Car Accident in Parking Lot

LR3tha on 23/08/2017 - 14:13
Last edited 23/08/2017 - 14:58 by 1 other user

Hi Traffic/Insurance experts,

I need an advice on my car accident (last week) with a car in a parking lot.

I was about to do perpendicular (90 degree) parking in one way single lane car park area. The parking spot on my right side. I already had my right blinker on, moved to the 30 degree angle position and ready to reverse back when suddenly the car behind move forward and hit the left front wheel of my car. There's no damages on my car but the other car who hit me got some damages in the right front part.

At first the other driver claimed I did not turn my blinker on. After I showed it to him then he said I stopped suddenly and I didn't check my blind spot. To cut the story short, he claimed through his insurance and said I reversed and hit him. As there're 2 different stories, my insurance asked me to prepare a diagram and explanation on the accident.

  1. Since I already initiated my intention to do reverse park and my car already in angle position before he came up and hit my car, is the other driver at fault? Not to mention that it's a single lane car park and the other driver seems like want to overtake me.

  2. Lots of people said likely the insurance will say 50/50 fault. My car is fine, no damages at all as the driver hit the wheel. So if that's the case do I still need to pay for my excess?

  3. Are there any road rules/law that the other driver ignored that may be applied on my case?

Thank you

Automotive

Comments

  • ThithLord on 23/08/2017 - 14:23
    +1

    If you have no damage you will likely have a strong case - the other party is gonna struggle to explain how you managed to damage his vehicle with your wheel, and not, say, your rear bumper. Draw the diagram, show your insurance the minimal/no damage. You'll be fine.

  • oscargamer on 23/08/2017 - 14:58

    just download your dashcam footage.

    what? you haven't got one?

    oh……

    any cctv footage? or independent witnesses?

    • bobbified on 23/08/2017 - 15:08

      well, OP said that: "… I did not turn my blinker on. After I showed it to him.."

      There must've been something to show. I'm not sure what else there could be other than a video so maybe there is a dashcam somewhere.

      • whooah1979 on 23/08/2017 - 19:06
        +2

        well, OP said that: "… I did not turn my blinker on. After I showed it to him.

        this must be a new type of dashcam. we got 3ch and none of them can record the exterior indicators.

        • bobbified on 23/08/2017 - 23:44

          Well, had to think about how the OP could've showed that the indicator was on.
          It might sound unusual, but I didn't want to discount the possibility that someone had (incorrectly) mounted a forward-facing cam on the interior ceiling far enough back that it captures the dashboard indicator lights as well (not the exterior indicators).

    • R3tha on 23/08/2017 - 17:56

      Unfortunately, I dont have dash cam nor that I remember to find witnesses since this is my first accident experience. There should be a cctv in that area but are we able to ask it to the parking management or the insurance that can do that?

      • oscargamer on 23/08/2017 - 18:36

        of course not

        <shrug shoulders emoticon>

  • Baysew on 23/08/2017 - 15:01

    Probably doesn't matter what we think. More important is, how your insurance company sees it.

  • apple2016 on 23/08/2017 - 15:03

    If your insurance does not end up paying you or the other person you will not need to pay excess and you no claim status should be intact.
    You could have taken some pics as it was parking lot.

  • sparkles on 23/08/2017 - 16:11
    -8

    Is it just me or are people who want to reverse into car parks for no apparent reason a huge annoyance? They hold up the traffic, the generally don't indicate what they plan to do, they sometimes have to have multiple tries. It's usually 4WD's. What do they do this? It's just painful all round.

    • Banana on 23/08/2017 - 16:17
      -1

      It's safer to get out(but obviously not in this case). I find it easier to do too.

      Yes sometimes it takes a few tries and some drivers don't indicate, but so is head-in parking. Not to mention it is dangerous to reverse out.

      At the end of the day, accidents happen.

    • Third_Gear on 23/08/2017 - 17:02
      +7

      I reverse in all the time. Faster to reverse into a car space than reverse out into parking lot traffic. I do it first shot because I know how to drive my vehicle but the same people who need to do it in multiple goes to park need to use the same amount of time to reverse out.

