Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included)

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
View Threaded
Thu 23 Jan 2014 18:40
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Sussex Winter

Hi, all

I'd be interested in your opinions on a car incident that took place yesterday.

The following link illustrates what happened: tinypic.com/r/28wj9y1/5

I am the Mercedes driver. I slowly reversed out of the parking space, when I connected with what turned out to be a Roadrunners taxi.

As soon as I got out of the car, a witness who was behind the taxi at the Give Way junction came up to me and said "I saw what happened, it wasn't your fault. The taxi driver wasn't looking and drove into you. He was driving slowly (about 10mph) and looking left"

The illustration shows the exact location of the cars at impact. It's obvious that the taxi driver had cut off the Give Way junction (the location of the car at the Give Way junction on the Google Map further supports this). The taxi driver also said to me he didn't see me as he was looking left for traffic coming down the road (as was his passenger in the front). There was no horn parp - if you're going slowly and you see a car slowly reversing towards you, you wouldn't continue to drive into it - you'd stop and parp the horn.

Until my insurance company told me, I wasn't aware of this seemingly default position that whoever was reversing was at fault . This is extremely unjust. If I was to reverse out of that space again, I honestly wouldn't do anything different. Based on their logic and the potential for fault, no-one would ever reverse out of a car-parking space. I am aware that it is recommended that cars reverse into car parking spaces, but that's simply not practical at a busy supermarket where everyone would be held up waiting for cars to reverse ahead of them.

As things stand, my insurer is paying for a replacement taxi so that 'they' can manage the costs of the other side but are doing so on a 'without prejudice' basis which shows some support for me.

Bearing in mind the following, how can it be right that I am the person at fault when:

- the taxi driver cut the corner of a Give Way junction

- the taxi driver was driving on the wrong side of the road

- the taxi driver wasn't looking

- the taxi driver came from a reflex angle - how I am expected to see a car coming from that angle on the wrong side of the road? I was looking for cars coming from the left as I reversed and behind me on the side of the road I was ultimately wanting to get to.

- at the moment of impact, and after reversing slowly, I was halfway across the road.

- the witness said it was the taxi driver's fault for not looking. He said the taxi driver had plenty of opportunity to see me.

I have sent my insurance company the above illustration and lots of supporting photos, which, frustratingly, have not yet found their way to my handler. I've been into the store which had CCTV footage which confirmed how slowly I was coming out of the parking space - unfortunately, the angle of the camera didn't include the taxi driver's actions. My insurer, it seems, is reluctantly requesting this footage.

My insurance company is all but dismissing the account of the witness as not being helpful (they telephoned him). Based on what he told me, how can it not be helpful?

Part of me wishes it was my fault. I could simply pay my excess, be annoyed with myself for being careless and would have closure. Instead, I'm having to cope with an unhelpful insurer, a £350 excess payment and a looming experience of injustice. I know life's not always fair but in a scenario like this with the weight of evidence behind me, it should be.

Anyway, Ladies and Gentlemen, I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 23 Jan 2014 18:53
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - John Boy

My experience, of the reversing-out-of-a-space scenario, is that approaching drivers are frequently reluctant to stop or even slow down, regardless of whether they're looking or not. I was unaware of the advice to reverse in, but I think I'll start following it. It seems like good advice.

P.S. I'm sympathetic, but I don't think you're going to get anywhere with your insurers.

Edited by John Boy on 23/01/2014 at 18:56

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 23 Jan 2014 18:58
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - the_bandit

Assuming you were already reversing out of your space before the taxi driver was just at the junction making his decisions about how to proceed, then I reckon you are blame free here, no questions asked.

However who said the law was always right and I wouldn't be surprised at all for the blame to be put on you as the person given you were reversing your car into oncoming traffic. No doubt he's got whiplash and stress too so will claim for that!

Just one of those things I guess, be thankful no-one was injured, cars can be fixed etc....

Oh and next time, reverse into your space! Park in quiet areas too if possible, this helps cut down on other incidents like shopping trolleys and other doors bashing into the lovely lines of your CLS.

