Safe Speed Forums

Was in a sainsburies car park earlier today and was just driving out of it, howevwer it had rather confusing markings on the road and I accidently ended up going the wrong way and about to go out the in lane, so I quickly turned right down a row of cars in the car park.

Was just wondering if you can get pulled for making a mistake like that. I assume you could on a one way street in the general roads, but what about a sainsburies car park?

Rather annoying since the directionals were confusing and I didnt see a no left turn when I turned into the wrong direction.

-Thanks

Er, no.

I think the worst that could happen is that you're asked not to come back.

[quote="weepej"I think the worst that could happen is that you're asked not to come back.[/quote]

I dont think that you are right, Weep. There are certainly cases of people being done for drink-driving on car parks.

This http://www.clearanswers.co.uk/what-we-do/what-we-do-index.htm ,despite being from an ambulance chasing solicitor, may well be accurate

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I doubt that you would be prosecuted for a minor infringement such as that. The law, car-parks, is generally used only for serious traffic offences, such as no insurance or drink/drug driving. Although if you actually hit someone you would be in trouble....

Manchester Evening News

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Apart from the fact that i would assume that no signage is actually compliant and is not enforcing any traffic order, there is a line to draw between a "place open to the public" and "a road"

Some laws are enforcable in both but some are not. I would reckon this is one of the unenforcable ones.

There is also the complication of liability should an accident occur i.e. If a driver was to cut through a marked give way junction and collide with your car would you have a claim? He could try to use the defence that since it is not a "real" give way then he is only as culpable as you for not giving way to him!

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

The definition used by courts to define a public place for motoring law purposes is "a place to which the public had access at the relevant time, whether on payment of a fee or otherwise". Slightly different wording can be found from time to time but the basic meaning stays the same.

That means that a supermarket car park is definitely a public place when the shop is open to customers, so the usual road rules apply ie tax, insurance, MOT, licence, driver to be sober, vehicle in good condition etc ect. The matter of the signage is different as most signs will not have force of law. What tends to happen in cases involving a driver who ignores a sign, is that they are treated in the same way as cases involving advisory signs such as the rectangular speed limit signs often seen on tightly curved slip roads. I have never heard of anybody being prosecuted for exceeding an advisory speed limit but we do deal with cases involving collisions. The prosecution put forward the facts including the presence of the sign and it is up to the driver to show, on balance of probabilities, that ignoring the sign did not lead to the accident.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Fisherman wrote "The prosecution put forward the facts including the presence of the sign and it is up to the driver to show, on balance of probabilities, that ignoring the sign did not lead to the accident." Surely in the magistrates court the burden of proof is the criminal standard beyond all reasonable doubt not on the balance of probabilities.

For the prosecution, yes. For defendants, no.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.