    • rompastompa on 23/08/2017 - 23:53

      It is much safer to reverse park. Think about how much visibility you have when you're parking, compared to reversing out of a parking spot.

    • Ryanek on 24/08/2017 - 10:40

      I would argue that a car parked nose first would spend just as much time reversing out of the car park.

      • Ughhh on 24/08/2017 - 10:57
        -1

        If it's one of those busy days where it's hard to find a park, as soon as you put your reverse lights on, cars will stop and give way to you.

    • bobbified on 24/08/2017 - 12:08

      For the people that actually know how to reverse park, it's much easier and faster to reverse into a spot than trying to drive straight into it.

      Often, the turning circle is so tight that's impossible to go directly in the first go.

      This is especially true for places like Melbourne CBD where the parking spots in the middle of the road are perpendicular to roadway and you have to wait in the lane closest to the parking spot.

      Like this:
      https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.8136325,144.9683843,3a,7…

      • endotherm on 24/08/2017 - 19:01

        Except that is not allowed by law: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…. I wonder why they would go to the trouble of making that a law? Must have something to do with the impact on other traffic and interrupting the free flow of traffic!

        Think about it for a second — it is peak hour, 9am. Everyone is trying to get to work. It's bumper to bumper. Someone who lives at the side of the road decides to drive past his driveway after indicating left, then throws it into reverse and expects everyone to stop, get out of the way and wait for him to back it in. Aside from the fact everyone has moved up and there is no room to arbitrarily reverse on a road that is heavily committed to moving forward. Lots of pissed off drivers, the same ones couldn't care less if he drove head first into his driveway though.

        I find it amazing that there are so many people above that say reversing in to a bay is magically safe, but backing out is magically dangerous. Any argument supporting backing in applies equally to backing out. They are the same. The downside is that reverse parking tends to interfere with traffic more, which is why there are laws against it. Even reverse-diagonal parking was relatively rare and confined to one or two States, and only applied where there was more than one lane of traffic, due to the interruption it causes. It really doesn't matter how good a driver you are, because everyone I see doing it can't drive for s..t.

        • bobbified on 24/08/2017 - 21:37

          Except that is not allowed by law

          You're right about the centre road parking! I'm happy to about that I didn't actually know that it wasn't allowed. Learny something new today!

          Have you ever tried to drive forward into a single empty parking space in the centre of the road? I live just outside there and I have never ever seen anyone make it in into the space in one go driving forward. Everyone's had to reverse out once or twice to fit in properly. I would argue that that in and out holds up traffic more than a reverse park in one go.

          The only other option is to indicate and wait in the outer lane (closer to the footpath) - which if a cop wanted to be an@l, could potentially book you for double parking.

          I honestly don't know why they didn't make it 45 degree angled parking instead of perpendicular.

        • Ughhh on 24/08/2017 - 21:56
          +1

          @bobbified:

          Have you ever tried to drive forward into a single empty parking space in the centre of the road? I live just outside there and I have never ever seen anyone make it in into the space in one go driving forward. Everyone's had to reverse out once or twice to fit in properly. I would argue that that in and out holds up traffic more than a reverse park in one go.

          Wait, wtf. People in your area can't park while driving forward in one go, but can if reversing? Makes me a little worried since we drive forward more often than backwards…

        • endotherm on 25/08/2017 - 01:16
          +1

          @bobbified:

          Have you ever tried to drive forward into a single empty parking space in the centre of the road?

          All the time. I usually do it in one go, with a Ford Falcon sedan. The bays are admittedly tight, but if you swing wide a bit (left wheels on the dividing lane line should be enough) it can be done. Power steering works wonders here, you need to turn to full lock and drive straight in. Again a lot of lazy drivers out there, not many manual steered cars but they still turn by a maximum of 1/8th a turn of the wheel. Makes for a very wide arc. I admit even with the best laid plans, sometimes I get caught up with not enough room to complete the arc in one move, usually a parking meter base interferes with the wheel. Backing up no more than a foot/30cm is enough to get around the obstacle. That isn't a hazard to drivers at the back as you are already hanging out into the lane and obstructing them. Backing up to straighten up is allowed despite the previous legislation, which prevents you leaving by reversing, not straightening up.

