in Brighton without being
able to see that a vehicle in Glasgow is travelling toward me. How far
along a road should you be able to see is clear before moving? 10 feet?
100 feet? A mile? IMO there is no absolute distance. It depends very much
on the expected speed of traffic on that road as well as the expected level
of alertness of other drivers to anticipate the possibility.
--
Cynic
Palindr☻me
> "Palindr?me" <sb38...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:2jvimqF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
>
>
>>As a bus (as well as car) driver, I find this attitude, that
>>it is apparently fine to blindly stick bits of their cars
>>into the potential path of other road users, totally
>>amazing.
>
>
> 'Other road users'?
> He is on a car park with a 5 mph speed limit.
> Presumably the 5 mph speed limit is in place because as it is a car park it
> isnt unheard of for people to be leaving parking spaces with limited
> visibility.
>
> At 5 mph if i see somebody backing into my path i can almost instantly come
> to a halt, no problem.
Thinking and stopping distance at 5mph is about 10 feet. So,
if you are within 10 foot of the vehicle pulling out, you
will fail to stop in time.
For the driver reversing out: At walking pace and with a 3
feet strip visible on either side, stopping distance on
seeing someone coming is about 5 feet.
So, basically, this was an accident waiting to happen. The
driver starts pulling out - an approaching car 10 feet away
will not be visible.
The approaching driver reacts and brakes - but will not stop
in time.
About 1 second later, the driver pulling out sights the
approaching car and reacts - but will travel a further 5
feet before stopping.
Bang.
The odds are that the car pulling out will actually hit the
passing car and not vice versa, as the passing car is likely
to be closer than 5 feet and so will arrive at the point of
impact first and be brought to a halt first, under this
scenario.
The speed of impact is going to be very low, less than 2mph.
So, if this was a child, it may be shaken and bruised -
but not dented.
> If the guy who hit the OP had been playing by the rules no collision would
> have taken place.
>
I think this gives a scenario that fits the facts. The only
person that could have avoided this accident was the OP, by
increasing his sightlines to include at least 12 feet. He
could have perhaps done this by reversing in - which would
certainly have increased his viewing angle and distances. He
could have reversed 6" out and stopped for 3 seconds,
repeating that until he could see. That would have given
approaching vehicles notice that he was edging out but space
for anyone already committed to pass - assuming that they
weren't planning to pass closer than 6" to the vehicle.
The same applies to the other scenario mentioned by the OP,
that of blind junctions and corners. Repeated edging forward
and stopping, whilst leaving ample room for anyone committed
to pass, will soon result in either someone stopping to let
you out or getting far enough forward to see. I have to do
this dozens of times each day, with my routes around Devon
villages and lanes with grass in the middle that most
drivers would think twice about going down - local farmers
excepted, who drive under the assumption that nothing will
be coming down /their/ lane..Luckily, they all know the bus
timings, so all I have to be is on time..
Mabon
Well, I apologise again. What exactly do you disagree with? Purely out of
interest, you understand?
Mabon
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cbfo7m$bs$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> "Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>
> > If there is damage to the other car's wheelarch, it suggests that the
> other
> > car was directly behind the OP at the time of impact and should have
been
> > visible in his wing mirror before then.
>
> No, it means nothing of the sort. My understanding of the OP's
description
> is that at the time of the collision, the *other* car was the vehicle that
> was moving the fastest, whilst the OP was practically stationary. It is
> perfectly possible to hit a wheelarch on a stationary object - as I know
> very well when I hit one of those small 1 foot concrete bollards with my
> offside wheelarch in a car park. Fortunately a very minor dent that
pulled
> out by hand.
Yes, I agree, it is possible to hit a wheelarch on a stationary object. It
is also possible, as in this case, to hit a wheel arch of a moving vehicle.
I don't see your point.
> > Also, at the time of impact, the OP suggests he had reversed three feet
> out
> > of the parking bay.
>
> Yes. That's what people do in a car park, and there is nothing wrong with
> it. I *expect* cars to edge out of parking bays ahead of me in a car
park,
> and drive at an appropriately slow speed because of that. It is unusual
if
> I do not have to stop for a car that has edged out of a parking space in a
> busy supermarket car park on a Saturday morning. The usual sequence is
that
> a car begins to reverse whilst I am hidden from the view of the driver. I
> slow to a crawl. The driver of the reversing car either sees me, stops
and
> lets me past after we have exchanged positive eye contact, or I stop
leaving
> sufficient space for the car to reverse out and drive away. I expect that
> it's what you do also.
Yes, it is.
> > Enough distance to knock over a child, which may have
> > been standing directly behind the car, and run over him/her with his
rear
> > wheels. I can't see why the child would need to walk or run into the
> vehicle
> > to sustain injury, unless the vehicle was not moving. In this case, it
> was.
>
> >> I suppose if a parent had left a baby unattended lying on the road
behind
> > a
> > > rear wheel, there could have been a fatal accident ...
>
> > But not a child standing directly behind the car?
>
> No, because (a) a child standing directly behind the car would be visible
to
> the driver and (b) even if neither the driver nor the child were looking,
> the child would move very sharpish as soon as the very slow moving car
> touched it.
