Thread: Who is at fault?

If no witnesses it's his word against hers. Sorry lady..... and if she reversed into him with witnesses - hope he got their numbers....

A very sticky situation really . If there was now witnesses then it could go on for ages and still get nowhere .

I always thought that it doesn't matter what the front car is doing if hit from behind in any form the behind car is at fault ?????? could be way wrong on this one

Originally Posted by muddydigger

Any vehicle in reverse must give way to all tarffic, if she engaged reverse as apossed to rolling back and hit him she is in the wrong.

Hmm interesting. She didn't roll back as in taking off with a manual type thing, but reverse lights came on and went hell for leather backwards.

Originally Posted by joel_nicholson

Hmm interesting. She didn't roll back as in taking off with a manual type thing, but reverse lights came on and went hell for leather backwards.

Idiot - had someone do this to me once - but they accepted responsibility. tell her to whistle for it....

Hey Joel,

I'm a copper in Melbourne. I can tell you straight out that if your mate was stopped behind her and she reversed into him then she is definately at fault. the offence is 'reverse when not safe'. It is in the Road Rules Victoria - Road Rule 296 (1). If he was definately not moving and she reversed into him, it's on her head man.

I notice that in other posts that people have suggested that your mate is in the wrong because he stopped to close, that is wrong.

If the women was moving and your mate was moving and she stopped and he hit her because he was to close to stop in time then he would be at fault. Either way, if there are no witnesses then i can not see how the insurance company can find your mate at fault anyway. If this was reported to police as it sounds then it would be written off as unable to determine who was at fault due to conflicting stories and no witnesess......

Let me know if I can be of any other help

Hucksta

Originally Posted by Hucksta

Hey Joel,

I'm a copper in Melbourne. I can tell you straight out that if your mate was stopped behind her and she reversed into him then she is definately at fault. the offence is 'reverse when not safe'. It is in the Road Rules Victoria - Road Rule 296 (1). If he was definately not moving and she reversed into him, it's on her head man.

I notice that in other posts that people have suggested that your mate is in the wrong because he stopped to close, that is wrong.

If the women was moving and your mate was moving and she stopped and he hit her because he was to close to stop in time then he would be at fault. Either way, if there are no witnesses then i can not see how the insurance company can find your mate at fault anyway. If this was reported to police as it sounds then it would be written off as unable to determine who was at fault due to conflicting stories and no witnesess......

Let me know if I can be of any other help

Hucksta

Howdy Hucksta , you da man ....... and it wasn't me doing the burnouts the other night ...... joking

Joel...

Further to my last, tell your mate to stand his ground, by the sounds of it her insurance company is just blowing hot wind mate, i cannot see how in any way they would be able to hold him responsible, his insurance company should be able to tell him that anyway, they need to get their act together.

Moral of the story, if any doubt as to fault ladies and gents, call the cops, at least we can make recommendations about fault and so forth. Could help you avoid this sort of headache later on......

remember, us police think you are all important and we like to help.......if you are lucky...

Hucksta

Originally Posted by wannalandy

Howdy Hucksta , you da man ....... and it wasn't me doing the burnouts the other night ...... joking

Hey Mick,

I'll take a tyre sample from ya.... ha ha ha


I keep my eye on all fender, disco, landy and rangie drivers.......

Only so I can see the haves and have nots.... (I'm in the have nots)...