Road rule advice needed

[DEATH_INC.]

Here's a question for all the legal guru's out there....
Someone I know (no not me) had a bit of an oops the other day.
I've drawn a crude sketch to show what happened....the question is, who is at fault?
Both vehicles have reversed from a carpark in front of the local dairy.

[Scuba_Steve]

I would have to say B is at fault given A is already on the roadway but I have never looked into this so it's just my guess/opinion

There is or used to be a rule making it illegal reversing onto the road to prevent these sort of accidents

[Ender EnZed]

There is or used to be a rule making it illegal reversing onto the road to prevent these sort of accidents

How else would you get onto the road? Drive up onto the footpath and through the corner of the dairy?

I'd say B is at fault.

[unstuck]

I,d say b also.:psst:

[DEATH_INC.]

The one sticky bit is a has reversed onto the road the wrong way....as in facing the wrong direction. Should they have reversed onto the other side of the road? Or does the fact that they are facing the wrong way not matter?
The argument is that car A should not have been there...

[Bassmatt]

The one sticky bit is a has reversed onto the road the wrong way....as in facing the wrong direction. Should they have reversed onto the other side of the road? Or does the fact that they are facing the wrong way not matter?
The argument is that car A should not have been there...

A must be at fault then, IMO.
edit: although looking again A was travelling in the correct direction for the lane even tho it was facing the wrong way (?) so car B should have been looking that way but then I dont think its legal to drive down the road with the car facing the wrong way, i'm all confused now, its a tricky one.
In car A's position I would reverse onto the opposite side of the road.

[Gremlin]

As you say, is it illegal to reverse down a road? Direction of travel was correct, vehicle the wrong way around. I don't know.

A read of the Land Transport Rule 2004 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/whole.html) shows nothing, just reversing on motorways.

However, the other fact is that there was a vehicle on the road, and the driver of the car in the park failed to see the vehicle on the road when reversing, so that is a fail there.

[Scuba_Steve]

How else would you get onto the road? Drive up onto the footpath and through the corner of the dairy?


I heard this was back from when parallel was the parking of choice, but I've never seen the law myself so ???.
I know the UK has alot of confusion around reversing from a driveway onto a road, many think it's illegal when in-fact it's not but should there be an accident the person reversing is automatically at fault (reverse nose to tail situation pun intended) I assume the same probably goes here

However it is illegal to reverse into an angled park.

[oneofsix]

given the relative positions shown on your sketch B has hit A. A has committed an offence in that A is on the wrong side of the road but what if A had been driving up the road in that direction? B would have still hit A?
Or is B's defence that they thought A was on the other side of the road because the rear end was facing them? :blink:
The best defence B has is that they saw the road was clear in A's direction and that A was reversing out of their park, at this stage A wasn't yet turning and would legally be crossing to the other side of the road or turning away from B. B therefore concentrated on the other direction whilst reversing out of their park. I don't think this is much of a defence with A being shown completely across the back of B, even though it might be what happened.

This is one where you give it to the insurance companies to sort.

[bogan]

The argument is that car A should not have been there...

From nzta (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-driving/how-to-park-safely.html)


Safe parking rules

By law, you must follow these rules when parking:
Indicate for at least three seconds before slowing down to park.
Park parallel to the road and as close to the left as possible, unless you are parking in an area where angle parking is permitted. There will be lines on the road (or signs) to show where you can angle park.
Move as far off the road as possible when stopping or parking on a road with fast-moving traffic.
Always check for passing vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians before opening your door.
Be careful when pulling out of a parking space. Don't forget to:
check for vehicles
signal for at least three seconds before pulling out.
A motor vehicle must not be parked on the road during the hours of darkness unless it is clearly visible to other road users. This means it should be lit by street lights, or you should turn on the tail lights and the side light nearest the centre of the road on the front of the vehicle.
A light, flat-decked vehicle that is parked on the street at night must display a rear red light that:
is on the side of the vehicle closest to the centre of the road
is visible at a distance of 100 metres

Car B didn't check for vehicles when pulling out, and hit one; car A didn't violate anything on that list as far as I can tell. Common sense suggests that yes, they should have backed out onto the other side of the road, but there is a number of other situations (pretty much all of them) where it is a good idea to watch the space where you are backing up into!

[Gremlin]

However it is illegal to reverse into an angled park.
Only when there is indication that it is illegal, or contrary to the direction indicated for flow of traffic.

[DEATH_INC.]

Only when there is indication that it is illegal, or contrary to the direction indicated for flow of traffic.
If you drive forward out of an angled park, you will be travelling the wrong direction on the road...

[DEATH_INC.]

This is one where you give it to the insurance companies to sort.
If only, neither vehicle is insured.....

[iYRe]

I think you'll find that entering a piece of road occupied by another vehicle is illegal (unless covered by some other rule).

So, if you pull out of a car park (or enter an intersection) occupied by another vehicle, you are at fault. Unless you can prove they were not there when you moved (in which case you didnt hit them and there was no accident :P)

[oneofsix]

If only, neither vehicle is insured.....

ouch. Even 3rd party might have helped.

[oneofsix]

Unless you can prove they were not there when you moved (in which case you didnt hit them and there was no accident :P)

they weren't there when I moved but were by the time I got there, does that work? This is why I wonder how accurate Death_Inc's sketch is, if it was more a case of corner to corner or rear quarter, both vehicles moving into each other, then the wrong side of the road defence would have a better chance.

[DEATH_INC.]

I'm pretty sure the sketch is correct, the damage is on the side of 'a'

[rickstv]

I think this is a classic 50/50 fault accident. each driver should pay for their own damage.

just my opinion.

