Insurance question

[mossy1200]

Basically gouges on the road surface.

Wow with New Zealand roads the slide was massive as shown by the AA slide guide based on gouge road length.



from:
Picton

to:
Christchurch CBD


time:

4 hours 45 mins


distance:

337km




New Calculation

Crash times and distances are approximate and allow for rest stops,gouge conditions, etc.


Your accident may vary.

[nzspokes]

were SCU there?

Dont expect SCU to have any clues.

[bsasuper]

I have been in the exact same situation and had to fight the other partys insurance all the way, it wasn't until I started court proceeding's against the car driver that I got a result. I have never been without insurance since.

[BlackSheepLogic]

Accidents involving more than one vehicle are never 100% a single drivers fault when you consider the human factors. The driver initiated the accident according to the OP. How the rider reacted both prior & after determined the outcome.

With experience and training observation, risk assessment, position & speed of what is happening around you prior to this event could have avoided or minimized the severity of the outcome. When a vehicle turns in front of a rider if the rider has not incorporated the risk into the riding plan the reaction time not only delays the response, they may not make the best decision on what to do (braking is not the only nor always the best response), nor may they have as many options available to them.

Other human factors were also likely at play here.for example: the rider was unfamiliar with the bike, it capabilities (braking characteristics for example) which only come with familiarity over time with the machine; they may not to have 100% of their time devoted to riding as they enjoyed their first ride on the new bike; the decision to ride at night on an unfamiliar bike increases risk; the riders probable lack of riding experience; the higher demands a bike like this requires from the rider.

[Mike.Gayner]

He doesn't have insurance as he is on his restricted. My understanding of the law means that as long as he is found to be not at fault him not being on the correct license isn't grounds for the drivers insurance not to pay out.

Anyone been in a similar situation or thinks they know if he's covered or not?

Absolutely correct and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I've been in a similar situation - he's risking getting a fine for riding outside license conditions, but otherwise will be covered by HER insurance company.

[R650R]

Accidents involving more than one vehicle are never 100% a single drivers fault when you consider the human factors. The driver initiated the accident according to the OP. How the rider reacted both prior & after determined the outcome.

With experience and training observation, risk assessment, position & speed of what is happening around you prior to this event could have avoided or minimized the severity of the outcome. When a vehicle turns in front of a rider if the rider has not incorporated the risk into the riding plan the reaction time not only delays the response, they may not make the best decision on what to do (braking is not the only nor always the best response), nor may they have as many options available to them.

Other human factors were also likely at play here.for example: the rider was unfamiliar with the bike, it capabilities (braking characteristics for example) which only come with familiarity over time with the machine; they may not to have 100% of their time devoted to riding as they enjoyed their first ride on the new bike; the decision to ride at night on an unfamiliar bike increases risk; the riders probable lack of riding experience; the higher demands a bike like this requires from the rider.

What a load of BS and in sense not applicable in this case as a vehicle U-turning without warning to the extent he suffered serious injury means he prob didn't even have time to react or break.
You sound like your trying to pad out a 20,000 word research paper for ACC as that's the only context such gibberish would see the light of day. Your quoting a whole heap of things that prob make good sense in terms of a proactive defensive riding strategy but are things that can not be measured or proved in any meaningful way to submit to a court as evidence.

If what you are saying applied, every single 5 car nose to tail on the motorway would result in endless litigation between the insured parties insurers as to proportion of blame.

[bogan]

What a load of BS and in sense not applicable in this case as a vehicle U-turning without warning to the extent he suffered serious injury means he prob didn't even have time to react or break.
You sound like your trying to pad out a 20,000 word research paper for ACC as that's the only context such gibberish would see the light of day. Your quoting a whole heap of things that prob make good sense in terms of a proactive defensive riding strategy but are things that can not be measured or proved in any meaningful way to submit to a court as evidence.

If what you are saying applied, every single 5 car nose to tail on the motorway would result in endless litigation between the insured parties insurers as to proportion of blame.

Perhaps not applicable in this case, but lets face it, neither is the advice of kb; dude needs to go get some actual legal advice.

