[hanky12]

Hi,
I was involved in a bump yesterday and I thought I was at fault but other people have informed me I am not totally to blame and maybe it should be more 50/50 so please can you let me know what you think.

I was in Tesco car park reversing out of a parking space, I looked both ways, it was a one way lane in the car park and a car came the wrong way up the lane whilst I was reversing and drove behind me causing damage to both cars of a similar value.

So the big question is who is at fault?

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[wagolynn]

For this to happen, it requires two drivers who are not paying attention to what they are doing.
Backwards, forwards, sideways, fast, slow or parked, a vehicle driver is 100% responsible for doing so safely. In my book, reversing, due to the restricted field of view demands great care, reversing in a car park demands even greater care. The other vehicle travelling against the arrows is not relevant, but the other driver presumably did not understand what you were doing or was occupied looking for a parking space or just looking elsewhere (hence the greater care needed in a car park). If I had to apportion blame, I would apportion blame at about 25/75 with the reverser at 75.

[Watcher]

"Fault"

Originally Posted by wagolynn

For this to happen, it requires two drivers who are not paying attention to what they are doing.
Backwards, forwards, sideways, fast, slow or parked, a vehicle driver is 100% responsible for doing so safely. In my book, reversing, due to the restricted field of view demands great care, reversing in a car park demands even greater care. The other vehicle travelling against the arrows is not relevant, but the other driver presumably did not understand what you were doing or was occupied looking for a parking space or just looking elsewhere (hence the greater care needed in a car park). If I had to apportion blame, I would apportion blame at about 25/75 with the reverser at 75.

I would tend to agree. Lines painted on a supermarket car park (or similar place) have NO standing in law - nevertheless driving the "wrong" way is driving carelessly.

Even so, wherever you are entering a traffic steam (forwards or backwards) it is principally your responsibility to make sure the move is safe.

However, there is nothing to stop you insisting that the other driver is more responsible, especially if you have witnesses that they were going "the wrong way".

[smudger]

Welcome to the site hanky12, as already mentioned, reversing is always a dangerous maneuver, but then again, the other car was driving in the wrong direction?

Evan though it was not on a main road, driving in the wrong direction is not advised, even if it is only a car park.

The fact that you have witnesses, does go in your favour, good luck;)

[MrDanno]

In my opinion you were both equally to blame, Yourself for lack of observation and the other driver for driving in the wrong direction and also for lack of observation. Although I doubt that driving in the wrong direction was much of a contributing factor.
So I would say more likely 50/50 from what you have described.

[chopper jockey]

The way I see it is you pulled out into on coming traffic. You are supposed to give way when pulling out. 100% Your Fault.;)

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by chopper jockey

The way I see it is you pulled out into on coming traffic. You are supposed to give way when pulling out. 100% Your Fault.;)

I would disagree with this as an outright statement for several reasons.
(1) In a shopping car park, it is reasonable to drive in forwards (thus reversing out) because the boot needs to be accessible for loading goods.
(2) There is frequently a difficulty in seeing any traffic passing your rear, because adjacent vehicles, particularly commercial ones, will cause significant obstruction of your view.
(3) The only solution is to reverse very slowly, looking for better vision as early as possible, and being ready to stop, having knowledge of the chances that a vehicle may cut across your rear.
(4) A driver passing the rear of vehicles so parked is (or should be) quite aware of the situation, and therefore approach with equal care, at a slow speed, and be prepared for the need to stop.
(5) Failure to observe these actions, particularly if driving against clearly displayed arrows, is a contributory act of carelessness.
(6) Contrary to what some drivers may think, in a public carpark, any act of carelessness which results in injury to persons or property can still be subject to police bringing charges.
(Example: On such a carpark, my wife and daughter witnessed a car hitting another parked one, and then being driven off. They gave details to the owner, and the police prosecuted the offending driver).

I would agree that it is an argument which could go either way. The best course is to get a witness(es) if possible. If you have witnesses who firmly believe the driver was acting carelessly, also ensure that the police are informed.
In public carparks, the requirement for care applies to all drivers; not just those reversing out of a parking place. It is a situation where every case has to be judged on its merits.

I was once following another car in a shopping precinct carpark; both of us looking for a space. The car in front suddenly stopped just past a vacant place, and I pulled up a couple of yards or so behind him. He then immediately reversed towards this space, and in his rush for the spot collided with my car.
Could have been difficult, me being to his rear, but I had a witness, and he collected 100% of the blame.

