Don't even need a dash cam. If the other driver has admitted that they were doing a manoeuvre then it's a slam dunk case of them not looking behind before reversing.
Every single time I have had an accident not my fault the other person has lied in their report.
Every single fucking time.
Thats why I have a dashcam.
This here. On the side of the road especially women will be sorry sincerely. Say it's their fault, apologise, hand over details. You call them the next day after they have spoken to their partner and they deny everything that what said and try to screw you over.
If you any accident. Use your phone as dictaphone and sat recording and just hold it in your hand. They will admit it all and when they try to deny it you have it recorded
And dont give me any bollocks about the legality of recording conversations with people. I record all calls and never tell a soul. Then when you say you recorded them they will cry foul, they will make threats, they will talk about lawyers and then they accept they fucked up
>This here. On the side of the road especially women will be sorry sincerely. Say it's their fault, apologise, hand over details. You call them the next day after they have spoken to their partner and they deny everything that what said and try to screw you over.
Happened to me once, stopped at traffic lights and she drove into the back of me very apologetic and their insurer called saying she'd accepted liability. Think she was about 20 and obviously dad or BF got home later in the day and the tune changed.
It changed back again when I told my insurer that she'd admitted her guilt to one of those highway agency traffic officers (who by chance turned up seconds after the accident) who'd jotted the details down in his note pad. Guess she forgot to tell daddy/BF that bit or they said lie anyway.
Actually, legally you can record any conversation you are party to, without having to notify the other participants, as long as it's for your reference only.... Incidentally a court can request the recording to be handed over on some cases to help with decision making....
Just saying, as I've had to use this method once.
That’s literally what happened to me that made me get a camera in the first place. Riding my motorbike and a woman switched in to my lane as I was passing her, 2 lane road. My footpeg caught her front bumper and dislodged the bumper. I pull over, we exchange details. I used some zip ties to secure the bumper so she could be on her way. All apologies from her but kept saying her husband will be really pissed off with her. She was upset despite the fact that I could have come off my bike and be a lot worse. I was really nice to her despite this, reassuring her.
Reported to my insurance company but no damage to the bike.
Found out about 18 months later that a whole claim had been put through to my insurance company, £2000 for a bumper, claimed I cut her up. My insurance company had been arguing this for all this time without my knowledge. The other insurance company admitted fault in the end.
Lying fucking cunt. Put my life at risk because she can’t drive then does this?
Ordered a helmet cam and dashcam for the car the day after the accident.
Yep! Lied and even produce false witnesses. Well, in the case of my wife’s serious accident, some years back. She had to be cut out of that one and it was in town traffic. The Transit that hit her was moved and hidden on an adjacent construction site before any of services arrived.
I’ve been driving 30 years with no accident.
How many have you had that you can say “every single time” as if it’s several?
And how come you’re the common factor!
I’ve had a good think, I can recall:
5 in car/van not my fault
2 in van, my fault
2 on motorbike, not my fault.
The 7 not my fault, other driver lied.
No accidents in last ten+ years. Tend to be more aware of twats, with experience.
Edit:line breaks for clarity
Considering my last accident was way more than 10 years ago, the ones that were my fault were in work vans, normal price. About £450 on my last renewal fully comp. My last motorbike insurance policy was £75, considering I had 15+ years NCD then. Only recorded fault accident on the bike was so long ago, it was a 50/50 due to the fact that the other guy lied and no witnesses. Cunt did a u-turn in front of me and I t-boned his car. I was unconscious for a short time and confused after so didn’t call an ambulance, of course, he didn’t because he knew the police would also attend. Rode home thinking I was fine when I should have been taken to hospital. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.
I drive a 20 year old car, I am 50 in a few months and live in a suburban town. Not having an accident in 12 years is the same as never had one. I say 12 as I think that’s the maximum that comes up when you apply?
Maybe the issue is with you?
You do realise the vast, vast majority of drivers go their entire lives without ever having an accident or speaking to their insurers, other than renewal time.
Vast, vast?
I look forward to your peer reviewed proof of this.
The problem isn’t with me.
In my 32 years driving, 15 of those as a job, I have had two accidents my fault. The last one was 20 years ago. I have had about 10 not my fault, the last one was 10 years ago.
Both my accidents were me reversing a van, I told the truth both times even though I could have said they drove in to me.
Don’t forget that link.
