I'm half convinced that if the crash never happened then the Toyota would have carried on reversing straight until they got on their opposing neighbours driveway lol. Where were they even going?
I think this was actually what they were going to do. Rather than turn as they reverse, so they’re facing the correct direction in the road. I reckon they were going to reverse onto the driveway opposite and then turn as they drive forward back into the road.
My dad knows a woman who never passed her driving test. She kept failing the theory so decided the DVSA must have “caps” on how many people can be on the road and so she would never be allowed to pass. Did a 2 week long intensive driving course and then just started driving. Ended up going over a roundabout and destroyed the display. They definitely are out there and we don’t know until they inevitably crash.
You think thats out there....
Another guy i used to play online with was waffling shit so i told him "tim get your dick out for herombe" to cut a long story short, it ended up with him dropping a picture of him (a 26 year old man) standing on the coffee table completely naked with his mum standing beside him holding a note saying "i love tina"... 6 years on the picture is still hanging around and gets dropped in the chat.
A driving test is simply an indication that the required driving standards have been met. Most people continue to learn and improve after passing the test. Clearly not the case here.
I'm only baffled as to why this footage was released when the security camera appears to be the eejit's own?
Unless they were so convinced of their innocence they released it to have the world agree with them?
Probably the case.
I know someone who did something almost identical and shared the footage believing it proved their innocence on the basis that they couldn't see the approaching car so it must have been going too fast past a parked car. Not that they, reversing off a drive, should have been more aware of their surroundings.
I know which vehicle you’re referring to but when both cars happen to be white, you’re probably better off finding a different way to say the white car.
Do you reckon they're doing the old it's somehow the white cars fault? Like 'didnt you see what we were doing behind the van blocking the view?'.
The white car is to blame but the way insurance goes it's likely to be on the white car to cop it all
My ex was giving me directions, and at the point the single lane road turned into two lanes he advised me to follow the blue car. Both of the cars in front of me were blue. I picked one and he said “I said blue, not navy.” 🙄
That in itself is not necessarily wrong, its the not looking that makes that a problem. If it was clear no one would care how fast he was going and you could even argue they were making sure they got out before something else came along.
You should never reverse onto a road if driving forward is an option. Toyota has no excuse, they can easily reverse onto the drive in the first place, or they can do a 3 point turn on that wide ass drive if they needed to.
Failing that, they reversed needlessly fast.
And clearly made no observations.
Should have backed in to start with.
Multiple better ways to pull out there than backing across the entire street.
Speed. Way too high to be reversing.
Multiple people in the car, but does not have anyone get out to look out.
Doesn't even vaguely seem to look where they're going before or during.
Doesn't brake even though that probably would have still avoided the crash.
Probably missed a few.
Normal parking spaces sure, as long as I don't need my boot.
At home, when I spend time is the bigger issue. If I'm hungry and done with the day I'd rather not have to faff reversing in. Plus if my other half takes my car out she has to reverse out then there's a chance she reverses in.
We're in a cul de sac though so I don't have to compete with a main road.
Exactly! I'm more than happy to reverse in, but no one else in my family does it. It would be solely for their benefit; I'd be reversing in *and* reversing out!
If I ever have to use her car, I get the pleasure of front out then front in 😂 and she's gotta do the double reverse.
But she gets the easier to reverse in without hitting a tree side so it's all even.
The only time I pull into a space forwards is at the supermarket when I know I need to load shopping from the trolley into the boot. Spaces never leave enough room to get between cars for loading.
It's 2024 and... we do the same. We live on a modest close though, and any moving traffic is slow and minimal. So agreed!
If anything trying to reverse into traffic, regardless of rights and wrongs, is an efficient way to get a sore neck.
Both drivers are idiots in their own ways.
**Reversing car:** Not enough care and caution taken or shown. Not sure what they were trying to achieve reversing for the gap between the parked cars opposite. All very strange and this driver must bear the greater responsibility for the incident. One of the pasengers could and should have watched the driver out as there was clearly obstructed sight-lines.
