Legal aid for bike crash - how?

[CookMySock]

No, its not for me. How would one apply for legal aid to fight the pigs over a bike crash thats heading badly in the wrong direction?

ta.
Steve

[Foxzee]

Hey there.....

I'd start by ringing the Citizens Advice Bureau in your area. Most of them have a visiting lawyer that you can chat to in the first instance for nothing to make sure that you are going down the right track. They should also have a list of Lawyers that offer legal aid (as not all do). You could also ring the local District Court and obtain the information, plus Lawyer contact details and forms etc.....Good Luck

[RT527]

No, its not for me. How would one apply for legal aid to fight the pigs over a bike crash thats heading badly in the wrong direction?

ta.
Steve

What the heck has a bunch of pork trotters got to do with it.... unless you meant the police ....

[YellowDog]

Will the insurance policy not cover this?

[p.dath]

No, its not for me. How would one apply for legal aid to fight the pigs over a bike crash thats heading badly in the wrong direction?

ta.
Steve

There are some mis-conceptions about legal aide, so let me clarify some of those first.

LA is a *loan*. They'll only give you the loan if they think you can't afford to defend yourself - and then will make you pay it back. They take it out of your wages, or whatever is required.

Note that if you win your case you can apply for costs, and usually get 1/3 of what it cost you, so you will still have 2/3 of the loan to pay back.


So basically, don't apply for it unless you have no other option.

[Madness]

There are some mis-conceptions about legal aide, so let me clarify some of those first.

LA is a *loan*. They'll only give you the loan if they think you can't afford to defend yourself - and then will make you pay it back. They take it out of your wages, or whatever is required.

Note that if you win your case you can apply for costs, and usually get 1/3 of what it cost you, so you will still have 2/3 of the loan to pay back.


So basically, don't apply for it unless you have no other option.

Can you kindly provide a link to verify this, because quite frankly it sounds like a croc of shit to me.

[tigertim20]

Can you kindly provide a link to verify this, because quite frankly it sounds like a croc of shit to me.

He is actually correct. You will be required to pay it back even if it is at $5 a week etc. In SOME cases you dont have to pay it back, but often you do. Circumstances where you DONT have to pay it back are often limited to those off work on acc, those on a benefit (or student allowances etc)


DB, might be more helpful to give you the info if you can give some specifics about what happened re the accident, and what is happening now? those circumstances may well limit whether or not you can get legal aid in this particular case

[p.dath]

Can you kindly provide a link to verify this, because quite frankly it sounds like a croc of shit to me.

That's why I thought I'd clarify how it works, as people seem to think it is some kind of hand out. :)

[Madness]

http://www.lsa.govt.nz/legal-aid/what-is-legal-aid.php


Legal aid is the government programme which pays a lawyer’s fees if you cannot afford a lawyer to represent you. If you are granted legal aid, payment is made directly to an approved legal aid lawyer. You may be required to pay back some or all of it.

So, you may have to pay it back. That's a bit different from "Legal Aid is a Loan", innit?.

[rosie631]

I have recently had legal aid. As soon as court case was settled I received a letter from them, giving me the amount I owed and saying they would contact me further to arrange payment. I think drip feed is ok but they do expect repayment.
I have had legal aid in the past too and when I sold a house they pinged the bill out of the proceeds i.e. they had a caveat.

[jono035]

http://www.lsa.govt.nz/legal-aid/what-is-legal-aid.php



So, you may have to pay it back. That's a bit different from "Legal Aid is a Loan", innit?.

Which basically sounded to me like 'only have to pay if the lawyer asks for it' which also sounds to me a lot like 'you're screwed'.

I'd guess that assuming you're going to have to pay and then being pleasantly surprised would be preferable to the alternatives...

[p.dath]

http://www.howtolaw.co.nz/html/ml038.asp

Cautionary notes

* You must have a lawyer to be able to apply for civil Legal Aid. Your lawyer will help you with the form. There is also a section of the application form (dealing with your case) that they must fill in.
* It’s important to remember that civil Legal Aid is generally given as a loan, rather than as a grant. You may have to provide your house or some other major item of property as security for the loan.

[p.dath]

http://www.lawaccess.govt.nz/Lrm_v2.aspx?BookId=77&ChapterId=0

LEGAL AID

The legal aid scheme provides legal help to people who can’t afford to hire a lawyer. It usually works like a loan – people granted legal aid are usually required to repay some or all of it.

[p.dath]

http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/lawyers/legal-aid

Legal aid

If you can't afford a lawyer, you can apply to the Legal Services Agency for legal aid, which is usually treated as a loan to pay all or part of your legal fees. You'll be eligible only if you have a low income and no valuable assets (excluding your own home).

[Squiggles]

So, you may have to pay it back. That's a bit different from "Legal Aid is a Loan", innit?.

More like a bonded merit scholarship...

[p.dath]

And from the Legal Aide Review Panel:
http://www.larp.govt.nz/how-legal-aid-works.html

General requirement to repay legal aid

The underlying philosophy of the legal aid scheme is that legal aid is like a loan, which the applicant generally has to repay to the Legal Services Agency. However, not every aided person has to make repayments to the Agency – it generally depends on the person’s financial circumstances, although applicants involved in certain proceedings are exempt.

[Madness]

So it's not a Loan then. Glad we got that sorted. ;)

[jono035]

So it's not a Loan then. Glad we got that sorted. ;)

Only for strange definitions of the word 'Loan'.

[CookMySock]

Ok I just talked to him, and he wrote this up; If you recognise him, please do not identify him. No, its not me.


I was riding up Manukau Rd, near Inverary Ave, heading towards the city. I came up to an intersection (where a fair amount of cars were waiting for a red light). If you know the piece of road I'm talking about, you know it's a two lane road, with parking allowed in the left lane, posted with a "Clearway between 4-6PM" signs, so you can park there outside of those hours. (These events transpired at around 3:06PM. I know the exact time because I checked my dash clock at the previous intersection).

There were cars parked all up in this left lane, and the cars in the right lane
of the road (the lane closest to the median) were stopped for the red lights. All cars were stationary. So I slowed to about 30 km/H, and changed lanes into the lane which had parked cars on it (While other cars can't use this lane, there is enough space for a bike to squeeze past). At this point, I was in the left lane on the road, and to my left were parked cars, and to my right where cars that were waiting for the lights to turn green. I made sure there was no one in the parked cars by looking through them, so there's no chance of someone pulling out without looking or opening their door, or anything like that.


And then, suddenly, WHAM!, I hit something, get shunted right, hit another car in the lane to my right (you should see the bruise on my ass, its enormous), and then supermanned off my bike, hit the ground and then somersaulted 3-4 times, came to rest about a fair few meters ahead of my bike, which was now in the left lane laying on its side. Helmet rooted, jacket and gloves sucuffed up also. Got blood on my jacket too. I had no idea what happened until I got up, regained my bearings and saw how my bike had bent the car door perpendicular to the body of the car - someone opened their door withot looking. Now my headlights are always on - you can't turn them off - when you turn the ignition on, the lights come on. Had this person checked their drivers side wing mirror when they opened their door, they would have seen me. I didn't even have time to get on the brakes. I didn't see this person inside the car as they must have been bent over getting something out of their glovebox, or something, because I didn't see them as I looked into the car to see if there was anyone inside.

My injures include
- Large bruise on right lower back / butt
- Lasseration on neck that missed carotid by 1 cm
- Hurt heel bone (can't walk on it, am limping)

A patient transfer ambulance happened to be going by at the time, who stopped and checked me out, and the ambo officer deemed that my injuries were serious (He was particularly worried there might be a glass shard inside of my neck wound which was bleeding quite profusely), so he called another ambulance which took me to Auckland Hospital Emergency Room. The wound was examined and the doctor found it had no glass shards or anything in it. It did require 3 stitches to close it up.

Got the cops involved, and they came to the ER and took my statement. I told them exactly what I have written above, and asked what was going to happen next, and was told "I need to wait for about a week before the police come back to me and let us know who's at fault".

Obviously I assumed I wasn't the one that was going to get nailed to the wall here, and was waiting for the cops to tell me this. Now the cops have just got back to me saying that I have been found at fault.. for... "Undertaking". And that I should be receiving the ticket shortly in the mail. I went and talked to one of the officers that originally took my statement, and he told me (paraphrased loosely) "splitting lanes is illegal, under all circumstances." Apparently, he asked his supervisor as well, and they confirmed that it was illegal. Even if cars are fully stationary.

HOWEVER, I wasn't splitting lanes, I was simply riding in a lane that had cars parked in it, and ALL CARS around me were stationary. No car was moving.

Here is the ultimate question: Was what I was doing wrong? Here is an image to help illustrate what I'm asking:

<img src='http://iforce.co.nz/i/2xjmwg3y.png'/>

[p.dath]

I can't wait for the answer to this one by someone in the know.

If you were indicating right at the time, then I would think it was an "overtaking" manouver. I'm guessing you weren't, or you would have mentioned this. So without indicating, I would think you were doing lane sharing, which would put you in the wrong.

If your only facing a ticket, don't stress over it. Not worth spending money to defend it.

[p.dath]

This is interesting:
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/road-user-safety/new-road-rules/summary-of-changes.html

Use of doors

It is illegal to cause a hazard to any person by opening or closing the door of your motor vehicle, or by leaving the door open. This applies to both drivers and passengers and both the drivers' and passengers' side – eg leaving a door open which blocks the pavement.

[p.dath]

So it may be that both parties may get a ticket ...

[p.dath]

Reading the LTSA web site my best guess is that riding to the right of a vehicle in a lane could only be classed as a passing manouver.

Below are the criteria listed for a legal pass on the right hand side.
http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-driving/passing.html

Passing on the right

Passing on the right can be dangerous, especially if you have to:

* change your path of travel
* enter a lane or part of the road used by oncoming vehicles.

Before passing, always ask yourself 'is it really necessary to pass?' Don't pass just because you are feeling impatient with the car in front – that's often when crashes happen.

If you do decide to pass, follow the rules shown below.

Before you pass:

* make sure you will be able to see at least 100 metres of clear road ahead of you once you have finished passing - if not, don't pass
* look well ahead to make sure there are no vehicles coming towards you
* look behind to make sure there are no vehicles passing you
* signal right for at least three seconds before moving out to pass.

[Ixion]

As far as his question "is it legal for me to be here?" goes, the answer is quite obviously "yes".

Consider. The left most lane is a perfectly legal lane.

Now, on many roads there will be cars parked on the left, with enough room still between them and the centreline (or the lane divider) for a car to pass through.

And cars drive thus every day in many many places . It is the norm.

The only difference here, is that lane was narrower. So a car could not fit between the parked cars and the lane divider.

But a bike can. And may, completely legally. The rider is simply riding along in his own lane. The fact that there are parked cars to his left is quite irrelevant.

To argue otherwise would be inane. It would require one to agree that every car which passes along a road which has parked cars along the side was also "undertaking". Because, a very large truck might not be able to fit through such a lane.

This is just the standard police "You are a motorcyclist. Therefore you are wrong. Defend the action , then complain to the PCA.

It is not possible under NZ law to "undertake" a car which is in another lane, except in very special circumstances.

[p.dath]

As far as his question "is it legal for me to be here?" goes, the answer is quite obviously "yes".
...

I don't think that is obvious. This road had marked lanes. A normal car driving by in it's own lane is not passing another vehicle in its lane. It is neither overtaking or undertaking.

[p.dath]

As far as his question "is it legal for me to be here?" goes, the answer is quite obviously "yes".
...Now, on many roads there will be cars parked on the left, with enough room still between them and the centreline (or the lane divider) for a car to pass through.
...

The more I consider your argument the more plausible it becomes. As you say, it really shouldn't matter what the size of the gap is.

[breakaway]

So in this particular scenario, (going from teh posted image), is the biker treated as riding down a single laned road with cars parked on the left side of the road? Or is it not quite that black and white?

