Car park regulations for commerical outfits

pog it

@Mods: This ok to put in Motors?

Hey all,

Have a big problem I could really do with help on.

I visited a commercial car-park of a very large shopping centre which has outdoor car parks along with a multi-storey one.
As the outdoor ones were either full or ticket machine not working or closed off, I, as well as many others, used the multi storey.

On entering this, there are three lanes each with their own ticket machine and barrier. However, after you get the ticket and your barrier lifts up, all cars can go through at the same time, but there is only space for one car to actually drive forward, as in they all merge in very quickly, and there is only a short space between these machines and the point where there is only space for one car.

This would be fine if it was quiet and if all drivers were taking their time going in. Sadly, today, I had the situation where there were three of us going in at the same time, with the car on the left side (I was in middle lane) speeding up to the barrier, (I was slightly ahead of him but was going slower on entering) and then as I got my ticket too and the lane was right in front of me, he looked like he was going to cross over into my path, and I had to swerve right to avoid a crash with him.

Sadly, the kerb of the traffic island thingy is very long (unusually long) and my back wheel hit this and my car rocked quite a bit, and on going up to a higher floor to park, my car does not drive the same, and I am pretty sure the alignment is off.

I reported this to the security there and they are going to call me tomorrow after they have seen CCTV but I am guessing they will say they were not at fault and that it is between us two drivers and our insurance companies to sort anything out.

Now, the guy on my left, was speeding way too much, but at the same time, there is a massive problem at this carpark with their layout and system. You have to allow for human error and also give drivers enough room to move.

We looked at the kerbs and they were all black at the ends- presumably due to rubber off tyres and I am guessing this is happening a lot here.

I don't want to have to involve this guy's insurance company. Yes, he was at fault, but it was the layout of the carpark entrance that was to blame.

Is there any chance that anyone knows what regulations these carparks have to follow? It seems very wrong that they are allowed have three lanes and yet space for just one car immediately afterwards.

I am really put out by this and have to sort my wheel alignment out, just because of the cramped space and avoiding a crash.

Anan1

Bottom line is you drove into a kerb. I can't see how you can blame anyone else, sorry.

Mycroft H

They're only going to say that you were driving the car at the time and you hit the kerb.

pog it

BX 19 wrote: »

They're only going to say that you were driving the car at the time and you hit the kerb.

Yes, but I did it to avoid a crash which could have happened due to their shoddy layout.

I posted here because I need info about regulations for commercial carparks.
It does not seem feasible to have three lanes and ticket machines with only room for one car to proceed.

Even when we went back down we saw it happening again, and we saw the marks on the kerbs.

It is easy to blame the person who hit the kerb to avoid a crash, but that is too simple minded a conclusion.. I've already given mitigating factors.

pog it

OSI wrote: »

If there's anything, which I doubt, it'll be planning regulations. As it's already built, I imagine the plans passed an form of planning regs there might have been.

It just seems incredible that planning regulations would allow for this.

I've a faultless record as a driver and it's pathetic how much I have to do on the road to make up for lousy driving. Normally it just annoys me and I can get on with it, but in this case my car's wheel alignment is now messed up.

I have to get it checked of course but it's just not driving the same.

I'm strongly considering to stop making up for bad drivers where there is no threat to life. So if going slowly and someone is doing something idiotic, if I am failed by the regulations here, well my attitude is going to change.

I also had some git wrench the aerial off my car. I'm just fed up with the nonsense and I am going to take this as far as need be to get some justice.

Anan1

Swerving to avoid a hazard is an instinctive reaction, but stopping is often a better one. I'd learn from this and move on.

Stheno

Sounds very similiar to the multistory in Swords Pavillions, if I have to park there, I take my time and go through the barrier slowly watching the other two cars at the other barriers.

justsomebloke

I would guess the Pavillons as well and to be truthful I can't see anything coming from it as they will just say it was driver error

pog it

Stheno wrote: »

Sounds very similiar to the multistory in Swords Pavillions, if I have to park there, I take my time and go through the barrier slowly watching the other two cars at the other barriers.

Quite possibly the same one! And you are doing what I normally do- watch other drivers as you can't trust them all. And in this case I had to deal with a driver who was speeding, coupled with the layout of the lanes and how they merge within seconds.

My problem is still the same though- what are the planning regulations?

And why should I have to suffer now and pay 100 euro to make up for bad planning and bad drivers? I'm sorry, I've reached my limits of patience now.