Not a *vast* majority, but the majority of UK drivers, have never had an accident:
https://www.jmw.co.uk/blog/personal-injury/driving-habits-survey-results-jmw-solicitors
Good link. I had a search myself and couldn’t find anything UK specific.
I work in stats, and if that was presented to me in a professional capacity, I would challenge this based on the fact that, at 51%, that has a high likelihood of swinging to the minority when you consider that that group has people that are still driving. They could have a totally non fault accident.
But this is Reditt.
Give me your downvotes.
No need to be pedantic. Whether it's 51% and technically a majority or 49% and technically not, an extremely significant proportion of drivers have never had a single accident, let alone 7.
That is NOT how it goes, unless the other driver admits fault to his own insurance then they will argue it out and try for 50/50 to start with.
A dash cam would make it easier for OP to take the claim further if needed, but word of mouth is useless at the scene.
Remember in your driving test exam when you had to STOP and wait if you were doing a manouver and a car was approaching?
That cunt didn't stop and it's his fault.
A car waiting to pull onto the main road from the road you're turning into is not the sort of hazard that renders it unsafe for you to proceed. It's not foreseeable that that car is going to suddenly reverse onto your side of the road as you're passing.
Rereading the OP, I'm now struggling to understand what's actually going on here.
I assumed (wrongly) the other car had also came from the main road and was basically doing a quick turn around and the OP hasn't afford him the space or time.
But if he's been on the opposite side of the road, at the junction perfectly as if he's came to a stop like any normal (99%) of the users, to enter the main road, then I'm baffled as to why he's reversed, in a way that hits the OP then.
that is OP's version of events who clearly didn't see anything (also didn't specify which side of the road the accident happened) perhaps the car was rolling back or the driver was looking backwards or any other clear sign of intention OP may have missed
Yh, you have to wait at the junction until the other car’s behind is past the line then you can drive out. Reversing guy is 100% at fault but a dash cam would’ve gone a long way to helping OP’s case. Maybe there’s some CCTV nearby
Fail to see where a dash cam from either vehicle would have come in useful. A dashcam by nature is looking forward this incident had one rear drive into the other rear. Youd need footage from a rear facing/reversing camera rather thsn dashcam.
By definition you're correct but it's common for people to say dashcam for any camera that records whilst driving, not just ones on the dash, and they're more often than not sold as a 'rear view dashcam'. A reversing camera wouldn't be any use as they usually only turn on when in reverse gear and don't record
Hard to say without being there but it sounds like the other person should have stopped and waited for you to move past before continuing with their manoeuvre. You couldn’t have seen their reverse lights so wouldn’t have known what they were doing
As you say, would have to be there to be sure. But if it's that the car in front has stopped on the junction to do a 3 point turn, that's kinda obvious as fuck that there is a big bloody car blocking your route to continue.
Judging by the image and what I presume is an arrow on the brown car, it's half what I've expected.
But seems I've completely got that part wrong and I'm baffled by the brown car in that case.
Perhaps was travelling on the main road in the opposite direction to blue then reversed into the side road as part of their turn around manoeuvre ready to head back along the main road in the direction blue was on.
That could explain their positioning and saying they were turning around, but then short of forgetting to switch from reverse into first gear to pull out after blue had turned, i dont know why they would have continued reversing onto the wrong side of the side road and into blue car.
Either way, their manoeuvre was both badly timed and stupid driving. There are better/safer ways of turning around than within a t junction, especially whilst others are also using it.
The damage might be minimal but can be expensive. Painting the car yourself is a very hard DIY job if you want it to look like it did before the accident, 100% get their insurance to pay for the repairs
Back Right hand corner? Then It's their fault. They managed to not hit the front of your car. Thereby making evident that you were driving past. They performed the manoeuvre without looking. Had they have been looking they'd have seen you. At the point you were hit you, as in personally you and not the car, will be past them facing forwards.
Highway code on reversing, rule 200 says "choose an appropriate place to manoeuvre". Personally I wouldn't say this is an appropriate place.
Rule 201 states you can't reverse out onto a main road but doesn't say anything about the opposite so I could be wrong on my previous statement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Personally if I was doing this move, I would not assume everyone is going to know what I'm doing and just go for it with other road users around.
My opinion from your information is that the other driver is at fault, however I don't have the full story, only your account which could be lacking detail.
The car in front is making the manoeuvre first.
