Insurance Company Lie. Reversing accident NOT always your fault.
I recently suffered a minor accident in my van.
Yes I had reversed and was moving forward to manouver my van into position to drive out of the cul-de-sac. BUT and this is a big BUT, the other van driving down the 'clear road' (with at least 200 yards of clear view) drove into the back corner of my van.
I had reversed across the bottom of a cul-de-sac, so that vehicle was not driving past me as that would have meant it would have had to driven through the wall at the end of the street to do so.
OK. Simple you would think. Common sense will prevail.
Oh how wrong you would be.
My insurance company are INSISTANT that I should admit 100% liabilty because I was making, what they describe as a 'reversing manouver' and the other vehicle was driving forwards. So I am to blame.
They say that I have to be aware of what is coming down the street when reversing and they quoted the law and highway code that "a vehicle that is reversing has to reverse with care and that in the event of someone driving into a reversing vehicle, then the vehicle that is driving forwards is NEVER to blame. No matter what the circumstances."
They go on to qoute that the Law states that even if you have just selected reverse gear and have not actually started to move, that if a vehicle ploughs square into the back of you, you are 100% to blame. Because, believe it or not, yes, you were in reverse.
Ok so now you are thinking, I cannot believe that this law and paragraph in the Highway code actually exists.
Well, read on.
I have spent approx 2 hours on the phone to my insurance company and the accident investigation company they use.
No matter what I say, they quote this "the reversing vehicle, is ALWAYS TO BLAME" paragraph in the Highway code.
In fact they must have said it 20 times +.
So just wondering why the law would be so silly, I thought I had better just see this paragraph in the Highway Code that they insist on qouting. Well, after reading it page for page, I could not find it. Obviously it must be there, because all of the people I spoke to at both companies were quoting it.
I then rang to ask my insurance company and the accident investigation company, exactly which number paragraph I was to refer to, to see this remarkable law.
Now, no matter how many times I asked, several people, NON would give me the paragraph number in the Highway Code or any reference to this in any Law document.
In the end after some absolutely mind numbing senseless conversations with operators quoting 'parrot fashion' this 'weird' law, I finally actually got to speak to a Senior Assessor for the accident investigation company.
Eventually, hoora, he admitted that in fact, THERE IS NO LAW OR STATEMENT IN THE HIGHWAY CODE TO SAY THAT A REVERSING VEHICLE IS ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS AT FAULT IN AN ACCIDENT, NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
So there you go. One big fat lie, just to make it easy for the insurance companies to settle claims without the need to go to court and actually pay to listen to common sense and reason.
So remember this. Yes, of course most reversing accidents will be the fault as the reversing vehicle does not take care and either reverses into the path of vehicle driving past, or into stationary vehicle.
BUT, of course a vehicle travelling FORWARD down a road (looking out of the windscreen) has an equal obligation to drive with care and attention, and NOT to slam into the back of your vehicle, and then simply say, "hey mate, nowt to do with me, you had your reverse lights on, so its all your fault, I was driving forwards, so I am never to blame"
Happy Motoring and take care folks.
Last edited by Reason; 22-05-12 at 07:56.
That's an interesting post, Reason. I can follow most of the logic about a reversing driver being the most likely blame in the event of a collision, BUT, I had to do a double-take on the line containig, "........even if you have just selected reverse gear and have not actually started to move ..........".
Let's take a hypothetical situation.
I am behind another parked vehicle and have selected reverse, but handbrake still on. Looking in the mirror, I see a vehicle approaching from my rear, so I wait for it to pass. Except that it does not pass; instead it rams into the back of my vehicle, probably because of lack of attention by the driver (on mobile/tuning in radio/loading a CD/or just plain careless), then I am to blame?
What if my vehicle was bumped forwards into the one I was parked behind. Who carries the can for that vehicle's damage? I cannot drive forwards into another car whilst I am in reverse. Of course, the person whose car mine hit won't accept that I was in reverse; as far as he is concerned I hit his vehicle.
So, to defend their own corners, this person and the one who hit me will now be claiming, by inference, that I was travelling in two opposite directions at the same time.
Wouldn't it be a gas if this hypothesis happened in real life.
Who are you insured with - Fred Karno?
To the best of my knowledge, the Highway Code never gets involved in blame. If a reversing vehicle is interfering with other traffic then the onus is upon the reversing vehicle to take due car. There is a grey area, a car reversing along a road very close to the kerb, positioned like a parked car. At first glance, it looks no worse than a parked car in that position (in or out of gear) but the reversing car presents a moving target. Some dreamy motorists may not notice it is moving, I think a court may share the blame, the highway code discourages reversing along roads and expects you to turn around, one to think about...
If you are repluing to my comments, wagolynn, I think you missed the point. I was using a hypothetical case to exposed the stupidity of the insured's insurance company. The car was not moving, so no percentage in that instance for the 'dreamy motorist'. As for discouraging reversing on a road, there is not much choice is another vehicle is hunched up behind you; and which may have reversed back into that position in the first instance.
Originally Posted by wagolynn
I do find it odd that you frequently spell out the responsibilities of a driver to exercise all care and use forethought, with which I agree, then level blame as in this case, where the third party's vehicle has not even moved.
Let's face it. With the ignition turned on, selecting reverse will operate the reversing lights even if the engine isn't running.
And a 'dreamy driver' could be so otherwise occupied that he/she did not notice which way round the "offending" car was positioned, and think it was front lights that had illuminated. Don't let us seek incongruous arguments to justify the percentage blame on third parties, and used by insurers, when no such blame truly exists.
Hi, Snowball we may have crossed wires here.
I thought I was reinforcing your points by saying "To the best of my knowledge, the Highway Code never gets involved in blame". Then I go on to suggest that I can only think of one gray area, followed by giving the details of a hypothetical case that might only be resolved by going to court etc. In other words, I am suggesting, like you, the insurance company involved were trying it on or being lazy, in the first instance by repeating the mantra, "If you were reversing you were at fault", which in most cases is true. Once they realised they were incorrect, it then became a, "we are never wrong", tissue of lies.
The only other point I would make, to the best of my knowledge, reversing lights have no meaning in law. However, that will not prevent a lawyer, in a civil case (apportionment of blame) bringing them into the proceedings. I have not read a case judgment where reversing lights have made a difference.
In short, I was agreeing with your post #2.
Sorry, wagolynn, it's getting a bit complicated for an old'un. My wires are not crossed - they're in one heck of a tangle! Must get in gear.......mutter,mutter,mutter.............
You should keep taking your pills; I would if only I could remember which ones.
Think I'll go and have a nice cup of tea - and take those blasted pills. See yah!
Originally Posted by wagolynn
Quote................"My insurance company are INSISTANT that I should admit 100% liabilty because I was in reverse and the other vehicle was driving forwards"
Its the same when a vehicle is hit from behind, it used to be that the driver who collided into the back of the other car, was 100% to blame..
But Ive read a few posts on here when that was not the case, so it seems that nothing is guaranteed any more.
I was not aware of that either. To be honest I also thought that when someone hits you from behind then they are at fault.
Originally Posted by smudger
This insurance situation is getting rediculous. Surely common sense would prevail. But maybe not.
Tags for this Thread