[tigertim20]

As far as his question "is it legal for me to be here?" goes, the answer is quite obviously "yes".

Consider. The left most lane is a perfectly legal lane.

Now, on many roads there will be cars parked on the left, with enough room still between them and the centreline (or the lane divider) for a car to pass through.

And cars drive thus every day in many many places . It is the norm.

The only difference here, is that lane was narrower. So a car could not fit between the parked cars and the lane divider.

But a bike can. And may, completely legally. The rider is simply riding along in his own lane. The fact that there are parked cars to his left is quite irrelevant.

To argue otherwise would be inane. It would require one to agree that every car which passes along a road which has parked cars along the side was also "undertaking". Because, a very large truck might not be able to fit through such a lane.

This is just the standard police "You are a motorcyclist. Therefore you are wrong. Defend the action , then complain to the PCA.

It is not possible under NZ law to "undertake" a car which is in another lane, except in very special circumstances.

Completely agree. the parked vehicles should be ticketed as well. sounds like the guy who opened the car door should be done for all damages.

Inform the police that you disagree and are prepared to go to court. at the first court date, inform that you require a duty solicitor. The duty solicitor will request that the case be remanded to a later date, in order for you to fully consult a lawyer.
You will in that time select a legal aid lawyer from a list, and have a chance to get in touch with them. there are some forms to fill out,(including a form where you outline yor income and outgoings. this is to assess repayment of the legal aid money) duty solicitor will help with this.
from here the rest you arrange with your chosen legal aid lawyer.

[TimeOut]

Who would the police charge if they opened their door in front of a cyclist?

[tigertim20]

I don't think that is obvious. This road had marked lanes. A normal car driving by in it's own lane is not passing another vehicle in its lane. It is neither overtaking or undertaking.


So in this particular scenario, (going from teh posted image), is the biker treated as riding down a single laned road with cars parked on the left side of the road? Or is it not quite that black and white?

as i understand it, the cars are illegally parked for starters. agree with ixions comments regarding it being a perfectly legal lane.

[Ixion]

Yes. Just so. NZ law treats a multilane road as being like several single lane roads side by side.

It is of course perfectly normal for cars to drive along a two lane road, passing parked vehicles. You may see it anywhere every day. The only thing that makes this "different" is that the left hand lane is narrower than usual. Usually the left hand lane on a road is made wide enough for a parked car and a moving car. The road in question has been widened to the maximum . So when cars are parked there is not room for another car to get through. (Hence the "clearway")

That does not make it illegal for a bike, or a skinny car, to do so if they can.(without getting stuck!) .

There are a few special cases around pedestrian crossing , train crossings and such like. Not relevant to this case.

[CookMySock]

Who would the police charge if they opened their door in front of a cyclist?

Spoke to him again.


Re bicyclists: he officer who I talked to earlier today said [paraphrased] "Doesn't matter, still illegal. I then I asked him "What happens [to me] now"? He said that i need to wait for the police report to be prepared. When I questioned him about how long this is going to take, he told me [paraphrased again] "As long as it takes. It will cost you $55 to get a copy of this report. You can then contest what's in that report, that's fair enough".


He told me that the police's job is to "Find who is at fault", and that I had been found at fault. And insurance etc are civil matters, so all that doesn't matter to the police past figuring out who is at fault, and that I had been found at fault.


My jaw was on the floor. I asked him to repeat himself, I said to him: "Sorry, I have been found at fault?" he said "Yes".

[breakaway]

as i understand it, the cars are illegally parked for starters. agree with ixions comments regarding it being a perfectly legal lane.

I agree with ixion as well, but I do not understand this part:


cars are illegally parked?

You're allowed to park there but not between the times that the said "clearway sign" states right? There's heaps of roads around like that!

[Squiggles]

Slightly grey perhaps, but I reckon that Ixion has hit it on the head...

Wait for the ticket to arrive, i presume that wont be until the report has been finished.

[The Stranger]

It is of course perfectly normal for cars to drive along a two lane road, passing parked vehicles. You may see it anywhere every day.

Tamaki drive, heading toward Mission Bay from the city is analogous to this situation. 2 lanes in that direction, frequently with cars parked on the left and still room for cars to pass on the RHS of the left lane - and they do all the time.

Hard to imagine how the Police could infer it was the bike rider's fault.

[discotex]

If it's as clear cut as it seems his insurance company should be interested in helping reverse the cop's decision on fault.

[CookMySock]

Theres a twist to the story ;

(edit: immediately after she ascertained the level of injury, the person then proceeded with the following.)

she (the driver who opened the door) said "Shall I call the police"
He said "Well I don't see any need to"
to which she responded "I'm an officer"
Im like "Well in that case do what you want"

It seems to us, that the person who opened the car door into the path of the motorcycle has identified themselves as an "officer", which we took to mean "a police officer."

Ok I am about to suggest the following to him. Any comments?

1.) contact her and say you are going to take it up with a court of law. Tell her

"this is likely to go in my favour, and could look really bad for you."
"at your option, we can resolve it out of court, or take pot-luck with what the judge says."
"I'm prepared to lose, but my legal advice is that I will win, so do you
want to go to court or what?"

if she says "yes" then do it. if she says "no" then say to her "what would you offer to resolve this?"

Seriously, all she has to do is admit to her insurance company that she was in the wrong, and they pay him out as their third party - no one loses face or job. If she fights it in court and loses, for her it's a careless use causing injury charge, and if she is indeed an officer, this is going to hurt.

If she wants to go to court ;

2.) Go to the police station and tell them you will challenge their passing on the left infringement notice in a court of law, and secondly, that you wish to make a formal complaint and make a statement with regard to a motor vehicle accident, and that you would like to the NZ police to act on your behalf in a court of law


Any suggestions?

Steve

[Winston001]

Who would the police charge if they opened their door in front of a cyclist?

The car driver. Careless Use Causing Injury. Seen it happen.

This case might be a little different because it involves two vehicles sharing the same lane (our biker on the left, and stopped cars on his right). The parked driver is required to keep a clear lookout so has prima facie committed an offence.

However that driver could argue they could not reasonably expect another vehicle to suddenly appear in-between stopped traffic and their vehicle. Reasonable doubt.

Although if a judge was a cyclist he might take a dim view of that. ;)

[Winston001]

Lets get this sorted out. There are two types of Legal Aid - Civil and Criminal. Both are regarded as loans. Civil is usually repayable, Criminal not so often, because criminal defendants who qualify for Legal Aid often have nothing anyway. Just fines, debts and hp.

DBs question is about Criminal Legal Aid. So lets put that one to bed right away.

Basically you are wasting your time applying for LA for traffic offences. It won't be granted because they aren't serious enough. You defend yourself.

There can be exceptions but really you need to be looking at prison to persuade the District LA office.

[Winston001]

Finally, passing parked cars inside a line of stopped traffic is a recipe for disaster. What's happened here (unless I've completely misunderstood the facts) is an accident begging to happen.

In most vehicles I've driven, there is a small treacherous blind spot in the rear right quarter. Exterior mirrors reduce it but even then, a blank area remains.

Never mind rights - a motorcyclist or cyclist who assumes everyone can and must see them is a fool.

[CookMySock]

Lets get this sorted out. [....]

Basically you are wasting your time applying for LA for traffic offences. It won't be granted because they aren't serious enough. You defend yourself. Ok, thanks.

He is thinking of applying anyway - they can only say no.

Steve

[pzkpfw]

To me the legal question comes down to: At the time the clearway is allowing parking, what is its' legal definition?

What I mean is, is it still considered a "lane" at that time?


If it is a "lane" then I don't think it should be called "undertaking", as the bike was in a lane to the left of the cars in the right lane. The bike was overtaking cars stationary in a lane, on their right - and as long as indicator rules and such were followed - no biggie.

But if it isn't a "lane" at that time, then it's just parking to the left of the cars in what's the "first" lane. So I think then it comes down to whether the cars in that lane were stationary (which I think makes passing on the left legal) and, again, whether the passing rules were followed.


I am not a lawyer. Not even a bush lawyer, as I don't have that many pricks.

Just had a thought about what that "clearway" really legally means in this context.

[CookMySock]

@pzkpfw, the cars on all sides were stationary - traffic stopped at red lights.

If this person was indeed an officer 'o the law, what are the consequences of them facing a careless use causing injury charge while off-duty?

Steve

[Ixion]

Sorry, I have been found at fault? Of course. To a cop a motorcyclist is ALWAYS at fault.
This case might be a little different because it involves two vehicles sharing the same lane (our biker on the left, and stopped cars on his right) As I interpret the drawing, the stopped cars to the right were is a *different* lane. So the only things in the lane were a moving vehicle (the bike) and some *parked* cars. Very normal situation. if you couldn't drive/ride past parked vehicles, then it would be impossible to get anywhere in Auckland (may be different in small towns). If the stopped (not parked) cars were in the *same* lane as the bike, that's a bit different (only a bit though)

[Ixion]

@pzkpfw, the cars on all sides were stationary - traffic stopped at red lights.

If this person was indeed an officer 'o the law, what are the consequences of them facing a careless use causing injury charge while off-duty?

Steve

Probably lose her job. Sounds like the force looking after its own.

[CookMySock]

As I interpret the drawing, the stopped cars to the right were is a *different* lane. So the only things in the lane were a moving vehicle (the bike) and some *parked* cars. Very normal situation.)



Yep, 100% correct, this is exactly how it was.



Parked cars in the left lane (the lane he was in) and cars stopped for the red light in the right lane.

Steve

[Mully]

Probably lose her job. Sounds like the force looking after its own.

Bingo.

Seems silly to try to prosecute the rider in this case. Clearly a case of the Police looking after one of their own*

So, for the Legal Aid boffins; if the rider applies and gets LA, and it is found (as appears to be the case) that there is no case against him and it's thrown out, can he apply for costs from the Police? Or is a PCA complaint his only option? (which means he's still out of pocket)

DB, what did the rider's insurance company say about it? Seems to me they may be keen to argue the Police conclusion (therefore clearing the way for the rider to piggyback on their argument) in order to reduce their liability.

(*Disclaimer, this opinion is based on the information as provided being correct and unbiased. I reserve the right to flip-flop on this case as it takes my fancy. Rinse and repeat. For best results, use regularly. Your home may be at risk if you do not make your mortgage payments. Do not drink paint, unless advised by your Doctor. If your Doctor advises drinking paint, seek an alternate Doctor.)

[Winston001]

B
So, for the Legal Aid boffins; if the rider applies and gets LA, and it is found (as appears to be the case) that there is no case against him and it's thrown out, can he apply for costs from the Police? Or is a PCA complaint his only option?

An order of costs against the police is so rare that it usually requires a separate hearing. Possible....not probable.

As for the car driver, the motorcyclist has the right to make a complaint of careless use against her. If the police refuse to prosecute = PCA.

[Mully]

An order of costs against the police is so rare that it usually requires a separate hearing. Possible....not probable.

As for the car driver, the motorcyclist has the right to make a complaint of careless use against her. If the police refuse to prosecute = PCA.

Thanks for that.

So it's the rider's problem to prove that the prosecution was biased.... Yeah, good luck with that.

Seems to me that a PCA complaint would be appropriate anyway. Clearly the investigation was biased in favour of the Occifer.

[Winston001]

So it's the rider's problem to prove that the prosecution was biased.... Yeah, good luck with that.

Seems to me that a PCA complaint would be appropriate anyway. Clearly the investigation was biased in favour of the Occifer.

No no, you'll see above where I put a reasonable doubt argument in favour of the driver. The police often decide not to prosecute - they have a discretion.

There are situations where both parties are separately prosecuted. I think this could be one of them.

The twist in this tale is the car driver "might" be a police officer so there is a perfectly reasonable suspicion she's being let off.

So a complaint to the police should sort this out. Ask any police officer - internal investigations are the one thing they hate. That's because the investigators are zealous and tend to think the officer is wrong from the get-go. I have a mate who is a police legal advisor and they go after blood.

