Another Road Traffic question

looksee

If another vehicle parks on the road in such a way as to force other traffic to cross a solid white line to get round it, who has liability in the event of an accident.

This occurred earlier this week when we had our one day of summer. I was driving along a scenic coastal road and every small beach had a line of cars on the road. No problem, take your time, take turns with the oncoming traffic to pass.

However at one beach there is a sharp bend just beside the beach entrance and a van and a couple of cars had 'parked' by just stopping on the road. The only way round them was to pull across the white line and drive into a completely blind bend on the other lane. I did this slowly, hoping that anything coming towards me would realise what the situation was and be going equally slowly.

If a car had come round the corner and hit me head on - there was no verge, nowhere to go - presumably I would have been liable. However if I had stopped behind the van, cars coming from behind me would have no doubt overtaken me as well, compounding the problem. What, if any, is the solution here?

grogi

The car illegally parked is liable for illegal parking. You would be liable for the accident.

Ragnar Lothbrok

grogi wrote: »

The car illegally parked is liable for illegal parking. You would be liable for the accident.

If this is true (and I have no reason to doubt it is) it's another example of how unfair the road regulations can be at times. There would be no alternative but to cross the white line.

Maybe the OP should have used his hooter to warn any on-coming traffic.

Edit: Perhaps the only legal solution would be to pull up behind the parked cars and then call the Gardaí, but how practical would this be, not to mention time-consuming?

lifeandtimes

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Maybe the OP should have used his hooter to warn any on-coming traffic.

which is by definition the reason for a car horn,it is there as a warning,it is there to warn others of your car approaching.

However the op is obliged while driving his car to ensure the safety of his occupants,other road users and pedestrians. By this logic crossiing the line would knowingly put people in danger and as such the op would be liable for any accident that occur. Unfortunately this means staying put until its safe to pass or maybe turning around (not sure about this one)

looksee

I accept I would have been liable, I suppose I was thinking more of moral responsibility, which probably has no place in legal decisions.

I could not have turned round, there simply was not space. If I had stayed behind the van (for how long?) I would have been compounding the issue as others coming from behind me would undoubtedly have overtaken all of us. Waiting for the guards wasn't really an option as it would have taken them 20 minutes to get from the nearest station, assuming they set off immediately. Even sitting there long enough to make the call (and there is little to no signal along that stretch) as there was a bit of a bend behind me and I could have been rear-ended. And using a phone would have been illegal too!

I think maybe I should have posted this in Motors !

Ragnar Lothbrok

lifeandtimes wrote: »

However the op is obliged while driving his car to ensure the safety of his occupants,other road users and pedestrians. By this logic crossiing the line would knowingly put people in danger and as such the op would be liable for any accident that occur. Unfortunately this means staying put until its safe to pass or maybe turning around (not sure about this one)

But it would only be safe to pass when the illegally parked cars were no longer there. He couldn't turn the car around without crossing the white line either.

The areas where this type of parking tends to occur regularly are no doubt well-known to the councils. A few well-placed signs warning inconsiderate drivers not to park illegally/dangerously might work. Or else employ traffic wardens specifically for such areas during peak times?

hullaballoo

Liability, as always, would depend on all of the circumstances surrounding any incident. There is no black and white when it comes to liability, even where one party appears to be in beach of the rules of the road.

The oncoming car here is equally required to be able to stop fully within his line of sight, so if he comes around a blind corner at speed, he may be at fault. In addition, where there is an obstacle on one side of the road, the car that arrives second to the obstacle has to yield to the car that arrived first.

It's never open and shut.

lifeandtimes

looksee wrote: »

I accept I would have been liable, I suppose I was thinking more of moral responsibility, which probably has no place in legal decisions.

I could not have turned round, there simply was not space. If I had stayed behind the van (for how long?) I would have been compounding the issue as others coming from behind me would undoubtedly have overtaken all of us. Waiting for the guards wasn't really an option as it would have taken them 20 minutes to get from the nearest station, assuming they set off immediately. Even sitting there long enough to make the call (and there is little to no signal along that stretch) as there was a bit of a bend behind me and I could have been rear-ended. And using a phone would have been illegal too!

I think maybe I should have posted this in Motors !

you staying put is not putting you or anyone in danger,if other drivers want to take the chance of overtaking around a blind bend then thats on them and not your issue,equally of a car ends up rear ending you,they mudt be driving at an amole soeed and distance to be able to safely.

however its pointed out that the oncoming car should be able to do this also especially if they can see there is an obstruction on the opposite road but they could argue that they did not have enough time deoending on the bend and your speed etc

Del2005

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

The areas where this type of parking tends to occur regularly are no doubt well-known to the councils. A few well-placed signs warning inconsiderate drivers not to park illegally/dangerously might work. Or else employ traffic wardens specifically for such areas during peak times?

They don't enforce parking regulations outside the majority of schools 3 times a day, there's zero chance of parking regulations been enforced on beaches that are rarely used.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Del2005 wrote: »

They don't enforce parking regulations outside the majority of schools 3 times a day, there's zero chance of parking regulations been enforced on beaches that are rarely used.

Oh I realise that. Just saying it could work if the desire was there. Not suggesting there would be a 24-hour presence either, maybe just at peak times at the weekend, but I know it would never happen.

Arcade_Tryer

There is a house on a road leading to the RSA HQ in County Mayo where the car(s), presumably owned by the occupier(s) of a property, are parked on the left hand side of the road, forcing anyone driving to and from the RSA and beyond to cross the broken/faded white line. Pretty much sums up the situation, Op.

CiniO

hullaballoo wrote: »

In addition, where there is an obstacle on one side of the road, the car that arrives second to the obstacle has to yield to the car that arrived first.

That sounds insteresting. Never heard about it.

Is that actually written somewhere in our law?

GM228

CiniO wrote: »

hullaballoo wrote: »

In addition, where there is an obstacle on one side of the road, the car that arrives second to the obstacle has to yield to the car that arrived first.

That sounds insteresting. Never heard about it.

Is that actually written somewhere in our law?

There's no specific rule in our laws regarding yielding right of way to a vehicle which is already there during an obstruction, although it's common sense to allow someone who's already on the road to take priority. It's the same as the question as to who has right of way on a narrow road - the answer is nobody.

That said however there is a rule that if starting from a stationary position a vehicle must yield right of way to any other vehicles (or pedestrians) already on the road so if one vehicle had stopped and there was already a vehicle moving then yes the stopped vehicle must yield right of way.

As hullabaloo stated any vehicle is required to stop within the distance they see to be clear, that applies to both vehicles in both directions.