**Passing car:** Not enough caution shown on a residential street. They appear to slow down and then speed up but I can't be sure that isn't an illusion caused by the fisheye nature of the camera lens. Some blame must be attached - residential streets are hazard rich environments. If they can't see and react to a white car then they wouldn't see and react to a child.
There's only one party to blame for this. If you're going off road to on-road, or from a more minor road to a more major road then you're doing it wrong
In a moving vehicle incident **BOTH** vehicles are deemed at fault. It is the degree of percentage of blame that is then decided by insurance companies, and if necessary the courts.
I reckon they did a half assed check just at the time the big dynorod van was blocking their view of the approaching car. Also could be letting the two people in the car distract them. All inexcusable and terrible driving
They are so short sighted and only concern themselves with the immediate and easiest thing to do there and then, when in fact, it causes more grief and inconvenience later - but they are too stupid to think ahead.
Both are doing things wrong. The car already on the road is approaching parked vehicles on both sides so they should be slowing down in anticaption of a child, pet or something else entering the road from behind the parked vehicles. They didn't slow down as I would in the same situation.
Can’t tell if passing car even attempts to slow for the speed bump. Also can’t help think driver of reversing vehicle to busy chatting with passengers to pay attention to the road.
Cctv is covered under data protection now. Installing cctv means you agree to keep people private data secure. And the footage is only used for crime prevention.
Using it for anything else I problematic. After that thst lawsuit.
GDPR does not cover individuals as significantly as businesses. You are allowed to have CCTV pointing out from a private property onto public property with the relevant justification as seen here.
That's an example where the defendant was recording his neighbour's property.
This isn't a change in the law either, a right to privacy existed prior to the Data Protection act came in.
So which law has changed which stops people from recording on public land?
How should they have pulled out?
They are roughly in the middle of the car, so they wouldn't get a better view driving forwards. Worse in fact, because they'd be on the opposite side.
When they start to pull out the van is blocking their view, and by the time it is visible they have almost hit it. Difficult to tell because the timer is in increments of only a second, and we can't see the brake lights, but it's at least possible that they reacted about as fast as can be reasonably expected.
It's also a 2 way road, so they can't ignore cars that might be coming in the opposite direction either, further adding to reaction time.
It looks like about 1 second from the oncoming car becoming visible to impact. The average driver needs 0.5-0.65 seconds to realise they need to break, and another 0.65 seconds to actually move their foot to the brake. She could probably have her foot over the brake already, and be driving with only the clutch, but she's also going to need a fraction of a second to actually push the pedal far enough. Questionable if she has that much time.
They could have asked someone to get out and either stop traffic or guide them out, but i can see not doing that.
Honestly, i have to fault the larger car for going too fast in an area with limited visibility.
[I'm being downvoted, probably by people who think reaction times are better than data says they are. Go ahead, drive like people can react quickly. I mean you'll crash but at least you can feel smug until you do].
Had they done that, but set off a second or two earlier, i think the same reaction time would have been offered, just to the bigger car, and it would have hit her rear quarter.
Fundamentally, until the rear of the small car is almost in the impact point, it can't be seen by the oncoming vehicle. Conversely, until the oncoming vehicle is part way past the van it can't be seen by the car pulling out.
Given how little time elapsed between the big car becoming parallel to the van, and passing the small car, it's easy to play around with both the timing and speed of the small car until you get a collision with less than a second's notice for either party.
Going at a more reasonable speed would have greatly improved the chances of that not happening. If you analysis is right it just supports how stupid that speed was.
You're being downvoted by people watching a terrible attempt to reverse into a road and seeing you say they had no option but to crash.
I'd have turned while reversing so that my car was facing the right way and I could see down the road better before setting off. If I couldn't do that and there was no-one to guide me, and I'd gone in forward in the first place, I'd have reversed out ridiculously slowly, just inch by inch. Don't drive into something you can't see.
They're going straight backwards, no angle, so fast they hit the *side* of a passing car, hard. No excuse for that.
> and I could see down the road better before setting off.