[Mully]

No no, you'll see above where I put a reasonable doubt argument in favour of the driver. The police often decide not to prosecute - they have a discretion.

There are situations where both parties are separately prosecuted. I think should be one of them.

The twist in this tale is the car driver "might" be a police officer so there is a perfectly reasonable suspicion she's being let off.

So a complaint to the police should sort this out. Ask any police officer - internal investigations are the one thing they hate. That's because the investigators are zealous and tend to think the officer is wrong from the get-go. I have a mate who is a police legal advisor and they go after blood.

Hmmm, OK. But I don't see why the rider should be being charged with anything - seems from reading here that he did nothing wrong (except possibly not indicating when overtaking, it's not clear).

If the woman who opened the door into him is not being charged and is a Police Occifer, that seems to be to be biased. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a reason that she shouldn't be charged.

I get your reasonable doubt thing, but what's stopping it being a truck a little too far left and taking the driver's hand off when she flings the door open?

So does the rider have the right to ask if the other driver was charged in relation to the incident? If so, can he then go the driver for the damage to his bike?

EDIT: Actually, DB; has your mate said how fast he was going? Seems like an awful lot of damage for the situation, unless he was going for it.

[marty]

What a lot of blah blah for a very simple matter - am I correct in thinking that no ticket has even been received yet?

It seems pretty simple - it's an 'opens door without due consideration' - Provision 7.2(1), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 .

If however, the cars were legally parked in some kind of Clearway, then your friend could have been 'riding in an unavailable lane', Provision 2.3(1)(a), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Either way, it's a $150 fine. I don't think Legal Aid would be interested.

[p.dath]

What a lot of blah blah for a very simple matter - am I correct in thinking that no ticket has even been received yet?

It seems pretty simple - it's an 'opens door without due consideration' - Provision 7.2(1), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 .

If however, the cars were legally parked in some kind of Clearway, then your friend could have been 'riding in an unavailable lane', Provision 2.3(1)(a), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Either way, it's a $150 fine. I don't think Legal Aid would be interested.

$150 ticket. It's just not worth doing anything about.

[marty]

Who was at fault is still important - it's the staggering amount of handwringing and woe-is-me that is going on over a ticket that hasn't even been issued yet (and imho, won't be).

Get some facts, deal with it.

[PrincessBandit]

Thing is though, for the people going on about "woe is me, handwringing" etc., it IS a major deal to the person it has happened to. Especially if they have injuries to boot. It's not quite as simple a matter as "oh, just wait and see what happens, don't get upset before you know what you're up for" because although that makes sense, it's a tall order for the person involved. (Unless all you blah blah'ers are so blase and have been through it so many times it barely raises a yawn from you!)

From my reading of it there it seems hard to see how the rider could be held exclusively at fault. As I read it the door-opener is clearly at fault - checking over your shoulder before opening a car door should be a reflex for any driver! Would the police be acting exactly the same if it had been an 8 year old child on a bicycle hit by this "officer"?

If the details are completely upfront as relayed by DB then I certainly hope that there is some way this person can be vindicated and not left holding the

[The Stranger]

$150 ticket. It's just not worth doing anything about.


Perhaps not, but the cost of repair to the bike and to the car could be significant. Even if the irder is insured it could easily cost a grand in excess.

Are you related to dpex per chance?

[Gremlin]

If however, the cars were legally parked in some kind of Clearway, then your friend could have been 'riding in an unavailable lane', Provision 2.3(1)(a), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but clearways on normal roads are normally (from what I have seen anyway) used to prevent parking during certain hours, to make the lane available to traffic?

I understood the time to be outside of the hours of the clearway anyway, so I wouldn't imagine it would apply.

Others have already stated about passing parked cars etc within the lane.

[discotex]

This thread reminds me of the often quoted saying:

"It's no good being in the right if you're dead"

[The Stranger]

Ask any police officer - internal investigations are the one thing they hate. That's because the investigators are zealous and tend to think the officer is wrong from the get-go. I have a mate who is a police legal advisor and they go after blood.

What? The cop hate being treated like they treat the rest of the public. Fooken hypocrites!

[Str8 Jacket]

$150 ticket. It's just not worth doing anything about.

$150 is the cost of chain +1 sprocket for one of my bikes so *I* would be doing something about it.

Money does not grow on trees!

[p.dath]

$150 is the cost of chain +1 sprocket for one of my bikes so *I* would be doing something about it.

Money does not grow on trees!

So you would spend a couple of grand on defending a ticket to say $150? Remember full costs will not be awarded in your favour.

You could choose to defend your self in court, but if you loose costs could be awarded against you.

So quite a big risk for just $150. Paying the $150 sounds the cheaper of the options to me.

[Str8 Jacket]

So you would spend a couple of grand on defending a ticket to say $150?

Show me where I said that?

If I was in the right and knew that I was in the right then I would defend the ticket using the dispute process noted on the back of the infringement notice/ ticket.

I wouldn't pay a lawyer to write a letter for me in other words.

[jrandom]

Finally, passing parked cars inside a line of stopped traffic is a recipe for disaster. What's happened here (unless I've completely misunderstood the facts) is an accident begging to happen.

Speaking in my professional capacity as a bicycle courier - what he said.

In the traffic situation described here, on anything with two wheels, I'd be out in the middle of the road, on the other side of the centerline, in fact, letting oncoming traffic move a little to the left to get out of my way if necessary.

It may be mildly obnoxious, but it's relatively safe.


Who was at fault is still important - it's the staggering amount of handwringing and woe-is-me that is going on over a ticket that hasn't even been issued yet (and imho, won't be).

And, what he said.

Let insurance call you 'at fault' if they want. Who cares? You're still covered, that's what insurance is for. Shit happens.

And in my view, the rider was partially at fault. Getting car-doored is an occupational hazard that all (motor)cyclists need to take responsibility for avoiding.

[Katman]

Finally, passing parked cars inside a line of stopped traffic is a recipe for disaster. What's happened here (unless I've completely misunderstood the facts) is an accident begging to happen.





And in my view, the rider was partially at fault. Getting car-doored is an occupational hazard that all (motor)cyclists need to take responsibility for avoiding.

I'm surprised that in a thread of 5 pages that these posts are just about the only ones I can find where common sense prevails.

30kph, past stationary traffic, through a gap that a motorcycle could "squeeze" through, in a road placement that carries a high degree of risk, is just plain fuckin' dumb.

[Ixion]

The question posed , however, was not whether the action was wise, but whether it was legal. It may be unwise, but it was legal. Clearly, the wise and prudent choice would be to sit patiently in the queue of vehicles, like a car. Though why, then, one would bother to ride a bike seems unclear.

[jrandom]

Clearly, the wise and prudent choice would be to sit patiently in the queue of vehicles, like a car. Though why, then, one would bother to ride a bike seems unclear.

Nonsense. Sitting in the queue carries its own dangers, as you well know. The wise and prudent choice, as I mentioned earlier, would be to pass the stopped traffic out in the middle of the road.

This rider's timidity was his downfall.

[Ixion]

Actually, the wisest and most prudent course would be to use the auxiliary motorbike lane - aka footpath. I find it is the only place where one can reasonably reliably not be subjected to cager idiocy.

[Katman]

The question posed , however, was not whether the action was wise, but whether it was legal.

Personally, I think it should be illegal to be that fucking stupid.

[jrandom]

Actually, the wisest and most prudent course would be to use the auxiliary motorbike lane - aka footpath. I find it is the only place where one can reasonably reliably not be subjected to cager idiocy.

Once again speaking in my professional capacity as a bicycle courier, I must point out that pedestrians are even more homicidal and suicidal than car drivers.

Of all road users, they are the least predictable and the most unaware of their surroundings.

Intentionally riding on the part of the road most frequented by them is foolhardy in the extreme.

[Ixion]

Ah. On a bicycle, maybe. But i have half a ton or so of mass . And a very loud horn. And pedestrians are at least soft and squishy. A head on with a pedestrian is a better bet than a head on with a cage.

[CookMySock]

It is abundantly fucking clear to the injured person whether he will be doing that again or not. It is also becoming abundantly clear to him what is legal and what is not - thanks to the useful participation in this thread.

The rest of you - there is a rant or rave forum for stone throwing, bickering, finger pointing, and other arguing. This thread is about the legality of the situation, and whether we can help him extract himself from his predicament. If you can't help, or voice a considered opinion without the put downs and name calling, then please do not post in the legal forum.

Thank you.

We are tempted to post daily updates here, but that will quite likely compromise our situation, as we will update as we are able.

Steve

[CookMySock]

What a lot of blah blah for a very simple matter - am I correct in thinking that no ticket has even been received yet?

It seems pretty simple - it's an 'opens door without due consideration' - Provision 7.2(1), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 .

If however, the cars were legally parked in some kind of Clearway, then your friend could have been 'riding in an unavailable lane', Provision 2.3(1)( a ), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.


Ticket is apparently 'in the mail, and you should receive it shortly'. He has spoken to one of the the officers that took his statement at the ER, and she has told him that he has been found at fault for this particular incident, for "undertaking", or something silly like that. He was told that the ticket is in the mail and should be arriving shortly

So if it was outside the hours that the clearway states, i.e., cars can legally park there, it is the riders' fault? I.E. he is completely boned and is not going to get any insurance money out of the person who opened teh car door?

And yes - the damage to the bike is substantial. In fact saying it's totally fucked would be putting it nicely.

10 chars outside the quotes..

[NordieBoy]

Wait for the ticket and once you've got the exact wording etc. work from there...

[Patrick]

No, its not for me. How would one apply for legal aid to fight the pigs over a bike crash thats heading badly in the wrong direction?

ta.
Steve

With such a polite invite, why do I bother..... oh well.... since it isn't for DB....


Ok I just talked to him, and he wrote this up; If you recognise him, please do not identify him. No, its not me.

Has PMed me direct.


So it may be that both parties may get a ticket ...

Quite likely. But more like both, or neither, get tickets.... Only one has been issued. One gets cancelled, or another gets issued...


Completely agree. the parked vehicles should be ticketed as well. ....

This was at 3pm... the clearway starts at 4pm. They were legally parked.


Who would the police charge if they opened their door in front of a cyclist?

The door opener. Although a bike is a "vehicle" it is not a "motor vehcile." There is a problem with the bike being where it was....


Theres a twist to the story ;

.........
1.) contact her and say you are going to take it up with a court of law. Tell her

"this is likely to go in my favour, and could look really bad for you."
"at your option, we can resolve it out of court, or take pot-luck with what the judge says."
"I'm prepared to lose, but my legal advice is that I will win, so do you
want to go to court or what?"

if she says "yes" then do it. if she says "no" then say to her "what would you offer to resolve this?"

Seriously, all she has to do is admit to her insurance company that she was in the wrong, and they pay him out as their third party - no one loses face or job. If she fights it in court and loses, for her it's a careless use causing injury charge, and if she is indeed an officer, this is going to hurt.

If she wants to go to court ;

2.) Go to the police station and tell them you will challenge their passing on the left infringement notice in a court of law, and secondly, that you wish to make a formal complaint and make a statement with regard to a motor vehicle accident, and that you would like to the NZ police to act on your behalf in a court of law


Any suggestions?

Steve

Not bad advice, but I would take it up with the issuing officers supervisor or higher. Seek a review, with these points mentioned above. Not bad at all DB....

Am looking into this, as interested in it... Wait a bit......


The car driver. Careless Use Causing Injury. Seen it happen.

This case might be a little different because it involves two vehicles sharing the same lane (our biker on the left, and stopped cars on his right). The parked driver is required to keep a clear lookout so has prima facie committed an offence.

However that driver could argue they could not reasonably expect another vehicle to suddenly appear in-between stopped traffic and their vehicle. Reasonable doubt.

Although if a judge was a cyclist he might take a dim view of that. ;)

Well put. Legal beagle strikes again. No problem if it was a bike. Car door opener clearly at fault. Differing views on it being a motorbike.