>
> I think it is more case that either you or I have misunderstood the
> circumstances.
That is inevitable, given that we have only one side of the dtory.
Well, I can agree with most of that. Been there, got the video, T shirt etc.
But at the end of the day, if you pull out into the path of oncoming
traffic, you have to take responsibility for that action. Most of us get
away with it most of the time. When we don't, it does no harm to admit it.
Mabon
> "Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>
> > His estimation of the other cars speed doesn't hold water, as another
> poster
> > pointed out.
>
> Incorrectly.
>
> > 30 mph and only a two foot scrape to the back of his car.......
> > The other driver "took no evasive action"........ yet pulled up within
two
> > feet?
>
> Faulty logic. Just because the scrape was 2 feet long, does not imply
that
> the other car stopped within 2 feet. The OP has since explained that the
> car in fact stopped some considerable distance further. You can hit the
> barrier on a motorway a glancing blow at considerable speed and yet the
> damage is only a few feet in length.
Yes, the OP has since explained that the other driver took 20 or 30 feet to
stop. That information would have been useful earlier, as would have been
the exact distance from the bend etc.
> > The OP says he was moving at the time of impact. His car hit the SIDE of
> the
> > other car.
>
> A wheelarch often protrudes, and so you cannot conclude which car hit the
> other. Although had I needed to claim on my insurance when I damaged my
> wheelarch on a bollard, I would have wanted you as the insurance assessor,
> as I could have claimed that the bollard jumped out and hit me, and you
> would have believed it.
Now who is being silly? To hit the wheelarch of the other car, that other
car would have had to be behind the OP's car at the point of impact.
If the OP was travelling so slowly, he would have seen the front of the
other car passing in his wing mirror, and reversing at such a slow speed,
would have been able to stop.
He didn't. In fact, we are not even sure whether it was the front or rear
wheel arch.
> > It could have been the side of a pram, or, as I stated, a child standing
> > behind the vehicle.
>
> Both would have been visible to the driver *before* he began moving,
because
> they are not moving rapidly from his blind spot into his path of travel.
They wouldn't need to move rapidly. The OP was reversing ever so slowly, I
believe.
dave @ stejonda
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
<>
>>it isn't the other drivers responsibility to avoid you
>> but yours to avoid them.
>
>No, all drivers have that responsibility.
But in situations as described (as I learned to my cost last year) the
financial responsibility as far as the insurance co. is concerned falls
onto the person whose right of way it wasn't.
--
dave @ stejonda
Bring culture back to NTL.
http://www.performance-channel.com/
Cynic
> Thinking and stopping distance at 5mph is about 10 feet. So,
> if you are within 10 foot of the vehicle pulling out, you
> will fail to stop in time.
> For the driver reversing out: At walking pace and with a 3
> feet strip visible on either side, stopping distance on
> seeing someone coming is about 5 feet.
I would question both those distances. I suspect that they are based upon
the reaction time of a person being exposed to an unexpected hazard. In
this case both drivers should be looking out for exactly the type of hazard
in question, and I would therefore expect the reaction time to be
considerably shorter.
In addition, braking is not the only way to avoid a collision. Swerving
around an obstruction takes less reaction time because your hands are
already on the steering wheel whilst time is lost moving your foot onto the
brake. When driving past a row of parked cars in a car park it is prudent
to leave as wide a gap as possible between yourself and the parked cars.
This gives a space between your car and anything emerging into the road -
whether that is a reversing car or a person stepping out. Thus allowing the
emerging person or driver to stop before actually getting into your path.
The OP mentioned that the road was plenty wide, and the photographs
subsequently posted bear out that statement. Even if your stopping distance
quoted for the reversing car is accurate, had the other driver allowed a 5
foot gap between his car and the line of parked vehicles, it would have
prevented the collision even if the reversing driver took 5 feet to stop.
If the stopping distance of the other car is indeed 10 feet, then it would
take just over 1.5 seconds to cover that distance at 5MPH. So if the time
between the reversing car starting to move and it moving far enough to have
covered the gap left by the other driver takes longer than that time, again
there is no collision even if the reversing driver fails to stop.
For those people who are placing *all* the blame on the OP, I will ask this
question: When you are driving past a row of parked cars, do you consider
that in the event that one of the parked cars begins to *very slowly* back
out into the road at the worst possible time, you would be such a position
that it would be impossible to prevent a collision? For myself, I think I
drive far enough away from the row, and slowly enough that if at the first
time I saw the movement the reversing car was too close for me to stop, I
would be past it before it had reversed far enough to collide with me.
--
Cynic
Cynic
> > > If there is damage to the other car's wheelarch, it suggests that the
> > other
> > > car was directly behind the OP at the time of impact and should have
> been
> > > visible in his wing mirror before then.
> > No, it means nothing of the sort. My understanding of the OP's
> description
> > is that at the time of the collision, the *other* car was the vehicle
that
> > was moving the fastest, whilst the OP was practically stationary. It is
> > perfectly possible to hit a wheelarch on a stationary object - as I know
> > very well when I hit one of those small 1 foot concrete bollards with my
> > offside wheelarch in a car park. Fortunately a very minor dent that
> pulled
> > out by hand.