[chopper jockey]

Snowball

I would disagree with this as an outright statement for several reasons.
(1) In a shopping car park, it is reasonable to drive in forwards (thus reversing out) because the boot needs to be accessible for loading goods.

People do this at home. It is reasonable to drive forwards into their drive. When they reverse back out onto the main road, are you saying they don't have to give way because it's difficult to see?

[wagolynn]

You can park it on its roof if you like, as the driver you are 100% responsible for making sure it is safe to stay or move, forwards, back or sideways.
Car parks are probably the most dangerous place to be, lots of unpredictable manoeuvring, pedestrians, pushchairs, drivers looking for parking places, drivers thinking about shopping not driving and it’s only a car park?

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by chopper jockey

Snowball


People do this at home. It is reasonable to drive forwards into their drive. When they reverse back out onto the main road, are you saying they don't have to give way because it's difficult to see?

Come on, chopperjockey; I did not say that at all, and well you know it. Why be perverse just for the sake of argument? Driveways usually have a pavement, between them and the road, and rarely are the fences/hedges high enough to prevent visual observation of vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists on the pavement and so forth.

On public carparks, those using them, if they have any brains, are aware of the situation and are still under a legal obligation to drive with the appropriate care. Preventive caution is the responsibility of all drivers.

Here's an example of absolute lunacy. Part of our local Asda carpark is under cover, and you have to pass through its aisles to reach the upper deck. It's unlit, and visibility is poor even in daylight; I always switch on my dipped headlights when passing through this section, and observe the rule to drive slowly.
A few months ago, typical boy racer charged through this section at an alarming speed; regardless of the presence of shoppers (some with children). He was the idiotic extreme, but they are more than enough drivers who are not as careful as they should be.

Yes, the driver reversing out of a spot must do so with proper caution, but that doesn't remove the onus of responsibility from approaching drivers.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

For this to happen, it requires two drivers who are not paying attention to what they are doing.
Backwards, forwards, sideways, fast, slow or parked, a vehicle driver is 100% responsible for doing so safely. In my book, reversing, due to the restricted field of view demands great care, reversing in a car park demands even greater care. (1) The other vehicle travelling against the arrows is not relevant, but (2) the other driver presumably did not understand what you were doing or was occupied looking for a parking space or just looking elsewhere (hence the greater care needed in a car park). If I had to apportion blame, I would apportion blame at about 25/75 with the reverser at 75.

I am a little surprised by this post, wagolynn.

(1) Ignoring the directional arrows is relevant, and displays an attitude of disregard for safety.
(2) Blaming the reversing driver (who may have already been taking care), on the basis that the other driver may have been otherwise occupied or looking elsewhere, is a totally inexcusable argument.

Would you apply such a defence in any driving situation, and how can driving on public carparks be any different in terms of the need to be fully observant?
I'm sorry, but I cannot follow your line of reasoning.

Regards, Snowball.

[98selitb]

Whether or not you get 50/50 blame, or even 75/25 in your favour, might depend on how far back the other driver was when he saw you reversing.

Although reversing is high-risk and none more so than in a car park, it is not fair to completely excuse a driver on the 'road' bit of the car park who is not looking where they are going.

For instance, if you were driving along a long car park aisle and you see a car in the distance reversing out onto the aisle, and there is a good 10 seconds' distance before you reach that point, I can't see any defence if you hit that car because you have had ample chance to slow down, avoid it or stop completely.

As an aside. A few months ago I witnessed a woman in a Clio reversing safely out of a space when a moron in a BMW 4x4, who had seen her from a considerable distance, carried on driving despite her reversing, then deliberately hit her! I then heard him say to his passenger that his front side panel had been damaged for a while and needed replacing, so he'd claim it on the Clio driver's insurance and say that she'd reversed into him. I told the Clio driver what I'd heard and gave her my details if she needed a witness statement, but never heard anything back. I presume the forensic insurance people were able to ascertain from the damage which car had done the hitting.

