Accident responsibility

[Wizard]

I was hit by somebody today and was surprised at the instant decision by my insurer that it was my fault. I was reversing out of a driveway, another driver came around a bend and given the road was wet was unable to stop before driving into the back of my car, even though I saw him and was able to stop. Not looking to debate who was at failt as I am sure he saw it differently.

But what did surprise me was that as soon as I said I was reversing off a driveway my insurer said that it was my fault, they were not interested in any other information. When I questioned their instant decision my insurer basically told me that if you are doing anything 'non-standard' such as crossing the opposing traffic or (as I was) reversing on the road it is automatically your fault if there is an accident. The only situation where they said that would not be the case was if I had incontravertable proof that the other driver was speeding, but when I asked what would constituet such proof they were unable to say. This seems odd to me as, say I had an old car I wanted rid of, all I have to do is drive around until some unsuspecting person is reversing out of a parking space then drive into them, as long as I was not speeding it seems not to matter if I make no effort to stop, it will be their fault. Don't get me wrong I am not planning to do this, but maybe some of the 'crash for cash' scammers might.

It made me wonder whether to save time and money the insurers have collectively just agreed this type of thing as for them it probably all averages out. But for individual drivers it may mean much higher premiums as their no claims bonus is wiped out and their premium 'loaded' when they answer yes to the 'any accidents in the last x years' question.

Has anyone else come across anything similar?

Terry.

[marronier]

You are liable because you reversed onto the highway without the assistance of someone who could have warned oncoming traffic , thereby discharging your liability. If such assistance is unlikely ,it would be prudent to reverse into the driveway and drive out later to everyone`s benefit , a policy that is widely flouted given that most people " drive in - reverse out ".

[Wizard]

You are liable because you reversed onto the highway without the assistance of someone who could have warned oncoming traffic , thereby discharging your liability. If such assistance is unlikely ,it would be prudent to reverse into the driveway and drive out later to everyone`s benefit , a policy that is widely flouted given that most people " drive in - reverse out ".

I see your point. But based on what my insurer told me were somebody to drive into me while I was reversing onto the drive they would also have said I was liable, because I was doing something other than driving down the road in a forward gear. While I happily admit that there was nobody helping me by warning oncoming traffic my insurer did not ask if there was, so I do not know for sure that even if they were it would have had any bearing on their stance. Indeed they told me the only reason I would not be liable was if the other person was speeding and that I could prove this.

Terry.

[staffordian]

Highway Code Rule 201...

Rule 201
Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 159-to-203

Whilst the Highway Code is not necessarily "The Law", then it's contravention will carry significant weight when an incident occurs, so I suspect this is an open and shut case as far as most insurers are concerned.

Staffordian

[Wizard]

Highway Code Rule 201...

Rule 201
Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 159-to-203

Whilst the Highway Code is not necessarily "The Law", then it's contravention will carry significant weight when an incident occurs, so I suspect this is an open and shut case as far as most insurers are concerned.

Staffordian

I'm convinced on the specific case of reversing on to the road and maybe the person I spoke to just couldn't be bothered to get in to a discussion so just stated it was a blanket position with regard to anything other than driving forwards. Main thing is nobody was hurt.

Terry.

[didds]

Highway Code Rule 201...

Rule 201
Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.

surely the point here is "if you can" ?

The HC clearly accepts there are times when that is not possible/feasible.


I am not saying this is or is not the case with the OP

didds

[Wizard]

Highway Code Rule 201...

Rule 201
Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.

surely the point here is "if you can" ?

The HC clearly accepts there are times when that is not possible/feasible.


I am not saying this is or is not the case with the OP

didds

That is really what I was originally trying to get to. I wasn't trying to debate my own fault so much as the seeming automatic view the insurer put forward on responsibility. It would seem they do not accept that there is a situation where you can avoid reversing on to the road, or if that is the case it is still your responsibility if there is an accident.

Terry.

[bungeejumper]

The law's a peculiar animal, but insurers are inclined to make up their own, and to stitch up their own cosy at-fault conventions accordingly.

For instance, ISTR reading that you have no inalienable right to presume that other traffic will be obeying the speed limit - which could make a nonsense of even the most responsible reversing manoeuvre on your part. As to whether the other driver has a "right to assume" that you are indeed moving forwards and not backwards in the left hand lane, I really wouldn't know. Even though everyone needs to do that from time to time.

In short, the system assumes that everyone is applying common sense when they drive, but there are grey areas all over the place, and the insurers aren't slow to take advantage. If you have (independent) legal protection cover attached to your insurance policy, it might be worth making a phone call. Otherwise I'm afraid they're likely to do whatever's cheapest for them.

BJ

[killergorilla]

"I'm afraid they're likely to do whatever's cheapest for them."

True enough. However wouldn't it be cheaper if it weren't their clients fault? I'm guessing insurers have so much experience with these things that over the years they've seen that for the few cases that go to the wire they lose in x% when their client is reversing onto a highway. At that point it becomes quicker and easier to settle fast and avoid a fight.

