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

[Mr Badger]

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.

So when out driving my one ton metal killing machine, I'm now supposed to actually look where I'm going?

 

[Nasher]

I think they should. Someone keeps parking opposite the exit to the cul-de-sac I'm in and it's dangerous for people pulling out.

I'm pretty sure they have had previous cars clipped by vans or lorries in the same spot (rear quarter caved in one morning), yet still park there. Most people probably aren't going to stop in that situation as they will get the blame either way.

Their house has a driveway big enough for 4 cars, but for some reason they dump it there...

 

[ttaskmaster]

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.

On the same planet where they have other vehicles going along the same road in the opposite direction, that might not follow any Highway Code guidelines regarding priority, right of way, etc...
It happens often enough that there are numerous 'DashcamTube' channels full of people doing such things.

 

[ezekial]

I would always consider it my fault entirely if I hit a stationary object

 

[Jono8]

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.

Indeed.

However badly parked someone is, the onus is on the driver to avoid any unexpected obstructions on the road.

 

[Haggisman]

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...

In that situation, if a collision were to occur it would be the fault of the driver(s) who didn't manoeuvre around said stationary object with the appropriate care.

You're conveniently forgetting the safe option of "proceed slowly & with caution".

If the obstruction really is making the road impassible, then phone the police and get it towed.

 

[Rroff]

In that situation, if a collision were to occur it would be the fault of the driver(s) who didn't manoeuvre around said stationary object with the appropriate care.

You're conveniently forgetting the safe option of "proceed slowly & with caution".

If the obstruction really is making the road impassible, then phone the police and get it towed.

It is rarely as simple in reality though - there is a high walled S bend on my way to work you'd have to creep around at like 5 MPH to have a chance of fully avoiding incidents and in the real world no one is going to do that. While unlikely to encounter someone illegally/inconsiderately parked in this case I've come across broken down cars at the worst possible part of the bend before which fortunately I avoided but someone could easily have hit going at a speed most people wouldn't consider unreasonable and while the fault would likely be on them far too many people cut across the corner like imbeciles presenting a collision hazard and you are mostly relying on them to steer back to their side to avoid a collision - which is an interesting one as potentially you could encounter a large vehicle which has no choice but to go through the corner wide.

 

[Haggisman]

It is rarely as simple in reality though - there is a high walled S bend on my way to work you'd have to creep around at like 5 MPH to have a chance of fully avoiding incidents and in the real world no one is going to do that. While unlikely to encounter someone illegally/inconsiderately parked in this case I've come across broken down cars at the worst possible part of the bend before which fortunately I avoided but someone could easily have hit going at a speed most people wouldn't consider unreasonable and while the fault would likely be on them far too many people cut across the corner like imbeciles presenting a collision hazard and you are mostly relying on them to steer back to their side to avoid a collision - which is an interesting one as potentially you could encounter a large vehicle which has no choice but to go through the corner wide.

It really is that simple though - if people are driving too quickly for the conditions/visibility, and that means they are unable to avoid driving into a stationary object then that's their fault and nobody else's. If you and the oncoming vehicle are both travelling at an appropriate speed, then there should be no issue with slowing right down/stopping and carefully manoeuvring past each other/the obstruction. If you're travelling at an appropriate speed and the other person isn't, then stop (obviously as out of the way as possible) - it then becomes entirely their fault as they've hit a stationary object (you).



As you've said; you've come across broken down vehicles on that bend. Should they end up with an "at fault" claim because someone drove into them when they happened to break down in an inconvenient position?

 

[hurfdurf]

On the same planet where they have other vehicles going along the same road in the opposite direction, that might not follow any Highway Code guidelines regarding priority, right of way, etc...
It happens often enough that there are numerous 'DashcamTube' channels full of people doing such things.

Hit them, hit them hard. Make them pay for it. Get out and stand and bang in righteous fury

 

[Rroff]

As you've said; you've come across broken down vehicles on that bend. Should they end up with an "at fault" claim because someone drove into them when they happened to break down in an inconvenient position?

Little bit of a different question if they can't help being stuck there - but I'd certainly put the onus on someone who deliberately parked there.

It really is that simple though - if people are driving too quickly for the conditions/visibility, and that means they are unable to avoid driving into a stationary object then that's their fault and nobody else's.

Ultimately in black and white sure but there are loads of instances where there is a difference between what would be a "reasonable" speed and the speed you'd have to go to fully be able to deal with all eventualities and in the real world no one is going to go that slow.

 

[jpaul]

Should they end up with an "at fault" claim because someone drove into them when they happened to break down in an inconvenient position?

reminded me we're obliged to give people a heads up in france ... hmmh and spain has something! new

Do you drive to Spain regularly? Be aware that all vehicles will need to be fitted with a ‘rotating beacon’ light in case of a breakdown from 2026.