> Yes, I agree, it is possible to hit a wheelarch on a stationary object. It
> is also possible, as in this case, to hit a wheel arch of a moving
vehicle.
> I don't see your point.
It means that the collision could have been due to the passing driver
hitting a car that *had been* reversing but was now stationary. Thus
culpability goes to the driver of the moving car if the collision could
easily have been avoided had he been paying adequate attention or driving
more slowly.
Consider a different scenario to illustrate the point I am making. A driver
with 600 feet visibility in all directions begins to reverse onto a road.
After moving 3 feet into a very wide road, he see a car driving along the
road 600 feet away. So he stops to allow the other car to pass before
reversing any further. The other car however is travelling at 100MPH and
the driver is not paying attention, and it hits the back of the now
stationary car. Would you still consider that the reversing driver is to
blame for reversing onto the road?
The situation of the OP differs considerably in degree, but the principle is
the same. It is by no means cut-and-dried as to what lateral visibility a
driver should have before undertaking a reversing manoeuvre.
--
Cynic
Cynic
>> A wheelarch often protrudes, and so you cannot conclude which car hit the
>> other. Although had I needed to claim on my insurance when I damaged my
>> wheelarch on a bollard, I would have wanted you as the insurance
assessor,
>> as I could have claimed that the bollard jumped out and hit me, and you
>> would have believed it.
> Now who is being silly? To hit the wheelarch of the other car, that other
> car would have had to be behind the OP's car at the point of impact.
> If the OP was travelling so slowly, he would have seen the front of the
> other car passing in his wing mirror, and reversing at such a slow speed,
> would have been able to stop.
Perhaps he *did* stop (or near as dammit). Following which the other driver
failed to avoid the now stationary obsticle.
>>> It could have been the side of a pram, or, as I stated, a child standing
>>> behind the vehicle.
>> Both would have been visible to the driver *before* he began moving,
> because
>> they are not moving rapidly from his blind spot into his path of travel.
> They wouldn't need to move rapidly. The OP was reversing ever so slowly, I
> believe.
Huh? Not sure what you are saying. If the speed of the pedestrian is such
that the reversing driver has sufficient time to stop between the first time
the pedestrian becomes visible to him, and the time the pedestrian is
directly behind the car, that is all that matters. The speed of the
reversing driver does not make a lot of difference to that time. The speed
of the pedestrian is the main factor. Of course, the pedestrian may then
walk into the side of the now stationary car if s/he is not paying
attention, but that would be a different matter.
I know a teacher who drove his car slowly along a road beside a playing
field in the school grounds. He saw a child running toward the road, and
came to a complete stop. There were several witnesses to that fact. The
running child had his head turned shouting to friends and did not see the
car. He ran full-tilt into the side of it, sustaining some injury. The
parent of the child accused the teacher of driving carelessly and running
over her child. Would you side with the parent or the driver?
--
Cynic
Palindr☻me
> "Palindrâ~»me" <sb38...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote
>
>
>>Thinking and stopping distance at 5mph is about 10 feet. So,
>>if you are within 10 foot of the vehicle pulling out, you
>>will fail to stop in time.
>
>
>>For the driver reversing out: At walking pace and with a 3
>>feet strip visible on either side, stopping distance on
>>seeing someone coming is about 5 feet.
>
>
> I would question both those distances. I suspect that they are based upon
> the reaction time of a person being exposed to an unexpected hazard. In
> this case both drivers should be looking out for exactly the type of hazard
> in question, and I would therefore expect the reaction time to be
> considerably shorter.
>
> In addition, braking is not the only way to avoid a collision. Swerving
> around an obstruction takes less reaction time because your hands are
> already on the steering wheel whilst time is lost moving your foot onto the
> brake. When driving past a row of parked cars in a car park it is prudent
> to leave as wide a gap as possible between yourself and the parked cars.
> This gives a space between your car and anything emerging into the road -
> whether that is a reversing car or a person stepping out. Thus allowing the
> emerging person or driver to stop before actually getting into your path.
I would suggest that, in a normal car park with two way
traffic, the usual distance is about 3 foot from the row of
parked cars, at best. I wouldn't accept your argument about
swerving - braking is an automatic reaction - swerving,
hopefully, involves decision making including assessing the
possibility of a head-on crash.
>
> The OP mentioned that the road was plenty wide, and the photographs
> subsequently posted bear out that statement. Even if your stopping distance
> quoted for the reversing car is accurate, had the other driver allowed a 5
> foot gap between his car and the line of parked vehicles, it would have
> prevented the collision even if the reversing driver took 5 feet to stop.
Agreed! But I think passing 5 feet clear of parked cars is
exceptional. Had the OP driven 1 foot out then stopped, no
collision would have resulted either. And other approaching
traffic would have either stopped or adjusted their path so
that the OP's next 1 foot transition wouldn't have caused an
accident either.
>
> If the stopping distance of the other car is indeed 10 feet, then it would
> take just over 1.5 seconds to cover that distance at 5MPH. So if the time
> between the reversing car starting to move and it moving far enough to have
> covered the gap left by the other driver takes longer than that time, again
> there is no collision even if the reversing driver fails to stop.
