Should illegally parked vehicles bear some share of the blame in a collision?

[Resident]

If you park your car illegally or obstructively and it's damaged by a passing vehicle, should you share a least a small portion of the blame & have an 'at-fault' claim registered, using the logical argument that if you had followed the laws and rules of the road, your vehicle wouldn't have been there to be hit?

Do you think a shift into this way of operating would kerb illegal/obstructive parking? Would it lead to more collisions?

It's a thought that came about between colleagues as one had a minor scrape with a car illegally parked in a bus stop so the bus was force to pull up at an odd angle and as he left the tail caught the wing mirror, literally only folded it forward but now the car owner is claiming the vehicle is a write off (2017 Auris). At the time of the collision the car owner just pushed the mirror back into position and there was no sign of damage ever occurring. All on CCTV.

 

[d_brennen]

If you hit an illegally parked car and damage your vehicle/theirs, it's still your fault as you should have assessed the situation and done better imo.

The bus driver could have blocked the road to drop off/pick up instead of taking the risk of clipping the car. Sucks for everyone, but that's the fault of the illegally parked car.

Every day I see people parked where they shouldn't and you get people pushing their luck to gain nothing instead of allowing traffic to flow. Must be some reward to get to the next red lights 5 seconds quicker

 

[Resident]

If you hit an illegally parked car and damage your vehicle/theirs, it's still your fault as you should have assessed the situation and done better imo.

The bus driver could have blocked the road to drop off/pick up instead of taking the risk of clipping the car. Sucks for everyone, but that's the fault of the illegally parked car.

Every day I see people parked where they shouldn't and you get people pushing their luck to gain nothing instead of allowing traffic to flow. Must be some reward to get to the next red lights 5 seconds quicker

Unfortunately it's not that black and white. If you've got an elderly/infirm/wheelchair user alighting then you need to be at the kerbside. If you don't and that passenger falls, you're personally liable as the driver and could face prosecution for negligence. (yes it's happened before)

 

[Quartz]

If you park your car illegally or obstructively and it's damaged by a passing vehicle, should you share a least a small portion of the blame & have an 'at-fault' claim registered, using the logical argument that if you had followed the laws and rules of the road, your vehicle wouldn't have been there to be hit?

Way back, a colleague told me that a mate of his had successfully defended being prosecuted by claiming that were it not for an illegally parked car (which he hit) he would have recovered control of his car. That's about all I recall.

 

[ttaskmaster]

If your vehicle is parked in a way that it forseeably could present a hazard to other road users, then yes you should be held to account. This includes when you're not technically parked illegally, but just badly and without consideration for the situation.

For example, our road has a downhill stretch, with a tight left hander at the bottom which you can not see around. People regularly park both sides of the road, right up to the bend, usually for deliveries or oil/pit tankering and such and you can come round that to get a faceful of LED headlight as they park on the wrong side. The local school recently got given an extra plot of land on which the council built them a car park, as it was just solid during school-run times and cars were forever getting bashed.

The guy living on the right side of that bend sold his place recently, because since 2012 five people have come off the road and taken out the front half of his house. Two fatalities from that alone, plus another driver who hit the guy's tree and fired his own dad through the windscreen.

It's a 40 limit and locals know the danger points, but you get a lot of traffic heading to/from the De Vere hotel and BMW training centre who think they can drive at 40 (or more) without worry.

 

[d_brennen]

Unfortunately it's not that black and white. If you've got an elderly/infirm/wheelchair user alighting then you need to be at the kerbside. If you don't and that passenger falls, you're personally liable as the driver and could face prosecution for negligence. (yes it's happened before)

I'm sure there are loads of rules like not dropping people where it's not a designated stop for bus drivers, but was that the case in the scenario you proposed? The bus driver made a judgment call and got it wrong, hitting a parked car in the process.

Back when I was getting the bus, they'd often shut a stop for safety reasons where there was roadworks on the other side of the road etc. You had no choice but to get off a stop early (if you knew, which you often wouldn't) or a stop after, wheelchair/pushchair etc or not

 

[hurfdurf]

No. The parking illegally is a separate issue to the person not having the driving ability to avoid not just every day traffic issues, but also emergency or unexpected situations.

 

[jpaul]

should you share a least a small portion of the blame & have an 'at-fault' claim registered,

they don't get away scot free - even if you don't have an at-fault, that's academic, your premium will increase as a function of declaring it,
(as already commented the classic case of people parking near bends, double parking, bottom of hill where everyone slips when it's icy)

It would be interesting to know how insurance companies appraise these accidents for subsequent premium setting (a database of idiots)

 

[Rroff]

No. The parking illegally is a separate issue to the person not having the driving ability to avoid not just every day traffic issues, but also emergency or unexpected situations.

That is very idealistic. To avoid the full range of unexpected situations you'd need to be spending an unrealistic amount of time driving at ridiculously slow speeds.

EDIT: Not to say it isn't a separate issue but there are practical realities.

 

[Nomisf]

I'm torn on this one,

Yes, because I really dislike people who park in an obstructive, selfish way and think there should be comeuppance,
No, because a competent driver shouldn't be driving into parked cars just because they are in a stupid place. Pedestrians are often stupid, but we try not to hit them!

 

[Yaayuh!]

No. The parking illegally is a separate issue to the person not having the driving ability to avoid not just every day traffic issues, but also emergency or unexpected situations.

I agree with Hurfdurf?!

Oh the humiliation!

 

[Rroff]

Pedestrians are often stupid, but we try not to hit them!

Getting harder and harder these days the number of pedestrians who'll just step off the curb or even cross the road, with no previous hint they were going to do so, without looking. One of the reasons I have an immense hate for tailgaters and always try to leave a reasonable gap to the car ahead.