Something has to give, and it will not be me.

Stheno

pog it wrote: »

And why should I have to suffer now and pay 100 euro to make up for bad planning and bad drivers? I'm sorry, I've reached my limits of patience now.

Something has to give, and it will not be me.

Have you heard of driving with due care and attention? That's essentially what you didn't do. In your OP you clearly stated that the other driver was going faster through the barrier. I'd put it down to an error on your part and suck it up.

I'd just have waited if I were you, until it was clear.

pog it

Stheno wrote: »

Have you heard of driving with due care and attention? That's essentially what you didn't do. In your OP you clearly stated that the other driver was going faster through the barrier. I'd put it down to an error on your part and suck it up.

I'd just have waited if I were you, until it was clear.

I was ahead of him driving in and I was driving carefully and slowly. Not speeding in, braking abruptly at the barrier, grabbing ticket and then driving into the middle lane as the driver was doing- remember- I was in the middle and main lane. Both other sides are supposed to merge into that middle lane.

I took care and thought the driver was going to wait his turn and when he didn't, i swerved right, and didn't realise that the concrete island stretched so far and so long! I've never seen an island that length before, and then where 3 lanes merge into one within such a short distance.

You know the cases how people like me have to look out for pathetic drivers who drive out of small roads, cross lanes when they shouldn't, etc. well if I have to incur a cost of 100 euro for this, I will not forget this experience so those drivers better get some drivers lessons or they will get one from me if no threat to life.

That's my final word on this. I came on here to find out about the regulations. I'm not arguing anything else here.

ironclaw

pog it wrote: »

Something has to give, and it will not be me.

Its going to be you. Alignment is not that expensive to correct, especially at such low speed. There may in fact be nothing wrong at all. Bring it to a garage for a €20 look over, they'll quickly tell you.

Any action will not be worth the hassle or cost of any premium increase for what is entirely your fault. You hit a stationery object with no interaction between another party. Case closed in my eyes. And forget planning, you'd be getting into a world of hassle and time wasted.

The driver to your left, should have yielded to you as your to their right, but they didn't hit you. You could have easily braked or stopped. Instead you swerved at perhaps 10km/h? Any damage is so minimal at that speed. Move on!

pog it

ironclaw wrote: »

Its going to be you. Alignment is not that expensive to correct, especially at such low speed. There may in fact be nothing wrong at all. Bring it to a garage for a €20 look over, they'll quickly tell you.

Any action will not be worth the hassle or cost of any premium increase for what is entirely your fault. You hit a stationery object with no interaction between another party. Case closed in my eyes. And forget planning, you'd be getting into a world of hassle and time wasted.

The last time I got a discount because I was replacing two tyres. That is not long ago. Otherwise they told me it would be 100 euro.

All I am saying is that I am patient driver who is now no longer going to be neurotic on the road just to avoid crashing into others.

So, if I won't be liable, and if no loss to my life or anyone else's life, I will get the other person to pay for their stupidity.

I am sick to death of having to suffer for other's arrogance or ignorance.

And, that's 20 euro I'd rather have in my pocket.

kaahooters

afaik the design is to calm traffic, and as such, if theirs any accidents its the drivers faults for speeding, due care......

it could be ruled negligence if you went to your insurance, pay the 50€ for the alignment and use it as a learning lesson.

Stheno

pog it wrote: »

So, if I won't be liable, and if no loss to my life or anyone else's life, I will get the other person to pay for their stupidity.

I am sick to death of having to suffer for other's arrogance or ignorance.

.

In the case you've talked about in your OP I suspect you would be liable if you had hit them.

Seriously, move on.

pog it

Stheno wrote: »

In the case you've talked about in your OP I suspect you would be liable if you had hit them.

Seriously, move on.

Don't accuse me of not driving with due attention.
I already told you I have a faultless record as a driver and no claims bonus from the beginning. Haven't even claimed for the aerial that was stolen off my car...

I will pursue this and am strongly considering taking a case against the centre who planned and operate it. Their layout is totally unacceptable.
They have also seriously enraged me and ruined my day. Also got smirks from the other operator who thought I had my back turned.

ba_barabus

pog it wrote: »

I will pursue this and am strongly considering taking a case against the centre who planned and operate it. Their layout is totally unacceptable.
They have also seriously enraged me and ruined my day. Also got smirks from the other operator who thought I had my back turned.