In France, vehicles are required to carry a warning triangle that drivers can place behind their vehicle in the event of a breakdown or accident on a roadside (on penalty of a fine of up to €750, unless the driver considers that using the triangle could endanger their life).

e: £30 on amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/OSRAM-LEDguardian-emergency-breakdown-motorcycles/dp/B08PQ4F18Q

 

[Rroff]

reminded me we're obliged to give people a heads up in france ... hmmh and spain has something! new

I'm honestly surprised, though there is the potential consideration of safety when placing it, that carrying a warning triangle or beacon (maintaining battery is a consideration though) isn't mandatory in this country along with emergency high-vis.

I keep spare high-vis in all my vehicles though I've only got a single warning triangle and a bit lazy as to moving it between vehicles when using :s

 

[lordrobs]

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.

Insurance companies write vehicles off, not their owners. Was your mate Stan sure he only 'pushed back the mirror'?

As for whether you should apply blame for an accident to an unattended stationary vehicle... I'd have thought it was obvious but, no. Ticket them, tow them away, stick a clamp on sure but to state that they are in some way at fault for being hit by another vehicle is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Haggisman]

Little bit of a different question if they can't help being stuck there - but I'd certainly put the onus on someone who deliberately parked there.

As someone else posted above - sure, fine them and give them points for parking illegally. It's still not their fault that you drove into them.

Ultimately in black and white sure but there are loads of instances where there is a difference between what would be a "reasonable" speed and the speed you'd have to go to fully be able to deal with all eventualities and in the real world no one is going to go that slow.

"no one" is a very strong statement. There are still those of us who try our hardest to drive safely and make sure we travel at a speed which allows us to stop in half the distance we can see.

Obviously there are still going to be those unpredictable scenarios (e.g. again as someone else posted above, a deer suddenly running across the motorway), but meeting oncoming traffic whilst going around a blind bend on the wrong side of the road due to an obstruction is far from an unpredictable scenario, and neither is meeting traffic on your side of the road if you're approaching an obstruction on the opposite side.

The fact this is even a point of discussion is a great indication as to why the standard of driving in the UK is in such a dismal state. It's always "someone else's fault/responsibility".

reminded me we're obliged to give people a heads up in france ... hmmh and spain has something! new

I'm not sure I'd hold up France and Spain as pinnacles of high driving standards, but they do have some sensible ideas!

FWIW I do carry an emergency triangle in the car anyway, although in the scenario we're discussing here I don't think it would make a difference, as it seems to be not so much about not seeing the parked/broken down car, but rather whether we're allowed to drive into them or not just because they're in the way.

 

[Rroff]

"no one" is a very strong statement. There are still those of us who try our hardest to drive safely and make sure we travel at a speed which allows us to stop in half the distance we can see.

There are loads of places you'd literally have to drive at 5MPH around corners to do that - and I don't see anyone, even those who drive super carefully, doing that.

This corner here for example https://maps.app.goo.gl/xedbvF1nYQHd6h1C9 most people do 40 and almost no one would call it an unreasonable speed, some more cautious people maybe do 20 (though I rarely see even those doing under 30 there) - that is still too fast if for some reason traffic is stopped into the corner, etc. but going around it at a speed which would allow you to accommodate stuff like that you'd literally have to drop to almost walking speed.

(And if you click through around the corner you get a lovely view of one of those unpredictable deer jumping out).

 

[Janesy B]

Up to the driver to navigate past any obstacles really.

 

[Resident]

Insurance companies write vehicles off, not their owners. Was your mate Stan sure he only 'pushed back the mirror'?

As for whether you should apply blame for an accident to an unattended stationary vehicle... I'd have thought it was obvious but, no. Ticket them, tow them away, stick a clamp on sure but to state that they are in some way at fault for being hit by another vehicle is a bit of a stretch.

I've seen the bus's CCTV footage for myself. The forward NS flank cam (faces rearward) shows the only contact with the car was with the rear marker light unit (they stick out about an inch from the body) and the outer edge of the wing mirror, effectively hooking it and folding the mirror pod forward.

The driver has images of the wing mirror with a scuff to the plastics however the car owner had already moved the mirror pod back to it's normal position.

The company offered to have the wing mirror replaced & a hire car for 24hrs on the day of a certified garage would install it. All done privately outside insurance given the low costs (£130 mirror, An hour's labour and a day's rental so About £300)

The car owner insisted on going through insurance and he told our incident officer that his insurance company had the car inspected and want to write it off.

 

[Haggisman]

There are loads of places you'd literally have to drive at 5MPH around corners to do that - and I don't see anyone, even those who drive super carefully, doing that.

This corner here for example https://maps.app.goo.gl/xedbvF1nYQHd6h1C9 most people do 40 and almost no one would call it an unreasonable speed, some more cautious people maybe do 20 (though I rarely see even those doing under 30 there) - that is still too fast if for some reason traffic is stopped into the corner, etc. but going around it at a speed which would allow you to accommodate stuff like that you'd literally have to drop to almost walking speed.

(And if you click through around the corner you get a lovely view of one of those unpredictable deer jumping out).

There's no way I'd be doing that corner at 40, but 20-30 looks reasonable (obviously it's hard to tell on a screen vs in reality)... I think you need better brakes!

Either way, it would (and should) be 100% your fault if you hit a stationary vehicle/horse/pedestrian/skip/fallen tree/etc. due to travelling too fast around there when you can't see that it's clear.