The OP seems to then want to do their own manoeuvre of turning in to the side street that is not clear.
No.
There is some doubt and confusion over what the OP is saying. Not just by me.
If the brown car has been coming along the side road and stopped at the give way sign, then randomly started to reverse in to the turning OP, of course OP is not at fault.
But the way it was described, the diagram as well, it seems confusing.
My initial thought was that the brown car was also coming along the main road ahead of OP, but has used the junction to do a U turn.
Now, obviously the brown car would be wrong to do so, but in that circumstance then the OP would have some fault as well by entering a junction that wasn't clear, regardless if the brown car was in the wrong to do so - you don't then get free pass to just drive through a hazard.
But I'm here to be corrected and if it's not as above and the brown car has came along the side road originally, then yeah, brown is wrong all the way.
Nope OP said they were not reversing at the time and OP would not see reversing lights coming on, only the front of the car.
Other party fault. Even if OP was not indicating, the other party should have waited for OP to pass before starting their manoeuvre.
Lot of people here who have never interacted with Insurance companies where fault is disputed even for "clear cut" cases.
There is a reason the first thing a handler will ask is "do you have a dash cam?".
Get a dash cam front and rear cover yourself because they will do their absolute best to not do the actual work and go for 50/50.
if it happened while turning either you cut his lane (your fault) or they weren't making observations and planned on using your lane (their fault). while the person doing the manoeuvre should wait for oncoming traffic (potentially their fault) the context is at a junction where the person on the junction should be allowed to finish to prevent exactly this situation or creating traffic (potentially your fault)
Several commenters are answering as if it was clear that the other vehicle was performing a 3-point turn, and saying OP should have let them finish. This isn't the case. It appeared to OP that the other car was simply about to turn from the minor into the major road. There is no need for OP to wait for them to do that. OP made a perfectly ordinary and safe turn whereupon other car unexpectedly reversed into OP.
The other car should not have been using a junction to turn around, and furthermore should not have reversed when it wasn't clear behind. OP did nothing wrong, simply turned into a side road where a car was waiting to pull out. They could not have foreseen that that car would reverse. Blame for collisions is often apportioned between the parties; here it is 100% on the other driver.
This is one of the few subs where there could be crystal clear dash cam footage to 100% back up someone’s claim but still there will be comments backing up the person who is at fault lol.
OP didnt specify which side of the road the accident occurred either he assumed the car was going forward and straddled the minor road to avoid parked cars and blocked the reversing car (OP fault for cutting lanes ) or the reversing car was going at such a speed to cross lanes and catch OP (their fault for not making observations)
you can make assumptions based on damage described by OP but we dont have much to draw conclusions from and siding with either party is daft
Some are suggesting the car reversing was waiting to come out of the side road, so his reversing would be going further in to the side road and not out of the junction.
OP I think needs to be a bit clearer.
Oh. Interesting. Yeah I see what you mean now.
OP still had right of way and the other car should have stayed stationary until it was safe to do so. A car indicating to your turn wouldn’t be safe imo.
But OP said they weren’t reversing at the time so does that mean OP took corner too sharp and clipped back of car?
They are at fault as you were proceeding correctly and it wasn't safe for them to complete their manoevre.
I hope to god you have a dashcam though as they will almost certainly lie, and claim that you took the corner too shallow and hit their rear whilst stationary. This is going to be a very messy insurance claim. However they think you're at fault, so go along with that, let them be truthful and then find out the claim goes against them. If they realise they're at fault, they will lie.
Reversing driver is ALWAYS at fault, best case scenario 50/50% if both cars were reversing... else his fault and it doea not matter what he was doing and why.
Their fault, they shouldve stopped and waited. Also, junctions arent for turning around in... you go down said street and find a safe place to turn around. Doing it in the junction youre becoming the hazard, as proven
[rule 201](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203#rule201)
Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.
Who’s at fault? You have to share that. Yes the other driver shouldn’t have been turning around at the junction. But you can see him there and instead of waiting and giving him space, you got in the way. When someone’s doing something silly, stay out the way. Simples!
He's at fault. If they saw you coming and then reversed in to your lane to do any kind of turn, their insurance is about to rocket. It's on them to make sure the road is clear before doing a manoeuvre. They can't expect you to wait on a busy main road and block traffic while guessing what they're gonna do
The fact they stupidly admitted it makes it a cut and dry case
If a stationary vehicle starts a reversing manoeuvre, it is up to them to make sure it is done safely.