          Making a right turn from the left lane isn't going to win you any friends from the Police or the public — you are holding up two whole lanes of traffic now! 45° parking means less vehicles can park in the same space, and have you thought about how to get out of there? You would be driving into oncoming traffic. Parallel center parking like Lonsdale Street would work better, but the trees might make it impractical.

        • bobbified on 25/08/2017 - 09:54

          @endotherm:

          The bays are admittedly tight, but if you swing wide a bit (left wheels on the dividing lane line should be enough) it can be done

          That's the thing - during something like a Saturday night when cars are all over the place, if you don't wait near the actual spot, someone else comes in from the other side. And if you wait too close, then there's not space to move forward to swing outwards.

          The base of the parking meter is the worst - they're so high that if you do a tight turn, there's a good chance of scraping the side of the car between the front and back wheel.

          That isn't a hazard to drivers at the back as you are already hanging out into the lane and obstructing them.

          Theoretically yes, however you get drivers who try to go around while you're trying to reverse out to adjust. What's worse is, when they do pull a move to go around, they only go halfway into the other lane so you can't expect the back to be clear. As soon as one person does that, the other drivers behind generally follow and you're left waiting half in and half out.

          which prevents you leaving by reversing

          There's really no reason why anyone would be trying to leave those spots by reversing. They've got the U-turnable breaks at the end of each block so that people can turn around.

          Making a right turn from the left lane isn't going to win you any friends from the Police or the public

          Agree with ya there!

          45° parking means less vehicles can park in the same space, and have you thought about how to get out of there? You would be driving into oncoming traffic

          They might lose a couple of spaces at either end and it'll mean that cars coming out into traffic will do a mini U-turn - which in Melbourne, is quite common. My opinion would be that it's safer/easier to go into the spot without having to reverse and then take a little bit longer to go out going forwards.

        • endotherm on 25/08/2017 - 14:14

          @bobbified:

          The bays are admittedly tight, but if you swing wide a bit (left wheels on the dividing lane line should be enough) it can be done

          That's the thing - during something like a Saturday night when cars are all over the place, if you don't wait near the actual spot, someone else comes in from the other side. And if you wait too close, then there's not space to move forward to swing outwards.

          But if the bay is empty, what are you waiting for? You will already be in and "own" the right lane, just favour the left side of your lane and make the turn. Stopping before the bay on either the left or right lane isn't going to reserve it for you. And there will always be someone that wants to fight you for the bay from the other side, even if you are already half-way in.

          That isn't a hazard to drivers at the back as you are already hanging out into the lane and obstructing them.

          Theoretically yes, however you get drivers who try to go around while you're trying to reverse out to adjust. What's worse is, when they do pull a move to go around, they only go halfway into the other lane so you can't expect the back to be clear. As soon as one person does that, the other drivers behind generally follow and you're left waiting half in and half out.

          You only need a few centimeters. Once the wheel (on full right lock) hits the kerb, Back up and go to full left lock over a a few centimeters, just enough until clear of the kerb. Steer the other way and the car has magically sidestepped the obstruction. If the traffic is driving that close to the parked cars, you have other things to worry about! Plus, I'm talking about parking a big car here, where half of it is still overhanging the lane, so not too many people are going to squeeze by. In a little car, it's a no-brainer to swing into a bay in one go without hitting the kerb.

          … which prevents you leaving by reversing

          There's really no reason why anyone would be trying to leave those spots by reversing. They've got the U-turnable breaks at the end of each block so that people can turn around.

          I was referring to the law prohibits you leaving by reversing out of the bay. Backing up within the bay is allowed.

          45° parking means less vehicles can park in the same space, and have you thought about how to get out of there? You would be driving into oncoming traffic

          They might lose a couple of spaces at either end and it'll mean that cars coming out into traffic will do a mini U-turn - which in Melbourne, is quite common. My opinion would be that it's safer/easier to go into the spot without having to reverse and then take a little bit longer to go out going forwards.