@pzkpfw, the cars on all sides were stationary - traffic stopped at red lights.

If this person was indeed an officer 'o the law, what are the consequences of them facing a careless use causing injury charge while off-duty?

Steve

Getting charged. Getting a desk job if licence lost. No loss of job, so the frothing can stop now.....


Of course. To a cop a motorcyclist is ALWAYS at fault.

:no::sleep::zzzz: TUI moment....


Probably lose her job. Sounds like the force looking after its own.

TUI....TUI....:shutup: See above.


... DB, what did the rider's insurance company say about it? Seems to me they may be keen to argue the Police conclusion (therefore clearing the way for the rider to piggyback on their argument) in order to reduce their liability.

(*Disclaimer, this opinion is based on the information as provided being correct and unbiased. I reserve the right to flip-flop on this case as it takes my fancy. Rinse and repeat. For best results, use regularly. Your home may be at risk if you do not make your mortgage payments. Do not drink paint, unless advised by your Doctor. If your Doctor advises drinking paint, seek an alternate Doctor.)

Seek a review by another independant NCO.
.

There are situations where both parties are separately prosecuted. I think this could be one of them.

The twist in this tale is the car driver "might" be a police officer so there is a perfectly reasonable suspicion she's being let off.

So a complaint to the police should sort this out. Ask any police officer - internal investigations are the one thing they hate. That's because the investigators are zealous and tend to think the officer is wrong from the get-go. I have a mate who is a police legal advisor and they go after blood.

Beat me to it... again. Only just been alerted to this by the ticket receiver....


Who was at fault is still important - it's the staggering amount of handwringing and woe-is-me that is going on over a ticket that hasn't even been issued yet (and imho, won't be).

Get some facts, deal with it.

Ticket sighted. Ticket definitely issued.

[CookMySock]

@Patrick, many thanks for your input. I am sure he is relieved to have you assisting.

It will be interesting to see it all unfold. Curious to see her resisting, when it could, and should, go really pear-shaped, with nothing for her to gain and a whole lot to lose.

Steve

[The Stranger]

@Patrick, many thanks for your input. I am sure he is relieved to have you assisting.

It will be interesting to see it all unfold. Curious to see her resisting, when it could, and should, go really pear-shaped, with nothing for her to gain and a whole lot to lose.

Steve

So ok, give us an update, where's it at?

[Patrick]

@Patrick, many thanks for your input. I am sure he is relieved to have you assisting.

It will be interesting to see it all unfold. Curious to see her resisting, when it could, and should, go really pear-shaped, with nothing for her to gain and a whole lot to lose.

Steve

Had a look and will discuss with an old hand vet with 40+ years snaking experience.....

Have PM'ed the dude direct DB....................... He can tell ya.....

[Patrick]

Have PM'ed him with advice.

He was legal, passing stopped traffic to his right. It's even in the road code.

The crash cause is the door opener. End of story.

Proviso - going from info supplied, without having viewed the actual file....:niceone:

[CookMySock]

Coolies. Pretty much that was clear from the beginning - it was just the other little grey areas here and there that left us unsure, and the cops trying to book him for passing on the left didn't help either - what posessed them to do that? Oh well.

Hopefully this gives him the confidence to rail ahead and fill out all the forms. Here we go. ;)

Steve

[Patrick]

Coolies. Pretty much that was clear from the beginning - it was just the other little grey areas here and there that left us unsure, and the cops trying to book him for passing on the left didn't help either - what posessed them to do that? Oh well.

Hopefully this gives him the confidence to rail ahead and fill out all the forms. Here we go. ;)

Steve

At a guess, baffled by "grey areas..."

If they left many here confused, I am sure they felt, "he can't do that..." too.....

But he can.....:doh:

[CookMySock]

Success!

<img src='http://www.iforce.co.nz/i/3yqtnkec.jpg'/>


Steve

[p.dath]

Well done!

[jaykay]

The injured party should now go on the attack - the police have finally realised the rider was not at fault - which means the person opening the door was at fault. Insist the insurance company sort it out -

If this happened to me I would insist the police prosecute the car driver, if they didn't I would prosecute it myself (anyone can take anyone else to court).

The only thing the bike rider could have done to mitigate the crash would have been to ride slower, but the accident could still happen.

The bike rider shouldn't use the word "squeezed", doesn't look good.

[BMWST?]

Ah. On a bicycle, maybe. But i have half a ton or so of mass . And a very loud horn. And pedestrians are at least soft and squishy. A head on with a pedestrian is a better bet than a head on with a cage.

maybe but there is absolutely no question who would be at fault.

[BMWST?]

common sense prevails at last.It is entirely legal to pass traffic on the left if
you are in a seperate lane
the traffic is stationary

he passses both qualifications
the parked cars dont matter.....they are parked.

[CookMySock]

The injured party should now go on the attack - the police have finally realised the rider was not at fault - which means the person opening the door was at fault. Insist the insurance company sort it out BE ASSURED, we will open this person from their chin to their crotch. :bye:

There won't be any fucking around arguing with the insurance company. One terse written request for payment, then we spraypaint the the inside of the courtroom with them. Revenge. :fist:

edit: hee hee

Steve

[jono035]

softly softly catchee monkey...

[CookMySock]

softly softly catchee monkey...The time for that has passed.

<img src="http://www.willsegerman.com/uploaded_images/big-gun01-780350.jpg">

Steve

[jono035]

The time for that has passed.

Steve

I see your silly looking gigantic clown-gun and raise you a silly looking miniature clown-gun:

<img src="http://i.techrepublic.com.com/gallery/190980-500-360.jpg">

That one actually fires, at least...

[CookMySock]

Police just showed up at his door and dropped this off ;

<img src='http://www.iforce.co.nz/i/xhgtwc3l.jpg'/>

He said that since they've cancelled the ticket, they won't re-issue it, however they will not give me a letter for insurance purposes since they have "found me at fault" (WHAT???). I showed him the road code page where it says it was legal to pass on the left as long as all cars in question were stopped, and told him "It says right there in black and white that I can do it, why does there need to be a huge investigation before all this is sorted out?" and his reply to that was "There's more to the law than there is printed in the road code".



Yay! More paperwork and stalling!

[jono035]

and his reply to that was "There's more to the law than there is printed in the road code".

Incredibly few people have any idea what the law says they can and cannot do beyond a kind of ephemeral 'well I thought you could because I'd never heard of anyone getting done for it'.

I am not usually this cynical, but the way that laws are written and attitudes like that towards the law really makes me think that it's all a giant cup and ball game where the people writing and enforcing the laws don't want the people subject to them to be able to actually understand them.

Pisses me off really, surely there should be more emphasis placed on either 1) providing resources for people to educate themselves on the law (the actual laws, not just a pamphlet outlining the normal, middle of the road cases) or 2) rewriting the laws so that they are more accessible to the 'average' New Zealander...

If the average kiwi can't understand it then you've got 2 choices, make the average kiwi 'smarter' or make the laws easier to understand. Seems like a good approach to me, might even reduce our dependence on lawyers...

[p.dath]

Police just showed up at his door and dropped this off ;

He said that since they've cancelled the ticket, they won't re-issue it, however they will not give me a letter for insurance purposes since they have "found me at fault" (WHAT???). I showed him the road code page ...
Yay! More paperwork and stalling!

I bet this will take at least 6 more months.

You have probably got the best outcome you can hope for now. It might be worthwhile deciding if it is worth continuing. If you succeed at finding the other driver at fault what do you gain (apart from personal satisfaction)? A reduction in the excess?

When it comes to court, never try for the "just" outcome, go for the "best" outcome.

[jono035]

I bet this will take at least 6 more months.

You have probably got the best outcome you can hope for now. It might be worthwhile deciding if it is worth continuing. If you succeed at finding the other driver at fault what do you gain (apart from personal satisfaction)? A reduction in the excess?

When it comes to court, never try for the "just" outcome, go for the "best" outcome.

If they find the other party at fault then that would be a waiving of the excess I would think. Depends on what the excess is to begin with really.

[CookMySock]

I bet this will take at least 6 more months.Which is why we are not going to wait for it.


You have probably got the best outcome you can hope for now. It might be worthwhile deciding if it is worth continuing. If you succeed at finding the other driver at fault what do you gain (apart from personal satisfaction)? A reduction in the excess?Hmm, let be think about that for a millisecond - um, Yes, we will continue with it.

If that is the best outcome you can think of, then best you sit back and watch the flames.

Steve

[Winston001]

He said that since they've cancelled the ticket, they won't re-issue it, however they will not give me a letter for insurance purposes since they have "found me at fault" (WHAT???)......


You don't need a letter. You already have one saying to ignore the infringement notice. Innocent until proven guilty. In terms of the law, you have not committed an offence.

Relax.

[CookMySock]

Relax.Yeah but without that letter, he is liable for damage to both the careless door opener and the other car that was damaged.

What's going to happen is the car door opener's insurance will get a hold of the police file, which will state that he's at fault, and try to get the money for damage to the car door opener's car out of him.

[Winston001]

Incredibly few people have any idea what the law says they can and cannot do beyond a kind of ephemeral 'well I thought you could because I'd never heard of anyone getting done for it'.

Pisses me off really, surely there should be more emphasis placed on either 1) providing resources for people to educate themselves on the law (the actual laws, not just a pamphlet outlining the normal, middle of the road cases) or 2) rewriting the laws so that they are more accessible to the 'average' New Zealander...



There are resources. The same ones the Police and Judges use. For example, Becroft and Hall's Transport Law (NZ). You can buy the two volume set for about $1200 and then the annual updates for $600.

Make the law simple? I wish. Here's a challenge - define "Careless use" which falls between minor traffic offences (failure to keep left etc) and Dangerous Driving. Your definition needs to cover every possible eventuality to meet your wish for clear understanding.

Careless use covers everything from opening a car door into traffic, to snaking a vehicle, to running off the road.

I predict your definition will be the size of a small novel.......which is why the law does not even attempt to try. Each case depends upon its facts and the particular events discussed here are a good example.

[Mom]

Forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick here but...

This person was ticketed for a manouver that turned out to be legal after you kicked up a fuss and made them investigate the accident? They have received a letter saying that the infringement notice has been cancelled as it was a legal manouver. End of story.

I would leave all the arguments to the insurance companies, assuming there is actually insurance on the bike that was involved. If no insurance then yes, fight tooth and nail or there is a likelyhood the other insurance companies involved will look to this person to reimburse them for the damge repairs.

If insured, worse case scenario here is this person will have to pay the excess on the repair to his vehicle only.

[jono035]

There are resources. The same ones the Police and Judges use. For example, Becroft and Hall's Transport Law (NZ). You can buy the two volume set for about $1200 and then the annual updates for $600.

Make the law simple? I wish. Here's a challenge - define "Careless use" which falls between minor traffic offences (failure to keep left etc) and Dangerous Driving. Your definition needs to cover every possible eventuality to meet your wish for clear understanding.

Careless use covers everything from opening a car door into traffic, to snaking a vehicle, to running off the road.

I predict your definition will be the size of a small novel.......which is why the law does not even attempt to try. Each case depends upon its facts and the particular events discussed here are a good example.

I think you are talking about defining 'things that are illegal' whereas I am talking about the body of law itself. If it was written clearer or there were more resources available (that don't cost $1200 for a single subsection of law, that isn't even vaguely close to what I mean) to understand these laws then the judgement calls and the criteria used to define those boundaries.

[jono035]

Forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick here but...

This person was ticketed for a manouver that turned out to be legal after you kicked up a fuss and made them investigate the accident? They have received a letter saying that the infringement notice has been cancelled as it was a legal manouver. End of story.

I would leave all the arguments to the insurance companies, assuming there is actually insurance on the bike that was involved. If no insurance then yes, fight tooth and nail or there is a likelyhood the other insurance companies involved will look to this person to reimburse them for the damge repairs.

If insured, worse case scenario here is this person will have to pay the excess on the repair to his vehicle only.

