Car parking layout regulations
Trent SC
day. No other car were involved, but he reversed out of the space, turned
the wheel and scraped the car's wing on a metal fence that ran alongside the
passenger side of the parking bay.
The damage isn't horrendous, but he wondered aloud last night over dinner
whether there were any regulations covering the layout and visibility of
wing-eating items such as this. Since the fence was relatively low it is
invisible from the driver's seat and turning the wheel as one reverses from
the bay is, it seems, a requirement for extracting oneself from the bay
itself, as there is not enough room to turn once one has revered completely.
Any ideas? We'd both be interested to hear if there are any particular
requirements in terms of layout and visibility.
Many thanks.
Cynic
I'm not sure if there are any regulations (probably not in a private
car park), but I concur that such low obstructions are a hazard. Many
car parks have low walls and short bollards that cannot be seen from
the driver's seat.
--
Cynic
Mark Goodge
and typed:
I think the legally correct answer is that you should reverse *into*
the bay, not out of it, and thus don't actually need to steer in a way
which would bring you into conflict with the fence. So the driver is
at least 50% to blame, since he chose a course of action that
increased the probability of conflict. However, if it's happened a lot
to cars in that particular bay, then the supermarket could be held
partly liable as it could be argued that they were aware of a hazard
but did nothing abut it.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Old Codger
>
> I think the legally correct answer is that you should reverse *into*
> the bay, not out of it, and thus don't actually need to steer in a way
> which would bring you into conflict with the fence. So the driver is
> at least 50% to blame, since he chose a course of action that
> increased the probability of conflict. However, if it's happened a lot
> to cars in that particular bay, then the supermarket could be held
> partly liable as it could be argued that they were aware of a hazard
> but did nothing abut it.
Only if at least some of the drivers had complained to the supermarket.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Peter Crosland
news:wdidncVcTuwyJyrX...@brightview.co.uk...
It seems to be a classic case of an incompetent driver looking for anybody
but themselves to blame.
Peter Crosland
Ian Jackson
Trent SC <invalid@.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>A colleague had a minor bump in his local supermarket car park the other
>day. No other car were involved, but he reversed out of the space, turned
>the wheel and scraped the car's wing on a metal fence that ran alongside the
>passenger side of the parking bay.
>
>The damage isn't horrendous, but he wondered aloud last night over dinner
>whether there were any regulations covering the layout and visibility of
>wing-eating items such as this.
I can't see any court having any sympathy for him at all. Any case
would be hopeless.
He should be grateful not to be done for careless driving. It seems
to me that someone who drives into a stationary object, having had the
chance to observe its location in advance, is very likely to be found
to have driven below the standard expected of a careful and competent
driver, which would be a criminal offence.
Perhaps he has also committed the offence of driving off after an
accident.
Was the fence damaged ?
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Roland Perry
22 Sep 2009, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Perhaps he has also committed the offence of driving off after an
>accident.
Was a person injured?
--
Roland Perry
David Hearn
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:45:22 +0100, Trent SC put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>> A colleague had a minor bump in his local supermarket car park the other
>> day. No other car were involved, but he reversed out of the space, turned
>> the wheel and scraped the car's wing on a metal fence that ran alongside the
>> passenger side of the parking bay.
>>
>> The damage isn't horrendous, but he wondered aloud last night over dinner
>> whether there were any regulations covering the layout and visibility of
>> wing-eating items such as this. Since the fence was relatively low it is
>> invisible from the driver's seat and turning the wheel as one reverses from
>> the bay is, it seems, a requirement for extracting oneself from the bay
>> itself, as there is not enough room to turn once one has revered completely.
>>
>> Any ideas? We'd both be interested to hear if there are any particular
>> requirements in terms of layout and visibility.
>
> I think the legally correct answer is that you should reverse *into*
> the bay, not out of it, and thus don't actually need to steer in a way
> which would bring you into conflict with the fence.
Makes it pretty difficult to load the boot with the shopping that way....
D
Adrian
they were saying:
> Since the fence was relatively low it is invisible from the driver's
> seat
Had he been led, blindfolded, to a car that somebody else parked - then
instructed to reverse out of the space without opening the door and
looking first?