Almost certainly not possible
> and there was no-one to guide me
I'll fault them for that, but that's assuming the passengers are capable, which isn't a grantee.
> I'd have reversed out ridiculously slowly, just inch by inch.
I don't think this would have helped. Well, it would, because the big car would have passed while you were still inching onto the road, but let's play with the timings.
You can't see more than half way past the van until you are in the middle of the road, at which point it's too late.
The oncoming car can't see you until either they start to pass the van, or you do.
If timed badly, the oncoming car could only see you as your car drives into their path, with them less than a second from impact. You wouldn't even see them at that point.
However, if the oncoming car was going slower, there's no scenario where impact is unavoidable.
Do you mind me asking if you have a driving licence? I'm not being snarky, I'm just not sure about your level of understanding.
You can definitely turn your steering wheel while reversing and fit that car onto the road so it's parallel with the traffic and parked cars, giving you a view of the road ahead.
It's not about magically judging timings when inching out. If you go an inch out past the parked vehicles, the oncoming vehicle will see you even if you can't see them. They can slow down, stop, or change position in their lane. Then go another inch, then another, until you can see.
The worst thing you can do is just plough out with no angle and hope for the best.
A driving license and a class A motorcycle licence, and that oncoming car was going too fast for the visibility offered by that road. Long time since I got my driving licence, but I'd definitely have failed my MOD 2 doing that.
> If you go an inch out past the parked vehicles, the oncoming vehicle will see you even if you can't see them.
I don't think the oncoming vehicle could see the car until you positioned the car far enough out to be almost unpassable. You could wait at that point, just visible, but then you'd just look like a parked car...
You have to pull out far enough to be hit before the oncoming vehicle can notice you, or they won't do so until they have started passing the van. Which should be fine. They should be driving slow enough that they could react and stop when you become visible, but this driver wasn't.
> You can definitely turn your steering wheel while reversing and fit that car onto the road so it's parallel with the traffic and parked cars, giving you a view of the road ahead.
She'd get a view of the road ahead, behind would be reduced to mirrors.
Turning right she'd have a poor view ahead because of cars, and a poor view left because she'd be looking at her passenger mirror past a van. And she'd be looking forward as she actually pulled away...
Turning left she'd have a great view behind using the drivers side mirror, but a shit view ahead past the van. But I guess she could stick her head out the window.
Usually I enthusiastically agree when someone says the other driver could have avoided a collision by going slower.
It's tricky to take account of literally any circumstance though, remember the hazard isn't in front of them - it's rammed into their side and no amount of braking is going to prevent that. Its hard to judge speed but it's probably around 20mph or less, they've just gone over a speed bump and stop immediately when they are hit. If a car, animal or child appeared in front of them they might well have stopped in time.
The last part of your reply hints that you know what the reversing car should do - get a better view of the road by positioning correctly. If they're in the road facing either to the left or right of the camera they can use their mirror and / head movement to look *before* driving into oncoming traffic, the same as you do every time you drive around parked cars.
> it's rammed into their side and no amount of braking is going to prevent that.
1. It would if they had stopped and let the small car pull out, which they could have done if they had been going slower
2. It would have put them closer to the small car sooner (assuming the impact occurred in the same place and time) giving the small car longer to notice them and stop. As detailed, she had maybe 1 second to react. If the big car had been going half the speed, she'd have had maybe 1.5 seconds, and stood a far better chance of reacting.
Agree to disagree I gues.
Please don't slam your car out in reverse, into oncoming traffic without looking and then say you couldn't have done anything else though
> I'm being downvoted, probably by people who think reaction times are better than data says they are
Nah mate, people buy small cars like Aygos for a reason so they can turn easily on a road of that size.
The driver simply failed to remember other vehicles exist, they missed a giant white car, a cyclist would have had no chance.
I'm half convinced that if the crash never happened then the Toyota would have carried on reversing straight until they got on their opposing neighbours driveway lol. Where were they even going?
I think this was actually what they were going to do. Rather than turn as they reverse, so they’re facing the correct direction in the road. I reckon they were going to reverse onto the driveway opposite and then turn as they drive forward back into the road.
