Point of view re accident needed. Chime in!

[Cammsport 390]

Thought I'd pose the question in here as there's alot of sensible people who may have been in the same predicament. A couple of weeks ago we had a wee bump in the wagon. At the time our insurance broker was confident we weren't at fault. Until yesterday. They've changed their tune, read below.

I told them I was disappointed with the situation and I'd get back to them. Check out the CCTV footage below and tell me who's at fault. The van going past or the reversing wagon. Its a tough one because yes, I was the one backing out but I think they were going too fast for a parking lot.

 

[gjm 3258]

My experience in similar accidents (although anecdotal) is that the reversing party is almost invariably found to be at fault.

No excuse for the speed the van was moving at, and the van driver would have had a decent view of you and your movement, and should have acted accordingly. He was probably on his phone so not looking at the parked cars.

[B.M.W Ltd 950]

sh*t happens, I'd opt for the second option and move on

[Rubix 434]

Based on the footage, the reversing party is more at fault IMO. The van was likely exceeding the posted speed limit, yes, however that would be difficult to prove with only this footage.

Again based only on the angle of the camera, it looks like there would have been enough space between you and the blue car so as to not obscure your vision (and prevent you from seeing the van coming), and the van wasn't exactly driving right up close to the parked cars, you had plenty of space to inch out as opposed to reversing what looks like a good metre or so back.

In any case, it seems like a trivial incident, I don't feel the risk is worth taking to potentially be proven at fault and pay a higher excess - take the knock for knock deal.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Rubix

[qube 3570]

is it me or does it look like the van driver speed up to get right behind your car, slowed down as you were coming out then came to a complete stop as they took a hit? :S

[str8_6 275]

I’d be taking option 2 as well. 

20 minutes ago, B.M.W Ltd said:

sh*t happens, I'd opt for the second option and move on

 

[GorGasm 563]

100% option 2.

[Driftit 2078]

Typical man in a white van.  King of the roads.  Fastest and best handling vehicle ever.  Better stopping distance than a Caterham hence why they can follow you so close with precision.

Sadly option 2.

Next step.  Get yourself a Front and Rear facing set of dashcams.

[aja540i 1906]

Even if the van was exceeding the speed limit you are still not allowed to reverse into it, option 2 seems like a pretty good outcome considering.

[Cammsport 390]

21 minutes ago, aja540i said:

Even if the van was exceeding the speed limit you are still not allowed to reverse into it, option 2 seems like a pretty good outcome considering.

It's hard to give way to something when they've exceeded the posted speed limit. But yes, thanks to everyone for the advice. Will get back to them option 2 ?

[kwhelan 241]

it looks like a carpark? to me no such thing as a speed limit if thats the case, may be signs but thats not a legal thing,

reversing in the wrong, no if buts or whatever from a legal aspect same as nose to tail, its relevant why the person in front stops

[Mad_Max 231]

24 minutes ago, kwhelan said:

it looks like a carpark? to me no such thing as a speed limit if thats the case, may be signs but thats not a legal thing,

reversing in the wrong, no if buts or whatever from a legal aspect same as nose to tail, its relevant why the person in front stops

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, car park speed signs are actual legal limits.

When companies or local governments build them, they have to apply to the NZTA (or local governing body for roadways/motorways) for planning permission, once NZTA is involved and speed limits are included in their Traffic Management Plans (TMP's are required for local government consents), then the speed limits become a legal limit that is technically enforceable.

Few years spent working as a manager at Fulton Hogan, I had to sort a few plans out to comply with what NZTA wanted, which included speed limits.

[Cammsport 390]

An annoying aspect is how minimal the damage is, but still having to pay ?

Its burnt through the clear and damaged the edges of the diffuser so a simple buff won't "cut" it.

[Olaf 3317]

$100 of materials.  scotch brite, primer-surfacer, matched colour, U-Pol clear. Doesn't look like you'll need bumper flexible-filler.  It's the edge-blending that gets me; maybe your cool former landlord would give you a lesson?

In the mean time, Brakeleen (or thinners/prepsol etc) will make it a lot tidier.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Olaf

[M3AN 4016]

Well for $250 you can get it repaired professionally and that's less than the retail cost.

Unfortunately you're going to need to chalk this one up to experience, as AJ says you can't reverse into the van, regardless of its speed. It would be a different story if the van hit you but in this case you hit it and are at fault. Since you're at fault and they're offering a 50% discount I'd take option 2 and run.

But before doing so get explicit confirmation that the van driver has actually denied liability and it's not just a matter of the insurance company or your broker trying to be expedient.

After the claim is settled move insurance companies to one that will NEVER touch your premiums if you have a no-fault claim, that's BS.