would you walk behind a car with its reversing lights on?

[Slartybartfast]

well?
i was trying to reverse out of a car park, as you do, i ended up letting the car behind me reverse first, kept looking, then again start to reverse, only for people to be walking directly behind the car! of course i stopped but they walked and the woman looked back at me, while walking, for ages, glaring.!
and no i dont have eyes in the back of my head, and yes i do have reverse lights!

if you take the risk of walking behind a car with its reverse lights on, you are taking a risk imo, and you dont turn and glare angrily at the reversing driver.

glaring rhonda,
was it you

Legally, it's always the driver's fault if they hit a pedestrian

No, it's not. I've been hit by a car (who was only just starting to move thankfully) because I was being thick and looking at my phone instead of the road and the police said the driver was not at fault.

Under civil law, if a car hits a pedestrian, they can sue the driver. If it is partly the pedestrians fault, they will get less, but can still sue.
Criminal law involving the police is different.

Actually You're right Olga. I just looked this up!
In nearly all cases the driver is at fault hitting a pedestrian because they have a responsibility to drive with a duty of reasonable care.

However, if for example an adult jumped out immediately in front of a car driving within the speed limit then the pedestrian could be liable.

Yes in theory the pedestrian can be liable, in practice that is not what happens. No one is liable.

I obviously always stop for pedestrians but in a dark car park, where I'm halfway out of the space and people are strolling behind me from several different directions it's bloody hard to keep an eye on every angle. I HAVE to drive in as need to get the ramp down to let a wheelchair user out.
As a pedestrian I always stop if I see reverse lights, and wouldn't start walking again unless I'd made eye contact with the driver.

I feel YANBU because it's craziness to start walking behind a car with reversing lights on. I've already taught my sons not to do this, at 5 and 10, they know. Doesn't stop some people though.

I got glared and shouted at in a carpark once -- it was incredibly busy, very very full and people desperate to find a parking space - I found one and swung into it (forwards) only to find 2 pedestrians walking through that space instead of on the pedestrian walkways or going between cars. Of course it was their right of way, and of course I didn't hit them or do anything to them - but who the fuck does that? They must have known that cars would be desperate to get into that space, because everyone was.

I find some people's attitudes to carparks ridiculous - wandering all over the roads, letting their kids wander all over the roads - just because they can. They shouldn't, but they still do.

I just wish more car parks had decent footpaths - our local Tesco has just one down the middle of a massive car park, which ends abruptly, but loads of raised beds with bushes edging the parking places, which could have been footpaths. It’s very busy, with cars moving most of the time, so you have to choose between walking close behind the parked cars and walking in the middle of the roadway. Waitrose, on the other hand, has paths breaking up the blocks of parking spaces, so you have to walk behind far fewer cars to get to and from the store.

Every car park must have at least as many pedestrians as cars using it, and generally far more, but often the design doesn’t seem to reflect this.

before reversing check there are no pedestrians (particularly children), cyclists, other road users or obstructions in the road behind you.

Yes, but then when you're actually moving the pedestrians should stop and wait for you to finish the manoeuvre rather than walking into your path - that's common sense.....

In my case the pedestrian had walked past but obviously changed their mind walked back and crossed as I was making the manoeuvre. Obviously I was taking care and doing it slowly - as I always do!

She had right of way. You didn't.

She has right of way if she's there before the car, but once the car is moving she doesn't have the right to then put herself in the path & expect to still have that right of way - she wouldn't just step in front of you when you're driving down the street (hopefully) & this should be the same...

She wasn't in a supermarket car park

It was just an example, jeez

They appeared from nowhere? Well clearly they did not suddenly materialise from nowhere. So you simply had not seen them. Maybe they had been in your blind spot? But they were not to blame.

Not sure if this was directed at me, but for what reason would someone need to walk behind a car, then walk in the road, on the drivers side, when there is a pavement. And she didn't cross the road. She then went across the front of the car to walk on the pavement I was parked next to.