[Ender EnZed]

I think this is a classic 50/50 fault accident. each driver should pay for their own damage.

just my opinion.

+1

Even if it's not 50/50, they both could've done better and short of fucking around with some sort of court neither is likely to want to pay the other. Shit happens, move on.


the damage is on the side of 'a'

So A is significantly more damaged than B? How damaged is it? Have there been any repair quotes yet?

[unstuck]

Both parties need 5-10 mins in the naughty chair, no insurance, lack of attention to what is happening around them, not owning up to any responsibility for the mishap.:spanking:

[Maha]

Its Habeebs fault (the dairy owner)...he should have lights and a stop/go guy working that area.

[Asher]

No one has asked the most important question: Why was no one wearing high visibility clothing?

[Berries]

No one has asked the most important question: Why was no one wearing high visibility clothing?
Or which vehicle was the woman driving.

[Asher]

Or which vehicle was the elderly Asian woman driving.

Fixed for you

[DEATH_INC.]

+1

Even if it's not 50/50, they both could've done better and short of fucking around with some sort of court neither is likely to want to pay the other. Shit happens, move on.



So A is significantly more damaged than B? How damaged is it? Have there been any repair quotes yet?

A is pretty bent, no quotes yet, but it'll be significant. B hasn't got a scratch.


Its Habeebs fault (the dairy owner)...he should have lights and a stop/go guy working that area.

Correct. :drinknsin


Or which vehicle was the woman driving.

Um....both. :laugh:

[Ender EnZed]

Or which vehicle was the woman driving.

I assumed they were both being driven by women, turns out the first post doesn't actually mention it.

EDIT:


Um....both. :laugh:

I loled.

[Scuba_Steve]

If only, neither vehicle is insured.....

if worst comes to worse 30$ (I think) gets you a court mediation thingy, at the very-least it'll be an "official" 3rd party making the decision on who's at fault. Could be a "friendly" way to sort whose paying.

[Jantar]

A is pretty bent, no quotes yet, but it'll be significant. B hasn't got a scratch.
...:

Well that confirms it A is in the wrong. :shifty:

[HenryDorsetCase]

B. to get to a point where B hit A, A had to have moved first, ergo B has backed into a stationary vehicle.

[HenryDorsetCase]

So B was driving like she was doing stunts in Die Hard? (or BOURNE 2)?

[DEATH_INC.]

So B was driving like she was doing stunts in Die Hard? (or BOURNE 2)?

Not quite, just a case of a large tough vehicle vs a small soft one.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Not quite, just a case of a large tough vehicle vs a small soft one.

You'll have to have a chat to her about commitment. When she felt the contact, think, ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE and floor it. In for a penny etc. See if she can't roll right over top of vehicle A. GTA San Andreas styles.

[5150]

I had the same thing happen to me about 8 years ago. I was the car A and it just happen that the popo was standing on the corner and saw the whole incident. And according to him car B was at fault. I got insurance to fix my car and claimed money off his.

[DEATH_INC.]

I had the same thing happen to me about 8 years ago. I was the car A and it just happen that the popo was standing on the corner and saw the whole incident. And according to him car B was at fault. I got insurance to fix my car and claimed money off his.
Ok. Were you also facing the wrong way? This is really the only thing that would be any defence for car b.

[DEATH_INC.]

You'll have to have a chat to her about commitment. When she felt the contact, think, ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE and floor it. In for a penny etc. See if she can't roll right over top of vehicle A. GTA San Andreas styles.
Lol. She probably could have, or at least pushed it across the road and under the neighboring house. :msn-wink:

[FROSTY]

Blame really comes down to who was stationary and who was moving IMO.
If B drove out -saw A reversing and stopped - A carried on backwards ripping their car on the front of B then A is at fault.
If B drove out and A was stationary -actually even moving come to think of it and was in front of B then B is at fault.
The nature of the damage to car A will pretty clearly tell you who did what.
1) a virtual clear indent of the front of car B says B slammed A
2) an equal depth gouge down the side of A says A was moving and B was stationary.
3) an increasing depth gouge from the back of car A to where the cars stopped says most likely both cars were moving--ie neither driver was looking.

[DEATH_INC.]

Having seen tha dent in a, I'd say a was stationary...but the pic isn't entirely accurate, it looks like a was only behind b a little bit. The dent in the corner is only about 6" from the rear, on the corner. I'll edit the pic.....edit;done
It makes it a bit more obvious why b didn't see a. B is a 4wd so looking in the rear view mirror (not the side one, though in the dark it would still be hard to see the side of a car....) a would not have been real easy to see....

[5150]

Ok. Were you also facing the wrong way? This is really the only thing that would be any defence for car b.

No, admitably it was a very wide "driveway" dead end side street, but I suppose theoretically I would have been if it was a "real" road

[Hoarn]

Yeah, I'd say it was B at fault, I think when you are backing it's all up to you 100% not to back into something else, so if B backed into A, bad luck B.

A is a clown though imo for backing out facing the wrong direction. That's pretty incompetent or a bit reckless. You are inevitably going to end up going to wrong way for at least a bit, unless you keep backing right off the road.

[rustic101]

Well neither of the cars in your picture are Green so they are both fucked!!

[Devil]

Awkward.

My personal opinion is that A is a dork for not reversing onto the correct side of the road, putting themselves in a position where they could be hit.
I think it would be unreasonable for B to expect people reversing the wrong way down the road.

Something else to consider, since we're just dealing with a picture. Both vehicles could have started moving at the same time, some people just back like retards.

Pretty sure i've seen somewhere road code or legislation related that you're supposed to reverse onto the correct side of the road. If I get a spare 10 mins I'll go looking for it.