Edited by the_bandit on 23/01/2014 at 19:01

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 23 Jan 2014 20:28
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Avant

I agree - ideally reverse into rather than out of a parking space. But in this case - assuming your diagram is accurate - you were on your own side of the road and the taxi driver shouldn't have been on that side. He should have come out of the side road and crossed 'your' side of the main road as quickly as possible, then turned right into his own lane.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 23 Jan 2014 20:47
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - daveyjp
The OP needs to get a full statement and timeline of the accident together, lots of photos and send it as part of the evidence to the insurance company. Where the taxi hit the Merc could be significant in to how this pans out and the taxi driver will have to explain what he saw and how he ended up hitting the car.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 23 Jan 2014 22:19
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Sussex Winter
These two photos show:

1) the taxi - it has not moved from the location of impact: tinypic.com/r/2h2nlvn/5

2) the damage to my car: tinypic.com/r/i4oci1/5

These support the location of impact.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 23 Jan 2014 22:25
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - RT

Looking at the point of impact, the part of the taxi damaged was on it's correct side of the "road" at the point of impact even though the rest of it wasn't.

I think you need to accept that split liability is the best you'll get.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 23 Jan 2014 22:33
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Sussex Winter
Why? The right front tyre hadn't even made it onto the correct side of the road

I was reversing out far slower than he was driving forward. The witness said I was at least half way out. The only way he could not have seen me is because he was not looking ahead.

Another photo: tinypic.com/r/pua2a/5
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 09:34
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - RT
Why? The right front tyre hadn't even made it onto the correct side of the road I was reversing out far slower than he was driving forward. The witness said I was at least half way out. The only way he could not have seen me is because he was not looking ahead. Another photo: tinypic.com/r/pua2a/5

You didn't hit the tyre - you hit the front bumper, which is on the correct side.

I know this is splitting hairs and will be part of the % negotiation but I can't see any way that you'll be declared "fault-free" - so it's academic whether it's 99:1 or 50:50, your insurers will still make some payout so it'll be logged as a fault accident and reduce your NCD.

Someone else being mainly to blame isn't enough - however much that hurts your pride and principles.

Edited by RT on 24/01/2014 at 09:35

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 09:59
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Sussex Winter
As I said in my original post, he drove into me (as seen by the witness).
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 23 Jan 2014 23:11
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - artill

A simelar thing happened to me. I reversed out of a spot into the clear, so i thought, but actually i hit a bright yellow mini. My drivers side rear hit her passenger side front. the whole of her car should have been visable in my mirror, but when i looked she want there. I am sure she either drove into me, or drove so close the impact was inevitable.

However, if i had seen her, i would have stopped. I didnt, so what i thought happened didnt matter. the insurance decission was based on what she saw, because i was honest and said i didnt see what happened. (and this is obvious, but if i had seen her coming i would have stopped).

In the end it was just 'one of those things that happenes'. But it is my only fault claim in over 20 years, and no one was hurt.

I cant see you winning this one, the best you will get is a shared fault, which wont help you at all

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 23 Jan 2014 23:48
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Sussex Winter
That certainly sounds similar but I have a witness (actually, I have two - his wife was in the car, too), and he says the taxi driver drove into me.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 00:07
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - artill

Your witness will certainly help your cause. I can only wish you better luck than i had.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 09:13
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Marklew

My mum had a similar incident (the woman actually crossed the road and hit her when reversing into a parking space), has been told best to hope for is split liability). It seems that it is 'always' or atleast always 50% the reversing persons 'fault'.

The main issue is not the £350 excess, it is the loss of NCB (if you dont have protected) and that you will now have an 'at fault' (although as you believe you are not at fault) claim on your record for your insurance renewals for the next 5 years, this will cost a lot more than the £350.

Insurers will always win, I had an 'at fault' accident (caused by a blow out, so not really my fault, just one of those things) and my insurance is now back up to the 2 grand mark for the forseeable! Expensive game this driving lark!

On this point my case was single vehicle, damage only incident, which they still took nearly two months to settle (as a write off no hire car), and also involved me getting dropped at a train station at 3 in the morning by my insurers recovery man. Waiting outside a train station at 3 in the morning for it to open in November after just having an accident is not what I would call good service or looking after your customers, I won't be using Admiral again put it that way.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 09:55
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Sussex Winter
Funnily enough, I am also with Admiral but I do have 8 years no claim and am protected so am assuming this won't affect the next premium.

