Who would be held at fault here?

[TerryTibbs]

Hey folks, just thought I'd pick your brains purely out of interest in a semi-hypothetical situation.

So I was involved in a bit of a near miss today, which I regard as about half my fault. A van was reversing out of a driveway and seemingly stopped so I assumed the driver saw me. I thought nothing more of it and then started scanning the area ahead as I was coming up to a busy junction - only then to glance back immediately in front of me and saw the van continuing to reverse out into my path! I had to brake pretty harshly to avoid possibly hitting the van, gave a little honk to aware him of my presence and then swerved around him (I'd already seen that the other side of the road was clear to swerve out just beforehand at least). I could have avoided braking harshly, my fault for looking into the distance for slightly too long and taking my eyes off what was directly in front of me as someone could have stepped into the road or something, I acknowledge that and will see it as a reminder to keep in mind that the situation in front of me can change at any second.

Anyway, my question is, just out of interest... in a situation like this, saying we'd actually collided - who'd be held liable for the damages in the event of an insurance claim? I assume he would for pulling out on me, but I can never be sure about the way insurers work.

Thoughts?

[akirk]

insurance - possibly his fault, though you never entirely know with insurers!

for letting the scenario play out as it did - possibly your fault, you were more aware / had easier visibility. Once you spot a van doing that, it should move very high up your list of hazards, so I wouldn't be losing sight of his movements, and being cynical I wouldn't assume that he had seen me! He might have been adjusting the radio / putting on a seat belt / lighting a cigarette / etc. causing him to pause...

you were in the position of knowing that there was a hazard / possible conflict coming up - and not knowing whether the driver also knew - therefore on balance - safer to assume that you needed to control the situation... maybe a little honk earlier, or perhaps I would have simply let him out to ensure that there was no issue...

but easily done

Alasdair

[vonhosen]

Depends what he/you say to the insurers & the availability of any witnesses/video etc.

What gets told to insurers isn't always necessarily very close to what actually happened.

[martine]

On the basis he was reversing onto a main road (against highway code advice) and had stopped once, I would have thought the main error was his...but you can never be sure with insurance companies...oh, is that what someone else just said?

[Gareth]

If there's movement and I think the driver may not have seen my vehicle I sound the horn, then wave when they look. If they're not moving but with reversing lights on, I look for brake lights as well before passing.

It's important to get a handle on identifying the most immediate source of danger and, while not focusing entirely on that, keep it in mind when looking for additional sources of danger.

[TripleS]

Do you suppose peripheral vision should have taken care of the reversing van problem, even though attention had shifted to longer range scanning? I don't know, it's just a thought.

[trashbat]

Probably pointing out the obvious, but insurance settlements aren't a good measure of culpability, and shouldn't ever be your yardstick for deciding whether something was appropriate/acceptable.

For a start, they're zero sum, but blame and responsibility are not.

If two stupid people crash into each other because they both did something stupid, it doesn't make each of them only half as stupid.

Settlements are also simplistic, lazy, based on a balance of probabilities, subject to manipulation and an enormous pain in the arse.

[RobC]

The van driver has committed an offence by reversing into a main road. The priority was yours, but as we know we don't always get priority!
Vans have large blind spots and often don't have a back window for the driver to see out of and are a far greater hazard than a car, so knowing that I would not assume the van driver had seen me unless I had eye contact with the van driver.

On a positive note a collision was avoided, we sometimes make mistakes and learn from our experiences and become better drivers!

[ROG]

A van was reversing out of a driveway and seemingly stopped so I assumed the driver saw me.

What do they say about assumption ?

[TerryTibbs]

Do you suppose peripheral vision should have taken care of the reversing van problem, even though attention had shifted to longer range scanning? I don't know, it's just a thought.

Can't argue with that, as said in the OP my focus was all wrong. Suppose it didn't help that the silver van blended into the surroundings a bit but still, as I said, I shouldn't have just assumed he'd seen me. Lesson learned without major incident, thankfully

What do they say about assumption ?

Ah, yes, the mother of all... well, you know Yeah I was naturally disappointed with myself to have just assumed he'd seen me as usually I'm the last person to assume I'm going to be given way to, even when people are waiting to pull out of a side road I've always got an eye on them. I guess the positive though is it reaffirmed that you should never just assume

[Silk]

A van was reversing out of a driveway and seemingly stopped so I assumed the driver saw me.

What do they say about assumption ?

I'm not going to assume I know the answer to that one.

[sussex2]

Years ago on an advanced course somewhere in the wilds of the West Midlands there was one instructor and three victims in the car.
One of the victims had a habit of assumption and this had been pointed out to him on more than one occasion.
He was driving and we were approaching a similar situation to the one in the thread, but at some speed.
The driver did it again and said 'He's seen me' moments before the other driver continued reversing.
I hadn't been convinced of the use of ABS brakes on cars until that moment (it was one of those new fangled Ford Granada thingys) but soon changed my mind.
The pupil driving didn't appear the next day

[MGF]

...
Anyway, my question is, just out of interest... in a situation like this, saying we'd actually collided - who'd be held liable for the damages in the event of an insurance claim? I assume he would for pulling out on me, but I can never be sure about the way insurers work.

Thoughts?

If his insurer believes their insured has reversed off his drive into you or in front of you then it is most likely it will admit liability unless the stakes are particularly high.

[TerryTibbs]

I hadn't been convinced of the use of ABS brakes on cars until that moment (it was one of those new fangled Ford Granada thingys) but soon changed my mind.

I'm loving ABS now, ever since last weekend when I had to slam on the brakes doing about 75 down the motorway Lovely sharp braking with no locking whatsoever though. Someone in the left lane changed lane suddenly and without indicating and pulled right in front of me without looking, doing about 50. At night, with my headlights on main beam. Suicide attempt, surely??? At least I know now that ABS is awesome

[martine]

I'm loving ABS now, ever since last weekend when I had to slam on the brakes doing about 75 down the motorway Lovely sharp braking with no locking whatsoever though. Someone in the left lane changed lane suddenly and without indicating and pulled right in front of me without looking, doing about 50. At night, with my headlights on main beam. Suicide attempt, surely??? At least I know now that ABS is awesome

Glad you're OK and you're impressed with ABS.

Can I ask why you had your headlights on main beam?