I guess it comes down to whether the police are actually saying he was in the right or simply stating that the infringement notice has been cancelled because they can't conclude that he was in the wrong. Depending on the insurance company and the excess, this may not be a particularly trivial matter (mine while on my 6L is $1200 with Swann).

[Mom]

I guess it comes down to whether the police are actually saying he was in the right or simply stating that the infringement notice has been cancelled because they can't conclude that he was in the wrong. Depending on the insurance company and the excess, this may not be a particularly trivial matter (mine while on my 6L is $1200 with Swann).

I hear you about the excess value, it is tough for a youngster these days.

The cause of this damage though must go to the door opener? The police have withdrawn the ticket to the passing on the left vehicle, so no blame can be attached surely. Like I said insurance companies will argue this out on your behalf.

[jono035]

I hear you about the excess value, it is tough for a youngster these days.

The cause of this damage though must go to the door opener? The police have withdrawn the ticket to the passing on the left vehicle, so no blame can be attached surely. Like I said insurance companies will argue this out on your behalf.

Sorry, I misunderstood your first comment.

Last incident I had was someone backing out of a carpark and hitting my car. I was about to pull into the space next to them, saw their reversing lights come on and stopped, they reversed while only looking behind them and swung the front of their car into mine. I were stopped at the time but the other party claimed it was my fault with the end result that the insurance companies agreed that they couldn't determine who was at fault and thus we would both have to pay excess...

Avoiding that situation could be a good enough reason to have the police follow through on the situation.

Edit: I'm 26 so that depends on your definition of youngster, but even working full time $1200 would sting me...

[Mom]

Sorry, I misunderstood your first comment.

Last incident I had was someone backing out of a carpark and hitting my car. I was about to pull into the space next to them, saw their reversing lights come on and stopped, they reversed while only looking behind them and swung the front of their car into mine. I were stopped at the time but the other party claimed it was my fault with the end result that the insurance companies agreed that they couldn't determine who was at fault and thus we would both have to pay excess...

Avoiding that situation could be a good enough reason to have the police follow through on the situation.

True dat! :yes:

[Winston001]

I think you are talking about defining 'things that are illegal' whereas I am talking about the body of law itself. If it was written clearer or there were more resources available (that don't cost $1200 for a single subsection of law, that isn't even vaguely close to what I mean) to understand these laws then the judgement calls and the criteria used to define those boundaries.

Fair enough although I don't understand. Could you illustrate with an example of what is wrong and how it could be fixed?

[jono035]

Fair enough although I don't understand. Could you illustrate with an example of what is wrong and how it could be fixed?

Well the laws that I was looking at when a co-worker and I came to this conclusion were the arms act, the education act (the part dealing with student allowances) and for my co-workers part the crimes act, privacy act, official information act and whatever act it is that deals with your rights when renting property.

I understand that the laws must sometimes be written in a particularly verbose manner to avoid them being twisted but a lot of the sections contained within these laws use specific terminology without it being defined, or defined in such a way as to be inaccessible.

The education act, for instance, when dealing with the student allowance section offloads a lot of the definitions and the ability to make extra regulations to the Secretary without there being any resources to find out what those current definitions are. It took a lot of chasing studylink to find out what their definition is and even then it was hardly clear (misuse of legal terminology such as 'de facto relationship' for instance).

The sheer volume of material doesn't help matters either (EDIT: in terms of verbosity rather than the number of laws).

I'm not necessarily saying throw out the laws and start again with ones in plain english, but some form of freely available reference which goes through the laws step by step, using plain english and enough extra references to easily find the additional information required should surely be a priority. It took me many hours of hard slog to get through this stuff and as someone who has completed a Bachelor of Engineering degree and am now back doing a Masters level degree in the same field I wouldn't think that I'm necessarily a good indicator of the 'average kiwi' when it comes to research ability.

There are some areas where this is pretty good with lots of easy information supplied, but too many others that are a complete minefield.

Edit: The government legislation website is an incredibly good reference allowing quick and easy access to the main body of law itself, I just feel that it isn't really enough on its own for anyone who doesn't have training or a peculiar interest in it to follow. There are enough minefields in the law itself (different subsections cross-applying to the same circumstance or other specific regulations overriding general ones with no transparency to the process) that self-access may not even necessarily be a good thing, as a faulty understanding of the law is probably more dangerous than no understanding. It doesn't seem right to me that the default method for gaining knowledge or legal opinion on a situation is to pay for it, this is something that should be more open to every citizen.

[CookMySock]

The government legislation website is an incredibly good reference allowing quick and easy access to the main body of law itself, I just feel that it isn't really enough on its own for anyone who doesn't have training or a peculiar interest in it to follow.This is a good use for the wiki. Link various threads, tags, and articles from the forum to the wiki, and from there index to relevant sections of the legislation.

Steve

[jono035]

This is a good use for the wiki. Link various threads, tags, and articles from the forum to the wiki, and from there index to relevant sections of the legislation.

Steve

Yeah, that could be quite good for answering the constantly recurring questions to be sure.

[p.dath]

This is a good use for the wiki. Link various threads, tags, and articles from the forum to the wiki, and from there index to relevant sections of the legislation.

Steve

That is such a good idea! We could also add things about comment questions - can you legally lane split, pass on the left, ride in bus lanes, etc.

[Winston001]

Edit: The government legislation website is an incredibly good reference allowing quick and easy access to the main body of law itself, I just feel that it isn't really enough on its own for anyone who doesn't have training or a peculiar interest in it to follow. There are enough minefields in the law itself (different subsections cross-applying to the same circumstance or other specific regulations overriding general ones with no transparency to the process) that self-access may not even necessarily be a good thing, as a faulty understanding of the law is probably more dangerous than no understanding. It doesn't seem right to me that the default method for gaining knowledge or legal opinion on a situation is to pay for it, this is something that should be more open to every citizen.

LOL your edit answered what I was going to say.

The fact is knowledge requires understanding and research. If I wanted to put an RSJ across my gargre lintel I'd either ask you - or I could fossick around researching I beams, L beams, box sections etc. Then there are the different strengths, thickness, lengths, plus coefficent of expansion plus maybe aluminium instead of steel, or whether an old cast-iron beam I found at the tip would do the job........or timber instead.....

I don't expect there to be one engineering book or website which holds all that info in layman's language with answers at a glance.

Similarly if you want to understand prostrate cancer, you will have to read a lot of information and know human physiology to gain a real understanding. And any cancer by itself is a complex subject and certainly isn't explicable in everyday language.

Same goes for computers......

We live in a complex age and specialisation is the rule because generalists cannot assimilate all of the knowledge available. So if you want to understand the law at a deeper level you either research it or employ a lawyer to do that for you.

[breakaway]

We live in a complex age and specialisation is the rule because generalists cannot assimilate all of the knowledge available. So if you want to understand the law at a deeper level you either research it or employ a lawyer to do that for you.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

However, it seems real sad that in this case, they gave this rider a ticket that's total bullshit (passing on the left - however it says in the road code you can pass on the left when all cars are stationary, as shown here (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-driving/passing.html)), then withdrew it, and then hand delivered (scare tactics?) a letter that says he's still at fault.

That's fucked up.

[jono035]

LOL your edit answered what I was going to say.

The fact is knowledge requires understanding and research. If I wanted to put an RSJ across my gargre lintel I'd either ask you - or I could fossick around researching I beams, L beams, box sections etc. Then there are the different strengths, thickness, lengths, plus coefficent of expansion plus maybe aluminium instead of steel, or whether an old cast-iron beam I found at the tip would do the job........or timber instead.....

I don't expect there to be one engineering book or website which holds all that info in layman's language with answers at a glance.

Similarly if you want to understand prostrate cancer, you will have to read a lot of information and know human physiology to gain a real understanding. And any cancer by itself is a complex subject and certainly isn't explicable in everyday language.

Same goes for computers......

We live in a complex age and specialisation is the rule because generalists cannot assimilate all of the knowledge available. So if you want to understand the law at a deeper level you either research it or employ a lawyer to do that for you.

Well for a start I'm an Electrical and Electronics Engineer, so it's unlikely I'd be able to help with the RSJ :) (Edit: Although that's what the easier to follow building codes and guidelines are for. I don't know how to design a house but I can follow other peoples info to put in a new doorway or knock out a wall. I can tell you how to replace an appliance plug)

We are talking about laws here which are a man made construct. They can be made simpler or resources can be provided to allow a person to understand them easier.

We don't need to know why they are or how to write new laws, we just need to know in plain language terms (cutting through the boilerplate verbosity) what the laws, as written, mean.

In terms of your analogy this is more akin to me providing you with an in depth explanation of how it works and what it is capable of in laymans terms. This is possible without me providing the actual info used to design the thing which is also easier than explaining how the various design decisions were made.

I don't think the situations are all that similar but then again things always look easier from the outside.

[Patrick]

OI...:Offtopic::zzzz:

Ticket has been cancelled.

He is not at fault. Car door opener caused the crash.

Insurers need to sort out their part now, coz that is what the big premiums are paid for....

[Winston001]

OI...:Offtopic::zzzz:

Ticket has been cancelled.

He is not at fault. Car door opener caused the crash.

Insurers need to sort out their part now, coz that is what the big premiums are paid for....

Yeah Patrick but I'm a bit concerned that's only because it was downgraded to a "warning". The implication is the motorcyclist is still in the wrong.

[Patrick]

Yeah Patrick but I'm a bit concerned that's only because it was downgraded to a "warning". The implication is the motorcyclist is still in the wrong.

Patience, grasshopper........

[Phurrball]

(snip)He is not at fault. Car door opener caused the crash.

Insurers need to sort out their part now, coz that is what the big premiums are paid for....

I'd suggest that as a next step - put the information to the insurer of the other party in detail.

They can make a decision, but if it is disputed, it'll be off to the Disputes Tribunal.

The DT seem to decide things on 'big-picture fairness' rather than taking a legalistic approach. The adjudicators aren't legally qualified, but their decisions have the same binding effect as a District Court decision. No lawyers are allowed, but you can take support people in. I've been there after a bike crash, and the process worked for me.

I'd be very, very surprised if it came to the DT and they found the rider at fault.


Yeah Patrick but I'm a bit concerned that's only because it was downgraded to a "warning". The implication is the motorcyclist is still in the wrong.

Luckily the Disputes Tribunal have an equitable jurisdiction then eh :yes:

The Police seem a bit confused in their approach and have contradicted themselves in written correspondence. It's not a good look.

This may yet drag on for a bit, but the rider concerned is putting up the good fight in a calm and reasonable manner.

Justice ought to prevail.

On the off topic - there's PLENTY of commentary on all areas of law, from pamphlets in community law centres and CABs, to more academic commentaries in general and law libraries.

Anyone seeking more scholarly commentary could happily trundle into a university law library for a look. They are incredibly well resourced and you really only miss the breadth and quality of material they provide when your studies end :(

If you're a out-of-faculty-same-university student, you can even borrow the stuff!

[Patrick]

The Police seem a bit confused in their approach and have contradicted themselves in written correspondence. It's not a good look.

This may yet drag on for a bit, but the rider concerned is putting up the good fight in a calm and reasonable manner.

Justice ought to prevail.

Confused all right... used this as a training scenario and got varied results. But looking into it more, she is clearly the cause.

Stay calm and collected and it will be sorted shortly I guess. Throwing toys just gets ignored or put onto the back burner/too hard basket.

[CookMySock]

I'd suggest that as a next step - put the information to the insurer of the other party in detail. The insurer isn't in the business of going out of their way to give away more money. I expect they would just ignore any request, just like I would if they requested money from me. Also, the insurer isn't contractually obliged to hand any person money, except their paid-up client.


The Police seem a bit confused in their approach and have contradicted themselves in written correspondence. It's not a good look.I do not think they care. Currently, there is no rope around their neck - ala there is nothing that forces them to act, so they can sit on their hands if they choose, at least until the heat begins to rise. It does not look good that it was one of their staff involved, but again, no one knows so the consequences are small to nil.