Agreed.
>
> For those people who are placing *all* the blame on the OP, I will ask this
> question: When you are driving past a row of parked cars, do you consider
> that in the event that one of the parked cars begins to *very slowly* back
> out into the road at the worst possible time, you would be such a position
> that it would be impossible to prevent a collision? For myself, I think I
> drive far enough away from the row, and slowly enough that if at the first
> time I saw the movement the reversing car was too close for me to stop, I
> would be past it before it had reversed far enough to collide with me.
Define *very slowly*.
The math for a reversing driver with a 3 foot peripheral
field of view and a car approaching at 3 foot from the line
of cars is simple. The driver has to stop within 3 foot and
with a total time of ~ 1 second. This gives a reversing
speed of <2mph.
I suspect that the OP was reversing at 2mph or greater or he
would have seen the approaching car in time to stop -
irrespective of the speed of the approaching car.
You are quite right, had the approaching driver been
travelling at <2mph and at a distance of >3 foot from the
parked cars, a collision could possibly have been avoided.
Mabon
> "Mabon" <mike...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
>
> > Yes, I agree, it is possible to hit a wheelarch on a stationary object.
It
> > is also possible, as in this case, to hit a wheel arch of a moving
> vehicle.
> > I don't see your point.
>
> It means that the collision could have been due to the passing driver
> hitting a car that *had been* reversing but was now stationary. Thus
> culpability goes to the driver of the moving car if the collision could
> easily have been avoided had he been paying adequate attention or driving
> more slowly.
Most certainly, but the OP has never suggested he was stationary at the time
of impact.
>
> Consider a different scenario to illustrate the point I am making. A
driver
> with 600 feet visibility in all directions begins to reverse onto a road.
> After moving 3 feet into a very wide road, he see a car driving along the
> road 600 feet away. So he stops to allow the other car to pass before
> reversing any further. The other car however is travelling at 100MPH and
> the driver is not paying attention, and it hits the back of the now
> stationary car. Would you still consider that the reversing driver is to
> blame for reversing onto the road?
Probably not, but this is not the scenario we are discussing here. Where
does the OP say he was stationary at the point of impact?
> The situation of the OP differs considerably in degree, but the principle
is
> the same. It is by no means cut-and-dried as to what lateral visibility a
> driver should have before undertaking a reversing manoeuvre.
No. But if you chose to manouver your car when your visibility is severly
restricted, then you have to take the responsibility for that action.
Mabon
"Binary Era" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0ojnd013qrrs6lvnc...@4ax.com...
> Mabon wrote:
>
> >If the OP was travelling so slowly, he would have seen the front of the
> >other car passing in his wing mirror, and reversing at such a slow speed,
> >would have been able to stop.
>
Unless any of us were present at the scene, then assumptions are all you are
likely to get here.
> At 5 mph the other car was travelling at 7.3 feet per second. You do
> not know what the angle of visibility is from the driver's seat of the
> OP's car. It is quite possible - but you seem not to have considered
> it - that the second car was not visible to the OP until it was
> abreast of the rear of his car.
I have not only considered it, I have embraced it. Due mainly to the fact
that the OP has maintained that he could not see the other vehicle
approaching.
Also, I have stated (as above) that he would have seen the other vehicle in
his wing mirror as the other vehicle passed.
I suggest you read what is written before mouthing assumptions.
> With a reaction time of 0.3 seconds that car would have travelled at
> least 2.2 feet - almost exactly what the OP mentioned as being the
> length of the scratches; and at 5 mph the braking distance is
> miniscule.
Let me get this straight. I don't wish to assume, but are you saying that
your evidence above suggests that the other vehicle was travelling at 5mph?
I only ask because the OP assumed he was travelling at around 30mph.
> One of the contributory factors to this accident is the second car
> travelling so close to the line of parked cars - never a good idea, as
> a child may step out.....get it? Had it been in the middle of the
> road, the OP may well have had time to see it and react appropriately.
> He may like to draw a scale plan of the site and measure visibility
> angles and car positions, etc. Much more helpful than mouthing off.
Much more helpful. Perhaps you could assist him.
Mabon
> "Mabon" <mike...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> > Now who is being silly? To hit the wheelarch of the other car, that
other
> > car would have had to be behind the OP's car at the point of impact.
> > If the OP was travelling so slowly, he would have seen the front of the
> > other car passing in his wing mirror, and reversing at such a slow
speed,
> > would have been able to stop.
>
> Perhaps he *did* stop (or near as dammit). Following which the other
driver
> failed to avoid the now stationary obsticle.
Well, if he did, I have failed to find where the OP says anything to that
effect.
The driver. But then you knew that, because it is an almost exact replica of
the situation in this case.
As the child would have been at fault whether the car was stationary, or
moving at the time of impact.
Now, if the point of impact with the child had been at the front of the
vehicle, or in this case, the other driver had hit the OP with the front of
his vehicle, then it might shift the blame onto the other driver. But until
we get an effective system for driving sideways fitted to our vehicles,
there is very little any driver can do to avoid someone or something running
into the side of us.