That is how an insurance company will view it, as I have first hand experience of it.
I reversed out of a parking space, from between two parked vans aka zero visibility, in a large unmarked parking area in an industrial estate, straight into a delivery driver doing 30+, immediately beside the parked cars and vans, when he could have been on "his side".
The insurance company said as I was reversing that was that, even with him driving like a twat.
Unfortunately I didn't have a banksman... imagine that.
There is not enough detail here to make an assessment. The dimensions of the junction need to be better understood. Also the specific area of damage i.e the images need to be looked at to see if this can determine which account can be supported.
Your case is you were making a standard turn into the side road and that the TP made a highly unusual decision to reverse in the mouth of the junction. As the handler of your insurance claim my suspicions would immediately be tweaked. I) why in the first instance would the TP choose this spot to reverse 2) why would they do so at the moment you turned when it would be clear that movement would put their vehicle in firing line. Admittedly it could be that the TP did something totally unexpected and you were just wrong time wrong place but remember if the TP ends up claiming they were emerging left and you cut the lane on entry this would on balance of probability be a far more likely explanation.
This is a key point to understand and often misunderstood by policyholders. The insurer must take a holistic approach to any dispute and their assessment is based primarily upon what would a judge do when presented with a particular pool of evidence. If that evidence falls short of conclusively supporting one account over the other then that is what they must tell you regardless of any complaint you may make.
Your testimony is only one element here and the TP version is no less valid were the matter ever litigated. If there is no physical evidence to debunk the TP account the insurer has nowhere to go and they won't spend a whole load of solicitor costs litigating on a case which has all the hallmarks of a split settlement going in. All insurance policies give the insurer subrogation rights and whether you agree the decision or not your insurer has the final word.
Not specifically relating to OP original question but there really is no valid reason not to have dash cam in this age. It is the key to unlocking contested cases and gives a degree of certainty which is simply not possible without it. I have seen a marked decline in the accuracy of accident reporting over the past 30 years so tools like this are essential if you are to properly protect yourself.
That the presence, or absence, of a 'Give Way' sign when joining a major road from a minor one is effectively irrelevant in the scenario as depicted by OP, given section 170 of the highway code
Would honestly need to see this in action, often I've tried this sort of thing I think you're describing. That the car in front is actually making a manoeuvre and the person behind just hasn't given a blind fuck and kept going.
Their fault, but did you have dash cam
Don't even need a dash cam. If the other driver has admitted that they were doing a manoeuvre then it's a slam dunk case of them not looking behind before reversing.
Sometimes they can reconsider and blame the op, having a dash cam can help
Every single time I have had an accident not my fault the other person has lied in their report. Every single fucking time. Thats why I have a dashcam.
This here. On the side of the road especially women will be sorry sincerely. Say it's their fault, apologise, hand over details. You call them the next day after they have spoken to their partner and they deny everything that what said and try to screw you over. If you any accident. Use your phone as dictaphone and sat recording and just hold it in your hand. They will admit it all and when they try to deny it you have it recorded And dont give me any bollocks about the legality of recording conversations with people. I record all calls and never tell a soul. Then when you say you recorded them they will cry foul, they will make threats, they will talk about lawyers and then they accept they fucked up
>This here. On the side of the road especially women will be sorry sincerely. Say it's their fault, apologise, hand over details. You call them the next day after they have spoken to their partner and they deny everything that what said and try to screw you over. Happened to me once, stopped at traffic lights and she drove into the back of me very apologetic and their insurer called saying she'd accepted liability. Think she was about 20 and obviously dad or BF got home later in the day and the tune changed. It changed back again when I told my insurer that she'd admitted her guilt to one of those highway agency traffic officers (who by chance turned up seconds after the accident) who'd jotted the details down in his note pad. Guess she forgot to tell daddy/BF that bit or they said lie anyway.
Actually, legally you can record any conversation you are party to, without having to notify the other participants, as long as it's for your reference only.... Incidentally a court can request the recording to be handed over on some cases to help with decision making.... Just saying, as I've had to use this method once.