[wagolynn]

Hi Snowball, my reasoning is as follows,
The arrows in car parks have no legal significance; also, unless the reverser is at the end of the row they would not see the arrows, finally pedestrians do not follow the arrows. Add these factors up and I arrive at –
a driver would be foolish and or negligent to assume that moving vehicles/pedestrians will be coming from any particular direction.
If all drivers, reversing or not, could and did give 100% attention to what they were doing and how it is affecting those around them, there would never be any two vehicle collisions, this becomes more pertinent in a car park simply because everyone will be moving relatively slowly and therefore it ‘feels’ safer than out on the road when of course the opposite is true.
As you will see, I did suggest the blame would be about 75/25 because the onus rests more heavily on the reverser as they are undertaking the more risky manoeuvre and should be exercising the care appropriate to reversing in a car park. Yes, the other driver presumably did not see the reverser or miscalculated the likelihood of impact, I would think, ‘did not see’ or did not grasp the significance of what they saw.
Yesterday, while her indoors was in the shop, I watched a lady return to her car, after leaving the empty trolley in a nearby disabled parking space leaving the car door open, got into the car adjusted her hair then boldly reversed out of the bay without looking at all... this appeared to be the norm in this car park.

[Snowball]

wagolynn, I think that when push comes to shove, if someone was injured in a public capark, and in which case the police would be involved, I would bet that any disregard for directional arrows would be included in the police assessment in any possible prosecution.

When you assume the mantle of driver, the onus for joint and contributory care in any difficult conditions is always applicable. Any behaviour contrary to specific conditions (e.g., lane arrows) will always carry a risk of "carrying the can" should that action result in injury and damage to property; particularly so if supported by witness statement(s).

On the subject of lane arrows in carparks, one of the latest carparks in our city dentre has coloured lights set in the floor along the centre of the aisles; when you drive in the correct direction, you meet green lights, and are confronted with red ones if you take the wrong direction. There are also CCTV cameras in operation.

[Watcher]

Parking

No hard and fast rule can be applied here, it's a classic case of "six of one and half a dozen of the other"!

Anyway, Snowball, what are you doing here? Thought you were in France?? :D

[smudger]

The worst thing I have seen in supermarket car parks, was a car reversing out of a bay way down at the bottom of the lane, and this BMW driver saw this and made such a dash to get that bay, that he nearly knocked over two shoppers with their two kids pushing their trolley, and another car as it also started to reverse out:eek:

You really had to be there to see it, it was that bad!:mad:

[chopper jockey]

Snowball

Any behaviour contrary to specific conditions (e.g., lane arrows) will always carry a risk of "carrying the can" should that action result in injury and damage to property; particularly so if supported by witness statement(s)

You do know that lane arrows are "advisory", right?

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Watcher

No hard and fast rule can be applied here, it's a classic case of "six of one and half a dozen of the other"!

Anyway, Snowball, what are you doing here? Thought you were in France?? :D

Hi Watcher. Got back to Uk last week after seven weeks in France - All good things come to an end, and all that.

Agree with your comments. As I said previously, these situations have to be judged individually on merits. Things can go unfairly in either direction, so getting reliable witness(es) is essential, followed by how diligent one's insurers are at fighting your corner.

chopper jockey. The "advisory" classification needs to be observed with caution. In the event of an incident when ignoring them, insurers will use this in assessing blame (particularly so where there are witnesses) and, if the police are involved, they will also use them in deciding if prosecution is likely.
"Advisory", as far as I am aware, does not carry an exoneration for carelessness in any situation. This applies to all areas, including carparks, which are open to general public use.

As I said previously, my one and only bump by a careless driver on a carpark was witnessed, and I was cleared 100% of blame.
I was initially concerned that 50/50 would be applied because (a) we had the same insurer, and (b) the other driver tried to avoid blame by ignoring his insurer's letters.
However, the letter from my witness was sufficient for full blame to be placed against the other driver.
But I have no doubt that things regularly go the wrong way for careful drivers, who end up with all or part blame due to an idiot driver.

[Airbag]

For what its worth it may be argued that the directional arrows are more than advisory.
They could be considered as a measure used by the supermarket to ensure the health and safety of customers, but I am not sure if customers, as opposed to employees, are obliged to obey them.
I make this point because it is an irritation to me to see so many people at my place of work disobeying speed limits and arrows in the car park. If any of them have a collision and injure someone, I am sure they would be guilty of disobeying a health and safety measure implemented by the employer.