Emma
wrote:
<snip>
>For those people who are placing *all* the blame on the OP, I will ask this
>question: When you are driving past a row of parked cars, do you consider
>that in the event that one of the parked cars begins to *very slowly* back
>out into the road at the worst possible time, you would be such a position
>that it would be impossible to prevent a collision? For myself, I think I
>drive far enough away from the row, and slowly enough that if at the first
>time I saw the movement the reversing car was too close for me to stop, I
>would be past it before it had reversed far enough to collide with me.
When driving through a car park, I am constantly on the lookout for
someone reversing out of a space that either hasn't seen my approach
or has chosen to ignore it. If I didn't then I'd probably be hitting
another car every time I used a car park - its so easy for people not
to see you.
My pet peeve in car parks is when someone in a 4 by 4 decides to park
next to me. It doesn't matter whether I'm facing forward or backwards,
I can't see around the damn thing.
I have a lot of sympathy for the OP.
Lloer
Palindr☻me
> Additionally, you mention seeing the other car in his wing
> mirror - it used to be a driving test failure to back up using the
> mirrors, has this now changed?
I sincerely hope not, but, then, I do drive a bus... :)
>
> None of this helps the OP. But if we have a estimated distance of say
> 30 feet between the collision and the other car coming to a stop, then
> by interpolation of the higway code stopping distances, that car's
> speed could be estimated - and my calculation (not assumption) would,
> in association with this, strongly indicate that the other driver was
> travelling at more that the car-park limit of 5 mph.
Now 20' or so of skidmark up the road from the point of
impact would be convincing evidence of speed. Just the
distance travelled would be much less so - the driver could
argue that he was stunned into delayed action by the shock
of being hit in the side by another vehicle. There would be
no need for a fast controlled stop (or whatever they call an
emergency stop these days) as the incident was over and no
hazard was present ahead.
>
> I haven't got my Highway Code to hand but I guess 20 mph would be
> nearer the mark - but certainly it would be worth the OP doing the
> interpolation here. If he can use Excel he could enter the HC figures,
> get a regression equation, and from that derive a figure based on the
> 20 to 30' stopping distances. The only estimate fed in here would be
> the OP's distance estimate. If he casts his mind back, he may remember
> exactly where the other car stopped, and will have a more accurate
> distance (hence speed) determination. This would put him in a strong
> position to argue that the other car was breaking the speed limit.
> Don't car parks count as public roads for this kind of thing?
>
The speed of the approaching car is largely irrelevant as it
doesn't affect the ability of the reversing car to stop in
time before running into it. That the approaching car had
right of way, I think has not been contested.
For an approaching car doing 5 mph or 25mph, the reversing
driver should have been able to stop in the time between
sighting it at the periphery of the rear vision and the
reversing car reaching to the point of impact. I worked that
out to <2mph for an approaching car that was leaving a 3
foot gap to the parked cars.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>"Demetrius Zeluff" <2876...@tmicha.net> wrote
>
>> THe OP appears to be saying that reversing into the path of traffic
>without
>> being able to see what is coming is acceptable.
>
>It is a question of degree. We all reverse into roads without being able to
>see what is coming.
Sure. But the fact that we all do it is no excuse when it goes wrong.
I'm pretty sure that all (or nearly) of us exceed the speed limit as
well, but the "everyone else does it" argument won't stop you being
fined if you're caught.
In this case, the OP carried out a manoeuvre which, from a
legal/insurance point of view, is wrong, and ended up losing out,
despite the fact that many other people do exactly the same thing
every day without any such consequences. I've reversed out of hundreds
of parking spaces and never pranged anything. He may well try to argue
that this is unfair (and it probably is), but fairness has nothing to
do with it. It's also possible that the other driver was morally
culpable, possibly because he failed to take avoiding action when he
could have done, or because he was ignoring an advisory speed
limit[1]. But that doesn't matter either - the insurance company don't
care about morality. All that matters is who was legally in the wrong
here, and that, without question, was the OP.
[1] Speed limits in car parks aren't legally binding, as car parks
aren't part of the public highway.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"Work came and made us free"
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Binary Era wrote:
> > Additionally, you mention seeing the other car in his wing
>> mirror - it used to be a driving test failure to back up using the
>> mirrors, has this now changed?
>
>I sincerely hope not, but, then, I do drive a bus... :)
It is a failure in a car. Large vehicles, like buses and trucks, are
different - in many of them, there's no sensible option but to use the
mirrors.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"And so we're told this is the golden age"
Ian Henden
culpability.
OP should have reversed in (agreed, makes loading groceries difficult...)
OP could have waited a few secs so reverse lights give some warning
OP could have reversed a bit more slowly - giving more time to use mirrors,
more time to others to avoid him
OPs victim could (should?) have been driving more slowly
OP's victim could have been a bit less haemophrenic
OP's *neighbouring* parked cars - were they "squarely" in *their* marked
bays? affects sight lines?
And you could also possibly assign a couple of percent blame on the
supermarket ... is the layout of the car park good enough? or are they
trying to cram too many car spaces in, at the expense of manoevering space?
I suspect that, in *most* accidents, blame does not lie *100* percent on
*one* person .....