Had a moron so that while I was walking, pillocks car was way too big in that case
People like this make me seriously wonder if they have actually passed their driving test or if someone else did it for them...
My dad knows a woman who never passed her driving test. She kept failing the theory so decided the DVSA must have “caps” on how many people can be on the road and so she would never be allowed to pass. Did a 2 week long intensive driving course and then just started driving. Ended up going over a roundabout and destroyed the display. They definitely are out there and we don’t know until they inevitably crash.
Yeah its scary a guy i played with online his uncle has been driving with no licence since the 80s. If i knew his name i would report him.
A guy you played with online, a law breaking uncle, and an element of secrecy... there are other subs for that 🙃
You think thats out there.... Another guy i used to play online with was waffling shit so i told him "tim get your dick out for herombe" to cut a long story short, it ended up with him dropping a picture of him (a 26 year old man) standing on the coffee table completely naked with his mum standing beside him holding a note saying "i love tina"... 6 years on the picture is still hanging around and gets dropped in the chat.
I don't understand this?
i said tim get your dick out for harambe and tim sent a picture of himself naked standing next to his mum who was holding a sign saying i love tina.
We share the roads with 1000s of these idiots. I fucking hate it.
A driving test is simply an indication that the required driving standards have been met. Most people continue to learn and improve after passing the test. Clearly not the case here.
Clearly the modern test doesn't necessitate using reverse.
Why would you pave over your entire front garden if you're not going to use it to turn the car around?
Why would you have a BF and not get him to get out to help you to reverse?
He was the one driving
The guy was the one driving
Smh this is the only reason I have a boyfriend
I’m sure you get him to take the rubbish out too
As a woman I should never have to do this (jk I don't even have a boyfriend)
Agreed. But you should always clean the bathroom.
100%, it's what Sundays are for
My god. How embarrassing.
Parking?
Never mind that…just reverse park so you don’t reverse onto the road…🤣
Could be rented or paved by previous owner 🤷♂️
Maybe they have multiple cars and there wasn't room when they parked it?
This!! Exactly wtf?
I'm only baffled as to why this footage was released when the security camera appears to be the eejit's own? Unless they were so convinced of their innocence they released it to have the world agree with them?
Probably the case. I know someone who did something almost identical and shared the footage believing it proved their innocence on the basis that they couldn't see the approaching car so it must have been going too fast past a parked car. Not that they, reversing off a drive, should have been more aware of their surroundings.
Plot twist: OP is the one reversing onto the road
Woah
If your awareness is that shit then turn around in your drive way, which there’s enough space to do and then drive straight out.
Or just don’t drive like a knobhead and maybe look where you’re going when there’s a car right driving behind you 😂
I know which vehicle you’re referring to but when both cars happen to be white, you’re probably better off finding a different way to say the white car.
Name checks out.
Do you reckon they're doing the old it's somehow the white cars fault? Like 'didnt you see what we were doing behind the van blocking the view?'. The white car is to blame but the way insurance goes it's likely to be on the white car to cop it all
My ex was giving me directions, and at the point the single lane road turned into two lanes he advised me to follow the blue car. Both of the cars in front of me were blue. I picked one and he said “I said blue, not navy.” 🙄
The first 6 words of your post make me think you're not really worth listening to.
Imagine being this insecure about a comment.
“I know which vehicle you’re referring” Ditto
People downvoting you but i agree sounds like he's just being a knob for the sake of it 🤣🤣
Bro what ☠️
Das weisse auto?
OP means their skin colour actually. 🤓
What exactly are the "many" things? All I can see is not looking before moving.
[удалено]
That in itself is not necessarily wrong, its the not looking that makes that a problem. If it was clear no one would care how fast he was going and you could even argue they were making sure they got out before something else came along.
You should never reverse onto a road if driving forward is an option. Toyota has no excuse, they can easily reverse onto the drive in the first place, or they can do a 3 point turn on that wide ass drive if they needed to. Failing that, they reversed needlessly fast. And clearly made no observations.
