Car hit whilst stationary, behind parked cars, whose fault?

[Nightviolet]

Please can anyone advise me on this?

I pulled out of a side street and turned left onto a road with parked cars on the left. Because I couldn't see I edged out slightly onto the other side of the road and stopped because I saw a car coming. The car was about 8 car lengths away.

I figured if they couldn't get past me I could reverse back a little but they didn't slow down, just went straight into my car. The damage to my car wasn't bad, but they smashed theirs up a bit (don't want to share too many details because I'm not sure about the legals etc) and it wasn't because I've got a big car, I've got one of the smallest hatchbacks you can buy.

When she stopped, a hyperactive child got out too and was running about and ignoring her while she shouted at him. I think that she was distracted by the child and that's why she didn't see me.

My insurance company are telling me it's 50/50 but I don't agree. I was stationary. What should I do? I have witnesses to where my car was, and the presence of the child.

[vonhosen]

Nightviolet said:

Please can anyone advise me on this?

I pulled out of a side street and turned left onto a road with parked cars on the left. Because I couldn't see I edged out slightly onto the other side of the road and stopped because I saw a car coming. The car was about 8 car lengths away.

I figured if they couldn't get past me I could reverse back a little but they didn't slow down, just went straight into my car. The damage to my car wasn't bad, but they smashed theirs up a bit (don't want to share too many details because I'm not sure about the legals etc) and it wasn't because I've got a big car, I've got one of the smallest hatchbacks you can buy.

When she stopped, a hyperactive child got out too and was running about and ignoring her while she shouted at him. I think that she was distracted by the child and that's why she didn't see me.

My insurance company are telling me it's 50/50 but I don't agree. I was stationary. What should I do? I have witnesses to where my car was, and the presence of the child.

So many variables involved & potential for claim/counter claim.
Did Police attend ?

[Nightviolet]

No, the police didn't attend. I wish I had called them now. It was on a new housing estate, and the roads are full of parked cars. I always drive very slowly around there because you can't see very well.

[Pannywagon]

I had this last year. I started to pass some parked cars heading towards the brow of a hill when suddenly a Saxo appeared over the brow at mach 2. I stopped and started to go for reverse just as a car stopped behind me. The Saxo didn't stop.

Police arrived and immediately declared it would go 50-50 despite the witnesses all saying I was stationary and the third party was driving like a twunt.

Took 6 months to actually sort out. He was insured with Quinn and they are a nightmare to get money out of. Even sent investigators round to the workplace of one of the witnesses and accused her of colluding with me, and that she knew me prior to the accident. I'd never met her before or since.

[StressedDave]

Quick and dirty calculation time:

8 car lengths = 32m-ish

At 30 mph, stopping distance at 0.5g deceleration is 18.3m

Allowing for a 1.5s reaction time (considered reasonable by most accident investigators, albeit an upper bound) at 30 mph = 20.1m

Total stopping distance = 38.4m

So, effectively you emerged at a point where there was insufficient distance for the oncoming car to react and brake to a halt before the collision. Numbers suggest you potentially carry some of the responsibility...

[Nightviolet]

StressedDave.

According to the highway code, stopping distance from 30 is 6 car lengths or 23 metres. Plus, it's got lots of parked cars and speed bumps at the end of each road. So I was actually on a speed bump. I would never actually go 30 round that bit of road, plus surely you should slow down for the bumps?

Even if the road wasn't quite wide enough, wouldn't you try to move towards the pavement a little, which is at the same level as the road at the bumps. She didn't move across at all. Or slow down. It was as if she didn't see me until after she'd hit me.

[r129sl]

There are 22million cars on the road. They are going to bump into each other from time to time. It is not worth worrying about.

You have a perfectly arguable case that the other party was 100% at fault and you were not at fault at all. Whether that case will succeed at trial (because if you cannot settle the matter, it will have to be resolved by a the district judge) is highly unpredictable. It might. It might not. In my view, you'll probably end up carrying some of the blame. Can you be bothered?

Now, you may well be full of righteous indignation and confident that you were in the right. Just about all drivers are (myself included most of the time). But consider this: sure as you may be of your own blamelessness, you just might be... wrong.

[StressedDave]

Nightviolet said:

StressedDave.

According to the highway code, stopping distance from 30 is 6 car lengths or 23 metres. Plus, it's got lots of parked cars and speed bumps at the end of each road. So I was actually on a speed bump. I would never actually go 30 round that bit of road, plus surely you should slow down for the bumps?