          45° parking will let two cars park in the space where three 90° bays are. It has the advantage of widening the lanes a bit, as the bays don't need to be so deep, but do you really want to give away 1/3 of the parking allocation? Plus how do you divide up a space where there are four bays between two trees?

          How does it become safer driving out the other side facing into oncoming traffic, and requiring you to do a 135° 'U' turn to head the right way? It would require at least both lanes clear to do a "u" turn.

    • Mad Max on 25/08/2017 - 22:38
      +1

      @sparkles

      Is it just me
      They hold up the traffic, the generally don't indicate what they plan to do, they sometimes have to have multiple tries. It's usually 4WD's

      I think it is just you.
      Most people can actually drive.
      You are probably generalising from your own poor driving skills.

  • bargainswarrior03 on 23/08/2017 - 16:49
    +4

    Hi OP, gonna try to give my advice in 2 parts
    - dealing with insurance
    - road rules (assuming this is NSW)

    dealing with insurance
    emphasis that you were already at an angle, signalling to reverse before the other car had already rocked up. maintain you were signalling and provide dash cam footage if you have it. maintain that even if you did not signal (which no one can prove if neither party has dashcam), how could the other driver have moved forward if you were already in an angled position

    road rules.
    given you were already in an angle when the driver rocked up i believe the driver has breached 2 rules (argue both)

    ROAD RULES 2014 - REG 140 No overtaking unless safe to do so (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/conso…)

    ROAD RULES 2014 - REG 141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle (ROAD RULES 2014 - REG 141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle)

    Have a read. I would argue that given this is a single direction car lot, and the other driver tried to drive forward, it was not safe for him to overtake you. I inserted reg 141 because it seems like the other driver would have tried to overtake from your left if you were proceeding into a car spot on your right.

    Furthermore, seeing as he is in the car from behind, and there was a hit. Any damage would be his fault unless there is any camera image to show otherwise. Emphasis this when you speak to insurance

    • R3tha on 23/08/2017 - 17:58

      Thanks for the advice. I'll include this on my explanation to the insurance.

  • [Deactivated] on 23/08/2017 - 17:48
    +3

    When reversing you have to take care.

    As you were reversing trust me you were in the wrong.

    • R3tha on 23/08/2017 - 18:02

      I have not even started to reverse yet. My position already on angle, put into the reverse gear and my wheel into turning position ready to reverse.

      • Ughhh on 23/08/2017 - 18:55
        +3

        If your car was stationary when the collision occurred, make sure you make that very clear in your description to the insurance. That key point might be the thing that will save you.

  • jsb on 23/08/2017 - 18:24

    As per rule you have to maintain a safe distance. He didn't. His claim of sudden stop is automatically invalid. if he claims you hit his car while reversing. then you will also have some damage in your car, which you don't. as you explained, he hit your car on the left front tyre which i assume was already turned a bit outside because you started your turn. This will explain why you did not take any damage as your tyre blocked it. explain this logic and you should be fine. at the end of the day, he didnt maintain safe distance. You just have to explain that you didnt actually reverse and bump into him. cause if you did, there will be visible damage to t he rear of your car.

  • whooah1979 on 23/08/2017 - 19:12

    Lots of people said likely the insurance will say 50/50 fault.

    no dashacam, no third party witness.

  • mbck on 23/08/2017 - 20:07

    Did op the pics of the incident? The reversing is an issue, however if his car is still in the car park space, then it is likely you've backed into him.

    If the other car is out of the car park space, then you can argue he has moved forwards into you.

    Just am extra detail to watch out for

  • endotherm on 23/08/2017 - 21:09

    OP's description is a little vague. I've seen similar things happen before — the car in front decides he's going to park on the right, so indicates and comes to a stop. Up until this point it looks to the car behind that the front car is about to continue to drive forward and turn right, but instead it comes to a complete stop. The rear car comes to a stop behind. Often this is unexpected if it is not at the end of a row/intersecting lane, and might end up close behind or up to a car length away. It is only at this point that the front car puts it into reverse and activates the reversing light. This is the first the car behind knows that the front car intends to reverse. Sometimes it is frightening as the rear car does not know if he is just going to reverse and smash straight into you even though you stopped (it has happened to me!). The front car then immediately starts reversing and turning, not giving the rear car any chance to do anything about it if they are stopped and too close. The front car has a singular purpose and they don't check behind and to the side as they reverse and turn, as they are concentrating on the parking bay and missing the parked cars either side of the bay. Unfortunately this swings the front of their car in a wide arc and into the other stopped car who has committed no offence.

