|Jump to: Bottom Last Post
Female, 18-29, Australia
|Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:43:05 PM|
It is the rear ender's fault UNLESS the car has it's reverse lights (not in every case though).
I spoke to a woman who couldn't get insurance on an incident where she had been reversing out of a nose-in 45 degree park, on a main street where all the parks are angled off the kerb, and she had just started to reverse out of her space, when another driver pulled straight into what they thought was an empty space but no, rear ended, back end totalled.
The insurance company claimed that because her reverse lights were on, she was not giving way to oncoming traffic.
An absolute crock though, the parks on that street slope away so it's so hard to see out into traffic before pulling out, coupled with how many 4x4s there are, you have to edge out slowly until you can see over the cars next to you. The other driver was a hasty douche.
Male, 18-29, Europe
|Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:15:25 PM|
"I could see the car before the blinding, and reversing or not, a crash in the back is the fault of the back car."
It's illegal to reverse on such a main road, surely?
Male, 30-39, Western US
|Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:07:24 PM|
If he couldn't see, he shouldn't have been driving that fast. and get some sun glasses.
Male, 30-39, Southern US
|Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:33:10 AM|
I could see the car before the blinding, and reversing or not, a crash in the back is the fault of the back car.
Male, 50-59, Europe
|Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:02:28 AM|
The video could be invaluable. The helmet in front was reversing.
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
|Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:46:55 AM|
Link: I Can See Clearly Now... [Gif] [Rate Link] - It's going to be a bright, bright, sunshiny day.