Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3
Hmm, what to write...
1000 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 510

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1650792 14-Oct-2016 07:16
Send private message

dickytim:

 

mdooher:
sidefx:

 

mdooher: If you are reversing and hit someone it is your fault. I know it seems unfair but that is the way it works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you reverse into someone sure... but if you're parallel parking and while trying to do it someone drives into the front right corner of your car, I'd think perhaps that's going to be a lot more of a grey area and I'd argue more the fault of the other driver.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Generally though I've observed the same as the OP, so will stop just in front of the space with indicator on until I'm sure car behind me is going to wait, or they've aggressively driven around me as many seem to do...)

 


The police see it as straight forward as running up the back end of someone. Your fault.
If you are reversing you must give way, no "grey area". Even worse if you swing the front end of you car out into traffic...careless driving... Yes it would have been "nice" if the other person waited but you are ulimatly responsible

 

 

 

You didn't really read or understand the question, the car passing is actually potentially going to collide with the front of the car in front.

 

 

 

 

yep, I did. If the car is passing you and your front end swings out as you reverse and you clip the car it is your fault





Matthew


1710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 169

Trusted

  Reply # 1650860 14-Oct-2016 09:44
Send private message

Reversing car is at fault.

 

 

 

I've been in this situation in a mall carpark - backing out of a space, very limited visibility of surrounding area and a learner drivers comes round the corner, not paying as much attention as she should, and straight into me. There was another bizarre twist to this which meant I got the police involved, and their judgement on the collision was that even though the learner driver should have been far more weary in the confined, poorly lit carparking and should have been able to stop - as I had been backing, I was at fault.


 
 
 
 


UHD

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 303
Inactive user


  Reply # 1651249 14-Oct-2016 18:38
Send private message

Jonski:

 

mdooher: If you are reversing and hit someone it is your fault. I know it seems unfair but that is the way it works.

 

I used to live in a cul de sac. I walked out to my car one morning to go to work. Looked down the drive, clear. Got in the car, started reversing, having turned and looking through the back window.

 

Crunch.

 

My dropkick neighbour had come partially out his driveway perpendicular to mine, and stopped behind the fence with just the bonnet poking out, below the sightline from over my boot. He had stopped and got out (to check the mail) blocking my drive.

 

But because I was reversing, my fault.

 

#Notahappycamper

 

 

You have side mirrors for a reason.




3884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1274


  Reply # 1651316 14-Oct-2016 21:12
Send private message

It is really difficult in our narrow and busy main street.....always give plenty of indication time for a parallel park...90% of the time trailing vehicle will stop allowing you to reverse in.  . . every so often you get a boy racer type who doesn't give a rats or inattentive driver who comes right up behind preventing me from reversing, and because it is a really busy road at times they cannot pass due to oncoming traffic....blocks up the whole road for a while while they wait for a passing opportunity. 

 

 

 

Personally, I think the rule should be that trailing drivers should give way to parallel parking cars as this is generally the safest option to clear the road quickly rather than having them drive around you on the wrong side of the road -- incidentally, noone ever signals when they pass -- the law is they must signal 3 seconds before overtaking but people don't.

 

 

 

 

 

 


1495 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 162

Subscriber

  Reply # 1651318 14-Oct-2016 21:29
One person supports this post
Send private message

So my interpretation is that the following car would have caused the accident, as long as the parking clearly signalled in advance of stopping.  Under the road user rule (clarified here: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/road-user-qas.html) at 50kph posted speed, you should be following at no closer than 20m.  If, the reversing car, managed to crash in to the car behind while reversing in to a parallel space that it stopped just beyond, e.g. the normal position you stop when you want to reverse, then it is quite clear that the following car is in breach of the 1.2s following road user rule and the 2s road code rule by following a car too closely and could easily be proven.  Now the road code also indicates that both parties should be responsible on the road so it could probably apportion some blame on the reversing car, but again the majority should fall on the follower for being far too close.




3884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1274


  Reply # 1651321 14-Oct-2016 21:36
Send private message

Benoire:

 

So my interpretation is that the following car would have caused the accident, as long as the parking clearly signalled in advance of stopping.  Under the road user rule (clarified here: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/road-user-qas.html) at 50kph posted speed, you should be following at no closer than 20m.  If, the reversing car, managed to crash in to the car behind while reversing in to a parallel space that it stopped just beyond, e.g. the normal position you stop when you want to reverse, then it is quite clear that the following car is in breach of the 1.2s following road user rule and the 2s road code rule by following a car too closely and could easily be proven.  Now the road code also indicates that both parties should be responsible on the road so it could probably apportion some blame on the reversing car, but again the majority should fall on the follower for being far too close.

 

 

At the very least they should make it clear in the road code :)

 

I was just curious as to the actual rule, but everyone seems to have a varying view. 


13580 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6364

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1651327 14-Oct-2016 21:55
Send private message

The best way to get the actual rule is to ask NZTA




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


Hmm, what to write...
1000 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 510

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1651394 15-Oct-2016 07:55
Send private message

surfisup1000:

 

It is really difficult in our narrow and busy main street.....always give plenty of indication time for a parallel park...90% of the time trailing vehicle will stop allowing you to reverse in.  . . every so often you get a boy racer type who doesn't give a rats or inattentive driver who comes right up behind preventing me from reversing, and because it is a really busy road at times they cannot pass due to oncoming traffic....blocks up the whole road for a while while they wait for a passing opportunity. 

