Hypothetical who would be at fault question

mel.b

I was driving on a R road tonight that has no centre markings and is just wide enough for two cars to pass if you slow down and move right over. Coming in the opposite direction was a logging truck. There was no way i could fit past him so i had to reverse several hundreds meters up the road until there was somewhere i could fit in & move over. Fortunately there was a straight road behind me but it did make me wonder what would happen if someone ran into the back of me as i was reversing? I presume i would be at fault due to the reversing? But what else can you do? I'm glad i didn't meet him in a windy part of the road thats for sure.

hullaballoo

It would be entirely dependent on the exact circumstances of the accident. Everyone is supposed to pay due care and attention to the circumstances around them and certainly, on our rural roads, it wouldn't be unusual to encounter a car reversing to get out of the way of an oncoming car/truck/lorry etc.

Equally, there's a duty on the reversing driver to pay due care and attention.

It's an impossible question to answer hypothetically because unless there's actually an accident with surrounding circumstances that can be assessed, there's no way of knowing who would be liable.

coylemj

If you were reversing at no more than walking speed then I would say it's the other guy who would be at fault. Even if you had to reverse around a bend, the regulations say that you must drive at a speed that will allow you to stop within the distance that is clear ahead of you.

That means that as soon as you see an obstacle (which could include a pedestrian), you are supposed to be able to react, brake and stop before you hit it, otherwise you were driving too fast or not paying attention.

Senna

Assuming it was a straight road behind, some blame if not all would lay with the other car. But the assumption being you got stopped before they hit you.
If you were continuing to reverse and then they hit you, all blame would lay with you.

brian_t

mel.b wrote: »

There was no way i could fit past him so i had to reverse......

Why did you have to be the one to reverse ???

If his load was too wide to allow two-way traffic - should he not have had an escort vehicle.

If you were going to oblige him and reverse around a bend, it would be sensible to ask the lorry driver to stand at the bend and stop any oncoming cars.

Del2005

brian_t wrote: »

Why did you have to be the one to reverse ???

If his load was too wide to allow two-way traffic - should he not have had an escort vehicle.

Becasue a car is a thousand times easier to reverse than a HGV. You only need an escort if the load is oversize for normal HGVs there's no requirement for escorts, there are plenty of roads where 2 cars can't meet so should both have escort vehicles?

brian_t wrote: »

If you were going to oblige him and reverse around a bend, it would be sensible to ask the lorry driver to stand at the bend and stop any oncoming cars.

What about the cars coming up behing the parked HGV? It's up to the road users to be able to stop in time.

coylemj

Senna wrote: »

Assuming it was a straight road behind, some blame if not all would lay with the other car. But the assumption being you got stopped before they hit you.
If you were continuing to reverse and then they hit you, all blame would lay with you.

If he was reversing around a bend at walking speed so he couldn't see the other car coming towards him, it would put him in the same risk category as a pedestrian or a farmer driving livestock and I don't believe that either of them would be at fault if hit by an oncoming car so why would he be totally to blame just because he's in a car?

NUTLEY BOY

Generally speaking, reversing is an onerous manoeuvre especially if it takes place in the face of traffic coming towards you or that may reasonably be expected to appear behind you. Therefore, reversing usually takes place at your peril and requires the exercise of great care and, as rightly pointed out by coylemj, within the limits of your vision.

As far as right of way goes, the general proposition I always follow is that which I found years ago in Bingham's Motor Claims Cases when researching a point on the issue. A judicial view was expressed to say that use of the highway rarely involves the possession of, or entitlement to exercise, absolute rights. Use of the roads is a matter of give and take and all motorists must at some stage expect to put up with some measure of delay or inconvenience.

As far as right of way is concerned when driving, I follow the spirit of the maritime collision avoidance regulations. They provide that certain vessels have right of way in some given situations but the right of way cannot be exercised regardlessly until you are sure that right of way has been ceded by the other vessel. In Dublin, this principle is frequently reversed whereby the vehicle without right of way just takes it off you anyway

The working principle is that you must drive reasonably.

Senna

coylemj wrote: »

If he was reversing around a bend at walking speed so he couldn't see the other car coming towards him, it would put him in the same risk category as a pedestrian or a farmer driving livestock and I don't believe that either of them would be at fault if hit by an oncoming car so why would he be totally to blame just because he's in a car?

Just to confirm, the OP said it was a straight road he was reversing on.

From experience of a similar situation, the person reversing was solely at fault. In your example of a person reversing around a blind corner, fault would lay with the person reversing, its the act of reversing, nothing to do with speed. If you are reversing, the onus is on you to ensure it is safe to do so and there would be cases where you cannot do so safely and so you should not be reversing. There would need to be other circumstances for the oncoming driver to be at fault also.

A better question might be a hypothetical car stopped past the apex of a blind bend, if another car crashed into it, who would be to blame. The oncoming car should have been driving with enough care & attention to stop if there was an obstruction around the bend, but we all know that does not happen, car's don't slow to a crawl at every blind bend.

Del2005

Senna wrote: »

Just to confirm, the OP said it was a straight road he was reversing on.

From experience of a similar situation, the person reversing was solely at fault. In your example of a person reversing around a blind corner, fault would lay with the person reversing, its the act of reversing, nothing to do with speed. If you are reversing, the onus is on you to ensure it is safe to do so and there would be cases where you cannot do so safely and so you should not be reversing. There would need to be other circumstances for the oncoming driver to be at fault also.

A better question might be a hypothetical car stopped past the apex of a blind bend, if another car crashed into it, who would be to blame. The oncoming car should have been driving with enough care & attention to stop if there was an obstruction around the bend, but we all know that does not happen, car's don't slow to a crawl at every blind bend.

Happened to a co worker years ago. Came around a corner and hit a car which was broken down. IIRC blame when 70/30 to my co worker as he should have been driving slow enough to stop safely on his own side, but the other driver should have made an effort to warn oncoming traffic so got 30% blame.

Senna

Del2005 wrote: »

Happened to a co worker years ago. Came around a corner and hit a car which was broken down. IIRC blame when 70/30 to my co worker as he should have been driving slow enough to stop safely on his own side, but the other driver should have made an effort to warn oncoming traffic so got 30% blame.

Lots of variables in all these cases. In your co workers example, if the other car had broken down car a number of minutes before the accident and the driver had plenty of time to warn the motorists behind but didn't, I would have though they should have more blame, maybe 50/50.
Depending on the road and the bend, if I was your co worker, I would be very annoyed at the 70% liability.

Del2005

Senna wrote: »

Lots of variables in all these cases. In your co workers example, if the other car had broken down car a number of minutes before the accident and the driver had plenty of time to warn the motorists behind but didn't, I would have though they should have more blame, maybe 50/50.
Depending on the road and the bend, if I was your co worker, I would be very annoyed at the 70% liability.

A driver should always be able to stop on their side of the road in the distance they can see. That's why my co worker got the higher blame as he was driving too fast to stop in the distance he could see, if it was a cyclist or pedestrian it would never be 50/50 so how could it be different for a different type of obstruction. The other driver got the lessor blame for not warning oncoming traffic.