Am I being naive?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 10:44
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - RT
Funnily enough, I am also with Admiral but I do have 8 years no claim and am protected so am assuming this won't affect the next premium. Am I being naive?

Protected NCD does exactly that - however it doesn't stop the base premium rising because you've made a claim.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 11:00
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Sussex Winter
Thanks - so I do have a good reason to fight it.

It's extraordinary that it feels the weight is against me when the witness tells me: "I said to the wife (who was next to him in the car):'Why is that taxi not stopping? He's going to hit that car!'"
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 12:06
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - RT
Thanks - so I do have a good reason to fight it. It's extraordinary that it feels the weight is against me when the witness tells me: "I said to the wife (who was next to him in the car):'Why is that taxi not stopping? He's going to hit that car!'"

We're only trying to give our best opinion on the situation - it's good that you have a witness but it's what actually happened that will determine the outcome.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 12:56
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Sussex Winter
No, of course, I understand that and appreciate everyone's input.

The system for applying fault is perverse if the failures of the taxi driver are not accounted for. As I've stated, it would be easy for me to accept if I was at fault but I wasn't. I did everything you'd hope someone would do when reversing out.

I don't see me not being aware of a car cutting off a junction and driving on the wrong side of the road as in this circumstance as being my fault. My consideration of cars coming from the left and from behind in the lane I wanted to join was completely appropriate. Imagine me telling the insurer I wasn't looking at those because I was watching for a car that originally wasn't there in case it cut off a junction and drove into me on the wrong side of the road.

Seriously, it's complete madness.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 13:11
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - jacks
The system for applying fault is perverse if the failures of the taxi driver are not accounted for.

Sorry OP - you won't like this but I doubt you'll get away with a non-fault claim.

50/50 at best

You reversed out of a parking space into the path of oncoming traffic. Yes it's annoying that the taxi didn't see you but you still should have made sure it was safe and clear before you started your manoever.

The opinion of the witness as to blame is just that - opinion - they may confirm what the taxi driver himself said (that he didn't see you) but I believe the onus is on you to be sure it is safe and clear before reversing out. I take your point about the angle but I still think it will be decided that the fault will lie with the driver who reverses from a space into the path of an oncoming vehicle - even if the other driver's observations were indeed poor.

It's also relatively minor damage and the insurers won't want to get too involved in a dispute over liability.

I doubt your basic premium will be loaded much by one claim, especially as you have protected bonus.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 14:08
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Sussex Winter
I appreciate your thoughts but if you can be regarded as faultless after cutting off corners, driving on the wrong side of the road and not watching ahead then things need changing.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 16:57
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - RT
I appreciate your thoughts but if you can be regarded as faultless after cutting off corners, driving on the wrong side of the road and not watching ahead then things need changing.

No-one has suggested the taxi-driver is blameless - it seems quite clear to everyone else that both you and the taxi-driver were at fault - as indeed most accidents are with no one driver 100% responsible.

So whether you were 30%, 10% or 1% to blame is immaterial, let the insurers argue.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 09:16
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Andrew-T

My drivers side rear hit her passenger side front. the whole of her car should have been visable in my mirror, but when i looked she want there.

This is at least partly due to the current design trend of raised vehicle waistlines, thereby reducing window area and limiting visibility, especially rearwards. In my opinion styling should come second to driving safety, but little chance of that here I suspect.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 19:39
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - dacouch

I'd wager very good money the taxi driver will find one or more witnesses to act for him.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 20:49
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - Sussex Winter
He could barely speak English so I doubt it, but I know what you mean.

Edited by Sussex Winter on 24/01/2014 at 20:50

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 21:18
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - dacouch

That will not stop a taxi driver finding a witness

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 24 Jan 2014 23:14
Mercedes CLS - Reversing car incident (illustration included) - bathtub tom

That will not stop a taxi driver finding a witness

I dare say it'll be definite proof he'll find many.

Edited by Avant on 25/01/2014 at 14:15

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

We give you the low down on how to save on insurance, little-known tricks and tips, what insurance groups mean and how to use insurance aggregators to beat insurers.

Insurance group finder and how to save on insurance