It does amaze me that they don't just do the right thing and instruct their staff to own up and pay up. Why are they so afraid? Heads don't have to roll over this.. its just a little thing. Heads are more likely to roll if they take more and more deliberate actions to sweep it under the carpet. Weird.


Steve

[Patrick]

It does not look good that it was one of their staff involved, but again, no one knows so the consequences are small to nil.

It does amaze me that they don't just do the right thing and instruct their staff to own up and pay up. Why are they so afraid? Heads don't have to roll over this.. its just a little thing. Heads are more likely to roll if they take more and more deliberate actions to sweep it under the carpet. Weird.


Steve

As has been said earlier, they think that the motorbike is to blame, so why own up/pay up if the bike is in the wrong.... which is what is wrongly believed.....

Until it is clearly pointed out that the bike is not to blame, that is where it sits. But that will change. He is making an appointment to speak with the Senior Sergeant A.S.A.P.

[Winston001]

Confused all right... used this as a training scenario and got varied results. But looking into it more, she is clearly the cause.

Stay calm and collected and it will be sorted shortly I guess. Throwing toys just gets ignored or put onto the back burner/too hard basket.

Yes its an interesting one alright and your training exercise illustrates this is not an easy situation to assess.

There is no doubt the parked driver has a duty to check the road is clear before opening her door. Cyclists are knocked over every day like this.

On the other hand what if the motorcyclist was moving at 30k? She wouldn't see him until far too late.

I'm not suggesting that happened here, just an added point for your scenario.

[CookMySock]

what if the motorcyclist was moving at 30k? She wouldn't see him until far too late. I admit that would make her checks more difficult, but I suggest it would be no defense.

It IS her responsibility to check the way is clear. If the method she uses to do this does not work, then she should select a new method. There is no clause in that part of legislation for her to be excused because she has taken "reasonable steps."

Having said that, take a look at this blind corner of Rimu and Main streets on this map. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=-37.984304,176.828427&spn=0.001797,0.003444&z=18

If I am heading north on main street and proceeding straight through at around 60km/hr, and I have opposing (blind) traffic turning right onto Rimu street (I have right of way), it is almost impossible for them to begin a turn and get clear of the corner before I am into their passenger door. That is just the nature of that corner.


Steve

[breakaway]

<snip>this is not an easy situation to assess.

Why not? Even though it says right there in the road code it is legal to pass on the left when all cars are stationary?

Looks to me that this biker happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and even more unlucky as the door opening driver happened to be an off duty police officer.

Reeks of cover up.

[Winston001]

Why not? Even though it says right there in the road code it is legal to pass on the left when all cars are stationary?



Land Transport Regulations 2004:

2.6 General requirements about passing other vehicles

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—


(a) the movement can be made with safety; and


(b) the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and


(c) sufficient clear road is visible to the driver for the passing movement to be completed without impeding or being likely to impede any possible opposing traffic; and


(d) until the passing movement is completed, the driver has a clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at least 100 m in the direction in which the driver is travelling.


2.8 Passing on left

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle moving in the same direction except in accordance with this clause.

(2) In any case in which the movement referred to subclause (1) may be made,—


(a) the 2 vehicles must be in different lanes; or


(b) the overtaken vehicle must be stationary or its driver must have given or be giving the prescribed signal of that driver's intention to turn right;


So, while you are allowed to pass a stationary vehicle on the left, safety is paramount and you need a clear view ahead. By electing to pass close to parked cars - essentially in the blind spot, you decide to take the risk a car door might open. If you move carefully there should be no problem.

Equally the driver of a parked car has a duty to check before opening the door. If it was a passenger.......? Don't know.

[breakaway]

Thanks Winston001,


So, while you are allowed to pass a stationary vehicle on the left, safety is paramount and you need a clear view ahead. By electing to pass close to parked cars - essentially in the blind spot, you decide to take the risk a car door might open. If you move carefully there should be no problem.

So in other words, provided that the story on page 2 of this thread is an accurate account of events, the biker was in the right and the car door opener was wrong? Meaning the accident is 100% the door opener's fault?

[Winston001]

So in other words, provided that the story on page 2 of this thread is an accurate account of events, the biker was in the right and the car door opener was wrong? Meaning the accident is 100% the door opener's fault?

In my opinion - Yes.

[breakaway]

Winston001 you seem to know what you're talking about, so I'm going to adsume you're a police officer or a legal type (sorry if I'm wrong :p).

And what do you mean "In my opinion?" I thought the whole point of having laws was to avoid this sort of thing? The law is freely accessible to all, and if the police/you can't interpret them, we're all in trouble!

[jono035]

Winston001 you seem to know what you're talking about, so I'm going to adsume you're a police officer or a legal type (sorry if I'm wrong :p).

And what do you mean "In my opinion?" I thought the whole point of having laws was to avoid this sort of thing? The law is freely accessible to all, and if the police/you can't interpret them, we're all in trouble!

There has already been 1 discussion in this thread about that situation :p

[Winston001]

Winston001 you seem to know what you're talking about, so I'm going to adsume you're a police officer or a legal type (sorry if I'm wrong :p).

And what do you mean "In my opinion?" I thought the whole point of having laws was to avoid this sort of thing? The law is freely accessible to all, and if the police/you can't interpret them, we're all in trouble!

LOL I'm a legal type person. The thing about the law is it relies upon facts - and they are often disputed. That is why there is uncertainty in some cases. David Bain.....? :oi-grr:

Actually the matter which troubles me is the possibility the car driver was associated with the police and was not considered an offender because of that. This could be incorrect but it will be interesting to see what comes of it.

[breakaway]

LOL I'm a legal type person. The thing about the law is it relies upon facts - and they are often disputed. That is why there is uncertainty in some cases. David Bain.....? :oi-grr:


I see where you are coming from, but in this situation, the facts aren't disputed. No one is saying this rider didnt pass on the left, or anything like that.

What's messed up is the fact that the police issued a ticket that seems to directly contradict the stuff you posted earlier (you know, that law stuff). That is why I think this is a cover up to protect he car door opener who is supposedly a police officer.

Guess it won't look good if a police officer gets done for careless use causing injury.

[CookMySock]

Actually the matter which troubles me is the possibility the car driver was associated with the police and was not considered an offender because of that. This could be incorrect but it will be interesting to see what comes of it.Yes indeed.

But if that turns out to be true, why on earth would they even consider such a thing? There is no benefit to be had (she's fully insured), and when and if it backfired on them the consequences could be enormous. I don't get it.

Steve

[jono035]

I see where you are coming from, but in this situation, the facts aren't disputed. No one is saying this rider didnt pass on the left, or anything like that.

What's messed up is the fact that the police issued a ticket that seems to directly contradict the stuff you posted earlier (you know, that law stuff). That is why I think this is a cover up to protect he car door opener who is supposedly a police officer.

Guess it won't look good if a police officer gets done for careless use causing injury.

If you re-read the law stuff, it says it's only legal if the movement can be made safely and is made with due consideration for other road users. That is plenty of leeway for argument depending on the circumstances such as the size of the gap that was left, the speed at which he was travelling etc.

[Patrick]

Yes its an interesting one alright and your training exercise illustrates this is not an easy situation to assess.

There is no doubt the parked driver has a duty to check the road is clear before opening her door. Cyclists are knocked over every day like this.

On the other hand what if the motorcyclist was moving at 30k? She wouldn't see him until far too late.

I'm not suggesting that happened here, just an added point for your scenario.

Cyclists can move along at 40k plus.... and are harder to see - no headlight and noisy exhaust...


I admit that would make her checks more difficult, but I suggest it would be no defense.

It IS her responsibility to check the way is clear. Steve

In a nutshell, yeah.


Land Transport Regulations 2004:

2.6 General requirements about passing other vehicles

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—


(a) the movement can be made with safety; and


(b) the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and

So, while you are allowed to pass a stationary vehicle on the left, safety is paramount and you need a clear view ahead. By electing to pass close to parked cars - essentially in the blind spot, you decide to take the risk a car door might open. If you move carefully there should be no problem.

Equally the driver of a parked car has a duty to check before opening the door. If it was a passenger.......? Don't know.

Which is possibly where the problem lies. He was possibly seen by those who attended as not being safe.


Yes indeed.

But if that turns out to be true, why on earth would they even consider such a thing? There is no benefit to be had (she's fully insured), and when and if it backfired on them the consequences could be enormous. I don't get it.

Steve

Which is why the "coverup" claim seems a little absurd.


If you re-read the law stuff, it says it's only legal if the movement can be made safely and is made with due consideration for other road users. That is plenty of leeway for argument depending on the circumstances such as the size of the gap that was left, the speed at which he was travelling etc.

True. But in this case, he was not going fast, was there to be seen if the door opener looked properly and was passing legally on the left in his own lane. The door opener caused it.

[jono035]

True. But in this case, he was not going fast, was there to be seen if the door opener looked properly and was passing legally on the left in his own lane. The door opener caused it.

Yeah, to be honest I'd already forgotten the particulars of this case, but of course that is only one side of the story. All it takes is for her to stand up and say she checked her mirror and there was nothing there so he must have been speeding given that he came up so quickly and you're back to square 1...

[klingon]

[other stuff]

So, while you are allowed to pass a stationary vehicle on the left, safety is paramount and you need a clear view ahead. By electing to pass close to parked cars - essentially in the blind spot, you decide to take the risk a car door might open. If you move carefully there should be no problem.

Equally the driver of a parked car has a duty to check before opening the door. If it was a passenger.......? Don't know.

This is all very interesting. I have only just read this thread, but something very similar happened to us back in April, with a couple of key differences.

We were riding along (I was the pillion), there was a line of stationary traffic and a row of parked cars. We rode (very slowly) between the two lines of stationary vehicles. The back seat passenger in one of the parked cars opened his door an knocked us off. We fell onto the car to our right, damaging it, and then onto the road, damaging the borrowed 2008 DL1000 we were riding! :pinch:

The police attended only because they were attending another incident just up the road so a patrol car happened to pass by as we were wheeling the bike off the road. The officer spoke to everyone concerned and made it very clear that the door-opener was 100% at fault as we were behaving both legally and cautiously at the time and he had carelessly opened the door without looking.

For some reason the driver confessed to opening the front door (it was definitely the back door that had been opened by the passenger) and admitted liability. The car had no insurance, and the bike alone cost around $8000 to repair. The late-model VW golf we fell on probably cost a similar amount (we had damaged all its side panels and my partner broke its mirror with his head).

So the key differences were:
1) We weren't injured (a few bruises don't count)
2) The person 'at fault' was an 18 year old yoof, not a police officer
3) The officer who attended came to a very different conclusion than the one in the case being discussed in this thread.

Interesting!

[breakaway]

And there we have it. It's a cover up. Plain and simple.

[Patrick]

No it aint... the cops numbers suggest VERY junior staff. They have come to the wrong conclusion.

[CookMySock]

No it aint... the cops numbers suggest VERY junior staff. They have come to the wrong conclusion.Ok, if he has a meeting with her boss, maybe they can all kiss and make up.

Steve

[Patrick]

Ok, if he has a meeting with her boss, maybe they can all kiss and make up.

Steve

Maybe. Most S/Sgts are old and crusty.:whistle:

[CookMySock]

He called the S/Sgt up who refused to meet him in person. The S/Sgt was convinced from the time he said hello on the phone that it was 100% his fault.

He has also spoken to klingon (KB member) who was a pillion in circumstances identical to his situation except for the location. He finds it intriguing that both patrick and the officer who attended klingon's crash came to a different conclusion regarding who was at fault.

Steve

[klingon]

Yep, after talking to him about both crashes, the similarities are remarkable - except for the outcome!

Why won't the S/Sgt talk to him?

I think he needs an advocate who is a bit older, knows the law, and can talk to the police as an 'equal' rather than what seems to be happening... Whether they are dismissing him because of his age or some other factor, at least they should do him the courtesy of sitting down with him and hearing him out!