Dave Holland
>22 Sep 2009, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>Perhaps he has also committed the offence of driving off after an
>>accident.
>Was a person injured?
Since the car's wing was damaged, it seems reasonable to believe the
fence was also damaged. Damage to property is enough to require
giving one's details; no injuries need to occur.
Dave
Roland Perry
2009, Dave Holland <da...@biff.org.uk> remarked:
>>>Perhaps he has also committed the offence of driving off after an
>>>accident.
>>Was a person injured?
>
>Since the car's wing was damaged, it seems reasonable to believe the
>fence was also damaged. Damage to property is enough to require
>giving one's details; no injuries need to occur.
Having seen many car park walls decorated with paint scraped off cars, I
doubt that such a thing is realistically described as "damage".
Do you have to report damage that's only of concern to one's own
vehicle?
--
Roland Perry
Cynic
wrote:
>> Since the fence was relatively low it is invisible from the driver's
>> seat
>
>Had he been led, blindfolded, to a car that somebody else parked - then
>instructed to reverse out of the space without opening the door and
>looking first?
Some people possess photographic memories. Other people may forget
during the course of a hour or so of shopping that they parked their
car alongside an obstruction that was subsequently hidden from view by
the car when they returned.
There are plenty of mistakes that people make in the best of
conditions. I see no good reason to design car parks in a way that is
likely to increase the number of such mistakes. Should we not design
things so that mistakes are *less* likely rather than more likely?
I would not leave a young child sitting on the ground in front of a
parked car because of the very high probability that the driver may
not see the child when he returns and drives off - even though in an
ideal World all drivers would do a complete walkaround and check for
obstructions before moving.
I simply do not see the purpose of placing walls and bollards that are
below bonnet-height within the manoevouring area of a car park.
Surely they present pretty obvious hazards?
--
Cynic
Adrian
were saying:
>>> Since the fence was relatively low it is invisible from the driver's
>>> seat
>>Had he been led, blindfolded, to a car that somebody else parked - then
>>instructed to reverse out of the space without opening the door and
>>looking first?
> Some people possess photographic memories. Other people may forget
> during the course of a hour or so of shopping that they parked their car
> alongside an obstruction that was subsequently hidden from view by the
> car when they returned.
Indeed they may.
But, surely, they'd be reminded when they saw the fence on the way back
to their car...?
> There are plenty of mistakes that people make in the best of conditions.
Nobody's claimed otherwise.
It's generally good practice to admit to said mistakes, though, not to
try to blame inanimate objects for being in the wrong place.
> I simply do not see the purpose of placing walls and bollards that are
> below bonnet-height within the manoevouring area of a car park. Surely
> they present pretty obvious hazards?
You're right. All objects that are below three foot or so - actually,
make it four foot to allow for big 4x4s - from ground level should be
removed immediately.
Kerbs, for instance. They just _lurk_ there, enticing the unwary...
Cynic
wrote:
>> Some people possess photographic memories. Other people may forget
>> during the course of a hour or so of shopping that they parked their car
>> alongside an obstruction that was subsequently hidden from view by the
>> car when they returned.
>Indeed they may.
>But, surely, they'd be reminded when they saw the fence on the way back
>to their car...?
The fence (or bollard or whatever) may well be behind the car such
that the returning driver does not see it.
>> I simply do not see the purpose of placing walls and bollards that are
>> below bonnet-height within the manoevouring area of a car park. Surely
>> they present pretty obvious hazards?
>You're right. All objects that are below three foot or so - actually,
>make it four foot to allow for big 4x4s - from ground level should be
>removed immediately.
>Kerbs, for instance. They just _lurk_ there, enticing the unwary...
Kerbs don't do any damage when encountered at car-park speeds and are
usually long enough that they don't get hidden. Concrete bollards and
a few other things do. There is a very good practical need for kerbs
to be a few inches high, but no good reason to keep bollard heights
down.
This is *not* about blame - a driver is clearly to blame for hitting
any stationary object. It is about not creating unnecessary hazards.
If an H&S inspector were to tell you that you should not have loose
cables and hoses all over the floor, try telling him that people
should watch where they are walking and see how impressed he is with
your logic.