May I recommend you contact Lionel Hutz for legal advice.

pog it

ba_barabus wrote: »

May I recommend you contact Lionel Hutz for legal advice.

May I recommend you spend less time watching television and opening a book?

ba_barabus

pog it wrote: »

May I recommend you spend less time watching television and opening a book?

Listen,

the kerb didn't just jump out and hit your car. It's a stationary object. You hit it by your own admission.

If you do take a case against the owner of the car park I PRAY TO GOD you didn't damage the kerb. Otherwise I suspect they'll have a counter claim as you damaged their property and never gave your insurance details.

I've yet to decide if you're trolling or the thread is some kind of hilarious joke.

Stheno

ba_barabus wrote: »

If you do take a case against the owner of the car park I PRAY TO GOD you didn't damage the kerb. Otherwise I suspect they'll have a counter claim as you damaged their property and never gave your insurance details.

They probably saved the cctv and all!

ba_barabus

Stheno wrote: »

They probably saved the cctv and all!

Lets just hope the driver took out Kerb Insurance with their policy.

pog it

ba_barabus wrote: »

Listen,

the kerb didn't just jump out and hit your car. It's a stationary object. You hit it by your own admission.

If you do take a case against the owner of the car park I PRAY TO GOD you didn't damage the kerb. Otherwise I suspect they'll have a counter claim as you damaged their property and never gave your insurance details.

I've yet to decide if you're trolling or the thread is some kind of hilarious joke.

If that's the case there is a whole lot of black on the kerb and a whole lot of cctv to look through, as I'd hate to be claiming discrimination too!

Pretty slow decision making process going on there!

pog it

Stheno wrote: »

They probably saved the cctv and all!

Round the clock!

Stheno

Look that carpark has been operating for a good few years with that layout.

It was approved through planning for the centre etc.
It's no better and no worse than many carparks I can think of, in fact I can think of a few that I've enountered that are single lane only for traffic going in both directions which are worse.

ba_barabus

pog it wrote: »

If that's the case there is a whole lot of black on the kerb and a whole lot of cctv to look through, as I'd hate to be claiming discrimination too!

Pretty slow decision making process going on there!

But I bet no other driver went up to them and left their details and told them when they drove into their kerb hard enough to do damage.

Did you tick the Kerb Cover option when you took out your insurance policy? It might be time to call your insurer.

pog it

A few intelligent people on here though, thanks to them for their feedback and time.

ba_barabus

pog it wrote: »

A few intelligent people on here though.

And none of them are going to take a case against the car park owners and planners because they hit a kerb

pog it

ba_barabus wrote: »

But I bet no other driver went up to them and left their details and told them when they drove into their kerb hard enough to do damage.

Did you tick the Kerb Cover option when you took out your insurance policy? It might be time to call your insurer.

How do you imagine the kerb was damaged? That my tyre took a chunk out of it?

Seriously, there is further education out there son.

pog it

ba_barabus wrote: »

And none of them are going to take a case against the car park owners and planners because they hit a kerb

No, they would take it due to the layout of the entrance to the carpark!

ironclaw

pog it wrote: »

So, if I won't be liable, and if no loss to my life or anyone else's life, I will get the other person to pay for their stupidity.

I am sick to death of having to suffer for other's arrogance or ignorance.
.

You drove into a stationary object and you have the neck to call other drivers stupid? Seriously now. :rolleyes:

If you managed to damage your car or the kerb at car park speeds, then you were obviously travelling at well in excess of a 'safe' speed. I'm sorry, thats simple mechanics and dynamics. I'm pretty confident I could hit a kerb at 10km/h (i.e. A decent jog pace) or so and come away without damage requiring an insurance claim.

I cannot believe this thread is on its second third page.

Driver cuts other drive off, OP swerves and hits kerb (at walking pace), OP wants other driver / car park to pay for damage. May as well be 'Murica with that sue everyone attitude.

Valetta

In my opinion you could well have a case against the other driver, depending on the CCTV coverage available and what it shows.

You took evasive action to avoid a collision so should not be held responsible for any damaged caused.

Say for example you are driving on a single carriageway road and an oncoming car is overtaking and heading straight for you. You swerve to the left to avoid a head on collision and run into some poor guy changing a tyre on the hard shoulder.

