Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: Insurance question

  1. #31
    Join Date
    30th July 2008 - 18:56
    Bike
    Road King
    Location
    In the sun.
    Posts
    2,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    I would think the rider is going to spend all he saved not having insurance on lawyers and court costs.
    Just another leather clad Tinkerbell.
    The Wanker on the Fucking Harley is going for a ride!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    21st August 2004 - 12:00
    Bike
    2017 Suzuki Dl1000
    Location
    Picton
    Posts
    5,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarkov View Post
    Or not.

    Law in this regard is about probability, not reasonable doubt.

    If you are speeding or drunk, you contribute to the accident.


    It's fair, because if you are doing 160kph, it's not possible to safely make a u-turn anywhere in front of you..
    At 160 km/h you are doing 45m/s. Allowing 6 seconds for a U turn (bloody slow) then it is safe to make a U turn as long as the oncoming vehicle doing 160 km/h is more than 270 m away. Considering that the U turning vehicle is only in the same lane for half that time then that gives a safety margin of at least 135 m. According to you it wouldn't be safe if the U-turning vehicle was 1 km ahead, or 10 km ahead, or even 100 km ahead.

    I'm sorry, but speeding does not always contribute to the accident, and the stats show that speeding (as defined by being too fast for the conditions, not over the speed limit) is only a factor in 13% of accidents. Also there are numerous cases where a driver over the limit has not been a contributor to the accident.

    Try using some science rather than propaganda.
    Time to ride

  3. #33
    Join Date
    26th September 2006 - 16:33
    Bike
    Suzuki Smash 2016. (Yes, really!)
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    1,325
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    But in this case the driver thought it was safe as they did not bother to look. Mind you the fact they were elderly could have been a factor in itself too eg a vision impairment or a slow ability to react. I can not see hoow there could be any contributory cause by the bike rider what so ever unless you believe their lack of a full licence was contributary? If the law believes that it is an ass.
    Another possibility is if the driver was old she may have trouble turning her head far enough to see behind her. This doesn't seem to have been mentioned, but I find as I am getting older I cannot turn as far as I once could.
    "Statistics are used as a drunk uses lampposts - for support, not illumination."

  4. #34
    Join Date
    28th July 2013 - 22:10
    Bike
    Ducati
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Jantar View Post
    At 160 km/h you are doing 45m/s. Allowing 6 seconds for a U turn (bloody slow) then it is safe to make a U turn as long as the oncoming vehicle doing 160 km/h is more than 270 m away. Considering that the U turning vehicle is only in the same lane for half that time then that gives a safety margin of at least 135 m. According to you it wouldn't be safe if the U-turning vehicle was 1 km ahead, or 10 km ahead, or even 100 km ahead.

    I'm sorry, but speeding does not always contribute to the accident, and the stats show that speeding (as defined by being too fast for the conditions, not over the speed limit) is only a factor in 13% of accidents. Also there are numerous cases where a driver over the limit has not been a contributor to the accident.

    Try using some science rather than propaganda.
    The science is that if you doing a u-turn you have a right to believe that if you can see 200 metres of clear road [i.e. to the brow of a hill], then it's safe to make a u-turn.

    If someone comes over the brow of that hill doing 60 kph over the speed limit, then obviously you can't make that u-turn safely.

    But it's not your fault.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    1st July 2007 - 17:40
    Bike
    my little pony
    Location
    shoebox on middle of road
    Posts
    1,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarkov View Post
    The science is that if you doing a u-turn you have a right to believe that if you can see 200 metres of clear road [i.e. to the brow of a hill], then it's safe to make a u-turn.

    If someone comes over the brow of that hill doing 60 kph over the speed limit, then obviously you can't make that u-turn safely.

    But it's not your fault.
    Speed was not mentioned in any post by the OP. You are posting so much crap that you are having problems separating fantasy from reality, just to bolster your keyboard skills.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    9th January 2005 - 22:12
    Bike
    Street Triple R
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    8,198
    Quote Originally Posted by nzspokes View Post
    Dont expect SCU to have any clues.
    Not my experience. Both times I have dealt with them they have been very thorough, very professional, and focussed on what happened, not who to blame. the blame part came later.
    I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave

  7. #37
    Join Date
    9th January 2005 - 22:12
    Bike
    Street Triple R
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    8,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Jantar View Post
    At 160 km/h you are doing 45m/s. Allowing 6 seconds for a U turn (bloody slow) then it is safe to make a U turn as long as the oncoming vehicle doing 160 km/h is more than 270 m away. Considering that the U turning vehicle is only in the same lane for half that time then that gives a safety margin of at least 135 m. According to you it wouldn't be safe if the U-turning vehicle was 1 km ahead, or 10 km ahead, or even 100 km ahead.

    I'm sorry, but speeding does not always contribute to the accident, and the stats show that speeding (as defined by being too fast for the conditions, not over the speed limit) is only a factor in 13% of accidents. Also there are numerous cases where a driver over the limit has not been a contributor to the accident.

    Try using some science rather than propaganda.
    Jesus wept. this happened on Selwyn street. A 50kph street about a mile from where I live. depending where it might MIGHT have been a 60kph impact.