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>My insurance company tell me that because he had the right of way
>there is just about no circumstance where he could assume any
>liability for the accident. They therefore are going to say I was 100%
>liable for the accident.
Your insurance company is right. You can't offer any actual evidence
that anyone other than yourself was at fault, however strongly you
suspect that the other driver was exceeding the speed limit (which, in
any case, is not legally binding).
>I have no idea whether this is legally sound. Morally it appears crazy
>to me. I am aware of nothing I could have done to have reduced the
>chance of the accident (if I had reversed into the space I probably
>would have ended up even further out of the space before I could see
>anything coming).
If you had reversed into the space, you would at least be able to
claim that you were driving according to the Highway Code and that you
took reasonable precautions before leaving the space. Driving forward
into the space and then reversing out is, while extremely common, the
wrong way to do it and generally indicates a lack of care and/or
driving ability.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"I believe in the kingdom come, then all the colours will bleed
into one"
Mark Goodge
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"I don't care if it hurts, I want to have control"
Cynic
>Define *very slowly*.
>The math for a reversing driver with a 3 foot peripheral
>field of view and a car approaching at 3 foot from the line
>of cars is simple. The driver has to stop within 3 foot and
>with a total time of ~ 1 second. This gives a reversing
>speed of <2mph.
I would define *very slowly* in this context as <2MPH. I sometimes do the
same thing as the OP, and during the timer that my visibility is severely
limited, the car is really creeping - so slowly that I don't need to use the
brake to stop, just depressing the clutch causes an almost instant halt.
And I stop as soon as I see *any* movement within my field of view.
--
cynic
Mabon
> Mabon wrote:
>
> >
> >"Binary Era" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >news:0ojnd013qrrs6lvnc...@4ax.com...
> >> Mabon wrote:
> >>
> >> >If the OP was travelling so slowly, he would have seen the front of
the
> >> >other car passing in his wing mirror, and reversing at such a slow
speed,
> >> >would have been able to stop.
> >>
> >> For heaven's sake please stop mouthing assumptions.
> >
> >Unless any of us were present at the scene, then assumptions are all you
are
> >likely to get here.
>
> OP....", "...would have seen", and "...would have been able to stop" -
> which I make to be three assumptions on your part, in a single
> sentence.
Yes. As I said "Unless any of us were present at the scene, then assumptions
are all you are likely to get here."
Three in one sentence means you had a good deal.
> Additionally, you mention seeing the other car in his wing
> mirror - it used to be a driving test failure to back up using the
> mirrors, has this now changed?
I dunno. When I passed my test, wing mirrors were not required, though it
makes little difference in this case. As the OP had little or no vision,
then wing mirrors would have assisted him, whether the law required him to
use them or not.
> None of this helps the OP. But if we have a estimated distance of say
> 30 feet between the collision and the other car coming to a stop, then
> by interpolation of the higway code stopping distances, that car's
> speed could be estimated - and my calculation (not assumption) would,
> in association with this, strongly indicate that the other driver was
> travelling at more that the car-park limit of 5 mph.
So your previous estimate of 5 mph, carefully snipped in this reply, has now
grown to 30mph.
OK, like I said, we can only assume.
So, there would be visible skid marks about 30 feet long that would prove
your assumption.
Are there photographs of these available from the OP?
>
> I haven't got my Highway Code to hand but I guess 20 mph would be
> nearer the mark - but certainly it would be worth the OP doing the
> interpolation here. If he can use Excel he could enter the HC figures,
> get a regression equation, and from that derive a figure based on the
> 20 to 30' stopping distances. The only estimate fed in here would be
> the OP's distance estimate. If he casts his mind back, he may remember
> exactly where the other car stopped, and will have a more accurate
> distance (hence speed) determination. This would put him in a strong
> position to argue that the other car was breaking the speed limit.
I am sure the OP could come up with a newer set of figures to prove his
point.
The second set was a bit more convincing than the first, don't you agree?
dormouse
> "Mabon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>
>. It is
> perfectly possible to hit a wheelarch on a stationary object - as I know
> very well when I hit one of those small 1 foot concrete bollards with my
> offside wheelarch in a car park. Fortunately a very minor dent that
pulled
> out by hand.
<smile>Driving advice from a chap who admits to driving into a perfectly
stationary bollard? Although to be fair perhaps you were the driver of a
small sports car and thus had an automatic right of way?</smile>
email you tonight.
--
regards,
dormouse
Mabon
> Mabon wrote:
> Now, to offer an estimate of the other car's speed, the OP will have
> to interpolate from the HC figures. He needs to perform a
> sophisticated regression analysis on the HC data, where speed is
> regressed to braking distance, as he will want to estimate a speed
> from the results. An Excel cacluation to perform the regression is
> trivial to undertake. However, I don't have Excel available to me, and
> I don't wish to spend a weekend in hand calculation. Perhaps a kindly
> soul on this ng could do this, if the OP wants to pursue this line but
> doesn't have that facility.
OK. I'll have a go. Please tell me at what point the other driver applied
his brakes, and what distance did his vehicle travel before coming to a
stop?
Oh, and how much pressure was applied to the brake pedal?
> With this estimate, complete with correlation coefficient and 3-sigma
> error bands, he will be in an excellent position to refute the other
> driver's potential claim of not exceeding the car park speed limit.