 

 

 

Personally, I think the rule should be that trailing drivers should give way to parallel parking cars as this is generally the safest option to clear the road quickly rather than having them drive around you on the wrong side of the road -- incidentally, noone ever signals when they pass -- the law is they must signal 3 seconds before overtaking but people don't.

 

  

 

 

You don't need to indicate to "pass" in this circumstance 1) you are remaining entirely within your lane and 2) the other vehicle is stationary, so in effect you are simply driving past a parked car (yes it is double parked)

 

 





Matthew


Hmm, what to write...
1000 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 510

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1651406 15-Oct-2016 08:04
Send private message

Benoire:

 

So my interpretation is that the following car would have caused the accident, as long as the parking clearly signalled in advance of stopping.  Under the road user rule (clarified here: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/road-user-qas.html) at 50kph posted speed, you should be following at no closer than 20m.  If, the reversing car, managed to crash in to the car behind while reversing in to a parallel space that it stopped just beyond, e.g. the normal position you stop when you want to reverse, then it is quite clear that the following car is in breach of the 1.2s following road user rule and the 2s road code rule by following a car too closely and could easily be proven.  Now the road code also indicates that both parties should be responsible on the road so it could probably apportion some blame on the reversing car, but again the majority should fall on the follower for being far too close.

 

 

The other car "could" have stopped but also has the right of way so doesn't have to stop. In effect the reversing car is "using an unavailable lane"

 

Not only that but following distances are only applicable at speeds of 40km/h and above. so once the front car drops below this speed you can legally go as close as you wish.

 

 





Matthew


3100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1570


  Reply # 1651410 15-Oct-2016 08:16
2 people support this post
Send private message

The possible scenarios in this are too many to provide a definitive answer as it will be a case by case basis.  Referring to my earlier post, it will depend on the evidence of who is doing what at a particular point in time.  IME (former) of nearly 20 years in road policing it will come down to an assessment of each drivers actions and intentions.  Yes reversing is risky and that is one risk that will be looked at, but it does not automatically absolve the other motorists of any responsibility.    

 

In an ideal world the following motorists will be patient and provide the driver parking ample time and space to complete the manoeuvre, then everyone carries on their way.  But we all know how precious 20 seconds is to an impatient driver so this is not realistic to expect all the time.  

 

If the following vehicle was stopped and the reversing car hits it then easily the reversing drivers fault, mitigated by the idiot behind not leaving enough room but still. If the following car hits the rear of the stopped vehicle that is waiting to commence reversing that is easily the following cars fault for not stopping short.  If the following car clips the front of the reversing car mid-manoeuvre then I would be looking at if the following car passed while it was unsafe to do so.  

 

I always take my cue from the car immediately behind, if they appear impatient and are clearly trying to go around me then I will wait for the way to be clear (or usually someone stops to let you in eventually), if they slow or stop a good distance away then I start reversing.  

 

  





Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman



2599 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 363


  Reply # 1651428 15-Oct-2016 09:34
Send private message

There was a FairGo episode on reversing liability involving insurance companies that seemed to prejudge based on who was reversing without considering the circumstances. A lawyer interviewed said if it was that simple anyone wanting the front of their car fixed could just drive around looking for a reversing car to run into.

A Disputes Tribunal case has resulted in a 30/70% split in cost between reversing and other party because they contributed to the collision happening.

472 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 214


  Reply # 1651592 15-Oct-2016 14:23
Send private message

MikeB4: The best way to get the actual rule is to ask NZTA

 

The NZTA does not make the rules (that is done by parliament), or provide interpretation of the rules (that is done by the courts). I don't think the NZTA is permitted to give legal advice either.

 

 

 

surfisup1000:

 

It is really difficult in our narrow and busy main street.....always give plenty of indication time for a parallel park...90% of the time trailing vehicle will stop allowing you to reverse in.

 



 

This can be tricky if the paradell parks are in the few car lengths approaching an intersection. Left hand indication is required by both prospective parkers and left turners. No way to communicate your intention to park, before you stop and put the car in reverse, thereby lighting up the reverse lights.


1222 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 58


  Reply # 1652112 17-Oct-2016 09:08
Send private message

On the subject of reversing down a driveway and hitting something or someone and being at fault... Is it actually law that all properties by design must have allowances for vehicle to be able to turn around on the property to then leave driving forwards back out, or is that rubbish like the common misconception cabbage trees can't be cut down?

First time caller
154 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 42

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1652307 17-Oct-2016 13:09
Send private message

Geese: On the subject of reversing down a driveway and hitting something or someone and being at fault... Is it actually law that all properties by design must have allowances for vehicle to be able to turn around on the property to then leave driving forwards back out, or is that rubbish like the common misconception cabbage trees can't be cut down?

 

I've seen many new properties with the garage door close enough to the road that there is no possibility of turning around. If it was a law then these properties would not have received planning permission.





@Shadowfoot on Twitter


1495 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 162

Subscriber

  Reply # 1652312 17-Oct-2016 13:12
Send private message

Geese: On the subject of reversing down a driveway and hitting something or someone and being at fault... Is it actually law that all properties by design must have allowances for vehicle to be able to turn around on the property to then leave driving forwards back out, or is that rubbish like the common misconception cabbage trees can't be cut down?

 

This would only be part of a consent condition.  I don't believe there is a law on reverse manoeuvring, but most new developments that have frontage access to arterials or other important corridors have a consent condition to build turning areas.  Enforcement I think is based on the condition, e.g. can only enter and exit property in forward gears... breaching this would be a breach of the RMA/LGA and not road user rules/code.


1 | 2 | 3
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.