@Zerojay - Before I begin, I want you to know that I'm not having a go at you at all. Your post hasn't got me just thinking about this particular incident, but also about the pathetic way that insurers go about assessing accidents, particularly in car parks and on private land. It also highlights (again, not having a go at you) that many people don't understand where and when the road rules apply. This will be a bit long, but bear with me. I'll start with your post then come back to the OP's situation...
Hey Scruff. In terms of the Road Rules, driving through parking bays is not the same as driving across a painted traffic island
Not the same, but "not much different" - ie; similar. Think of it as a common sense approach based on the general principles of the road rules.
When you have situations where there's no specific road rule that applies, the common sense thing to do is to take the road rules and apply a set of principles to that specific situation. For example, say you have a road with no markings, some dirt off to the sides and then some grass. I've never seen a specific road rule that says that you can't drive on the grass and in fact, I'm not even sure if there's one that says that you have to stay on the road. But there are rules about driving within lanes of traffic when there are no markings, keeping left of the centre of the road and so on. You also need to apply basic common sense, such as you should keep your vehicle wholly within the confines of the road whether or not there's a rule that governs it.
So what does all of this have to do with the OP's situation and my comment about traffic islands? Well, ask yourself this: Have you ever wondered why parking bays are marked with unbroken lines instead of broken lines? Now you see the principle. There are several road rules regarding unbroken lines and they pretty much all relate to the same thing - "do not cross unbroken lines". And that is where the similarity is derived from.
It is a bit rubbery to apply the road rules to this situation because there is no actual road as such.
Not rubbery at all actually - and admittedly, a lot of people still don't know it. This issue is actually very clear for every state I've looked at so far except for WA. But we're talking about QLD here, so I'll stick to that. For QLD, the road rules apply to all public car parks because both the legislation and the regulations say they do (relative text highlighted in red):
QLD Transport Operations (Road Use Management — Road Rules) Regulation 2009
11. Regulation applies to vehicles and road users on roads and road-related areas
(1) This regulation applies to vehicles and road users on roads and road-related areas.
(2) A reference in this regulation (except in this division) to a road includes a reference to a road-related area, unless otherwise expressly stated in this regulation.
13. What is a road-related area
(1)
A road-related area is any of the following—
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to, or used by, the public for parking vehicles.
(2) ...
Schedule 5 - Dictionary
road see section 11.
Note—
See also the definition of road in schedule 4 of the Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QLD Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995
Schedule 4 - Dictionary
road—
(a) includes a busway under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994; and
(b)
includes an area that is—
(i) open to or used by the public and is developed for, or has as one of its uses, the driving or riding of motor vehicles, whether on payment of a fee or otherwise; or
(ii) dedicated to public use as a road; but
(c) does not include an area declared under a regulation not to be a road.
Example of an area that is a road—
a bridge, cattle grid, culvert, ferry, ford, railway crossing, shopping centre car park, tunnel or viaduct
(Edit: "shopping centre car park" should be red, but the idiotic and incompetent auto tagging on this web site messed it up.)
But just on the basis of who contributed most to the cause of the accident, I think indicating or not indicating your intention to turn determines fault for me.
You've probably realised by now that you're actually contradicting yourself here. You said it's "rubbery" to apply the road rules, but your determination is based solely on a "single" road rule. You are correct that this is one element that needs to be taken into account if the OP was actually turning at the time, but there are many other elements that need to be considered - particularly, why was the other vehicle travelling through marked parking bays when it shouldn't have been. It appears to me that the insurance company has made the same mistake - concentrating too much on one element of the incident.
To explain that comment, consider this: What would happen if the OP was a pedestrian? Answer: The other driver would likely be charged with an offence (such as s83 under the Act,
Careless driving of motor vehicles). The point being that all of a sudden we're looking at the actions of the other vehicle - which so far, appears to have been ignored because the OP was in a vehicle themselves and reversing. Make the OP a pedestrian and suddenly the perspective drastically changes. That shouldn't be happening when trying to determine fault - the actions of all involved needs to be taken into account regardless of whether they are a pedestrian or driving a vehicle.
On the surface (based on the little info provided), there appears to be so much wrong with what the other vehicle was doing that it's very hard to see how the insurer could possibly come up with it's decision that the OP is 100% at fault. But in all fairness, we only know one side of the story and the details provided thus far are minimal at best. It's possible that the other driver has a totally different version of events - and that could explain the insurer's decision.
@Katie D - If you want us to explore this further, which would certainly be fun and interesting, then we need more info.
1. Where were you looking when the impact occurred?
(a) over your left shoulder
(b) over your right shoulder or out right window
(c) a mirror (specify which one: rear view, or left/right side mirror)
(d) other (please specify)
2. Were you turning at the time? If so, left or right and did you indicate?
3. From which direction did the other vehicle approach? (left, right, rear, left rear, etc)
4. Where was the impact on your vehicle? (eg: rear only, left rear corner, left back door, right side, etc)
5. Where was the impact on the other vehicle? (eg: front only, front left corner, etc)
6. Did either driver take any preventative action
before the impact? (eg: turn, sound horn, flash lights, yell foul words, etc)
7. Where exactly did this happen? (Street and cross street. If you don't know, look it up on Google Maps - it would help to be able see the actual layout and markings. Zerojay appears to be familiar with Gympie, but I'm not and when I searched in Google Earth, it threw up 6 different Caltex servo's in the area.)
8. I'm sure you spoke to the other driver after the incident, so what can you tell us about their version of events?
(And be honest here - there's no point otherwise. We're simply looking at your question about whether or not the insurer got it right. To do that, we need to know as much as you can tell us about both sides of the story - which is what the insurer would have based there decision on. So for us to give an opinion on whether or not they got it right, we need to know the basics of what info they were given by both parties.)
I know that this minor incident may seem trivial to many people, but I think it's worth exploring for future reference for people who have disputes with insurers. After all, it's long overdue that insurers be made to explain their decision making processes, not just the decisions themselves.