[CookMySock]

Why won't the S/Sgt talk to him? He says;

Because he says he stands by the actions of his officers 100%, and that he's at fault, and that the only reason he's trying to get out of this is because otherwise he will have to pay for damages to other vehicles.


I think he needs an advocate who is a bit older, knows the law, and can talk to the police as an 'equal' rather than what seems to be happening... Whether they are dismissing him because of his age or some other factor, at least they should do him the courtesy of sitting down with him and hearing him out!I agree. Usually that is a lawyer.


Steve

[Coldrider]

I hope your friend has not listened to your advise of not having insurance.
Otherwise the car opener's insurance company will ream your mate no matter who is at fault, lawyers fees in lou of premiums and all.

[Katman]

I hope your friend has not listened to your advise of not having insurance.
Otherwise the car opener's insurance company will ream your mate no matter who is at fault, lawyers fees in lou of premiums and all.

Isn't it funny how diametrically opposed his opinion can be between two different threads?

[MadDuck]

Isn't it funny how diametrically opposed his opinion can be between two different threads?

Are you referring to this or something else?


Insurance is a waste of time - you don't need it. Cunts like me who aren't insured will just rip you off. See thats a good example of a couple of sentences that will cause a massive fallout. :girlfight:

[Patrick]

Yep, after talking to him about both crashes, the similarities are remarkable - except for the outcome!

Why won't the S/Sgt talk to him?

I think he needs an advocate who is a bit older, knows the law, and can talk to the police as an 'equal' rather than what seems to be happening... Whether they are dismissing him because of his age or some other factor, at least they should do him the courtesy of sitting down with him and hearing him out!

Have PM'ed him. Take up the offer of "discussing" the crash with the crash unit. After that, I will make some phone calls myself......


He says;

Because he says he stands by the actions of his officers 100%, and that he's at fault, and that the only reason he's trying to get out of this is because otherwise he will have to pay for damages to other vehicles.

I agree. Usually that is a lawyer.


Steve

That's a rare trait these days... or perhaps in these parts...???

Of course its the only reason he is trying to get out of it. That, and the fact that he did nothing wrong........

[Patrick]

Update:

Heard from S/Sgt. File on way to be "reviewed" by Crash Office.

Tis a difficult one, with possibly no real winner, which is why it was "filed" once the earlier ticket was canned.

Unfortunately, others have been pushing and playing dodgy cards...... hence the review.

Could be that both end up charged. 6R on 1000cc and car door opener.......

Insurers, his or hers, "could" both try and argue that bike shouldn't have been there as one rule was in fact being broken? Cars will definitely be fixed, no problem......

Not the flashest result, but out of my hands now......

Hate to think a wrong button was pushed needlessly, but it wasn't from me......

[Indoo]

I know of a situation where a drunk driver has been in a crash, he was prosecuted but that was a seperate matter from the crash itself which was caused by the other sober driver failing to giveway and being found at fault and liable in regard to the crash. Exactly the same applies when people pull out in front of speeding drivers and cause a crash, the fault and liability for the accident is still on them even if the other driver is also breaking the law by speeding.

I would imagine the same principle would apply in this circumstance, taking due car and diligence opening your car door to ensure no other vehicle or cyclist, runner etc is going to hit it, the onus is always on the door opener, just like the onus is always on you to ensure on you to stop short of the vehicle infront.

In this instance even if he wasn't overtaking in a legal manner, what caused the crash and hence liability was the careless actions of the car door opener. Any offences committed by the biker should be dealt with seperately and only listed if necessary as contributing not causative factor on the traffic crash report. I would imagine the door opener will be trying something along the lines of that she carefully looked behind her, slowly opened the door and suddenly this motorbike swerved dangerously from behing a stationary car and plowed right into the door, thats pretty much the only defence she can use, that she did take due care and diligence as expected from a prudent motorist.

[CookMySock]

Any offences committed by the biker should be dealt with seperately and only listed if necessary as contributing not causative factor on the traffic crash report.Yeah but what the fuzz is doing, is only charging him if he makes a noise. This is "be quiet, or it will go bad for you."


I would imagine the door opener will be trying something along the lines of that she carefully looked behind her, slowly opened the door and suddenly this motorbike swerved dangerously from behing a stationary car and plowed right into the door, thats pretty much the only defence she can use, that she did take due care and diligence as expected from a prudent motorist.The door opener is not in a position to make any representations about what he did or did not do. She could not possibly have know he was there, or else she would have not opened the door. She has already lied about the door being "ripped right off" and stated other things like "rider was in a hurry" and "rider was speeding" when she is not remotely in such a position to say so. Because she is a PO her word is taken as fact and our mate is treated as a criminal, and forced into a position where he has to PAY for the whole incident.

All that has happened lately is now possibly faces even more charges. Charges he would not have faced if he kept his mouth shut.

Steve

[Indoo]

Its irrelevant as to the cause whether the biker was speeding in a hurry or whatever, so unless shes able to prove that she did exercise the same care as a prudent motorist would then your mate is pretty safe. Presumably as they didn't see the biker they can't make any claims to his behaviour, unless they are suggesting that they saw the bike coming and opened the door regardless. Patricks already cleared up that what the biker was doing was legal, so it seems pretty cut and dry to me, even if they elect not to ticket or charge the car driver, 'fault' and liability for the crash will still be determined and reflect the outcome insurance wise.

Your mate shouldn't be facing any additional charges, if its only the crash file being reviewed then non-causative factors such as breaching his 1R should not be addressed, they are for the officers who attended and obviously either warned him or overlooked the breach. If he receives a ticket at this date he would have strong grounds for a complaint and it certainly wouldn't look good given the previous ticketing error.

The most important fact is to get the TCR ammended to state the other party is at fault which is what the insurance companies work off, ticket or no ticket. I would imagine any prospects of your mate getting a pay out from his own insurance would be limited given his license situation if they can't determine fault or its deem mutual liability which is pretty rare.

[Coldrider]

The pigs have written two contradicting letters, what is the next one going to say, how fucked up they really are?

[CookMySock]

The police have 'reviewed' the file, and as a result have given him a $400 ticket for restricted licence on 1000cc bike, and have also issued the car door opener a $150 ticket for "carelessly opened car door".

Sounds fair dunnit? :blink:

Steve

[p.dath]

The police have 'reviewed' the file, and as a result have given him a $400 ticket for restricted licence on 1000cc bike, and have also issued the car door opener a $150 ticket for "carelessly opened car door".

Sounds fair dunnit? :blink:

Steve

Yes. It acknowledges that both parties were at some fault.

[CookMySock]

Please do not engage the trolls. Thank you.

Steve

[NordieBoy]

The police have 'reviewed' the file, and as a result have given him a $400 ticket for restricted licence on 1000cc bike, and have also issued the car door opener a $150 ticket for "carelessly opened car door".

Sounds fair dunnit? :blink:

Steve

Sounds good from an insurance standpoint.

[CookMySock]

Sounds good from an insurance standpoint.Yup, but it has left a very bad taste..

Steve

[NordieBoy]

Yup, but it has left a very bad taste..

Steve

A bad taste but still cheaper than paying out for all the damage?

[CookMySock]

A bad taste but still cheaper than paying out for all the damage?Ah yeah, pretty much. But again, the police are clearly there to protect their own, and care nothing for the ordinary citizen. :cold:

Steve

[Mom]

I must resist :shutup:

[jono035]

Well he was outside the terms of his license, so fair call. You have to man up to your decisions and take your medicine as a result sometimes.

It doesn't matter what the fine for her is really, it's the attribution of blame that you were after and you got that, congrats.

[CookMySock]

It doesn't matter what the fine for her is really, it's the attribution of blame that you were after and you got that, congrats.Agreed, but ;


Well he was outside the terms of his license, so fair call. You have to man up to your decisions and take your medicine as a result sometimes.Sometimes that is the way of it, but it is clear they chose not to play that card unless they needed it. The implied threat was clear - "shutup or we'll do you". He rocked the boat and got his way (which he would have in a court of law anyway) and they processed him.

It has been a harsh and necessary lesson for a young fella, and while frustrating to watch him go through it, I have watched him grow from a young victim into a tough lad - ready to stand up for himself, and prepared much better for an unfair world.

The lesson learned is clear - many people will take advantage of you - some people are animals, and some days you do have to fight, despite what your mum told you.

Always show kindness, up to the point where kindness is taken for weakness.

Steve

[jono035]

Sometimes that is the way of it, but it is clear they chose not to play that card unless they needed it. The implied threat was clear - "shutup or we'll do you". He rocked the boat and got his way (which he would have in a court of law anyway) and they processed him.

Yep, which was pretty crappy on their part, but the situation they were using as leverage against him was entirely of his own making and also a situation easily avoided...

[CookMySock]

Yep, which was pretty crappy on their part, but the situation they were using as leverage against him was entirely of his own making and also a situation easily avoided...Well I'm not going to argue in the legal forum, but in my opinion, you or I or him, should be able to ride our bikes legally or otherwise, and not have to worry about people doing careless, stupid, dangerous, and illegal things that will knock us off our bikes.

Steve

[jono035]

Well I'm not going to argue in the legal forum, but in my opinion, you or I or him, should be able to ride our bikes legally or otherwise, and not have to worry about people doing careless, stupid, dangerous, and illegal things that will knock us off our bikes.

Steve

100% agreed on that, but it wasn't really my point ;)

[Patrick]

Ah yeah, pretty much. But again, the police are clearly there to protect their own, and care nothing for the ordinary citizen. :cold:

Steve

:bs::bs:

10 chars.....

[The Pastor]

Nup, the lady should of got done for careless driving. Can citizens take people to court for careless or must it be issued by the police?

[CookMySock]

:bs::bs:Uh huh. Lets hear your take on it then.

Steve

[p.dath]

Nup, the lady should of got done for careless driving. Can citizens take people to court for careless or must it be issued by the police?

Only if you have a lot of cash and patience. Only the rich do this. No normal person would go down this path.

It's called a private prosecution.

[Patrick]

Uh huh. Lets hear your take on it then.

Steve

Talk to your mate. I thought you had been..........................

Or read my posts. My take on it is clear. And right.


Nup, the lady should of got done for careless driving. Can citizens take people to court for careless or must it be issued by the police?

"Carelessly" opened her car door.

Cause of crash is clear.

[CookMySock]

Your take on it is crap. As usual, talking to the police does nothing. When will we ever learn? Very quickly, actually.

"Carelessly opening a car door" is bullshit charge. She was given that charge because she is a police officer. What she she did was a horrifically dangerous thing to do, and could have easily taken someones life.

I know of one person who nudged his bumper against another bumper in a carpark, and got charged with careless driving, and that is a tenth of what she did, and he gets a fucking conviction and this bitch gets nothing. Wake the fuck up - she got let off coz shes a pig - clear and simple.

He asks ;

Also care to explain why the police have decided not to charge the lady with careless use of motor vehicle causing injury even though he received serious injuries?

She has essentially gotten away with a slap on the wrist, while our mate gets a fucked bike, a permanent scar, and having to 'fight' for an outcome that should have been reached intitially.

Steve

[Patrick]

Your take on it is crap.

Now you really are just being a cock....

As usual, talking to the police does nothing.

Seemed to work quite well here......

When will we ever learn? Very quickly, actually.

"Carelessly opening a car door" is bullshit charge.

It is what it is. She carelessly opened the door and caused the crash.

She was given that charge because she is a police officer. What she she did was a horrifically dangerous thing to do, and could have easily taken someones life.

So is overtaking on blind bends, approaching hill crests... Overtaking without 100 metres of clear visibility = $150 fine.... just like the door opening thing.... and even more dangerous than opening a door.....

I know of one person who nudged his bumper against another bumper in a carpark, and got charged with careless driving, and that is a tenth of what she did,

So, what is it then? If more care was taken, like a prudent driver would take, then the "crash" explained above, would not have happened. That = careless use.

and he gets a fucking conviction

It is open to Diversion ...

and this bitch gets nothing.

