NSW road rules on parking

[Haplo]

Long story short, I got boxed in by a car behind me who is 2/3 inside a 1P zone and 1/3 in a no stopping zone. Upon nudging my way out, I accidentally reversed into that car with no visible damage and about 2mm indent on the bumper bar. My car has a thin line of scrapped paint only visible if you look at reading distance.

So question is:

Is a car that is 1/3 in a no stopping zone considered to be parked legally?
Who is at fault in this case, or is both party considered to be contributory negligent.

 

[Pushka]

In SA anyway it doesn't matter if the car is parked legally or not if you hit it.

 

[Milboo]

Yep - doesn't matter if it was parked illegally (be it within a NP zone or closer than 1m to your car). Someone else's breach of road rules doesn't necessarily mitigate your liability - especially when it was a stationary car and you were well aware of its presence.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Long story short, I got boxed in by a car behind me who is 2/3 inside a 1P zone and 1/3 in a no stopping zone. Upon nudging my way out, I accidentally reversed into that car with no visible damage and about 2mm indent on the bumper bar. My car has a thin line of scrapped paint only visible if you look at reading distance.

So question is:

Is a car that is 1/3 in a no stopping zone considered to be parked legally?
Who is at fault in this case, or is both party considered to be contributory negligent.

You are at fault. Not relevant whether or not the unoccupied stationary vehicle you reversed into was parked illegally.

 

[cove]

I would be surprised if it was only NSW that has the rule.

 

[vetrade]

For mine the law of the jungle applies. Anyone who squeezes into a space that is clearly not big enough for their car and leaves you no room to exit your space is a smart ar*e who voluntarily chose to put their car in "harm's way". Technically you might be at fault but in reality that is irrelevant if nobody sees you so bash your way out (accidentally or otherwise) if there's no other option. The only downside is the possibility of collateral damage to your own car. Tow bars are great for both offencive and defencive manoeuvering in such cases.

 

[Pushka]

For mine the law of the jungle applies. Anyone who squeezes into a space that is clearly not big enough for their car and leaves you no room to exit your space is a smart ar*e who voluntarily chose to put their car in "harm's way". Technically you might be at fault but in reality that is irrelevant if nobody sees you so bash your way out (accidentally or otherwise) if there's no other option. The only downside is the possibility of collateral damage to your own car. Tow bars are great for both offencive and defencive manoeuvering in such cases.

The law doesn't think the same way.

 

[vetrade]

The law doesn't think the same way.

Really??????????????? Maybe it's because I'm a practical person who realises "The Law" isn't going to help when the OP is jammed into his parking spot!

 

[Pushka]

Really??????????????? Maybe it's because I'm a practical person who realises "The Law" isn't going to help when the OP is jammed into his parking spot!

We all know the law is sometimes an cough. Bottom line is that if you damage a car that is parked then that is your fault.

You want to know another sucky law? My sons partner is in training as a GP. Low salary long hours. She just bought her first new (second hand) car for $7000. This week In her third day at work in her new job she was parked in the work car park. The gum tree next door neighbour's house dropped a limb on her car and she just heard it was a write off. The neighbour said - not my problem. It's hers. In full. She no longer has a car. She has to have one as a work requirement. I'm not sure if she's comprehensively insured as she's too distressed to ask right now in case she isn't. Now THAT is unfair.

 

[RB]

We all know the law is sometimes an cough. Bottom line is that if you damage a car that is parked then that is your fault.

You want to know another sucky law? My sons partner is in training as a GP. Low salary long hours. She just bought her first new (second hand) car for $7000. This week In her third day at work in her new job she was parked in the work car park. The gum tree next door neighbour's house dropped a limb on her car and she just heard it was a write off. The neighbour said - not my problem. It's hers. In full. She no longer has a car. She has to have one as a work requirement. I'm not sure if she's comprehensively insured as she's too distressed to ask right now in case she isn't. Now THAT is unfair.

Would appear to be an "Act of God" & unlucky rather than the law being wrong? Never nice being on the receiving end but what did the neighbour do wrong?

 

[Pushka]

Would appear to be an "Act of God" & unlucky rather than the law being wrong? Never nice being on the receiving end but what did the neighbour do wrong?

I'm checking to see if there were any warnings. I reckon once a tree sprawls over someone else's property then you are liable. You are certainly liable for tree root cracking of buildings. I don't see the difference.

 

[RB]

I'm checking to see if there were any warnings. I reckon once a tree sprawls over someone else's property then you are liable. You are certainly liable for tree root cracking of buildings. I don't see the difference.

Maybe to help this is a Sth Aust article from 2014 Trees

 

[Pushka]

Maybe to help this is a Sth Aust article from 2014 Trees

Link sent to son.

 

[Pushka]

Link sent to son.

Seems like she's insured and so insurance company is duking it out with neighbour who says he had tree inspection done last year and was ok. He will have to prove that though.

(Sorry to OP for taking this way off topic but think you have your (unfortunate) answer.)

 

[Haplo]

Okay so it looks like nothing will happen as the damage is so minor that the other party haven't contacted yet about it even through I left the phone number, as i have advised in the note that I have taken a picture of where you parked including the fact that their rear wheel is on the other side of (i.e. inside the) no stopping sign.

They might be waiting for insurance company to open on Monday but will see.

Their car is a 2007 Honda SUV

 

[Quickstatus]

I'm checking to see if there were any warnings. I reckon once a tree sprawls over someone else's property then you are liable. You are certainly liable for tree root cracking of buildings. I don't see the difference.

In NSW "the premier state" damage from a tree cannot be attributed to the owner of land on which the tree sits.
so if your tree falls on your neighbours house/car/dog you are not at fault.

One reason councils sometimes are a bit of a pain with tree pruning

 

[Spongbob]

You are at fault. Not relevant whether or not the unoccupied stationary vehicle you reversed into was parked illegally.

It is my understanding NSW road rules are "strict liability"; i.e. you are at fault if a rule is broken unless there are are circumstances that prevented you from acting in other legal or safer ways.

 

[JohnK]

The law doesn't think the same way.

Law not always right nor fair.

If I start reverse parking and the person behind me comes and hits me then I am at fault even though I did nothing wrong. The person behind is negligent.

 

[Quickstatus]

Thats why might be good idea to have dashcam

 

[get me outta here]

Does that mean you need a reverse one too?

Thats why might be good idea to have dashcam