Not saying she was to blame for anything, just citing that pedestrians do some pretty stupid things sometimes.

I backed into another car in a car park a couple of years ago. Because she had driven past, then decided to reverse back down the one-way road to reverse into a space. I saw her pass me the first time and started backing out. V annoying as it was deemed my fault even though she changed direction down a one-way.

In practice..no one is liable

There have been cases where a pedestrian has emerged suddenly into the road and the pedestrian has been liable for damages to the car because it had been forced to swerve into something to avoid them.

In England? I am very surprised at that.

In Wells v Trinder [2002] (unreported) CA, a pedestrian ran out in front of a speeding motorist. The CA said that the failure of the driver to see the pedestrian until he was 10 metres away was “self-evidently negligent when she had been crossing the carriageway for some second before impact”.

In Eagle v Chambers (see above), Miss Eagle was struck whilst walking along (not across) a dual carriageway in a "distressed and emotional state". The court emphasised the high burden that was on drivers, to reflect the fact that the car was potentially a dangerous weapon. Car drivers, said LJ Hale, had to be on the lookout for pedestrians in the road.
In Goddard & Walker v Greenwood [2003] RTR 10, the CA found a pedestrian liable for 80% of his injuries for crossing with the lights against them. The CA said that the fact that the lights were green (in the car driver’s favour) was not an absolute use of reasonable care – in other words, just because the crossing lights are green does not obviate the need to keep a close look out.
In Lightfoot v Go-Ahead [2011] EWHC 11 (QB) a drunken pedestrian stepped out into the path of a bus on a dark country lane, to flag it down. The Judge held that if a claimant acted in a careless way by reason of his having consumed alcohol, that careless conduct could give rise to an allegation of contributory negligence. However, he noted that it was important to distinguish that from the mere fact of his being under the influence of alcohol. It was necessary to look at the claimant’s act of walking into the carriageway rather than the drunken state in which it had been done.

soupdragon Don't be stupid.

I’m not the one who drives and claimed not to know what reversing lights are.

Well, it would have to be a rather heartless legal system to blame a pedestrian for getting run over and thus charge them for the damage to the car as well as allowing them no compensation for their injuries. Although if you were trying to commit suicide and failed...

There is more often than not fault on both sides when accidents happen. And when accidents are avoided, it does not reflect well on anyone to rile others by staring at them in a passive aggressive fashion in a pathetic attempt to shame them into thinking the near accident is all their fault, when that is unlikely to be the case.

Exactly roundabout, it was unnecessary

And antagonist

I wouldn't but I would expect a driver in a car park to let pedestrians past before reversing.

so yabu

Legally, in a civil case the driver should be driving at an appropriate speed to avoid a collision, even if someone runs out in front of you from nowhere - it can be a percentage of fault, but still responsible for not having avoided the collision. - not technically classed as 'accidents' for that reason legally.

Think may be misunderstanding between a criminal case and a civil case though - the police telling you one thing does not mean there isn't a case via the insurance where you'd have percentage of fault etc.

Anyway being 'right or wrong' kind of misses something: any decent person would suffer emotionally from hitting a pedestrian even if they say 'fuck 'em' on this thread - different in real life - unless prone to psychopathic tendencies, of course.

Now that I drive, if I'm on foot and see a car reversing I'll give them room to do so. But I think non-drivers don't realise how much of a pain in the arse reversing is. Or, it seems, what reversing lights are.

I agree safariboot

Yes non drivers don't understand. I used to do running commentaries in busy areas interacting with my kids to predict which pedestrian was being sensible and which idiot was about to step out without looking .

They would see from drivers' point of view how someone uses good body language and to communicate between pedestrian and driver - both have their part- but us as the driver has the "weapon" ie could cause serious harm to others it is our duty to avoid those idiots - for their own good. Doesn't mean they'll be grateful - usually think it's our fault, but you let it go because there's another one ahead!

so don't worry about the glaring, as per my sentence above.