Even if the road wasn't quite wide enough, wouldn't you try to move towards the pavement a little, which is at the same level as the road at the bumps. She didn't move across at all. Or slow down. It was as if she didn't see me until after she'd hit me.

The Highway Code stopping distances are grossly out of kilter with real life and are acknowledged in AI circles as being so. There's a significant difference between 'surely you should' and 'must'. I'd be inclined to suggest that just because you wouldn't do 30, another driver, who would still be driving within the law, might be.

As for mitigation, panic does strange things to all of us. Target fixation, i.e. because you're staring at the incipient danger, you collide with it, is quite a common factor.

Based purely on the description, I think you're flogging a dead horse if you think you'll get your insurance company to take anything other than 50:50 in this one.

[KrazyIvan]

I think you'll be lucky to get 50/50 and if you are offered it you should take it.

Look at it from the other drivers point of view. There driving down a road at 25mph when you "suddenly" appear from between a row of parked cars, leaving her no room to pass and no time to stop.

It will go down as your word against hers (your witnesses will be nearly useless if it goes to court), and you'll lose as your insurance company will decide not to take it any further as your already in the wrong as it was you pulling out, therefore her right of way, meaning you were at fault.

The child is irrelevant as there is no way you can prove the child was a distraction before the accident. And the fact that you saw her coming but chose to stop over the give way line isn’t going to help you either. The more details you give about her position on the road and speed, will just highlight the fact that you saw her but didnt move out of the way.

Its not a fair system, but insurance companies have no interest in right or wrong, just the cheapest option, and court over a 50/50 just is not going to be in their interest, unless you hit a 100K Aston or something.

[Efbe]

take the 50/50 if you can.

imo you deserve nothing. there is no excuse for pulling into the path of another car, parked cars or not. everyone else can pull out safely, just not you. think about it, maybe practice a bit.
If i was her i'd be furious with you. in reality she did nothing wrong at all. you are going to increase her premiums, and have damaged her car severely.

I really can't believe you are trying to blame her at all in fact!

I wouldn't be suprised if she goes for 100% your fault, claims whiplash on her and child, wants an equivalent courtesy car until hers is fixed.

[MattJR]

@ Efbe Erm, I have recently passed a driving test , I was just cruising the forums for things to do with insurance.

I have quite recently been trained how to pull out with cars obscuring the road, often parked to close to the junction, if you cant see you are supposed to edge out until you can get a better view if anything comes, assuming there is plenty of space for them to pass you are supposed to stop dead and wait for them to pass, assuming there is no space you would of course need to reverse , however in this instance it would seem that the OP has indicated there was space for people to pass , the only logical explanation given that the OP was stationary when hit was that the other person was either going too fast , distracted/not paying attention or just plain blind.

As I have been taught to deal with pulling out like this in this situation , and you disagree and cite 50 50 claim please advise us how you would go about it assuming you were in the same situation ?

I would bet money it was the brat causing problems , kids should be in a sound proof compartment when driving, more dangerous than drink or drugs , cannot conceive of anything more distracting.....

[Efbe]

MattJR said:

@ Efbe Erm, I have recently passed a driving test , I was just cruising the forums for things to do with insurance.

I have quite recently been trained how to pull out with cars obscuring the road, often parked to close to the junction, if you cant see you are supposed to edge out until you can get a better view if anything comes, assuming there is plenty of space for them to pass you are supposed to stop dead and wait for them to pass, assuming there is no space you would of course need to reverse , however in this instance it would seem that the OP has indicated there was space for people to pass , the only logical explanation given that the OP was stationary when hit was that the other person was either going too fast , distracted/not paying attention or just plain blind.

As I have been taught to deal with pulling out like this in this situation , and you disagree and cite 50 50 claim please advise us how you would go about it assuming you were in the same situation ?

I would bet money it was the brat causing problems , kids should be in a sound proof compartment when driving, more dangerous than drink or drugs , cannot conceive of anything more distracting.....

actually no. I think he would be lucky to get a 50/50.

I think he is entirely at fault.

Think of it from her perspective. driving down a narrow road, traffic parked up on left. she is doing spot on the speed limit. at 8 car lengths away she see's the nose of a car edging out a little. As most drivers would she expects this car to stop. it doesn't however and gets far enough into the road to make it unavoidable for her to hit.
Road is likely slippy as we haven't had fully dry road in a while. tyres are cold, so harder to maintain traction.
Then after this person pulls out on her, they attempt to claim 50/50 or more. what for? what did she do wrong?



As this is the advanced driving forum, then yes I could see that she could have slowed down when she first saw him slightly if there was in fact chance. you could also say she was driving too fast for the area. However if the OP seems to think she was doing the Speed limit, then likely she was not in the wrong.

