Driving wrong way in supermarket car park

interstellaflyer

Chopper_Read wrote: »

If there are no stop lines where is a driver legally required to stop?

Wow, talk about contradict your self, you argue that the road markings mean nothing then you want road markings to tell you where you should stop.

Chopper_Read

interstellaflyer wrote: »

Wow, talk about contradict your self, you argue that the road markings mean nothing then you want road markings to tell you where you should stop.

Where's the contradiction?

Without a stop line it's not a zebra crossing is it?

Chopper_Read

Altarf wrote: »

Does it take practice to be quite that stupid?

Do you honestly think that any court would agree that your actions were sensible, and your defense of "there were no stop lines so I was entitled to run them down" would hold any water.

If you do have a driving licence, please post it back to the DVLA telling them that you don't have the intelligence to hold one.

So you are saying that if a pedestrian is run over on such a crossing legally the driver is always at fault and will have no defence in court?

Link please.

vikingaero

If you have an accident in a supermarket car park which ultimately is private land but the general public have access to then "generally" the principles of the Road Traffic Act will apply.

Of course Chopper will tell us all that the zebras in a supermarket car park have no legal standing... because he thinks he's more clever than everyone on here. I'd like to see him explain himself in Court when he hit someone who reasonably uses the crossing and expects protection from it. ie drivers giving way.

Chopper_Read

vikingaero wrote: »

If you have an accident in a supermarket car park which ultimately is private land but the general public have access to then "generally" the principles of the Road Traffic Act will apply.

Of course Chopper will tell us all that the zebras in a supermarket car park have no legal standing... because he thinks he's more clever than everyone on here. I'd like to see him explain himself in Court when he hit someone who reasonably uses the crossing and expects protection from it. ie drivers giving way.

I've no argument with reasonable us, but can you honestly say you've never seen pedestrians walk straight out without looking on such crossings. Are you saying under those circumstances it's reasonable to prosecute the driver?

interstellaflyer

Zebra Crossings don't have stop lines, they can have broken white lines before and after and belisha beacons in orange, which is exactly the type of crossing at our local Tesco. Why would you need stop lines, are the black and white blocks painted on the road not a big enough clue?

Chopper_Read

Rover_Driver wrote: »

And there is also the possible offence of driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users.

Possibly yes, but if the driving isn't careless and it's not a crossing, what's the offence?

27col

Hintza wrote: »

If they laid out the parking spaces in a herring bone pattern then this wouldn't happen. Don't worry about it, I never notice the arrows much these days.

If car parks did have herringbone parking then there would be no incentive to drive the wrong way, Because if you did you would find it almost impossible to park. A car park near us was recently refurbished and herringbone parking introduced. Only trouble is that you have to reverse in. Absolutely ridiculous! If you have driven straight in then, when you want to come out, someone would always stop and let you do so. Because it means that they ould easily drive straight into the space that you have vacated.
You almost never see a surface car park in America that does not have herringbone parking.

Chopper_Read

interstellaflyer wrote: »

Zebra Crossings don't have stop lines, they can have broken white lines before and after and belisha beacons in orange, which is exactly the type of crossing at our local Tesco. Why would you need stop lines, are the black and white blocks painted on the road not a big enough clue?

!!!!!!, if it's not legally complying it has the same standing as the arrows. Legally they are bits of paint on the carpark. Same as their box junctions and disabled bays.

Unless you can provide a link to crossing regs on carparks?

HappyMJ

Chopper_Read wrote: »

So you are saying that if a pedestrian is run over on such a crossing legally the driver is always at fault and will have no defence in court?

Link please.

The driver will always be at fault in a car park. The driver should be driving at such a speed to always avoid a collision. Driving at 10MPH and a driver can stop in a few metres. If a pedestrian was hit at that speed not much damage would be caused to the pedestrian and the risk of a fatality is virtually zero. It may not be criminal but it wil certainly end up as a civil claim against the drivers insurance.

If a driver reverses out of a spot and hits a small child...even though the child cannot be seen as the child is below the line of vision of the driver then the driver will be at fault.