Not the best way to start the day

[BrilloPad]

Its all to do with right of way. Doesn't matter if she was doing 100. She had the right of way so your fault.

You can force her to go via insurance - but wht not give her £100 not to go via insurance? Even with protected no claims your premium WILL go up. Recently someone tried mystery shoppers and found it to be the case.

[Mich the Tester]

The argument that "sometimes you just can't see" is all the more reason not to reverse off of your drive. It might not apply in this case, if you were already well into the road, but the highway code also says that you should reverse on to a drive and if your vision is obscured, get somebody to guide you.

If reversing onto his drive causes traffic hold ups and risks to others then it's a bit of a Catch 22; that's why people have to use common sense and a little bit of patience.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Its all to do with priority. Doesn't matter if she was doing 100. She had the priority so your fault.

FTFY.

[Mich the Tester]

FTFY.

I don't think priority or right of way are actually all that simple; you get right of way in some situations if it's safe to proceed; that's a proviso that applies in any situation. Plus, you don't actually get right of way automatically; others are supposed to give you right of way. If they don't give way, and you nevertheless continue where it isn't safe to do so, then you can still be held responsible.

[doodab]

I was always taught that traffic on the roads has priority over somebody performing a manoeuvre; if a car approaches you are supposed to stop and give way.

Obviously if she couldn't get past you at all then that's different, but you still should have stopped. She probably expected you to stop. That said, if it was me I wouldn't have proceeded and she may have been a bit daft to do so, but I'm not sure that shifts much liability on to her.

The argument that "sometimes you just can't see" is all the more reason not to reverse off of your drive. It might not apply in this case, if you were already well into the road, but the highway code also says that you should reverse on to a drive and if your vision is obscured, get somebody to guide you.

It says you should reverse on where possible, which I do. It frequently isn't possible due to the level.of.obstruction surrounding the dropped kerb. A ten point turn in busy traffic tends to cause an obstruction, and having some dickhead pull right up behind you beeping his horn doesn't make it easier.

[Mich the Tester]

I think we need a general removal of aggressive, impatient and arrogant dickheads from the roads.

[doodab]

Its all to do with right of way. Doesn't matter if she was doing 100. She had the right of way so your fault.

You can force her to go via insurance - but wht not give her £100 not to go via insurance? Even with protected no claims your premium WILL go up. Recently someone tried mystery shoppers and found it to be the case.

I don't care about the premium going up as I may well not live long enough to pay it again and it certainly won't go up by several hundred quid.

[mudskipper]

[NickFitz]

I was always taught that traffic on the roads has priority over somebody performing a manoeuvre; if a car approaches you are supposed to stop and give way.

Traffic on the road is also supposed to avoid driving into people performing manoeuvres, who may not have spotted them. It's called "due care and attention."

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I don't think priority or right of way are actually all that simple; you get right of way in some situations if it's safe to proceed; that's a proviso that applies in any situation. Plus, you don't actually get right of way automatically; others are supposed to give you right of way. If they don't give way, and you nevertheless continue where it isn't safe to do so, then you can still be held responsible.

As I said, it's about priority, not right of way which is largely irrelevant. You are supposed to give priority and if not giving priority leads to an accident I'd say the person who failed to give priority is going to be held to blame in most circumstances. The whole point of the highway code saying who has priority in situations of conflict is so people can make some reasonable assumptions about whether they can proceed safely or not. If nobody expected people at roundabouts to give priority to those already on the roundabout or to the right, for instance, nobody would ever get anywhere!