    This scenario could completely apply to the OP's situation and is probably what happened from the other driver's perspective. It would have been very confusing — the OP indicated right but turned 30° left and stopped. Only then did the reverse lights operate. It is very unlikely that the OP's claim that the other car then moved forward and hit his wheel would happen. The lane is blocked, what driver would deliberately move forward and crash into the side of a parking vehicle that was reversing and still blocking their way? How could you see the other vehicle move when you are intent and concentrating behind your vehicle to reverse park, a complex maneuver, either with a turned head (likely to the right) looking backwards or wholly using the mirrors? A reversing driver still has to give way to other road users, and must not reverse if unsafe. If there is a car stopped only centimeters from you, then reversing is unsafe! People tend to reverse in quickly as technically they have passed the bay, and it could be taken by the car behind who chooses to drive in nose first.

    Some people say reverse parking is safer, but I don't believe so. Backing-in has the dangers I outlined above, and takes traffic behind by surprise, even if they are giving proper separation. Driving head-in is safer because you typically indicate (and stop to give way to oncoming vehicles if necessary) before driving into a bay in a more practiced maneuver. This takes no-one by surprise and doesn't get too close to other traffic. Driving out head-first is probably equal in safety to driving in head-first. When backing-out, your vehicle is showing brake lights and reverse lights, clearly indicating your intention before there is any movement. If it is clear behind you inch out and traffic can see you coming. You need to give way, and when you get to a point where the lane is choked and blocked, cross traffic will give you the courtesy of backing out and driving off, by necessity. Reasonably safe as long as you give way as required. Reverse parking just encourages you to floor it and take off in a hurry from the bay when you want to leave. I see lots of people do this. Either method is just as fast as the other in the long run.

    In this case, both insurance companies will argue their case from their perspective. It will probably end up with one word against the other if there is no other corroborating evidence. Each company will pay out their own insured. As the OP sustained no damage there will be no payment or excess. Not sure if they will treat it as a "claim" though, they are a law unto themselves.

    • whooah1979 on 24/08/2017 - 06:21

      Some people say reverse parking is safer, but I don't believe so.

      that hasn't been our past experiences as professional drivers. it has always been the case of, reverse in for quick egress.

      • endotherm on 24/08/2017 - 09:41

        Quick egress does not necessarily equate to safe. The point was driving forward = safer, reversing = riskier. As you do exactly the same amount of both moves regardless of whether you park nose-in or tail-in, there is no advantage or disadvantage to either method. Therefore one cannot be "safer" than the other. In my experience as a professional driver, there seems to be more scope for things to go wrong with the reverse-in method:

        • It is inconsiderate to traffic behind you.
        • Traffic behind has no idea what you are trying to do until you start doing it.
        • All traffic behind is inconvenienced — often there is no room or time to react to give room for the reverser, forcing everyone in line to reverse to make room.
        • Reversing is slower to clear the line of traffic. Sometimes there is additional back and forth straightening the car, interrupting traffic flow again.
        • There is more potential for conflict as one car reverses into a space while another car drives straight in.
        • When leaving, there is no warning that the car is about to take off and cut you off. This happens a lot because as you say quick egress is encouraged.

        On the other hand, driving straight-in is much quicker for most drivers, done in one move more accurately as you are using "front" wheel steering. When leaving, you are announcing your intention with brake lights, reverse lights and indicator. Other cars are able to see you and give you sufficient space as a result. You tend to wait until it is clear or someone has given way to you, slowly entering the traffic, then quickly egressing forward :)

        I've never been surprised by someone parking nose-first. I'm constantly shouting expletive laden abuse at idiots throwing their 4x4 SUV with black windows into reverse and barreling towards me. I have no f…ing idea what they are doing, or what they expect me to do, or if they are even aware of my presence.