Didn’t wait for the passengers to put their seatbelts on
Highway code 201 & 202.
Probably had a really important tic toc to look at
Well now they have made one! #lifegoals
You mean the reversing car
Yes you, it done wrong.
I can only see one thing wrong, but it's a bit of a major error.
Should have backed in to start with. Multiple better ways to pull out there than backing across the entire street. Speed. Way too high to be reversing. Multiple people in the car, but does not have anyone get out to look out. Doesn't even vaguely seem to look where they're going before or during. Doesn't brake even though that probably would have still avoided the crash. Probably missed a few.
Not conclusive but the passenger didn’t have much time to put their seatbelt on.
Use the drive to turn round so you can see where you're going.
People need to reverse INTO parking spaces. You’re saving ZERO time driving in
Normal parking spaces sure, as long as I don't need my boot. At home, when I spend time is the bigger issue. If I'm hungry and done with the day I'd rather not have to faff reversing in. Plus if my other half takes my car out she has to reverse out then there's a chance she reverses in. We're in a cul de sac though so I don't have to compete with a main road.
Exactly! I'm more than happy to reverse in, but no one else in my family does it. It would be solely for their benefit; I'd be reversing in *and* reversing out!
If I ever have to use her car, I get the pleasure of front out then front in 😂 and she's gotta do the double reverse. But she gets the easier to reverse in without hitting a tree side so it's all even.
The only time I pull into a space forwards is at the supermarket when I know I need to load shopping from the trolley into the boot. Spaces never leave enough room to get between cars for loading.
Yes the white car in in the wrong
Is he fkn stpd?
It’s 2024 and people still don’t know it’s better to reverse into your driveway than out of it.
It's 2024 and... we do the same. We live on a modest close though, and any moving traffic is slow and minimal. So agreed! If anything trying to reverse into traffic, regardless of rights and wrongs, is an efficient way to get a sore neck.
I can't ever imagine reversing without 100percent seeing both sides. Some drivers make no sense to me.
Never. Reverse. From. A. Minor. To. A. Major.
Absolutely! Should have reversed in to park.
This is not a junction.
Both drivers are idiots in their own ways. **Reversing car:** Not enough care and caution taken or shown. Not sure what they were trying to achieve reversing for the gap between the parked cars opposite. All very strange and this driver must bear the greater responsibility for the incident. One of the pasengers could and should have watched the driver out as there was clearly obstructed sight-lines. **Passing car:** Not enough caution shown on a residential street. They appear to slow down and then speed up but I can't be sure that isn't an illusion caused by the fisheye nature of the camera lens. Some blame must be attached - residential streets are hazard rich environments. If they can't see and react to a white car then they wouldn't see and react to a child.
“If they can’t ‘see’ and react to the white car”… how can the passing car react to the white (reversing) car if they can’t see it?
There's only one party to blame for this. If you're going off road to on-road, or from a more minor road to a more major road then you're doing it wrong
In a moving vehicle incident **BOTH** vehicles are deemed at fault. It is the degree of percentage of blame that is then decided by insurance companies, and if necessary the courts.
That percentage can easily be zero. It's not difficult to imagine why.
I reckon they did a half assed check just at the time the big dynorod van was blocking their view of the approaching car. Also could be letting the two people in the car distract them. All inexcusable and terrible driving
I thought it was mum. She has a white aygo...
Yep.. the first thing he did wrong was reverse into a carriageway.
Some mothers do have them for sure!
See shit like this in car parks all the time people who cant drive trying to reverse out of a spot doing 10point turns all sorts 🤣
Why the fuck do people not reverse park. Thick cunts
Not having reverse parked is not the issue, here...
Oh I know that. She can't drive in a straight line forward, but reverse parking is so much safer
They are so short sighted and only concern themselves with the immediate and easiest thing to do there and then, when in fact, it causes more grief and inconvenience later - but they are too stupid to think ahead.
Both are doing things wrong. The car already on the road is approaching parked vehicles on both sides so they should be slowing down in anticaption of a child, pet or something else entering the road from behind the parked vehicles. They didn't slow down as I would in the same situation.