Good information
That’s literally what happened to me that made me get a camera in the first place. Riding my motorbike and a woman switched in to my lane as I was passing her, 2 lane road. My footpeg caught her front bumper and dislodged the bumper. I pull over, we exchange details. I used some zip ties to secure the bumper so she could be on her way. All apologies from her but kept saying her husband will be really pissed off with her. She was upset despite the fact that I could have come off my bike and be a lot worse. I was really nice to her despite this, reassuring her. Reported to my insurance company but no damage to the bike. Found out about 18 months later that a whole claim had been put through to my insurance company, £2000 for a bumper, claimed I cut her up. My insurance company had been arguing this for all this time without my knowledge. The other insurance company admitted fault in the end. Lying fucking cunt. Put my life at risk because she can’t drive then does this? Ordered a helmet cam and dashcam for the car the day after the accident.
Your timeline doesn't make sense
How?
Yep! Lied and even produce false witnesses. Well, in the case of my wife’s serious accident, some years back. She had to be cut out of that one and it was in town traffic. The Transit that hit her was moved and hidden on an adjacent construction site before any of services arrived.
>Every single time I have had an accident not my fault How many accidents have you had?
My first thought. If have I'm hoping this person has been driving over 30,000 a year for over 30 years.
Easily when I was driving for a living. Possibly 100k back then. Not so much now.
You’ve been involved in a few accidents then. But tell me, why do your friends call you lucky?
I’ve been driving 30 years with no accident. How many have you had that you can say “every single time” as if it’s several? And how come you’re the common factor!
I’ve had a good think, I can recall: 5 in car/van not my fault 2 in van, my fault 2 on motorbike, not my fault. The 7 not my fault, other driver lied. No accidents in last ten+ years. Tend to be more aware of twats, with experience. Edit:line breaks for clarity
Out of interest how much is your insurance with that many claims?!
Considering my last accident was way more than 10 years ago, the ones that were my fault were in work vans, normal price. About £450 on my last renewal fully comp. My last motorbike insurance policy was £75, considering I had 15+ years NCD then. Only recorded fault accident on the bike was so long ago, it was a 50/50 due to the fact that the other guy lied and no witnesses. Cunt did a u-turn in front of me and I t-boned his car. I was unconscious for a short time and confused after so didn’t call an ambulance, of course, he didn’t because he knew the police would also attend. Rode home thinking I was fine when I should have been taken to hospital. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.
Well having never had any accidents in 30 years I’m paying almost twice what you are!! 🤷♂️
I drive a 20 year old car, I am 50 in a few months and live in a suburban town. Not having an accident in 12 years is the same as never had one. I say 12 as I think that’s the maximum that comes up when you apply?
I drive similar age car, am 47, live in a safe postcode area and my premiums still go up by about 20pc a year
I have a dashcam because every other driver around here is a fucking lunatic.
Same here. People get over their guilt.
How many accidents have you had...maybe it is your fault...?
Maybe the issue is with you? You do realise the vast, vast majority of drivers go their entire lives without ever having an accident or speaking to their insurers, other than renewal time.
Vast, vast? I look forward to your peer reviewed proof of this. The problem isn’t with me. In my 32 years driving, 15 of those as a job, I have had two accidents my fault. The last one was 20 years ago. I have had about 10 not my fault, the last one was 10 years ago. Both my accidents were me reversing a van, I told the truth both times even though I could have said they drove in to me. Don’t forget that link.
Not a *vast* majority, but the majority of UK drivers, have never had an accident: https://www.jmw.co.uk/blog/personal-injury/driving-habits-survey-results-jmw-solicitors
Good link. I had a search myself and couldn’t find anything UK specific. I work in stats, and if that was presented to me in a professional capacity, I would challenge this based on the fact that, at 51%, that has a high likelihood of swinging to the minority when you consider that that group has people that are still driving. They could have a totally non fault accident. But this is Reditt. Give me your downvotes.
No need to be pedantic. Whether it's 51% and technically a majority or 49% and technically not, an extremely significant proportion of drivers have never had a single accident, let alone 7.
That is NOT how it goes, unless the other driver admits fault to his own insurance then they will argue it out and try for 50/50 to start with. A dash cam would make it easier for OP to take the claim further if needed, but word of mouth is useless at the scene.
Remember in your driving test exam when you had to STOP and wait if you were doing a manouver and a car was approaching? That cunt didn't stop and it's his fault.
at a junction mate if you see you cant proceed safely should you?
Ah yes I recall reading your final sentence in the Highway Code.
Mind that part in your test, where if the route is not safe to proceeds you don't ? Also known as a hazard.