Assuming it is all caught on camera, who is responsible?

pog it

Valetta wrote: »

In my opinion you could well have a case against the other driver, depending on the CCTV coverage available and what it shows.

You took evasive action to avoid a collision so should not be held responsible for any damaged caused.

Say for example you are driving on a single carriageway road and an oncoming car is overtaking and heading straight for you. You swerve to the left to avoid a head on collision and run into some poor guy changing a tyre on the hard shoulder.

Assuming it is all caught on camera, who is responsible?

Thank you Valetta. How anyone here can think I managed to damage the concrete kerb after having just pulled out from a barrier at the carpark is remarkable.. even if there is black on the kerb, it's pitch black from all the tyres going into it! So I'm not the first this has happened to.........

Amazing. Is it too much to expect people to open their minds a bit?

Anan1

Valetta wrote: »

You took evasive action to avoid a collision so should not be held responsible for any damaged caused.

Stopping would have avoided an accident, swerving resulted in one.

ba_barabus

pog it wrote: »

Seriously, there is further education out there son.

I'd love to sit here all evening taking the absolute piss out of you but I'm going to come straight as you're not getting it.

There is no such thing as kerb insurance.

You can't insure for someone who swerves their car so violently at a speed of less than 10mph (you say you were just pulling off so I'm assuming you weren't trying to get ahead of the other driver) and who hasn't got the sense to put their foot on the brake pedal.

You have no case against the other driver as they didn't hit your car.

You have no case against the car park owner, designer and planning authorities as the design was given planning permission as it met a certain number of criteria.

You can try and take the moral high ground and pursue your case but you will have to take it to courts. It's not a case for the small claims court, in fact I'd say the cost of the repair would be less than pursuing a small claim (which isn't an option anyway).

You can of course get your insurer to cover the damage but you'll have to pay an excess which will be far greater than the claim. They will not pursue anyone but you for the charge.

Having read all of this I hope you realise that you really only have yourself to blame. YOU drove the car. YOU swerved rather than braked. YOU directed the car into the high kerb. YOU came onto the thread and have acted like a spoilt child whenever everyone points this out to you. YOu have to accept responsibility for YOUR actions and stop looking for someone else to blame. YOU gave yourself the bad day.

pog it

ba_barabus wrote: »

Having read all of this I hope you realise that you really only have yourself to blame. YOU drove the car. YOU swerved rather than braked. YOU directed the car into the high kerb. YOU came onto the thread and have acted like a spoilt child whenever everyone points this out to you. YOu have to accept responsibility for YOUR actions and stop looking for someone else to blame. YOU gave yourself the bad day.

Everyone else did not not point this out to me.
Also, nowhere did I say there was any such thing as kerb insurance, so are telling me nothing new. I wasn't sure, due to your previous messages, if you maybe thought it was possible that the kerb had been damaged. There are a lot of idiots out there, and I simply told you it wasn't possible.

So let me make that clear to you.................

derry

My mate got T boned and his car was written off in large shopping car park and the other car was entirely in the wrong .However in private car parks there is no real such thing like rules of the road anymore than there would be rules of the road if two cars race around a private farmer field. The insurance companies attitude was was it was 50/50 accident for each car and they could both clam for their own cars comprehensive policies because it wasn't the public road where rules of the road apply.
Thats not to say my friend could not have taken a private civil action to sue the offending motorist where a Judge might chose to accept that large shopping car parks are are not exactly the same as two cars racing in some farmers field but court costs legal costs he opted to skip on it

Good luck your case in logic looks correct but in the legal framework i think you need to seek legal advice on it as i dont see to many qualified legal eagles giving free legal advise on this forum

Best I can see the shopping centers have no duty of care to supervise the car traffic in any way and all things like flow arrows are merely suggestions not enforceable in law .
As far as i can see even if another car rear ends you in a shopping car Park then it going to be 50/50 for the insurance companies and to change that will require you to take private civil court case action with a high risk you will lose in court as it isnt public roads
You enter any shopping car park at your peril the same if you go race your car against other cars in some farmers field .
Moral of the story don't park in large shopping centers car parks unless your happy anything that happens you have to pay for it and if it big bill then claim on your insurance policy .
Now off course if you injured yourself clipping a kurb badly placed and clearly black marked from multiple hits then the careless action of the shop to put curbs where people could be injured from the impact and ignoring the repeated accidents at that source of accidents could be different story but pitures of the offending kurbs would be usefull


Derry

Jack Kyle

pog it wrote: »

Quite possibly the same one! And you are doing what I normally do- watch other drivers as you can't trust them all. And in this case I had to deal with a driver who was speeding, coupled with the layout of the lanes and how they merge within seconds.