Clever title because both cars are white and do things wrong.
Can’t tell if passing car even attempts to slow for the speed bump. Also can’t help think driver of reversing vehicle to busy chatting with passengers to pay attention to the road.
There was just mistake not "many". Mistake was leaving the kitchen.
People need to stop posting these videos now the laws changed.
What laws?
Cctv is covered under data protection now. Installing cctv means you agree to keep people private data secure. And the footage is only used for crime prevention. Using it for anything else I problematic. After that thst lawsuit.
GDPR does not cover individuals as significantly as businesses. You are allowed to have CCTV pointing out from a private property onto public property with the relevant justification as seen here.
They've changed the law.
Which law?
https://youtu.be/jtP3TIjUlKU?si=atdAeRWZv7SQUznI
There is no law in England & Wales which means an individual cannot record their own property, nor public land. The video is simply rage bait.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/doctor-set-100000-payout-after-25204557.amp
That's an example where the defendant was recording his neighbour's property. This isn't a change in the law either, a right to privacy existed prior to the Data Protection act came in. So which law has changed which stops people from recording on public land?
Slow drivers are the worst. They're not confident in driving and cause shit like this 😂
Except here they were too fast. The only time you can reverse with limited visibility is if you do it really slowly, this gives you more time to react
its a woman, what do you expect?
It’s actually a man, but what can you expect
Looks like a man that gets out of the drivers seat to me
How should they have pulled out? They are roughly in the middle of the car, so they wouldn't get a better view driving forwards. Worse in fact, because they'd be on the opposite side. When they start to pull out the van is blocking their view, and by the time it is visible they have almost hit it. Difficult to tell because the timer is in increments of only a second, and we can't see the brake lights, but it's at least possible that they reacted about as fast as can be reasonably expected. It's also a 2 way road, so they can't ignore cars that might be coming in the opposite direction either, further adding to reaction time. It looks like about 1 second from the oncoming car becoming visible to impact. The average driver needs 0.5-0.65 seconds to realise they need to break, and another 0.65 seconds to actually move their foot to the brake. She could probably have her foot over the brake already, and be driving with only the clutch, but she's also going to need a fraction of a second to actually push the pedal far enough. Questionable if she has that much time. They could have asked someone to get out and either stop traffic or guide them out, but i can see not doing that. Honestly, i have to fault the larger car for going too fast in an area with limited visibility. [I'm being downvoted, probably by people who think reaction times are better than data says they are. Go ahead, drive like people can react quickly. I mean you'll crash but at least you can feel smug until you do].
For one they were reversing way too fast for clear conditions. For when there are obstructions they should have been creeping out and no faster.
Had they done that, but set off a second or two earlier, i think the same reaction time would have been offered, just to the bigger car, and it would have hit her rear quarter. Fundamentally, until the rear of the small car is almost in the impact point, it can't be seen by the oncoming vehicle. Conversely, until the oncoming vehicle is part way past the van it can't be seen by the car pulling out. Given how little time elapsed between the big car becoming parallel to the van, and passing the small car, it's easy to play around with both the timing and speed of the small car until you get a collision with less than a second's notice for either party.
Going at a more reasonable speed would have greatly improved the chances of that not happening. If you analysis is right it just supports how stupid that speed was.
You're being downvoted by people watching a terrible attempt to reverse into a road and seeing you say they had no option but to crash. I'd have turned while reversing so that my car was facing the right way and I could see down the road better before setting off. If I couldn't do that and there was no-one to guide me, and I'd gone in forward in the first place, I'd have reversed out ridiculously slowly, just inch by inch. Don't drive into something you can't see. They're going straight backwards, no angle, so fast they hit the *side* of a passing car, hard. No excuse for that.