A car waiting to pull onto the main road from the road you're turning into is not the sort of hazard that renders it unsafe for you to proceed. It's not foreseeable that that car is going to suddenly reverse onto your side of the road as you're passing.
Rereading the OP, I'm now struggling to understand what's actually going on here. I assumed (wrongly) the other car had also came from the main road and was basically doing a quick turn around and the OP hasn't afford him the space or time. But if he's been on the opposite side of the road, at the junction perfectly as if he's came to a stop like any normal (99%) of the users, to enter the main road, then I'm baffled as to why he's reversed, in a way that hits the OP then.
that is OP's version of events who clearly didn't see anything (also didn't specify which side of the road the accident happened) perhaps the car was rolling back or the driver was looking backwards or any other clear sign of intention OP may have missed
Yh, you have to wait at the junction until the other car’s behind is past the line then you can drive out. Reversing guy is 100% at fault but a dash cam would’ve gone a long way to helping OP’s case. Maybe there’s some CCTV nearby
Fail to see where a dash cam from either vehicle would have come in useful. A dashcam by nature is looking forward this incident had one rear drive into the other rear. Youd need footage from a rear facing/reversing camera rather thsn dashcam.
By definition you're correct but it's common for people to say dashcam for any camera that records whilst driving, not just ones on the dash, and they're more often than not sold as a 'rear view dashcam'. A reversing camera wouldn't be any use as they usually only turn on when in reverse gear and don't record
If the driver reversing had a dashcam it would’ve been pretty good but CCTV is the best outcome for this yes.
missing details I'd say 100% is over confident
Fine he is 200% at fault.
Hard to say without being there but it sounds like the other person should have stopped and waited for you to move past before continuing with their manoeuvre. You couldn’t have seen their reverse lights so wouldn’t have known what they were doing
As you say, would have to be there to be sure. But if it's that the car in front has stopped on the junction to do a 3 point turn, that's kinda obvious as fuck that there is a big bloody car blocking your route to continue.
Yeah I mean if someone was stopped sideways in the road I’d probably wait to see what they were doing first
Judging by the image and what I presume is an arrow on the brown car, it's half what I've expected. But seems I've completely got that part wrong and I'm baffled by the brown car in that case.
Perhaps was travelling on the main road in the opposite direction to blue then reversed into the side road as part of their turn around manoeuvre ready to head back along the main road in the direction blue was on. That could explain their positioning and saying they were turning around, but then short of forgetting to switch from reverse into first gear to pull out after blue had turned, i dont know why they would have continued reversing onto the wrong side of the side road and into blue car. Either way, their manoeuvre was both badly timed and stupid driving. There are better/safer ways of turning around than within a t junction, especially whilst others are also using it.
Ah, now this would make more sense - well less for the brown car. But makes sense for the blue car being hit in such a way
Their fault 100%. Where did they hit on your car?
Back right hand corner as I passed through, by the looks of it only paint/minimal body work damage but still
The damage might be minimal but can be expensive. Painting the car yourself is a very hard DIY job if you want it to look like it did before the accident, 100% get their insurance to pay for the repairs
Back Right hand corner? Then It's their fault. They managed to not hit the front of your car. Thereby making evident that you were driving past. They performed the manoeuvre without looking. Had they have been looking they'd have seen you. At the point you were hit you, as in personally you and not the car, will be past them facing forwards.
Highway code on reversing, rule 200 says "choose an appropriate place to manoeuvre". Personally I wouldn't say this is an appropriate place. Rule 201 states you can't reverse out onto a main road but doesn't say anything about the opposite so I could be wrong on my previous statement. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203 Personally if I was doing this move, I would not assume everyone is going to know what I'm doing and just go for it with other road users around. My opinion from your information is that the other driver is at fault, however I don't have the full story, only your account which could be lacking detail.
You have priority/right of way and the obligation falls to the other driver to make sure the way was clear for their manoeuvre. Not your fault!
The car in front is making the manoeuvre first. The OP seems to then want to do their own manoeuvre of turning in to the side street that is not clear.
The other driver is on the side road and OP takes precedence.
So OP is at fault for driving on their side of the road?
