tesco's car park

4743hudsonj

pulliptears wrote: »

correct neil. It seems quite clear cut to me anyway.

How on earth is clear cut? its rather narrow minded of you. As Pinkshoes has suggested, its undertaking, therefore illegal, it also may be a blind spot, why are you all so set out to condem the OP with no basis to do so? I challange anybody to prove that the OP was guilty ie was not undertaken, performed an unsafe overtake, etc etc.

The whole point is none of you can, you all have your opinions but if you have no proof, i thinks its best you kept them to yourselves rather than deter the OP from using this forum again because your all to short sighted to see that we cannot possibly know who is at fault without cctv.

neilmcl

4743hudsonj wrote: »

The whole point is none of you can, you all have your opinions but if you have no proof, i thinks its best you kept them to yourselves rather than deter the OP from using this forum again because your all to short sighted to see that we cannot possibly know who is at fault without cctv.

Calm down matey. We're all entitled to express our opinions, on what is after all a public forum. We may be making assumptions but those assumptions are based on the information as is, given to us by the OP. Nobody has said the cart driver isn't at fault but it looks like, again based on the what the OP has said so far, that she was perhaps also guilty of not paying due care and attention.

pulliptears

neilmcl wrote: »

Calm down matey. We're all entitled to express our opinions, on what is after all a public forum. We may be making assumptions but those assumptions are based on the information as is, given to us by the OP. Nobody has said the cart driver isn't at fault but it looks like, again based on the what the OP has said so far, that she was perhaps also guilty of not paying due care and attention.

Exactly neil, each of us will have our own take on things given the information to hand. Unfortunately hudson feels that if anyone has a take on things that doesn't conform with his then we are 'narrow minded'
**insert roll eye smiley**

pendulum

pinkshoes wrote: »

Given it's illegal to undertake, they shouldn't HAVE to check their mirror again.

It isn't illegal to undertake at all. The highway code recommends not to in general, but that is just a guide and there are times e.g. when traffic is queueing, where undertaking is acceptable even according to the highway code. If a car is waiting at a junction for other cars to go, that sounds like the start of a queue to me.

pinkshoes

pendulum wrote: »

It isn't illegal to undertake at all. The highway code recommends not to in general, but that is just a guide and there are times e.g. when traffic is queueing, where undertaking is acceptable even according to the highway code. If a car is waiting at a junction for other cars to go, that sounds like the start of a queue to me.

And it also says:

"Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." (no. 72)

Foggster

Duty of Care. The employee will be insured and Tesco still need to exercise a DOC whether they have a 100 signs saying they are not liable. Their employee showed a lack of care by coming up the inside of your car and then assuming you had seen him although you had just overtaken him and like many people assumed he was behind you and not up the side of you.

ChiefGrasscutter

Barny1979 wrote: »

The car park won't be adopted public highway

I agree.
Just because the public has access does not make it a public highway.
There is actually a difference between a 'public highway' and an 'adopted road'. The former gives various rights to various classes of vehicle or on foot to traverse it. An adopted road is a public highway that is maintainable by the council at public expense for ever.
Tesco's will have ensured that the carpark is in effect a private road to which the public are admitted by Tesco's goodwill.
They will also have put into effect (before the carpark was opened) various legal provisions to ensure that the carpark cannot "become a highway" by continuous unobstructed use by the public over a long period.

As such the problem here will be common to private roads that the RTA's do not apply - though you can still be done for being drunk in charge as the law was changed specifically to cover examples such being drunk in charge of vehicles anywhere.

If_it_can_go_wrong

mrs2fat wrote: »

just after some advice really.
my wife was leaving tesco's car park in pitsea last week when one of there trolley gatherer buggys hit her car.
they have reviewed the cctv etc and we recieved an e mail today from them basically apologising but saying they have a policy stating any damage done in there car park is nothing to do with them.
i can understand if 2 random cars have a crunch, but as it was one of there employees driving one of there vehicles surely they have a reponsibilty!
any ideas?

Wow you ask a question on here and there are no end of people who then try and show how clever they are by telling YOU what happened.
The answer to your question is yes they do have a responsibility and they are just trying to fob you off. Keep at them. They have CCTV as you say so they can see what happened and know they are responsible.
I give this response based on what you say happened and not as some sort of mystic Meg like some others are doing.
Hope you get it sorted.