"Your quoting a whole heap of things that prob make good sense in terms of a proactive defensive riding strategy" Seems like a good thing to be quoting to me, what's the problem?

[R650R]

Perhaps not applicable in this case, but lets face it, neither is the advice of kb; dude needs to go get some actual legal advice.

"Your quoting a whole heap of things that prob make good sense in terms of a proactive defensive riding strategy" Seems like a good thing to be quoting to me, what's the problem?

Your answer is in the other half of the sentence you quoted...

Their may or may not eventually be a civil dispute over the crash at start of thread.
The courts judgement will not be swayed by quoting some road safety ideology, no matter how good it is. They will only be concerned with measureable real submitted evidence about both drivers behaviour prior to the crash.

[R650R]

I agree with your argument as my riding ability has been attacked on this site after saying I was knocked off my bike by a dog who ran out so fast I did not have time to even brake.

I know a very experienced driver who did the same. The dog came out so fast he didn't see it but felt the impact and was worried it was one of a group of kids playing nearby. He still looked shaken up telling the story next day, you can't see every hazard.

[bogan]

Your answer is in the other half of the sentence you quoted...

Their may or may not eventually be a civil dispute over the crash at start of thread.
The courts judgement will not be swayed by quoting some road safety ideology, no matter how good it is. They will only be concerned with measureable real submitted evidence about both drivers behaviour prior to the crash.

And will that be supplied by kb? Nobody here can provide that, so providing advice to prevent future mishap is surely of benefit i would think.

[BlackSheepLogic]

Their may or may not eventually be a civil dispute over the crash at start of thread.
The courts judgement will not be swayed by quoting some road safety ideology, no matter how good it is. They will only be concerned with measureable real submitted evidence about both drivers behaviour prior to the crash.

My post was not about the legal compensatory aspects. Being in the right and seriously injured/dead is not much comfort to you or those around you. When mistakes are made involving a rider, the rider risk of serious injury/death is much grater than that of the driver.

I know a very experienced driver who did the same. The dog came out so fast he didn't see it but felt the impact and was worried it was one of a group of kids playing nearby. He still looked shaken up telling the story next day, you can't see every hazard.

After an accident if we don't critically assess our riding we won't learn from it. Children playing by the roadside with animals unleashed. Ask yourself why did I not see the dog, children playing by the roadside - could I have stop in time if they run out, what was my position in the lane, what gear was I in, did I have my brakes covered, was I target fixated on the children playing, what else in this residential street should I be considering.

Observation and risk assessment needs to be incorporated into our riding. Experience helps develop these skills but only if we are open to critically assessing our riding. I have found it very valuable to get my riding assessed by a instructor, their critical eyes have identified areas I need to work on.

[R650R]

And will that be supplied by kb? Nobody here can provide that, so providing advice to prevent future mishap is surely of benefit i would think.

My post was not about the legal compensatory aspects.

The thread title was about insurance, if anyone wants to preach any relevant road safety issues so early on the y should preface their comment with suitable English indicating this desire

[Zarkov]

What a load of BS and in sense not applicable in this case as a vehicle U-turning without warning to the extent he suffered serious injury means he prob didn't even have time to react or break.
You sound like your trying to pad out a 20,000 word research paper for ACC as that's the only context such gibberish would see the light of day. Your quoting a whole heap of things that prob make good sense in terms of a proactive defensive riding strategy but are things that can not be measured or proved in any meaningful way to submit to a court as evidence.

If what you are saying applied, every single 5 car nose to tail on the motorway would result in endless litigation between the insured parties insurers as to proportion of blame.

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.

[bogan]

The thread title was about insurance, if anyone wants to preach any relevant road safety issues so early on the y should preface their comment with suitable English indicating this desire

But the best form of accident insurance is ensuring you don't have one...

[Zarkov]

But it could be argued if he had been going even faster or slower the woman would have missed him. A case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could happen to any of us except those gifted with the ability to read other drivers minds in advance of their actions of course.

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..