Car parked 'wrong' way at night - blame if hit?

[anonymous-user]

Just round the corner from us is a quiet street where several vehicles park regularly at night, as parking is in short supply.

The cars are parked in a mix of 'right' and 'wrong' way round, and only ever on one side of the road. I was wondering what would be the insurance and/or legal outcome of a car hitting one of the 'wrong way round' vehicles at night? Is the driver doing the hitting still deemed at fault, even though the hit car is not displaying reflectors?

Street lighting is not too brilliant, and it is a village 30mph road.

[sherbertdip]

seems fairly straight forward to me, they are breaking the law, from highway code:

248
You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space. Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24

250
Cars, goods vehicles not exceeding 1525 kg unladen weight, invalid carriages, motorcycles and pedal cycles may be parked without lights on a road (or lay-by) with a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) or less if they are

at least 10 metres (32 feet) away from any junction, close to the kerb and facing in the direction of the traffic flow
in a recognised parking place or lay-by.
Other vehicles and trailers, and all vehicles with projecting loads,MUST NOT be left on a road at night without lights.
Laws RVLR reg 24 & CUR reg 82(7)

So i would say the owner of the parked car would be held responsible.

[davepoth]

Interesting one. It's a "Must not" in the highway code which would mean DWDCA, but the alternative (parking on the other side of the road) would result in a blocked road. I don't think the law fully takes into account the situation that the OP was in.

However, any claim would be in the civil courts, and my understanding of the legal situation there is that because a driver is supposed to take the road as they found it, they're supposed to be able to not drive into things. In essence, no matter how badly parked the car, the moving vehicle is at fault.

[Efbe]

this would not affect the insurance at all.
driver crashing still 100% completely and utterly at fault.

Next ridiculous idea?... walls/trees need reflectors on?

[northwest monkey]

Is the road one way so the "wrong way" parker parking illegally, or is it just "not the done thing" parking the wrong way?

Seems to me that if someone drives into a stationary object then it's their fault.

Does this also apply to cars parked on double yellows - are they ok to crash into?

[Cliftonite]

The alternative, davepoth, is to park on the same side of the road as the others, but facing the correct way!

[anonymous-user]

It's not a one-way street.

I'm sure the 'hitting' driver would be held negligent, but would it be 100%? Isn't the owner of the hit car culpable to some extent, having contravened parking regulations?

[Efbe]

280E said:

It's not a one-way street.

I'm sure the 'hitting' driver would be held negligent, but would it be 100%? Isn't the owner of the hit car culpable to some extent, having contravened parking regulations?

it doesn't matter at all.

The tyre could have bald tyres, a hooky MOT and a bag of cocaine on the dashboard.

it's still the fault of the driver driving the car thats being driven what he crashes into.

[elanfan]

No, not n anyway at all. Just cos something shouldn't be there doesn't confer any liability whatsoever. Ridiculous!

[Nickyboy]

If you can't see a car at night regardless of which way round it's parked i suggest handing in your license, you are a danger.

[vonhosen]

There are circumstances where a driver could be held partially liable for a collision resulting from the position the vehicle was left, but they would tend to be fairly extreme circumstances.
In the limited circumstances given it wouldn't be likely however.

[andye30m3]

Years ago I hit a trailer that had been left without lights, sideways covering about 2/3rds of my side of
The road, on a unlit 60mph stretch of twisty A road and the claim went down as 100% my fault.

When speaking to the insurance company, they said if you hit anything stationary it's your fault no matter what.

[98elise]

andye30m3 said:

Years ago I hit a trailer that had been left without lights, sideways covering about 2/3rds of my side of
The road, on a unlit 60mph stretch of twisty A road and the claim went down as 100% my fault.

When speaking to the insurance company, they said if you hit anything stationary it's your fault no matter what.

Seems right to me. If you hit something stationary then only you can be to blame. If you can't see a car, trailer etc how can you see paths, trees, people etc.

[herewego]

I don't understand why they introduce a law, enforce for a while then ignore it completely.

[vonhosen]

herewego said:

I don't understand why they introduce a law, enforce for a while then ignore it completely.

Because society & the vehicle's place/use in it changes over time.

[herewego]

northwest monkey said:

Is the road one way so the "wrong way" parker parking illegally, or is it just "not the done thing" parking the wrong way?

Seems to me that if someone drives into a stationary object then it's their fault.

Does this also apply to cars parked on double yellows - are they ok to crash into?

I don't see that "not the done thing" comes into it. It contravenes a specific law.

[anonymous-user]

Thanks for the replies - so what's the reason for the HC stipulation about parking in the 'correct' orientation if no blame can be apportioned to infringing it in the event of a collision?

[vonhosen]

herewego said:

northwest monkey said:

Is the road one way so the "wrong way" parker parking illegally, or is it just "not the done thing" parking the wrong way?

Seems to me that if someone drives into a stationary object then it's their fault.

Does this also apply to cars parked on double yellows - are they ok to crash into?

I don't see that "not the done thing" comes into it. It contravenes a specific law.

There are a lot of laws that hang around on the statutes & don't get enforced. Governments see more value in & use their time adding to the statutes as needed rather than using sessions to weed out & repeal laws that simply don't get enforced anymore due to them not keeping pace with modern life. They'll take the view that if it's out of kilter with modern life but not being enforced, then there is no urgency in them spending time on getting it off the statutes.

[davepoth]

280E said:

Thanks for the replies - so what's the reason for the HC stipulation about parking in the 'correct' orientation if no blame can be apportioned to infringing it in the event of a collision?

If you think about a road that's wide enough for parking on both sides, parking against the flow of traffic will involve putting your car sideways-on to both directions of traffic to both get into and out of the space. Your vehicle is well lit to the front and back but not very well lit to the side so at night it's very dangerous.

Actually having the car in a space facing the wrong way is not going to be any more dangerous if it's parked properly.

[4rephill]

davepoth said:

.....Actually having the car in a space facing the wrong way is not going to be any more dangerous if it's parked properly.

Except for the fact that if your vehicle is a RHD, by parking the wrong way round the driver is next to the pavement and does not have as good a view of the road as a car parked the right way round, with the driver on the road-side!