    OP's mate is hella lucky that one of the first people on the scene was an RN who was very helpful by all accounts.
    I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave

  8. #38
    Join Date
    9th January 2005 - 22:12
    Bike
    Street Triple R
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    8,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarkov View Post
    The science is that if you doing a u-turn you have a right to believe that if you can see 200 metres of clear road [i.e. to the brow of a hill], then it's safe to make a u-turn.

    If someone comes over the brow of that hill doing 60 kph over the speed limit, then obviously you can't make that u-turn safely.

    But it's not your fault.
    I think riding in town and having been a cyclist in town for years you do develop a spidey sense based on the working assumption that everyone IS trying to kill you. Driveways WILL have a fucktard backing out, Kids or pets WILL run onto the road. Any parked car can do anything at any time. with a pushbike you are going slower (but are closer to them) so you can assess if you can see people in it, whether the engine is running and crucially which way the wheels are pointing.... you do make similar assessments riding a motorcycle I think. Or at least I do.
    I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave

  9. #39
    Join Date
    9th January 2005 - 22:12
    Bike
    Street Triple R
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    8,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarkov View Post
    If old lady u-turner's insurance can show that motorbike guy was riding at high speed, I don't fancy his chances of getting paid out.

    We all know that once you're way over the speed limit, all bets are off, same as if you're DUI.

    As they should be.
    what will happen, I predict is that the loss adjusters will make the assertion, forcing OP to in effect reverse the burden of proof. As I said, I have a referral to an excellent specialist insurance lawyer who I fully recommend. Happy to refer other peeps to him also.
    I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave

  10. #40
    Join Date
    21st August 2004 - 12:00
    Bike
    2017 Suzuki Dl1000
    Location
    Picton
    Posts
    5,162
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase View Post
    Jesus wept. this happened on Selwyn street. A 50kph street about a mile from where I live. depending where it might MIGHT have been a 60kph impact.

    OP's mate is hella lucky that one of the first people on the scene was an RN who was very helpful by all accounts.
    Uhh? I didn't make any claim as to what speed the rider was doing. that post you quoted was in response to Zarkov's rediculous claim about someone being unable to do a U-turn anywhere if there is someone else doing 160 kmh 100 km away. I was merely showing that at Zorkov's claimed speed of 160 kmh it would still be safe to make a U-turn as long as there was at least 270m clear visibility.
    Time to ride

  11. #41
    Join Date
    25th June 2012 - 11:56
    Bike
    Daelim VL250 Daystar
    Location
    Pyongyang
    Posts
    2,489
    Well my resident expert (over 20 years experience) is back from her international travels and says the old ladies insurance co will pay out.
    As clearly she is in the wrong, him not having the right licence was not a factor in the crash.
    Govt gives you nothing because it creates nothing - Javier Milei

  12. #42
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackSheepLogic View Post
    Being in the right and seriously injured/dead is not much comfort to you or those around you.
    A simple fact that ALL motorcycle riders SHOULD consider .. Prior to and during each a every time they ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackSheepLogic View Post
    When mistakes are made involving a rider, the rider risk of serious injury/death is much grater than that of the driver.
    A simple fact that ALL motorcycle riders SHOULD consider .. Prior to and during each a every time they ride.

    To ALL that ride with NO insurance (in my opinion) are stupid. Insurance cover is by no means automatic (In ANY other party policy) ... regardless of fault (or not) of the rider.

    Payouts in such cases rely more on luck than "as of (legal) right" ... and/or lengthy court cases .
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  13. #43
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    The problem is that insurance is becoming more and more of a rip off and people have no option but to cut back/do without if they are on a low income.
    Some even "Cut back" by not paying rego and WOF ... :wink: Regardless of what some may think ... motorcycling (and motorcycle repairs) is not cheap.

    Insurance may mean you still can afford to ride after even a minor accident/off ... if the rider is at fault. If court proceedings are required if the rider is not at fault ... the low income peebs may have no choice but waive any "rights" ... simply because they can't afford them.

    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    Whether you decide to reduce your cover should be also influenced by your riding experience and how many days you ride a week.
    Experience is no equalizer for the lack of ability of other motorists ... and only the stupid will believe so. A few that achieved their (new) full motorcycle license seem to believe they know it all already. Some getting their 6R believe similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    I personally cut back due to the high cost of reg plus I now don't ride everyday plus I rarely ride in the wet now.
    After reading some of the advice you've already given on THIS site ... the cutting back will be in your own best interests ... and .. SAFER for everybody else on the road.

    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    I figure that if I was to get smashed up badly any insurance payout would be the least of my future worries anyway.
    It matters little if it's the main (or least of your) worry ... it's still going to be a worry.

    Get 3rd party insurance at the very least ... so if the fault is yours ... nobody will be chasing YOU for money.
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  14. #44
    Join Date
    25th June 2012 - 11:56
    Bike
    Daelim VL250 Daystar
    Location
    Pyongyang
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post



    Get 3rd party insurance at the very least ... so if the fault is yours ... nobody will be chasing YOU for money.
    If it ever gets that bad all you have to do us set up a voluntary payment if 20 cents a week and they can't touch you. Haven't one it myself but know someone who did.
    Govt gives you nothing because it creates nothing - Javier Milei

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •