[Closed] Car collision. Who is at fault?

What significance is the van?

Anyway, slightly confusing set up, but 50/50 I'd imagine. As it seems you reversed into her, and she drove into you.

Did you get the space?

based on recent experience if the damage to both vehicles is low level as you say, you'd both be better off paying for it privately .If you go through your insurance it will, as you say likely be 50-50 and you'll both get a massive hike in your premiums .not worth it especially if you have an excess on your policy .

Was she moving at the time of collision?

Significance of the van is that the lady presumably wanted to get out before it reached her and presumably 'nipped' out of her space into a space which she thought was there but was not actually there as I was reversing....

I'm inclined to suggest that we each take care of our respective damage.

However, I also do not want my car keyed as I park in a street close by.....

I honestly do not know if she was moving or not....

I honestly do not know if she was moving or not....

Not 100% sure whether you were actually trying to park, or just getting out of the way of the oncoming van? Also the women left a parking spot and immediately re-parked on the other side of the road?!

I would say it would go 50/50 as far as a claim goes, but I would also suggest that you were more at fault for reversing without checking to see if it was safe to do so. She couldn't be expected to anticipate a car in front of her suddenly reversing.

Is there a danger that she will claim? I would have a proper chat with her soon and see if that is likely or whether you can both just get the damage fixed yourselves.

But if she is adamant that she was stationary, then she probably won't agree to this.

OP, were you moving or had you just engaged reverse ?

If you not sure if she was moving or not, if you wasn't that will be important as she has hit you whilst you was stopped.

Edit - just re read you were moving so I'd say 50/50.

When she had calmed down how about seeing if she will just get hers fixed and you sort yours out ?

OP said [i]as I was reversing[/i].

Are you suggesting she needs more than just a new number plate?

plus what looks like cracks coming from the numberplate screw-hole (which had no reflective cap and is rusty..) on the front bumper.

Are these cracks on the number plate itself or the bumper underneath the plate?

If all she needs is a number plate, I'd just buy her it and call the matter closed.

I was looking behind me when I started to reverse and there was an empty space behind me. I then glanced forward to ensure I had left sufficient gap in front of the driveway as the reversing sensors sounded then CRUMP.

So yes I was not looking directly behind me at the exact point before impact.

It may or may not be that the other party was moving into the (once) empty space as I was was also doing so.

as the reversing sensors sounded then CRUMP.

Ah. Unless you were reversing very fast, the sounding of the sensors usually give you some time to stop against a stationary object. Sounds like she was moving. You can't prove this though.

I was looking behind me when I started to reverse and there was an empty space behind me. I then glanced forward to ensure I had left sufficient gap in front of the driveway as the reversing sensors sounded then CRUMP.

Surely if you were looking behind you as you were reversing you would have seen the car?

I would suggest as you weren't looking in the direction of travel at the point of impact an insurer would put the blame on you.

[quote=benz ]into a space which she thought was there but was not actually there

I'm intrigued by how she can fit her car into a non existent space 😆

IMHO it sounds like your fault - though I'm not sure there's enough information to be 100% sure. Let's try an analogy here - you're driving forwards into a space, but whilst you're moving you shut your eyes and whilst your eyes are shut you hit something which has moved into the space in front of you.

When I looked behind me, before starting to reverse, there was no car behind me - only a decent sized space.

After starting to reverse, and during the point that I glanced forward to ensure I had left space in front of the driveway, the parking sensors sounded a brief moment before CRUMP.

She was either moving, or had stopped hard up against your rear bumper. Either would be an unreasonable thing to do when your reverse lights were showing.

I'm a bit puzzled how you can have reversed into her without seeing. Where were you looking? Seems unlikely she drove into you, which does suggest it's your fault. But I'm having trouble picturing what actually happened here.

50/50 or, more likely, your fault as you were reversing. I can see how she'd be annoyed if it went to 50/50.
Hope it ends as well as possible for you both.

Bit of disagreement here.

How long did you look forward to ensure no blockage of driveway. You say "glance" so I guess 1s or less?
It sounds to me like she was looking at the van as she pulled out (therefore not where she was going)

I would suggest as you weren't looking in the direction of travel

Should also have second checked that where she wanted to move into was empty, also a test fail I believe??

Obviously not being there, cant be sure what happened.

I'm a bit puzzled how you can have reversed into her without seeing. Where were you looking? Seems unlikely she drove into you, which does suggest it's your fault. But I'm having trouble picturing what actually happened here.

As stated above, for a brief moment I did not look behind me to check that I had left sufficient space in front of a driveway. This was when the parking sensors sounded. Up to that point there was nothing behind me.

Is it worth noting that it was dark and that the other vehicle in question had no lights on.

Is it worth noting that it was dark and that the other vehicle in question had no lights on.

Oh that certainly makes a difference. Though it still sounds rather like you were reversing without looking where you were going.

I was using mirrors to check behind me apart from a forward glance, (yes, whilst I was still moving slowly backwards rather than being 100% stationary)to ensure space left in front of driveway.

Her fault she clearly drove into the back of you ignored your reversing lights and failed to alert you to her presence with her horn. Your fault you failed to observe her presence and reversed without checking .
The clearest 50/50 imaginable , sort it out yourselves.

So there was no car behind you. You then glanced forward for a second and then reversed into a car that was now behind you.
The other driver was either incredibly quick at driving into the space behind you or it took you a bit longer to check than a 'glance' so should have been looking behind again before reversing.

So there was no car behind you. You then glanced forward for a second and then reversed into a car that was now behind you.
The other driver was either incredibly quick at driving into the space behind you or it took you a bit longer to check than a 'glance' so should have been looking behind again before reversing.

Probably a fair comment.

I'll get my car checked over, she will do the same then we will compare notes.

I've never had to involve the car insurance companies in my ~ 35 years of driving so this is a new thing for me....

If you describe it to an insurance company in the same way you have here, then you are at fault.

You were moving but not looking where you were going, you didn’t see the car and reversed into it.

Hard to see it as anything else but your fault from your description really.

I've never had to involve the car insurance companies in my ~ 35 years of driving

Ok, let's say the insurance companies get involved....

What would be the expected impact on future insurance premiums?

Quick check on the DVLA website shows the other vehicle as currently having no valid road-tax....expired at end of August.

Quick check on the DVLA website shows the other vehicle as currently having no valid road-tax....expired at end of August.

I doubt the insurance companies will care that much about who's paid their VED when allocating fault.

I'd imagine that's the reason for a lot of people getting complacent and cutting corners (i.e. not driving as they were taught/tested on). Obviously a lot of the time incidents are more serious than a minor parking bump! Good reason for compulsory regular retests IMO!

🙄

[s]Surely the other party isn't actually insured at this point.[/s]

Sorry - insurance may be independent of tax status.

it sounds as though she did nick the space whilst knowing you were about to reverse into it. Was she actually parked straight (no pun) or was she still in the process of manouvering at the time of crunch?

Benz, sounds like your fault. Regardless of the third party jumping into the space you are still required to look where you're reversing, had you done so then you would have spotted the other car and stopped.
Expect a claim from your insurance and your future premiums to reflect this for the next 3 - 5 years.

The other parties vehicle was not fully into the space behind me....evidenced by the fact that it was sitting at an angle with the rear half of it into the roadway and she had to reverse it to the other side of the road back into the space she had initially come out of.

The other parties vehicle was not fully into the space behind me

If the first you were aware of the vehicle behind you was when you reversed into then the insurers will say you did not display proper observation. If she was aware of you reversing quickly enough to stop that only strenthens the argument that she was showing better care. Insurer almost always blames the person reversing.

It was fully in the space you were trying to occupy, that's the only thing which is really relevant.

Regarding the VED thing - do you think that if you reversed into a parked car without valid VED that they would have to pay for the damage to your car?

Surely the other party isn't actually insured at this point.

Benz, from what you've said it's pretty much 50/50 but I'd suggest you think very carefully on how you word your description if it goes down the insurance route. The part about her not actually being in the space/parked is very important.

Why? VED & insurance are not linked in any way

You are right. Corrected above.

you could always use the threat of contacting the police about the VED status as a bargaining tool?

[i] benz - Member

The other parties vehicle [b]was not[/b] fully into the space behind me....evidenced by the fact that it was sitting at an angle with the rear half of it into the roadway[/i]

[i] aracer - Member

It [b]was[/b] fully in the space you were trying to occupy, that's the only thing which is really relevant.[/i]

oh dear! 😕

Ok.

For clarity.

Car indicating to pull out of space on opposite side of road.

Van lights were noted coming up the road from the opposite direction.

I passed the car indicating to pull out then slightly further down indicated left to go into a parking space.

I checked behind me and proceeded to reverse to avoid blocking a driveway. I was using my mirrors at this point.

During this maneuver, I then looked forward to ensure suffient space to clear driveway.

At this point the rear parking sensors in my car became audible followed by a CRUMP.

Once stopped I noted the other vehicle sitting at an angle of approximately 45 degress, with the rear of it still in the roadway. No lights were visible, although the car was stationary.

In order to clear the roadway and allow the previously mentioned van to pass, the other party had to reverse their vehicle back into the space on the opposite side from which they originally pulled out from.

The distance reversed by me between the start and finish of my maneuver was approximately 1/2 the length of my vehicle.

That is about it.

TBH I'm happy enough to pay for any damage caused - if my fault. However, at this juncture I don't actually know if it was 100% my fault....

It was fully in the space you were trying to occupy, that's the only thing which is really relevant.

oh dear!

Sorry, but I would agree if said vehicle was fully parallel parked behind me, but it was not.

My sense is that said vehicle, in order to get across to the correct side of road to 'beat' the van coming in the opposite direction coincided with me reversing back at the same time. I guess we were both competing for the same space at the same time.

People have given their opinion which you don't agree with and unfortunately for you it's down to the insurance companies that you will need to argue with.

[quote=benz ]My sense is that said vehicle, in order to get across to the correct side of road to 'beat' the van coming in the opposite direction coincided with me reversing back at the same time. I guess we were both competing for the same space at the same time.

Presumably by "competing" you're trying to suggest that you were both moving towards each other? It's at least as likely that whilst driving forwards into the space the other driver realised that you were reversing and so stopped, which is why as I suggested them not being fully in the space isn't all that relevant. Given you didn't even know the other car was there, you have no idea whether or not it was moving, though given you were moving when the collision happened, at best it's partly your fault - though as I wrote in my first post, there's not really enough information to be sure either way.

Though as craig pointed out, I'm not sure why you bothered asking us.

@benz - my last post saying 'oh dear' was pointing out that aracer had clearly misunderstood the fact that other car [b]was not[/b] in the space.

and yes, from what you've said above that is exactly my conclusion, hence asking if she was fully parked at the time of crunch. It seems to me that she was originally parked on the wrong side of the road, and knew that's not a good idea. She then saw the space over the other side of the road, saw you lining up for it, saw the van, and made a rush to dive into the space - at the same time you were reversing into it, thinking she would beat you and you would see her already there.

100% your fault OP. Sorry.

Vehicles that are reversing have absolutely zero priority and as above it could've been a baby robin/child's face.

Grab the 50/50 settlement with both hands

Sounds like she was rushing to get into the space that you were reversing into. Hard to say without seeing the exact situation, but pretty stupid of her to drive into a space that you are reversing in; assuming your reversing light is working. It should have been obvious to her where you were going.
But, on the flipside you weren't looking in the direction you were travelling in at the point of impact. It's a tricky one because I often look forwards, sideways & backwards when reversing to make sure there is nothing I have missed, or there aren't new factors I need to take into account (a pedestrian getting close to my car while reversing from a supermarket parking space, for example).

Can you measure how much distance your parking sensors give you as a warning. I know the ones on our c3 Picasso probably give 5-6ft when they first beep.
You state there was only a short indication from the parking sensors before the impact occurred, so were you going at a speed sufficient enough to cover that much ground before impact, or was she moving forwards at the same time as you were moving backwards. I suspect this is what happened; you drove backwards into her and she drove forwards into you.
For me, at my typical 'reversing speed' I think there would be at least 3 seconds of ignored warning signal before an impact occurred against a stationary object.

I can obviously only state my recollection of events.

If the other driver states that they had stopped and I reversed into them so be it.

Unfortunately, as a number have noted, it's not 100% clear-cut who was wrong or right.

An unfortunate start to the day, but not life or death, so it's a minor inconvenience.

We have agreed that we will each get quotes to repair the noted damage and then decide whether the insurance companies need to be involved or not.