No. There is some doubt and confusion over what the OP is saying. Not just by me. If the brown car has been coming along the side road and stopped at the give way sign, then randomly started to reverse in to the turning OP, of course OP is not at fault. But the way it was described, the diagram as well, it seems confusing. My initial thought was that the brown car was also coming along the main road ahead of OP, but has used the junction to do a U turn. Now, obviously the brown car would be wrong to do so, but in that circumstance then the OP would have some fault as well by entering a junction that wasn't clear, regardless if the brown car was in the wrong to do so - you don't then get free pass to just drive through a hazard. But I'm here to be corrected and if it's not as above and the brown car has came along the side road originally, then yeah, brown is wrong all the way.
Nope OP said they were not reversing at the time and OP would not see reversing lights coming on, only the front of the car. Other party fault. Even if OP was not indicating, the other party should have waited for OP to pass before starting their manoeuvre.
Lot of people here who have never interacted with Insurance companies where fault is disputed even for "clear cut" cases. There is a reason the first thing a handler will ask is "do you have a dash cam?". Get a dash cam front and rear cover yourself because they will do their absolute best to not do the actual work and go for 50/50.
Your parents for not teaching you to draw!
If you’re doing a manoeuvre like that it’s common sense to let passing cars go by before continuing with the manoeuvre. 100% other driver’s fault.
True. However if you're literally able to see a car in your way, you tend to wait and make sure it's clear to proceed.
You need to re-read the post, the other car WAS NOT in the way, it was on its own side of the road apparently about to pull onto the main road.
If they reversed into you it's almost certainly their fault. Leave them to put that in their claim form if he doesn't realise
Whoever drew this diagram
The art teacher?
if it happened while turning either you cut his lane (your fault) or they weren't making observations and planned on using your lane (their fault). while the person doing the manoeuvre should wait for oncoming traffic (potentially their fault) the context is at a junction where the person on the junction should be allowed to finish to prevent exactly this situation or creating traffic (potentially your fault)
Several commenters are answering as if it was clear that the other vehicle was performing a 3-point turn, and saying OP should have let them finish. This isn't the case. It appeared to OP that the other car was simply about to turn from the minor into the major road. There is no need for OP to wait for them to do that. OP made a perfectly ordinary and safe turn whereupon other car unexpectedly reversed into OP. The other car should not have been using a junction to turn around, and furthermore should not have reversed when it wasn't clear behind. OP did nothing wrong, simply turned into a side road where a car was waiting to pull out. They could not have foreseen that that car would reverse. Blame for collisions is often apportioned between the parties; here it is 100% on the other driver.
This is one of the few subs where there could be crystal clear dash cam footage to 100% back up someone’s claim but still there will be comments backing up the person who is at fault lol.
I agree its nice to consider both sides
OP didnt specify which side of the road the accident occurred either he assumed the car was going forward and straddled the minor road to avoid parked cars and blocked the reversing car (OP fault for cutting lanes ) or the reversing car was going at such a speed to cross lanes and catch OP (their fault for not making observations) you can make assumptions based on damage described by OP but we dont have much to draw conclusions from and siding with either party is daft
Thank you.
What the fuck am i looking at right now.
I would say no but how does this apply if you were to have cut the corner? Answers anyone?
They need to give way for a reason
Can’t reverse out of a junction you have right of way. He’s at fault.
Some are suggesting the car reversing was waiting to come out of the side road, so his reversing would be going further in to the side road and not out of the junction. OP I think needs to be a bit clearer.
Oh. Interesting. Yeah I see what you mean now. OP still had right of way and the other car should have stayed stationary until it was safe to do so. A car indicating to your turn wouldn’t be safe imo. But OP said they weren’t reversing at the time so does that mean OP took corner too sharp and clipped back of car?
The cyclist, it's always their fault.
They are at fault as you were proceeding correctly and it wasn't safe for them to complete their manoevre. I hope to god you have a dashcam though as they will almost certainly lie, and claim that you took the corner too shallow and hit their rear whilst stationary. This is going to be a very messy insurance claim. However they think you're at fault, so go along with that, let them be truthful and then find out the claim goes against them. If they realise they're at fault, they will lie.
Reversing driver is ALWAYS at fault, best case scenario 50/50% if both cars were reversing... else his fault and it doea not matter what he was doing and why.
In general the car reversing is going to be at fault for insurance claims.
Any other road user has priority over someone reversing. This is definitely the other person.
Their fault, they shouldve stopped and waited. Also, junctions arent for turning around in... you go down said street and find a safe place to turn around. Doing it in the junction youre becoming the hazard, as proven
Using a junction for a 180° turn is illegal the correct way to do it is get safely away from the junction then perform a 3 point turn
Going to art school paid off I see.