Error bands? Are they like skid marks? Now they would really assist the OP.
> Another factor that would help is the point of collision, only ~3' out
> from the row of parked cars.
In what way? Who would it help?
> This in turn will give the OP much fact-based evidence to encourage
> his insurance company to reconsider their position, hopefully in his
> favour.
As long as the evidence IS fact-based, and not just what the OP believes
happened.
> FYI I have successfully carried out this procedure twice to my
> insurance company, once against an independent witness, and am
> currently in the process of doing the same to 'white van man'. It
> works, and I commend the method.
Glad to hear it.
Palindr☻me
> Mabon wrote:
>
>
>>So your previous estimate of 5 mph, carefully snipped in this reply, has now
>>grown to 30mph.
>
>
> I'm afraid you still don't get it. Let me spell it out.
>
> The OP was concerned about lack of support from his insurance company
> over this incident, and I among others did not take the line of
> "...if it had been a child..." or "...if it had been me I wouldn't
> have done that...", but offered information that might enable him to
> encourage his insurance company into doing something more proactive
> than rolling over.
>
> To that end I have offered two fact-based calculations. One was
> related to the 5 mph you say allege was "carefully snipped in this
> reply", and provided an upper bound that the other driver could use to
> support his case that he wasn't speeding. That cacluation was a
> trivial caculator exercise.
>
> But in order to counter this, the OP needs something better. A good
> source would be something authoritative, something that courts
> recognise, and therefore difficult to refute. I chose the option of
> using the braking figures published in the Highway Code.
>
> Now, to offer an estimate of the other car's speed, the OP will have
> to interpolate from the HC figures. He needs to perform a
> sophisticated regression analysis on the HC data, where speed is
> regressed to braking distance, as he will want to estimate a speed
> from the results. An Excel cacluation to perform the regression is
> trivial to undertake. However, I don't have Excel available to me, and
> I don't wish to spend a weekend in hand calculation. Perhaps a kindly
> soul on this ng could do this, if the OP wants to pursue this line but
> doesn't have that facility.
Actually, it isn't that complicated. Stopping distance is
simply thinking distance (distance travelled in 1 second at
the specified speed or s(0) = v(0)x t) plus braking distance
((s(t)-s(0)=v(0)t+1/2 at 2). If you want to know the speed
at impact, you can get that simply from
v(t)2=v(0)2+2a.(s(1)-s(0))
>
> With this estimate, complete with correlation coefficient and 3-sigma
> error bands, he will be in an excellent position to refute the other
> driver's potential claim of not exceeding the car park speed limit.
> Another factor that would help is the point of collision, only ~3' out
> from the row of parked cars.
Again, no need for correlation analysis. Simply put the
maximum and minimum values in the equations above and do a
sensitivity analysis. The speed of the approaching car
produces remarkably little change in outcome. The distance
off the parked cars makes huge changes in outcome.
>
> This in turn will give the OP much fact-based evidence to encourage
> his insurance company to reconsider their position, hopefully in his
> favour.
The best argument would be that the approaching car was
travelling unreasonably close to his row of parked cars (I
couldn't determine where the accident took place in the
photos but, if for example, it took place on a one way
section with cars parked on each side, he could reasonably
expect that the car would travel down the middle).
>
> FYI I have successfully carried out this procedure twice to my
> insurance company, once against an independent witness, and am
> currently in the process of doing the same to 'white van man'. It
> works, and I commend the method.
>
Yep, I agree. Give me a detailed *accurate* scale diagram of
the scene, including relevant parked vehicles and accurate
scale diagrams of the cars and the damage received and I'll
have a go at showing what could, or could not, have
happened. The OP can email it to me, just leave off the
invalid. However, I suspect that such an exercise would be
of more use to the other party...
Otherwise, I don't think that there is anything I can add
further to this thread.
Good luck to all
Sue
Tim
> Now, to offer an estimate of the other car's speed, the OP will have
> to interpolate from the HC figures. He needs to perform a
> sophisticated regression analysis on the HC data, where speed is
> regressed to braking distance, as he will want to estimate a speed
> from the results. An Excel cacluation to perform the regression is
> trivial to undertake. However, I don't have Excel available to me, and
> I don't wish to spend a weekend in hand calculation.
There's no need for all that mallarky. The Highway Code braking distances
follow a simple quadratic formula against speed. As you would expect, if
you knew the mechanics of a constant acceleration (or, in this case,
deceleration).
"Binary Era" wrote
> With this estimate, complete with correlation coefficient and 3-sigma
> error bands,
What *are* you on about?!
"Binary Era" wrote
> Another factor that would help is the point of
> collision, only ~3' out from the row of parked cars.
Hasn't anyone else noticed that the OP said "The road is roughly 15 feet
wide" ?
With a six feet wide car, this leaves nine feet to share between the left &
the right sides; so, even if the oncoming car was *exactly* central in the
road, there would only be just over ** 4 feet ** gap.
Further, most people in the UK will have a tendency to keep slightly over to
the left, because that is the side of the road on which we drive! Hence the
oncoming car being 3 feet from the edge of the road is actually naturally to
be expected ...
dormouse
news:cbkfsm$27k$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> "Binary Era" wrote
...