[wagolynn]

That is an interesting observation Airbag; I don’t recall having seen reports of such a case, but I can see it would be a runner. Employers, wise ones that is, act as their insurers tell them, I suppose the insurers chose the, wait and see, option hoping the parties involved own motor insurance will stand the costs. The Health and safety executive will probably never be advised.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

wagolynn, I think that when push comes to shove, if someone was injured in a public capark, and in which case the police would be involved, I would bet that any disregard for directional arrows would be included in the police assessment in any possible prosecution.

When you assume the mantle of driver, the onus for joint and contributory care in any difficult conditions is always applicable. Any behaviour contrary to specific conditions (e.g., lane arrows) will always carry a risk of "carrying the can" should that action result in injury and damage to property; particularly so if supported by witness statement(s).

On the subject of lane arrows in carparks, one of the latest carparks in our city dentre has coloured lights set in the floor along the centre of the aisles; when you drive in the correct direction, you meet green lights, and are confronted with red ones if you take the wrong direction. There are also CCTV cameras in operation.

Right agreed Snowball, ignoring the arrows is partially why I would rate the blame as 25% against that vehicle. The onus on every driver involved does not change, if you need to carry out a risky manoeuvre then extra care is required, that responsibility is never transferable. From observation, it is unusual to see a two vehicle crash with one party 100% to blame. Please note, I said unusual. Bear in mind, the insurers involved are not interested in who is at fault; they are looking to minimise cost.

[Snowball]

Private carparks (e.g., company ones) come under different rules to those where they are for public use, such as shopping precinct carparks. Company carparks would be subject to their own legislation and workplace H&S rules, although I am sure that the police and courts have facilities to deal with serious cases where injuries occur.

In the case of public carparks the police have powers to prosecute under careless/dangerous driving regulations where they regard an offence to be serious enough to warrany this. In such circumstances, the police would also take into account any breach of carpark rules (such as speed restrictions, directional arrows, etc.) where these were clearly displayed and had obviously been disregarded.
In addition to that, it would only take a couple of witnesses to say a driver deliberately hit a person (simply caused by ignoring his/her presence) to be at risk of a GBH with intent charge, over and above any driving offence charges.

When driving off the public highway and onto any property which isn't your own, it is very unwise to take a carte blanche view that you can do almost what you wish.

Even on your own land you can get yourself into trouble, as many landowners have discovered when trying to evict travellers. If, in such cases, a member of the traveller community was injured by a landowner's vehicle, it is almost certain that it would result in being charged with some form of driving offence, or GBH by use of a vehicle as a weapon.

It is folly to assume exemption under any situation since, even where specific conditions are not made obvious, there are many tripwires embedded in our legal system that can get you nailed for a criminal or civil offence.

[Rolebama]

When I had my 'event' two years ago, because the other driver accused me of deliberately ramming his car with mine, I was arrested for Using My Car As A Weapon, And Causing Criminal Damage, although the charge was dropped, as it was his word against mine. I asked the Interviewer how often this charge was used, and was told that it was not an unusual charge used in car park incidents, where two drivers caused damage to each other's vehicles when trying to push each other aside for access to a space. Apparently more common amongst younger drivers.

[98selitb]

I always find the "it's on private land, so I can't be got by the law" excuse rather amusing in its stupidity.

Try commiting a murder in broad daylight in a supermarket car park, then saying you aren't liable and can't be prosecuted because it was on private land:rolleyes:

The same goes for the advisory, although I'm just repeating what's already been said really. It's the same with some of the rules for the highway code - many of them are not law, but you can still be punished if you break one of these rules,

There seem to be many roundabout accidents caused by one party using the "wrong" lane, then arguing that because the arrows are only advisory, he was doing nothing wrong. I would hope that the police and insurance companies take their deliberate ignorance of the safety advice into consideration when reaching a decision as to who is at fault.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

I always find the "it's on private land, so I can't be got by the law" excuse rather amusing in its stupidity.

Yeah, and I wonder how many of those who beat the drum about "private land" and "advisory markings" would immediately revise their opinions if faced with expenditure due to the actions of another party in such a scenario?;)

[wagolynn]

Or could the many accidents (never seen one, accident I mean only crashes) be caused by drivers negotiating roundabouts ‘safe’ in the knowledge they are in the right lane, 98selitb? It sounds like the right of way argument to me; never ever whilst driving can you duck the responsibility of ensuring it is safe, for you and all other road users, to proceed. The fact that the other driver was in the wrong lane, 10MPH above the speed limit, murdering their passenger has no bearing on the outcome. You are still responsible for driving your vehicle and should be aware of what is happening around you, there are very few two or more vehicle crashes where both parties did not have other choices, this is different to saying that both parties were aware they had other choices, most of the time they are too busy claiming right of way. In short, prevention is far better than any cure.