--
Cynic
smr
I think it's asking too much to have the amount of damage before you
need to report it as "utter desolation." The wall might still be
standing but a car's swiped it, there's even paint to show that, it just
has to be less pristine condition than it was before the car hit.
Dave Holland
> Dave Holland <da...@biff.org.uk> remarked:
>>Since the car's wing was damaged, it seems reasonable to believe the
>>fence was also damaged. Damage to property is enough to require
>>giving one's details; no injuries need to occur.
>Having seen many car park walls decorated with paint scraped off cars, I
>doubt that such a thing is realistically described as "damage".
You are muddying the waters somewhat by mentioning "wall" when the OP
wrote "fence".
But in any case: having had a wall of my property damaged by a third
party's car recently, I can confirm that significant property damage
can be caused by an impact that leaves little visible damage to a car.
>Do you have to report damage that's only of concern to one's own
>vehicle?
I don't think so, but IANAL.
Dave
Roland Perry
Tue, 22 Sep 2009, smr <stevi...@googlemail.com> remarked:
>> Do you have to report damage that's only of concern to one's own vehicle?
>
>I think it's asking too much to have the amount of damage before you
>need to report it as "utter desolation." The wall might still be
>standing but a car's swiped it, there's even paint to show that, it just
>has to be less pristine condition than it was before the car hit.
And if the wall is still standing, and just has 251, rather than 250
paint scrapes on it?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2009, Dave Holland <da...@biff.org.uk> remarked:
>>>Since the car's wing was damaged, it seems reasonable to believe the
>>>fence was also damaged. Damage to property is enough to require
>>>giving one's details; no injuries need to occur.
>>Having seen many car park walls decorated with paint scraped off cars, I
>>doubt that such a thing is realistically described as "damage".
>
>You are muddying the waters somewhat by mentioning "wall" when the OP
>wrote "fence".
Car parks tend to have a mixture of dwarf walls and fences whose
definitions merge.
>But in any case: having had a wall of my property damaged by a third
>party's car recently, I can confirm that significant property damage
>can be caused by an impact that leaves little visible damage to a car.
That sounds to me like a wall that's much less substantial than those in
a typical car park. Especially those I described that have literally
hundreds of paint trails on them.
--
Roland Perry
smr
Well, I know this is getting ridiculously formalistic but yes - it's in
a less pristine condition and it's, technically speaking, more damaged.
It's not very significant at all but from a legal perspective the little
bird that flies over to the mountain once every thousand years and
sharpens its beak and wears down the mountain is, if the mountain is
owned by someone else and in an entirely technical sense, committing a
very slight incident of (criminal?) damage. Not nearly enough to
prosecute for, even if human, of course but formalistically ticking the
boxes in that a little bit of damage happens and it's not the owner
doing it etc. In that respect if the bird is damaging the mountain then
so is the car hitting the wall. It might not have been perfect when the
bird or the car got there but now it's worse. You're only responsible
for the damage you do and working that out could be hard but
nevertheless, technically the case.
You'd never, ever get it in court unless there was literally no other
crime on the planet, though.
CJM
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dvphb5pnf4e95m8k2...@4ax.com...
>
> This is *not* about blame - a driver is clearly to blame for hitting
> any stationary object. It is about not creating unnecessary hazards.
> If an H&S inspector were to tell you that you should not have loose
> cables and hoses all over the floor, try telling him that people
> should watch where they are walking and see how impressed he is with
> your logic.
>
If I could give you a gold star, I would - I think this hits the nail on the
head. People have assumed that the driver wants redress from the
supermarket, but maybe he just wants the supermarket to make amendments to
their car park to reduce the chance of such accidents in future.
I don't know if there are any rules governing the structure of a car park,
but it seems reasonable to insist that hazards are visible to drivers
*inside* their cars. If we can't insist that the supermarket make
amendments, we can certainly recommend that they do. Besides, supermarket
are rarely inclined to leave barriers in the way of potential customers -
I'm sure if the problem is as described, there will be quite a number of
customer with similar experiences, and if the supermarket gets a reputation
of having a 'difficult' car park, customer may well be inclined to shop
elsewhere.