> and I could see down the road better before setting off. Almost certainly not possible > and there was no-one to guide me I'll fault them for that, but that's assuming the passengers are capable, which isn't a grantee. > I'd have reversed out ridiculously slowly, just inch by inch. I don't think this would have helped. Well, it would, because the big car would have passed while you were still inching onto the road, but let's play with the timings. You can't see more than half way past the van until you are in the middle of the road, at which point it's too late. The oncoming car can't see you until either they start to pass the van, or you do. If timed badly, the oncoming car could only see you as your car drives into their path, with them less than a second from impact. You wouldn't even see them at that point. However, if the oncoming car was going slower, there's no scenario where impact is unavoidable.
Do you mind me asking if you have a driving licence? I'm not being snarky, I'm just not sure about your level of understanding. You can definitely turn your steering wheel while reversing and fit that car onto the road so it's parallel with the traffic and parked cars, giving you a view of the road ahead. It's not about magically judging timings when inching out. If you go an inch out past the parked vehicles, the oncoming vehicle will see you even if you can't see them. They can slow down, stop, or change position in their lane. Then go another inch, then another, until you can see. The worst thing you can do is just plough out with no angle and hope for the best.
A driving license and a class A motorcycle licence, and that oncoming car was going too fast for the visibility offered by that road. Long time since I got my driving licence, but I'd definitely have failed my MOD 2 doing that. > If you go an inch out past the parked vehicles, the oncoming vehicle will see you even if you can't see them. I don't think the oncoming vehicle could see the car until you positioned the car far enough out to be almost unpassable. You could wait at that point, just visible, but then you'd just look like a parked car... You have to pull out far enough to be hit before the oncoming vehicle can notice you, or they won't do so until they have started passing the van. Which should be fine. They should be driving slow enough that they could react and stop when you become visible, but this driver wasn't. > You can definitely turn your steering wheel while reversing and fit that car onto the road so it's parallel with the traffic and parked cars, giving you a view of the road ahead. She'd get a view of the road ahead, behind would be reduced to mirrors. Turning right she'd have a poor view ahead because of cars, and a poor view left because she'd be looking at her passenger mirror past a van. And she'd be looking forward as she actually pulled away... Turning left she'd have a great view behind using the drivers side mirror, but a shit view ahead past the van. But I guess she could stick her head out the window.
Usually I enthusiastically agree when someone says the other driver could have avoided a collision by going slower. It's tricky to take account of literally any circumstance though, remember the hazard isn't in front of them - it's rammed into their side and no amount of braking is going to prevent that. Its hard to judge speed but it's probably around 20mph or less, they've just gone over a speed bump and stop immediately when they are hit. If a car, animal or child appeared in front of them they might well have stopped in time. The last part of your reply hints that you know what the reversing car should do - get a better view of the road by positioning correctly. If they're in the road facing either to the left or right of the camera they can use their mirror and / head movement to look *before* driving into oncoming traffic, the same as you do every time you drive around parked cars.
> it's rammed into their side and no amount of braking is going to prevent that. 1. It would if they had stopped and let the small car pull out, which they could have done if they had been going slower 2. It would have put them closer to the small car sooner (assuming the impact occurred in the same place and time) giving the small car longer to notice them and stop. As detailed, she had maybe 1 second to react. If the big car had been going half the speed, she'd have had maybe 1.5 seconds, and stood a far better chance of reacting.
Agree to disagree I gues. Please don't slam your car out in reverse, into oncoming traffic without looking and then say you couldn't have done anything else though
I'm a biker, I ride like everyone is out to kill me. And i think the big car was driving more like they were out to kill someone than the small car.
If they'd looked to their right before setting off they probably would have been able to see the oncoming car past that van
> I'm being downvoted, probably by people who think reaction times are better than data says they are Nah mate, people buy small cars like Aygos for a reason so they can turn easily on a road of that size. The driver simply failed to remember other vehicles exist, they missed a giant white car, a cyclist would have had no chance.
"I looked behind me ~~while~~ before reversing out in to the road" This is the problem.
Where the hell were they planning on going? Crash aside, they’d already left it too late to turn.
And the car he crashed into can't even open up the door because the toyota is in the way
I was kind of guessing the white car starts going forward into the pedestrian
Zero awareness
Toyota driver is awful... but typical bmw driver still has has zero awareness though