 

[Nomisf]

Getting harder and harder these days the number of pedestrians who'll just step off the curb or even cross the road, with no previous hint they were going to do so, without looking. One of the reasons I have an immense hate for tailgaters and always try to leave a reasonable gap to the car ahead.

Right there with you on that, doubly when it sets off my cars auto emergency brake - then its brake test lottery with the car behind

 

[Deleted User 298457]

No. The parking illegally is a separate issue to the person not having the driving ability to avoid not just every day traffic issues, but also emergency or unexpected situations.

Yep

 

[Resident]

Getting harder and harder these days the number of pedestrians who'll just step off the curb or even cross the road, with no previous hint they were going to do so, without looking. One of the reasons I have an immense hate for tailgaters and always try to leave a reasonable gap to the car ahead.

Amen to that and I'll add pedestrians that cross against a red man/wait instruction at a pedestrian crossing, whilst oncoming traffic has a green light.

But that could be a separate discussion all on it's own

 

[Diddums]

If you're not able to adapt your driving to a stationary object then that's on you tbh. Funny enough I had this exact question on Barryboys many years ago and that answer will always stick with me. I can't argue it either.

 

[Werewolf]

You shouldn't be hitting stationary objects regardless of if they're illegally parked cars or not. I was always taught that it is the drivers responsibility to avoid hitting anything stationary.

However I do think that if you're illegally parked and committing any offence by doing so, then if there is an accident you automatically get charged/fined in accordance with that offence.

I also think (and this is probably going to be unpopular with some) that we need a lot more traffic wardens* and police dealing with illegally parked vehicles and vehicles obstructing the pavement, for example I keep seeing morons (nearly said something much harsher) parking completely blocking the pavement on a small roundabout near me, or completely on the path next to that roundabout and a pedestrian crossing blocking a busy path, the crossing and drivers line of sight as they come off the roundabout.
I can always tell when there is the one traffic warden in our town centre at a glance, it's the only time when there the idiots aren't parked everywhere you can possibly fit a car, and the taxi drivers aren't sat blocking disabled parking spaces (they're near the taxi rank, so you get taxi drivers who'll pull up behind the space blocking disabled drivers in/blocking the empty space sometimes for several minutes until they stop chatting and move).



*It's probably because I'm not in a big city, but whenever I've had interactions with traffic wardens they've tended to be fairly polite, although most of my interactions have been thing like asking about disabled parking (i'm always careful to check when i've got my dad in the car, and asking a traffic warden if there is one around and i'm not 100% certain of the local rules is always safer).

 

[Resident]

If you're not able to adapt your driving to a stationary object then that's on you tbh. Funny enough I had this exact question on Barryboys many years ago and that answer will always stick with me. I can't argue it either.

I get that and it's correct.

I guess there's partly the thought that if people thought they were going to have to shell out directly (insurance excess) for parking illegally/obstructively.

You shouldn't be hitting stationary objects regardless of if they're illegally parked cars or not. I was always taught that it is the drivers responsibility to avoid hitting anything stationary.

However I do think that if you're illegally parked and committing any offence by doing so, then if there is an accident you automatically get charged/fined in accordance with that offence.

I also think (and this is probably going to be unpopular with some) that we need a lot more traffic wardens* and police dealing with illegally parked vehicles and vehicles obstructing the pavement, for example I keep seeing morons (nearly said something much harsher) parking completely blocking the pavement on a small roundabout near me, or completely on the path next to that roundabout and a pedestrian crossing blocking a busy path, the crossing and drivers line of sight as they come off the roundabout.
I can always tell when there is the one traffic warden in our town centre at a glance, it's the only time when there the idiots aren't parked everywhere you can possibly fit a car, and the taxi drivers aren't sat blocking disabled parking spaces (they're near the taxi rank, so you get taxi drivers who'll pull up behind the space blocking disabled drivers in/blocking the empty space sometimes for several minutes until they stop chatting and move).



*It's probably because I'm not in a big city, but whenever I've had interactions with traffic wardens they've tended to be fairly polite, although most of my interactions have been thing like asking about disabled parking (i'm always careful to check when i've got my dad in the car, and asking a traffic warden if there is one around and i'm not 100% certain of the local rules is always safer).

Maybe that's the solution

It's the same in the city that I work in. However for the most part enforcement personnel rarely go to the trouble spots, ones that just happen to be areas of high ethnic minority population.

 

[ttaskmaster]

If you're not able to adapt your driving to a stationary object then that's on you tbh.

The problem is any oncoming traffic manoeuvering around the stationary object, which you can't see (and they can't see you) because the stationary object is blocking everyones' view of the road.
In my example above your only safe option is to stop suddenly, and then wait until the obstruction has moved, which in the case of tankers is around an hour...

 

[hurfdurf]

That is very idealistic. To avoid the full range of unexpected situations you'd need to be spending an unrealistic amount of time driving at ridiculously slow speeds.

EDIT: Not to say it isn't a separate issue but there are practical realities.

Sometimes situations will occur where they will be so out of left field, they would have been impossible to predict. A suicidal deer on the motorway diving in front of someone doing the speed limit that’s unavoidable for instance. That I wouldn’t criticise.

Someone doing 35 in a 20 and hits a wayward 3 year old that’s some how gotten loose, your speed is the issue if you wouldn’t of hit them at 20mph (ignoring the parents allowing their child to disappear and run into the road). Cars are deadly, they should be driven carefully.

If you are driving and you turn a corner and crash into something parked badly, that’s all on you, on what planet is it unreasonable to expect someone manoeuvring a vehicle not to hit a stationary object, bar some very very niche situations I’m sure some people will be able to think of.