    • R3tha on 24/08/2017 - 10:02

      Correct me if I'm wrong but the fact that it's a single lane car park the other driver should not be at the rear of the car in front of him. I wont say he deliberately move forward but the driver admitted that he did not see my right blinker on (even though I doubt he will disclose this to the insurance). It means he either drive to fast or to close or even distracted by something and not concentrating on the car in front of him. However, as what you said, it's my words against his words and sadly there're no witnesses nor dashcam. I just hope the insurance will ask a cctv footage of the parking area.

    • theya on 27/08/2017 - 23:12

      if you are driving a large car, eg a wagon/minivan etc.. and you're in a tight car park eg shopping centres and CBD, often your cars turning circle is too big to actually fit in a single move if you try to forward park, hence why i reverse park, because that means the my turning wheels are outside the parking bay allowing me to steer the rear of my car in to place, if i'm parking forwards, my front wheels are in the parking bay leaving me no room to turn them to make sure my back fits in.

      and for OP. i come to a complete stop with my blinker on BEFORE the parking space, then i put on my hazards and pull the front of my car forwards at an angle, that way it makes it much more obvious to the people behind me what im trying to do.

      • endotherm on 28/08/2017 - 00:29

        What you are describing is for longer vehicles, not because those cars have bad turning circles. Some shopping center bays aren't even long enough for station wagons some times, most certainly aren't made for commercial vehicles. If you are long enough for it to cause a problem, I submit the bay isn't going to be big enough for you to park in anyway. The problem occurs because the tracks of the wheels do not line up from the front to the back wheels when turning. This problem is present whether or not you reverse in or nose in, it's just that it occurs at the opposite end of the maneuver.

        In the case of a long vehicle nosing-in, the inner rear wheel will travel a much tighter arc than the front, bringing it closer to the parked car. When backing-in, you will have the wide arc on the front outer wheel, taking you onto the opposing lane if there is one, stopping traffic in both directions. When leaving, you are obliged to drive straight until your rear wheels align with the end of the parked cars. Only then can you turn, but that has already brought you into the other lane. On the other hand nose-in drivers can start turning their cars almost immediately, and should be able to confine the maneuver to one lane of traffic.

        While the sum total of the maneuvers are probably mathematically equal, the reverse-in method has the greatest tendency to inconvenience other road users — cutting off oncoming lanes, requiring the use of roadway behind you that someone else might have already claimed, etc. If there is nobody else around then I say go for it, park however you like. I just tend to drive considerately, even planning for the least inconvenience to everyone when it comes time to leave. There's nothing wrong with driving on the opposing lane (in the right circumstances) when driving a long vehicle, in fact truck drivers are taught to swing wide when entering a narrow street or driveway. Avoiding or minimising that move would be safer, especially when there is other traffic around.

        If it were such a great system and so advantageous, everyone would be doing it, don't you think? When you look around a car park, at least three quarters of the cars have driven nose-in. Why is that?

  • endotherm on 24/08/2017 - 10:23

    Where else should he be? In a car park everyone is going forward trying to find a parking spot. As long as he doesn't hit you and he takes care, he can get as close as he likes. It's generally a stop/start environment and everyone is trying to make the best use of the space to maneuver and park, so the normal road user separations don't apply. He has every right to be behind you and every right to pass as soon as it is clear. Unless he deliberately or negligently rammed your car, you are going to be out of luck. Even if you had your right blinker on, it does not give you any special rights to do anything, so it is immaterial whether or not he saw it. All he has to do is convince his insurer he did not ram your vehicle, and paint the picture that you failed to give way while reversing unsafely, which you are required to do, and seems more plausible to insurers. As there is no damage to your car, I wouldn't worry any further about it. All the responsibility is on him to chase it up and prove to the insurers his side of the story. That's not likely to happen, and it sounds like minor damage which is probably less than the excess, so the insurer isn't going to go hard to try and collect money from yours.

  • Baysew on 28/09/2017 - 09:54

    Any update on this?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join