On the other side of it; edging out to see round a vehicle should be the last resort. in nearly all situations you are able to see down the road long before this point, and then through the windows of the other cars.
The OP did not mention it was a lorry parked obscuring his view, to I will take it just as awkward cars to see past.
The OP also did not mention that she could have swerved around him, which leads me to think that he was actually much much further out into the road that he should have been.

[Nightviolet]

Efbe,

1, I didn't say it was a narrow road, the first car was just parked badly forcing me to move further out. Plus it way was bone dry. No rain for 2 weeks.
2, I did just nose around the cars enough to see, I was leaning over to the right in order to see her coming. And she was far enough back that there was no way I could see through 8 or so parked cars to where she was.
3, Yes, I thought there was space and time to go around, and the pavement was on the same level at the road at the point where I was, so there was an extra place to go as well (and no I wasn't expecting her to go onto the pavement, just that it was available if she felt the need). If I thought that there had been no chance of her getting through I would have reversed back immediately. Plus, why would I have asked for the witnesses to give details if I thought I was too far over?
4, I couldn't tell you what speed she was going. She could well have been going over 30. She certainly wasn't going slowly.

She didn't slow down, or swerve, or show any other indication that she was looking at the road whatsoever.

[vonhosen]

Nightviolet said:

Efbe,

1, I didn't say it was a narrow road, the first car was just parked badly forcing me to move further out. Plus it way was bone dry. No rain for 2 weeks.
2, I did just nose around the cars enough to see, I was leaning over to the right in order to see her coming. And she was far enough back that there was no way I could see through 8 or so parked cars to where she was.
3, Yes, I thought there was space and time to go around, and the pavement was on the same level at the road at the point where I was, so there was an extra place to go as well (and no I wasn't expecting her to go onto the pavement, just that it was available if she felt the need). If I thought that there had been no chance of her getting through I would have reversed back immediately. Plus, why would I have asked for the witnesses to give details if I thought I was too far over?
4, I couldn't tell you what speed she was going. She could well have been going over 30. She certainly wasn't going slowly.

She didn't slow down, or swerve, or show any other indication that she was looking at the road whatsoever.

You have to balance that against what the 'Give way' lines that you crossed mean. That being you mustn't cross it so as to endanger a driver or passenger of another vehicle or to cause another vehicle to change course or speed to avoid an accident.

[Nightviolet]

I was already across the give way lines, I was on the main road, behind some parked cars. It was just that, had I been driving along the main road in the first place, I would have had a better view of what was coming along the road.

[vonhosen]

Nightviolet said:

I was already across the give way lines, I was on the main road, behind some parked cars. It was just that, had I been driving along the main road in the first place, I would have had a better view of what was coming along the road.

My reading of what you wrote was that you pulled out of a junction turning left (around a parked car) into the path of an oncoming car (with your car positioned over the centre line).

[Nightviolet]

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was already on the main road. I just thought it was relevant that I had just turned out of a road because it meant that I was at a slight angle and therefore did not have as good a view as if I'd been continuing along the road.

[simoid]

First post on this forum and all that, so hello to you all.

Efbe said:

"driving down a narrow road, traffic parked up on left. she is doing spot on the speed limit... Road is likely slippy as we haven't had fully dry road in a while. tyres are cold, so harder to maintain traction."

Then after this person pulls out on her, they attempt to claim 50/50 or more. what for? what did she do wrong?

Are you suggesting that by driving at the speed limit, in the conditions you have described, she is automatically driving safely and therefore cannot be held responsible?

[ST2]

I sympathise with the OP and appreciate fully the situation he found himself in. Only last week I was intending to emerge left from a side road. On the major road I wanted join was a roadworks van parked right up to the junction, visibility to the left was nil. As this van took the complete left hand of the road drivers emerging had to cross the centre line of the main road before there was any view to the left and as there was a left bend this only a cars length. The early view between the van and buildings was obscured by the road works-to emerge was suicide, peep and creep of limited use only as to get any view the front of the car had to be over the centre line.

I would like to hear how some on this forum would have dealt this particular situation.

Returning to the Op i would have thought a car travelling at thirty mph should have been able to stop in 32 metres given that modern cars stop in less than HC distances. What if a child had run from between the parked cars?

[vonhosen]

Nightviolet said:

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was already on the main road. I just thought it was relevant that I had just turned out of a road because it meant that I was at a slight angle and therefore did not have as good a view as if I'd been continuing along the road.

How far did you travel in the main road after you pulled out of the side road ?