A has turned right at a junction where the priority-to-the-right rule applies. B was temporarily on the wrong side of the road, because the driver was passing the parked car, C. The result was a collision.
The court found that both A and B had acted wrongly. A’s obligation to give way in accordance with the priority-to-the-right rule was considered to apply to all traffic on the carriageway to the right – i.e., including traffic travelling in the wrong lane. B was criticised for travelling on the wrong side of the road in a situation where it was not safe to do so.
It is also worth noting that car C has parked in a way that is not permitted (at a junction). This is a clear example of why parking at a junction is not permitted.
Although travelling at an actual speed of around 90 km/h, the car’s speedometer showed only 75 km/h. The supreme court considered this to be speeding, even though the driver was not aware of the problem with the speedometer.
A driver left their car to deliver goods to a property 200–300 metres away. The court of appeal considered this to be a case of parking and not stopping to unload, because the activity did not take place in close proximity to the car.
There was a continuous yellow line that extended for around 5 metres ahead of a pedestrian crossing. A driver had parked in front of the line.
The line should actually have been 10 metres long (the distance in the rule on the prohibition of parking ahead of a pedestrian crossing).
The court of appeal ruled that the driver had a responsibility to measure the distance, and that the incorrectly painted line did not mean that it was permitted to park so close to the pedestrian crossing.
A driver left their car at a place where the unloading of goods was permitted, but where parking was prohibited. The driver unloaded the goods into their shop, and continued to unpack and sort the goods while the car remained standing outside (for around 10 minutes). This was not permitted, as unpacking/sorting cannot be considered to be the same as unloading.
A drunk person sat on a moped and propelled it forwards by kicking against the ground with their feet (with the engine turned off). The supreme court ruled that the drunk person was operating a motorised vehicle, even though the engine was not running.
A residential area had a delimited area for parking. A short road led from the parking area to a road for regular traffic.
The supreme court ruled that this was an exit and that the priority-to-the-right rule therefore did not apply, even though there were two roads that intersected with each other. It was deemed that the exit rule applied, and that drivers leaving this area had an obligation to give way.
The priority-to-the-right rule does not apply. B is driving on a regular road for normal traffic. A has an obligation to give way to B, in accordance with the exit rule. What is important here is that the road on which A is driving has no other purpose than serving the delimited area.
While driving, a person experienced an epileptic fit that caused them to lose consciousness. The court of appeal ruled that this constituted recklessness in traffic because the driver had been aware of the risk of such a fit occurring.
A driver splashed two pedestrians. The driver noticed what had happened but did not stop. The court of appeal considered this to be a case of leaving the scene of an incident.
A driver reversed into a parked car. The driver got out and looked but could not see any damage. The driver drove away with the intention of contacting the owner of the other car later. This was considered by the court of appeal to constitute leaving the scene of an accident.
A driver drove around a residential neighbourhood several times within a short space of time. The driving was jerky, with repeated acceleration and braking. The court of appeal ruled that residents had been unnecessarily disturbed and convicted the driver, even though the driver claimed that the purpose of driving in this way was that they were looking for a friend.
A driver entered an area close to some houses and revved the engine hard, which made a lot of noise. The court of appeal considered to this be causing unnecessary disturbance, and convicted the driver.
A and B collided at a junction where the priority-to-the-right rule applied. Visibility was obscured. A was driving at around 50 km/h.
The supreme court convicted both drivers for reckless driving – B for failing to observe the priority-to-the-right rule, and A for driving too fast where visibility was obscured.
The court of appeal has ruled that parking again in the same parking space is only permitted if another driver has been given a realistic opportunity to park in the space.
Example: If you have parked in a space where parking is allowed for 10 minutes, a new 10-minute period will not begin if you merely reverse out of the space and immediately drive back in and resume your parking.
A person with heart disease was at the top of a multi-storey apartment block and could not walk down the stairs to pay a renewed parking fee. Despite this, the court of appeal considered that the person was obliged to pay a renewed fee.
The driver of a parked car was convicted of reckless behaviour in traffic by suddenly opening the door so that it hit a passing cyclist.
Running out of fuel does not give a driver the right to leave their car in a place where parking is not permitted. The court of appeal has ruled that drivers must be aware and ensure that there is enough fuel in the vehicle.
The machine for parking tickets was not working. The court of appeal considered that it was not permitted to park in the area without having paid the fee.
A driver stopped in order to help move the car in front, which had broken down. Stopping was prohibited here, and the driver who had stopped to help was issued with a parking fine. The court of appeal cancelled the parking fine, as the driver had stopped in order to clear the road and make it accessible.