[quote=Keva ]@benz - my last post saying 'oh dear' was pointing out that aracer had clearly misunderstood the fact that other car was not in the space.

Ah - I did wonder what your point was, but no I did understand the other car wasn't parked, I was just suggesting that it was irrelevant as it's still your fault if you reverse into a non-parked stationary car.

TBH I do tend to agree with others on balance that the most likely thing is that you were both moving when the collision happened, but as you weren't looking where you were going you have no way of proving (even based on your own evidence) that she hadn't stopped as she claims.

Her fault she clearly drove into the back of you ignored your reversing lights and failed to alert you to her presence with her horn. Your fault you failed to observe her presence and reversed without checking .
The clearest 50/50 imaginable , sort it out yourselves.

sounds right to me

Cheers folks for the thoughts and guidance.

Just did a check of my car. There is a notable scuff on the rear bumper at the rear close to the outside driver side. The scuff is horizontal.

I was reversing straight back.

The other vehicle numberplate (and potentially bumper) was cracked at the passenger side.

The parking sensors start activating at a distance approximately 5ft from the rear of the car.

So, we probably were both moving at the time.

Benz - you are arguing with yourself trying to get the outcome the one you want to hear from us. There is no way on earth that you would be cleared of fault so you either agree with the other party to sort yourselves out and not involve the insurance companies or, if she refuses to do that, you will have to inform them and leave them to decide what is inevitably going to be classed as both of you being at fault.

I'd say 50/50, driving in the dark without lights and causing a collision mmm.

From current personal experience if someone runs into you diagonally from behind whilst you are slowly travelling in your own lane the insurance companies will try and go 50/50 as they can't be arsed to fight the claim. So in this case shes not got a hope of anything other I'd say.

driving in the dark without lights

And OP - did you take any pictures at the time? It would certainly help your claim if you did.

And OP - did you take any pictures at the time? It would certainly help your claim if you did.

No, no pictures at the time as dark plus the poor lady involved appeared very stressed and stated a number of times "I've had a really bad morning already and have no time to discuss this. I need to get to work".

Benz - you are arguing with yourself trying to get the outcome the one you want to hear from us. There is no way on earth that you would be cleared of fault so you either agree with the other party to sort yourselves out and not involve the insurance companies or, if she refuses to do that, you will have to inform them and leave them to decide what is inevitably going to be classed as both of you being at fault.

With some hindsight, I actually believe that we were both at fault and hence the appropriate path forward is we both agree to sort our own cars and keep the insurance companies out of it.

hence the appropriate path forward is we both agree to sort our own cars and keep the insurance companies out of it.

Someone did similar to what you did to them, to me several years ago. It was deemed their fault.

"I've had a really bad morning already and have no time to discuss this. I need to get to work".

Or..... “my car isn’t taxed. Please don’t involve the police”

We're going to need a crudely drawn MS Paint diagram of this one

Why was she going from one parking space to another on the other side of the road? Sounds suspicious.

Why was she going from one parking space to another on the other side of the road? Sounds suspicious.

I don't think she was moving parking space.

I believe the lady was on her way to work and had decided to drive out of her parking space and unfortunately as she was on the 'wrong' side of the road, could not clearly see if anything was coming in the opposite direction to the one she wanted to travel in. When she pulled out the van coming in the opposite direction may have been a 'bit of a surprise' and as the only space available - apart from reversing directly back into the space she had just come out of, was to aim for the space at my side of the road which I happened to be also reversing in.

It was in a residential street with cars parked on both sides of the road and only sufficient roadway for a single vehicle - i.e. pull over into any available space and allow the oncoming car to get past before travelling along said street.

100% your fault. Always advisable to actually look where you are going.

As for her not having a reflective screw cap on her number plate? Would you have seen her if she did have one?

To insurance - you were stopped, not reversing. She drove into the back of you. Simple.

Yup simple dishonesty is always the way to go. Though if the OP does end up having to pay out, perhaps he could rob an old lady to pay for it.

😆 you KNOW that's what someone else would do to you in that situation...
First time I ever drove a car, someone pulled out of a side road and scraped the side of my old man's car. I saw them looking down (I can still see it now 35 years later) not looking at the road. And yet when my dad tries to claim against them... oh no we drove into [i]them[/i].