My problem is still the same though- what are the planning regulations?

And why should I have to suffer now and pay 100 euro to make up for bad planning and bad drivers? I'm sorry, I've reached my limits of patience now.

Something has to give, and it will not be me.

Sorry, I've just read the thread from start to finish and it's you that's the bad driver.

There's no future in pursuing third parties here.

Treat it as a lesson learned.

wingnut

Don't mean to fan the fire but I don't understand how you could get up enough speed proceeding from a barrier that would necessitate swerving rather than stopping?

I would be shocked if you got any satisfaction from the car park owners. As many have already said at the end of the day you hit a stationary object.

pog it

Well, a final update. Despite the manager calling me the next day who was friendly and courteous, they wouldn't even meet me half way in paying for my wheels to get realigned which is just frankly miserable but I guess they don't want to admit any guilt. My car is absolutely not driving how it was and I'm still seriously put out by the whole thing.

Had no idea that normal rules of the road do not apply in private car parks and I am disgusted by it. They say that the carpark is RSA approved....

Seriously... 3 lanes, with space for only one car to proceed? RSA approved? Just ridiculous.

pog it

Thanks to all for their replies here. Much appreciated.

OldmanMondeo

I read your first post and then some replies after it, and TBH, it is 100% your own fault. As pointed out you brake to avoid an accident, swerving only moves the accident from one place to another. I see in a post above a manager call you back and was polite and pleasant, which was nice of them.

You have no claim against the car-park company, as it stands it is very difficult to get a county council to cover damage caused by a pothole, you drove into a stationary object, it doesn't matter if it was a kerb, crash barrier or a lamppost, you drove into it. If you had to swerve to avoid a collision then frankly you where going too fast.

It is something you are going to have to suck up and accept..

pog it

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

I read your first post and then some replies after it, and TBH, it is 100% your own fault. As pointed out you brake to avoid an accident, swerving only moves the accident from one place to another. I see in a post above a manager call you back and was polite and pleasant, which was nice of them.

You have no claim against the car-park company, as it stands it is very difficult to get a county council to cover damage caused by a pothole, you drove into a stationary object, it doesn't matter if it was a kerb, crash barrier or a lamppost, you drove into it. If you had to swerve to avoid a collision then frankly you where going too fast.

It is something you are going to have to suck up and accept..

The kerb was far too long for the layout and I had right of way as I was in middle lane. Nothing about that puts me in the wrong.
This thread can be closed now. I don't need any more comments coming in now saying same thing others have said.

OldmanMondeo

pog it wrote: »

The kerb was far too long for the layout and I had right of way as I was in middle lane. Nothing about that puts me in the wrong.
This thread can be closed now. I don't need any more comments coming in now saying same thing others have said.

But the road was too short and I hit the wall at the end of it :rolleyes:, must be someone else fault....

OP, you only want the thread closed because you won't admit that you have no case / claim. Yes it sucks, but the long kerb did not steer your car into it.

Sounds more like aggressive driving by 1 or both parties and you lost.

Tell you what, go get proper legal advise and let us know how you get on.

Chippy01

pog it wrote: »

I have a faultless record as a driver and no claims bonus from the beginning. QUOTE]

And how long ago would the beginning be?

djimi

pog it wrote: »

Despite the manager calling me the next day who was friendly and courteous, they wouldn't even meet me half way in paying for my wheels to get realigned which is just frankly miserable but I guess they don't want to admit any guilt.

I have absolutely no idea why you though the car park owners would even remotely entertain you with this, or why you though anyone would find them even remotely liable. The kerb didnt jump out at you and I doubt you were driving in pitch darkness, so regardless of how badly the car park is designed its up to you to evaluate your surroundings and drive accordingly.

In this case I doubt we are talking about speeds of much more than 5-10mph (given that you were just pulling away from a barrier) and despite what you claim the other car was not speeding (unless they were driving a drag racer!); they simply pulled away more quickly than you did. They might be guilty of driving like a prat, but unless you can prove that they came up from significantly behind you and tried to force themselves into a space that was not there (ie actually undertake you), you will not have much luck proving that they were liable as you should have been watching the cars on both sides of you.