It's always horrible to be reduced to a statistic. Every accident feels different to the parties involved and many will end up with unjust outcomes because they're lumped together as an average.

The other thing to consider is that the interconnections of the insurance market mean you could easily have been with the same insurance group so they're effectively settling with themselves. As the OP says, the main thing is that no people were injured. That's a good result.

KG

[jjurgs]

Hello,

I'm having a fight at the moment due to reversing into the main road accident.
I was on the main road on the way to work. As i was passing the line of terraced houses the woman suddenly reversed out of the parking bay onto the main road and hit me on the rear side of my drivers side. It broke my hub cap and left the line across the wheel body work. She had scratches and my car paint on the left side of her back bumper.

That's where the fun begins. She instantly blamed me for reappearing on the main road out of no where and it was my responsibility to let her to finish the manoeuvre.... She wasn't even moving as i was approaching her house. She admitted accidentally that she didn't see me and she insisted that i was coming out of nowhere at the high speed. The road is 30mph and i just switched to second gear and my speed limit just reached 15mph - hardly speeding....
And now insurance wants us to settle 50/50 as she consistently disputes liability saying that i am 100% to blame...And as i haven't got any independent witnesses my insurance unable to prove that its only the woman's fault... What if that was a child running onto the road and same thing happened - would it be the same outcome????

Any advice would be very greatly appreciated

Ta JJ

[chas49]

I would try and dispute this with the insurance company. Do it in writing though nit on the phone as (a) you will have a record of what you said, and (b) you won't inadvertently agree with something without having time to think.

Refer them to the Highway Code provisions quoted earlier in this thread. Point out that you could not have been speeding, or even driving near the limit otherwise the damage would have been more serious. If the other driver did not see you, she cannot have been looking.

If she reversed into the side of you, rather than reversing in front of you and you hitting her side, you must have been right by her when she moved, so you couldn't have stopped and she should have been able to see you.

[Lootman]

the seeming automatic view the insurer put forward on responsibility.

Yes, there is a tendency to think that since it is "my" insurance company that I am paying for, that they are somehow on my side and will advocate for me. Not remotely true, I'm afraid - you'd need a lawyer if you want to go that route. And since you would not be paying the claim anyway, why would you do that?

It's mostly a matter of honour that "it wasn't my fault". But insurance companies do whatever they want in these situations, i.e. whatever is easiest and cheapest for them.

[sg31]

Your insurer doesn't decide who is at fault for an accident. It is wrong of them to take a position.

If you make a claim under your policy or notify them that you have been involved in an accident with a 3rd party they may/ will reduce your no claims discount depending on whether you have protected it or not. That is what the policy contract stipulates (without getting into fine detail).

If you want to have your NCD reinstated it's up to you to prove the accident wasn't your fault which you generally do by getting the other persons insurer to settle your claim for your policy excess, injuries or additional costs. Most claims settled between insurers are settled on a knock for knock basis where they both pay for their own insured's accident damage claim without needing to decide fault. Basically they aren't bothered who's fault it is.

There are some cases where there can be no doubt who is at fault, in my day being hit from behind was pretty easily argued but I'm not even sure that's the case now.

In the vast majority of instances there is no easy way to prove you weren't at fault unless you can persuade the other driver to agree to sign a statement of facts at the scene. They aren't allowed to admit guilt but I got a statemet saying. Car A reversed from a parking spot into car B as it was passing. As I was car B it was difficult to argue I was in anyway at fault. In fact I had a phone call from her insurers a short while later asking me to take my car to their repairers and checking I wasn't injured. They were obviously happy to pay a small claim if they could get me to say I was uninjured.

The truth is that just after an accident people are in mild shock and will usually ask the other driver if they are ok and apologise for the accident. Once they recover from the shock they generally try to concoct some face saving way to convince themselves and other people it wasn't their fault. People hate losing face by admitting their driving was less than adequate. I saw a lot of this when I was involve in underwriting motor insurance many, many years ago.

[bungeejumper]

Your insurer doesn't decide who is at fault for an accident. It is wrong of them to take a position.

…..There are some cases where there can be no doubt who is at fault, in my day being hit from behind was pretty easily argued but I'm not even sure that's the case now.

I was T-boned some years ago by a big white van that was doing a hasty U-turn at a crossroads. The other driver's insurance could have protested that I had just emerged from a side road when he hit me (I had), but in practice I got a telephone call from the insurer within two hours to accept liability.

Still, it was better than the prang I had about twenty years ago, when my brand new car was slammed side-on by a Land Rover coming out of a side turning. (I was in a queue of slow-moving traffic on the main road, doing about 5 mph.) The Landy driver got out and yelled at me that it was all my fault because he was in a hurry and everybody was in his way that morning.

BJ

[DrFfybes]

Hello,

I'm having a fight at the moment due to reversing into the main road accident.
...
And now insurance wants us to settle 50/50 as she consistently disputes liability saying that i am 100% to blame...

Ta JJ

You're not both insured with the same insurance company by any chance?
I've known one company try this on, despite us sending CCTV of the incident where one vehicle crossed 3 lanes to hit the other exiting a roundabout.

Paul