>
> There's no need for all that mallarky. The Highway Code braking distances
Just before everyone gets to carried away :-)
The braking distances quoted in the Highway Code are hearsay and cannot be
used in any proceedings even as a guide. All cars have different braking
distances, cars of a similar type have different braking distances, every
driver has differing reaction times compared to others and himself at
different times of the day, road surfaces make a difference as does tyre
condition and so forth ...
All a little mute though as the rules are that vehicles joining a
carriageway must give way to vehicles already on it, that vehicles do not
reverse onto a carriageway and that before executing any manoeuvre the
driver of a motor vehicle must first ensure that it's safe to do so.
--
regards,
dormouse
Percy Picacity
snip
> Now, to offer an estimate of the other car's speed, the OP will
> have to interpolate from the HC figures. He needs to perform a
> sophisticated regression analysis on the HC data, where speed is
> regressed to braking distance, as he will want to estimate a speed
> from the results. An Excel cacluation to perform the regression is
> trivial to undertake. However, I don't have Excel available to me,
> and I don't wish to spend a weekend in hand calculation. Perhaps a
> kindly soul on this ng could do this, if the OP wants to pursue
> this line but doesn't have that facility.
I suspect it is much simpler that that, a linear component for reaction
time proportional to speed, and a linear acceleration component,
distance proportional to speed squared. Two figures from the HC, plus
the fact that both components are nought at zero speed would give the 2
coefficients they use, but I haven't tested this.
--
Percy Picacity
Cynic
> <smile>Driving advice from a chap who admits to driving into a perfectly
> stationary bollard? Although to be fair perhaps you were the driver of a
> small sports car and thus had an automatic right of way?</smile>
I am quite often a terrible driver. I don't concentrate sufficiently, and
make some stupid mistakes. The incident in question happened whilst driving
a Ford Mondeo station wagon. Somehow I have been lucky so far and have
avoided any accidents that caused damage to the car, except an occasion when
I collided with a deer.
I should have remembered when I returned to the car that there was a low
concrete bollard next to the left side of the car. It was not visible when
getting in the car or from the driving seat, but had been visible when I
parked the car (which I immediately remembered *after* hitting it). I
initiated a right turn when reversing, and the front of the car consequently
swung to the left and hit the bollard, though at such slow speed that as I
said, no damage occured except a slight dent which pulled out perfectly by
hand. Surprisingly it did not even scratch the paint. It would probably be
a good idea to do a "walk-round" the car before driving off to check for any
obstructions.
--
Cynic
Comfortably Numb
> "Andrew Norman" <tr...@norman.cx> wrote in message
> news:443kd0pcpjdll4g16...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:20:09 +0100, "dormouse" <bou...@britwar.co.uk>
>> wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Hmm. Can you tell me then what you would do if you came back after
>> some shopping and found two vans parked either side of your car.
>> Would you reverse out
>
> No, I reverse into parking spaces and drive out. Its a little more
> inconvenient to me with regards to loading the car with shopping
> however it does mean that I can see where I'm going when I pull out.
>
In that situation whether you were facing in or out you would still have to
edge out slowly before you could see oncoming traffic and if the driver who
hit the OP could not see 3 feet of the rear of a car I fail to see how he
would have seen 3 feet of the front of a car.
<snip>
Comfortably Numb
I fail to see what difference it would have made if the OP had reversed into
the space and driven out forwards. If the oncoming driver failed to see 3
feet of the car's rear then I doubt he'd have seen 3 feet of the front. No
doubt he would have also failed to see someone pushing a shopping trolly or
pram/buggy from between parked cars.
What is frightening is that this person is allowed to drive on our roads at
all and no doubt the next victim of his inattention and careless driving
will be a child stepping from between parked cars. Of course he will accept
no liability because he has the right of way.
jonransom
ive read this thread with great interest,has anybody who has replied
any actual knowledge on the law and traffic acts i wonder, i had a
similar accident,first i would like to disagree about parking
procedure in carparks ,everybody drives into spaces have a look in any
supermarket nobody reverses in!
ive never seen a car being guided out of a parking bay by a third
party also everybody must have driven around a supermarket and had
cars emerging on them ,unless you drive with due care and are prepared
to apply the brakes you will surely collide and if you keep doing this
you will never get insurance again.
i was reversing out of a parking bay very slowly and looking all
around when out of nowhere bang wallop ! i was stationary at the time
, the police were involved due to the seriousness of the accident and
informed me that in their opinion all cars have brakes and if they
havent been used properly then the driver is at fault regardless of
right of way or of being illegaly parked.
however i differ from the OP due to the fact ,i did have 2 witnesses
to the event who agreed the other driver was travelling at high speed
,the insurance company copped out and agreed with the other company
that it was a fifty-fifty situation even though the other driver was
convicted for driving without due care and consideration, IMHO the OP
seems really a case of both parties being at fault however the
insurance companies do see things differently and seem to be a law
unto themselves, if the OP was stationary it would have been
fifty-fifty but because he said he was moving he will be deemed at
fault.
thanks for indulging me!!