[ficklejade]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Private carparks (e.g., company ones) come under different rules to those where they are for public use, such as shopping precinct carparks. Company carparks would be subject to their own legislation and workplace H&S rules, although I am sure that the police and courts have facilities to deal with serious cases where injuries occur.

The reason I've picked this up is that I'm aware of a number of supermarkets that have agreements with local authorities, but the law and these agreements seem very unclear when it comes down to the coming-together. In view of just such a happening I witnessed (not reversing out but regarding directional arrows and a very worn road marking) a week ago yesterday, I've contact my local Cllr about this. The land is owned by the supermarket, but the Council put in the section of road the incident took place on. Given that the vehicle who'd followed the worn give way sign was shunted by the person behind into the side of a car to whom they'd given way, on the public highway there'd be little issue, given independent witnesses, but not so in the given circumstances.

I don't know how many people drive into parking spaces on a supermarket car park, but I imagine a goodly few. There's one simple reason; you are doing a big shop and you don't need something to park up right under your boot so you can't load your shopping! Another reason I hate supermarket car parks!! :rolleyes:

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Or could the many accidents (never seen one, accident I mean only crashes) be caused by drivers negotiating roundabouts ‘safe’ in the knowledge they are in the right lane, 98selitb? It sounds like the right of way argument to me; never ever whilst driving can you duck the responsibility of ensuring it is safe, for you and all other road users, to proceed. The fact that the other driver was in the wrong lane, 10MPH above the speed limit, murdering their passenger has no bearing on the outcome. You are still responsible for driving your vehicle and should be aware of what is happening around you, there are very few two or more vehicle crashes where both parties did not have other choices, this is different to saying that both parties were aware they had other choices, most of the time they are too busy claiming right of way. In short, prevention is far better than any cure.

This statement is so flawed. Yes, you are responsible for driving your vehicle, but you are NOT responsible for the way another vehicle is being driven. And there is never always sufficient room to react to a last second event. Remember, if you do react to an act that immediately puts you in danger of a collision, this must be carried out without colliding, or causing a collision, with another innocent driver.
If everyone is driving in a proper manner, and one driver then acts in a way that suddenly disrupts legitimate traffic flow, then that driver alone is responsible for his/her actions.
What you appear to be saying is that, no matter how outlandish the behaviour of a foolish driver may be, any innocent driver with whom he/she collides is automatically gulty of blame to some degree.
I'm sorry, but that would obviously be a ludricous outcome.

[wagolynn]

It’s called defensive driving; a good driver will anticipate the potential danger and not join in. If drivers choose to stick to their rights or stick to the rules and get their vehicles damaged, that is their choice don’t expect me to sympathise.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

It’s called defensive driving; a good driver will anticipate the potential danger and not join in. If drivers choose to stick to their rights or stick to the rules and get their vehicles damaged, that is their choice don’t expect me to sympathise.

And I absolutely agree with you, wagolynn. But there are times when a driver does not have the luxury of being able to avoid a collision with the erring driver. Many RTC's occur when vehicles are already at such close quarters that even the highest qualified driver (in terms of skill and experience) in unable to prevent a collision.

I would also agree that many RTC's do deserve some degree of percentage blame on both parties; but distributing that percentage fairly can itself be impossible, even with witnesses. In fact, where more than one witness is involved, the variations by these people as to what they (thought?) they saw may muddy the waters further.

My benchmark for the errant driver being 100% to blame is when the culprit has done something that he/she knows (or should know) carries a high risk of resulting in a RTC., and the other driver has done everything by the book to avoid the collision.

"Sticking to the rules" is a bit fluid. For example, if I was doing 40mph in a 40mph zone, and was hit by another vehicle because most of the other drivers were doing 50mph., I certainly would not accept that I was in any way to blame. The fault would be due to negligence on the part of the colliding driver who was doing 50mph.
This is based on the fact that the law does not permit any driver to assume that they can safely ignore the legally enforced limits.