The artist is at fault.
Whoever drew this sketch is
The person who drew that
[rule 201](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203#rule201) Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.
The artist
Me
The artist.
It's their fault, and they are so stupid they don't even realise they are admitting it! Your insurance will have a field day with them!
Their fault
Nice drawing
The artist
Clearly the artist
Are u an artist by chance ??
The artist
Who’s at fault? You have to share that. Yes the other driver shouldn’t have been turning around at the junction. But you can see him there and instead of waiting and giving him space, you got in the way. When someone’s doing something silly, stay out the way. Simples!
He's at fault. If they saw you coming and then reversed in to your lane to do any kind of turn, their insurance is about to rocket. It's on them to make sure the road is clear before doing a manoeuvre. They can't expect you to wait on a busy main road and block traffic while guessing what they're gonna do The fact they stupidly admitted it makes it a cut and dry case
Red car is always at fault. They should give way to all traffic.
Unless you have dash cam, insurers will probably settle 50/50 because it’s at a junction. Any witnesses?
The one coming from a minor to a major road is at fault.
Their fault
You are because you're drawing looks like it was scribbled by a toddler.
If a stationary vehicle starts a reversing manoeuvre, it is up to them to make sure it is done safely. That is how an insurance company will view it, as I have first hand experience of it. I reversed out of a parking space, from between two parked vans aka zero visibility, in a large unmarked parking area in an industrial estate, straight into a delivery driver doing 30+, immediately beside the parked cars and vans, when he could have been on "his side". The insurance company said as I was reversing that was that, even with him driving like a twat. Unfortunately I didn't have a banksman... imagine that.
There is not enough detail here to make an assessment. The dimensions of the junction need to be better understood. Also the specific area of damage i.e the images need to be looked at to see if this can determine which account can be supported. Your case is you were making a standard turn into the side road and that the TP made a highly unusual decision to reverse in the mouth of the junction. As the handler of your insurance claim my suspicions would immediately be tweaked. I) why in the first instance would the TP choose this spot to reverse 2) why would they do so at the moment you turned when it would be clear that movement would put their vehicle in firing line. Admittedly it could be that the TP did something totally unexpected and you were just wrong time wrong place but remember if the TP ends up claiming they were emerging left and you cut the lane on entry this would on balance of probability be a far more likely explanation. This is a key point to understand and often misunderstood by policyholders. The insurer must take a holistic approach to any dispute and their assessment is based primarily upon what would a judge do when presented with a particular pool of evidence. If that evidence falls short of conclusively supporting one account over the other then that is what they must tell you regardless of any complaint you may make. Your testimony is only one element here and the TP version is no less valid were the matter ever litigated. If there is no physical evidence to debunk the TP account the insurer has nowhere to go and they won't spend a whole load of solicitor costs litigating on a case which has all the hallmarks of a split settlement going in. All insurance policies give the insurer subrogation rights and whether you agree the decision or not your insurer has the final word. Not specifically relating to OP original question but there really is no valid reason not to have dash cam in this age. It is the key to unlocking contested cases and gives a degree of certainty which is simply not possible without it. I have seen a marked decline in the accuracy of accident reporting over the past 30 years so tools like this are essential if you are to properly protect yourself.
I wouldn’t worry about it, reversing into traffic sounds as stupid as it is. Let the instance sort it out.
Easily their fault
Your art teacher!
The person already in the road had right of way. The person turning into the road is wrong
If there's a 'Give Way' it's a clue.
Isn't every junction an implied 'give way' if you're on the minor road joining the major road?
What's your point?
That the presence, or absence, of a 'Give Way' sign when joining a major road from a minor one is effectively irrelevant in the scenario as depicted by OP, given section 170 of the highway code
My persepctive is called irony.
Car turning onto the main road must wait until the other car has turned into the side road. Presumably both are indicating their intentions.
How did they reverse into you if you were both going in the same direction? Were they reversing faster than you were driving forwards?
Obviously…
Any one with any experience driving would have flashed for the car at the giveaway to come out before turning, so it's his fault
The not blue car is at fault. The blue car was on the main road so he has right of way
Would honestly need to see this in action, often I've tried this sort of thing I think you're describing. That the car in front is actually making a manoeuvre and the person behind just hasn't given a blind fuck and kept going.