She got ticketed, found to be at fault and will be paying for all damages. Nothing? ???????

Wake the fuck up - she got let off coz shes a pig - clear and simple.

He asks ;


Steve

Yeah... right.... she got let off......:lol:

[Patrick]

Your take on it is crap.


Uh huh. Lets hear your take on it then.

Steve

Try reading.

Post # 74, 78, 80, 112, 116, 118, 131, 144, 145 and then you say my take on it is crap.

Try talking to your man. And his legal advisor.....

[jono035]

It does sound to me like both got ticketed correctly. Whether the $ amounts are appropriate in each case is probably a matter of personal opinion but it seems in line with what I would have expected to happen had one of the parties not been a police officer...

[Patrick]

It does sound to me like both got ticketed correctly. Whether the $ amounts are appropriate in each case is probably a matter of personal opinion but it seems in line with what I would have expected to happen had one of the parties not been a police officer...

Exactly. The $$$ amounts are just that... they are what they are.

The biker was not at fault for the crash, which was the whole point. It is sorted now, to the satisfaction of those actually involved.

But perhaps there is some other agenda going on now.....

[CookMySock]

He has gone to the car door opener's insurance, and they're trying to get him to admit that he was 20% at fault, so they can only pay out 80% of what the bike is worth. He told them he'll see them in small claims court.

The insurer said: "While our client had a duty of care to check before opening her door, both us and our client believe that you also had a duty of care to check before completing your manouver.

[p.dath]

He has gone to the car door opener's insurance, and they're trying to get him to admit that he was 20% at fault, so they can only pay out 80% of what the bike is worth. He told them he'll see them in small claims court.

The insurer said: "While our client had a duty of care to check before opening her door, both us and our client believe that you also had a duty of care to check before completing your manouver.

Take the deal! Getting 80% is a very good deal in these circumstances.

The small claims tribunal is not like a normal court. They are not interested in points of law. What they try and do is get both parties to agree to a settlement. Often if that fails they give you 50% of what you were asking.

I would definitely take the 80% settlement offer - I think you will do far worse if you take it to the small claims tribunal.

[breakaway]

She got an infringement directly relating to her actions which is what caused the crash, and his bullshit 'passing on the left' ticket was cancelled.

How could small claims possibly rule 50% and not in his favor?

[jono035]

She got an infringement directly relating to her actions which is what caused the crash, and his bullshit 'passing on the left' ticket was cancelled.

How could small claims possibly rule 50% and not in his favor?

Not that I have any idea either way but getting ticketed for an infringement related to dangerously opening a car door is no way a guarantee that whoever is presiding in small claims court will pin the blame entirely on her.

They may turn around and say 'well what you were doing seems dangerous to me whether she opened her door or not, suck it up'.

Edit: What I'm getting at is that getting a ticket for dangerously opening a car door doesn't automatically mean that she was solely responsible for the crash. All it means is that she was judged to have dangerously opened a car door.

[breakaway]

They may turn around and say 'well what you were doing seems dangerous to me whether she opened her door or not, suck it up'.

Yeah but what is the likelihood of this happening? Very slim IMO. The fact that the insurers have even offered him 80% reinforces this further.

She has a ticket for careleessly opened car door, his ticket for "unsafe passing" was cancelled. If the person presiding that day turns out to be a biker hater (hehe) and rules against the biker, then he can simply ask for a district court to review the presiding referee's decision. And this would no doubt result in the court ruling in the bikers favor since district courts are more "law oriented"?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong :2thumbsup:

[jono035]

Yeah but what is the likelihood of this happening? Very slim IMO. The fact that the insurers have even offered him 80% reinforces this further.

She has a ticket for careleessly opened car door, his ticket for "unsafe passing" was cancelled. If the person presiding that day turns out to be a biker hater (hehe) and rules against the biker, then he can simply ask for a district court to review the presiding referee's decision. And this would no doubt result in the court ruling in the bikers favor since district courts are more "law oriented"?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong :2thumbsup:

Not saying that he is necessarily a biker hater or anything, more that as was mentioned earlier, they aren't deciding on points of law, more on what is considered 'fair'. The ticket for her and lack of ticket for him may not be end up being relevant.

Then again this is well outside my experience with small claims, most of the ones I've been semi-involved with through friends have been pretty cut and dried really.

[Patrick]

Is the 80% offer in writing?

That will give the small claims a starting point...

Can't see it going lower than 80% so what is there to lose?

IMHO they are already conceding that the door opener is mostly to blame. Small claims should see that she is wholly to blame.......

But I am not a small claims expert. That's a civil matter.........

[p.dath]

She got an infringement directly relating to her actions which is what caused the crash, and his bullshit 'passing on the left' ticket was cancelled.

How could small claims possibly rule 50% and not in his favor?

It doesn't particularly matter what tickets have been issued.

Because small claims frequently does not rule on points of law - as lawyers are not permitted to represent you - it attempts to get parties to agree on a settlement. If the parties do not agree, frequently it awards half of what both parties want, or something close to it.

[Patrick]

It doesn't particularly matter what tickets have been issued.

Because small claims frequently does not rule on points of law - as lawyers are not permitted to represent you - it attempts to get parties to agree on a settlement. If the parties do not agree, frequently it awards half of what both parties want, or something close to it.

Won't need a lawyer....

Just an up to date copy of the road code, showing HE did NOTHING wrong, but SHE did EVERYTHING wrong.

[CookMySock]

Won't need a lawyer.... Just an up to date copy of the road code, showing HE did NOTHING wrong, but SHE did EVERYTHING wrong.Pretty much, and tell her the 80% offer is declined, and since she is cheeky enough to ask it, you would like to talk about 120%.

I bet the dumb pig broad is reading this online.. if she smart enough to be able to open a door at all then she can probably find this forum, so a big "HI" to you huh, and you can go to hell in a handcart for all we care. Next time you do that to a biker we will nail you to the fucking wall and take your career off you. Sharpen up! There is a big difference between a "mistake" and a "stupid, irresponsible and dangerous mistake."

nb. speaking for myself this time.

Steve

[p.dath]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Don't aim for the "just" outcome when going to court - aim for the best outcome possible.

So let us know in six months what the actual award given is. I really hope they at least award you some money, as opposed to deciding that both parties share some fault and awarding you nothing.

But I strongly suspect you'll come away disillusioned with the whole process - most people do.

[CookMySock]

So let us know in six months what the actual award given is. I really hope they at least award you some money, as opposed to deciding that both parties share some fault and awarding you nothing.There is no basis in law or commonsense for your projected outcome. He should be able to have the SCC rule in his favour in about ten minutes flat, if he chooses that route.

Steve

[CookMySock]

Okay, door opener's insurance company settled him outside court. And since he bought he bike significantly cheaper than "market value" from a private seller, he's made a fair amount of coin off the settlement which has made all this worthwhile.

The fact that he was on a restricted licence on a 1000cc bike (bike had reg and wof) made no difference to this at all.

---

Steve

[CookMySock]

My Personal comments ;

All this has really fueled my anger about just how ordinary citizens are mistreated by the police. Weekly, there is some new thing on KB or National news, whereby some member of the NZP is done some stupid thing and wronged the public yet again. My son clipped someone elses bumper some months ago (left a small paint mark) and gets a careless use conviction and a $900 fine.

I can't see it being sustainable. The hatred towards them increases daily.

I am surprised some pressure group has not brought action against them in the form of an activists website or similar.

I will use the police to get what I want when I can, other than that I do not trust them whatsoever.

Steve

[jono035]

Okay, door opener's insurance company settled him outside court. And since he bought he bike significantly cheaper than "market value" from a private seller, he's made a fair amount of coin off the settlement which has made all this worthwhile.

The fact that he was on a restricted licence on a 1000cc bike (bike had reg and wof) made no difference to this at all.

---

Steve

Awesome, pretty damn good result!

[Patrick]

My Personal comments ;

All this has really fueled my anger about just how ordinary citizens are mistreated by the police. Weekly, there is some new thing on KB or National news, whereby some member of the NZP is done some stupid thing and wronged the public yet again.

So someone didn't understand, the error was corrected and all is sorted.... as it should be. Goes to show the system actually works, I thought............

My son clipped someone elses bumper some months ago (left a small paint mark) and gets a careless use conviction and a $900 fine.

And this is the Police's fault, how????????????????? At a guess.... he drove off without leaving details, but was seen by someone else.....? That, or he has an absolutely shocking driving history..... But I could be wrong. $900 for careless must be a record....... and the court imposed that fine, not the Police......

I can't see it being sustainable. The hatred towards them increases daily.

Mostly from the ones who break the rules..... still.......

I am surprised some pressure group has not brought action against them in the form of an activists website or similar.

Geez you can be a drama queen sometimes.......

I will use the police to get what I want when I can, other than that I do not trust them whatsoever.

Steve

What a user. I wonder how your mate feels.

[avgas]

The fact that he was on a restricted licence on a 1000cc bike (bike had reg and wof) made no difference to this at all.
What the frack - how does 1 have insurance for a bike he is legally not entitled to ride?
Fuck this I am buying a tracked tank (T72 sounds nice) and going to see what happens when I get hit and claim for insurance.
Welcome to NZ - land of the long fluffy safety net

[Patrick]

What the frack - how does 1 have insurance for a bike he is legally not entitled to ride?
Fuck this I am buying a tracked tank (T72 sounds nice) and going to see what happens when I get hit and claim for insurance.
Welcome to NZ - land of the long fluffy safety net

But that wasn't the cause of the crash. The "cause" was the door opener who didn't look.

[breakaway]

What the frack - how does 1 have insurance for a bike he is legally not entitled to ride?
Fuck this I am buying a tracked tank (T72 sounds nice) and going to see what happens when I get hit and claim for insurance.
Welcome to NZ - land of the long fluffy safety net

What Patrick said, and, he wasn't insured. HER insurance co paid him out.

[jono035]

But that wasn't the cause of the crash. The "cause" was the door opener who didn't look.

Yeah, and insurance isn't just for 'in case your stuff gets damaged' it is also for 'in case you damage other peoples stuff'.

[CookMySock]

@Patrick, you are always going to defend your industry, and that is not surprising.

You don't have all the facts about the aforementioned teenage driver whatsoever, but you make sweeping generalisations about his general ability, poor attitude, and previous driving convictions. On this forums that means that means nothing, but you reveal quite a lot about how a police officers' mind works, and this is exactly the problem we are referring to. People like you with a small amount of authority who already know everything but actually know nothing, usually proceed to court on that basis, and don't want to hear anything other than what they believe. If we have anything to do with it, it will be at least egg on your face, but if it comes to blood on the floor then we are up for that.

Best to shut up, I think, when you don't know the history or the person.

Steve

[Hiflyer]

But that wasn't the cause of the crash. The "cause" was the door opener who didn't look.

Yup, It's like excesses as well,

Cos my bike was stolen, my excess is $250 as opposed to $1200 or whatever it is, cos the fact I'm not on my full and under 25 doesn't contribute to the loss.

[CookMySock]

What the frack - how does 1 have insurance for a bike he is legally not entitled to ride?tHer insurance company paid him out, as he was a valid third party.

Her insurance policy makes no mention of, and places no restrictions on, whether he was riding a trike, a gixxer thou, or a fucking 747.. It just says that they will cover her 3rd party expenses if there are any.

Since there were 3rd party expenses, then they have a contractual and legal obligation to her to cover these costs, they paid him out. There is no provision for them to argue whether he was in the right or wrong.

It is the curious situation where the uninsured has more rights and better cover, than the insured. Certainly, had the insured be riding or driving outside their license conditions, they wouldn't have got a cent, where the 3rd party (who didn't contribute a dollar to the premium) was fully covered. Quite funny really. :sunny:

Steve

[jono035]

It is the curious situation where the uninsured has more rights and better cover, than the insured. Certainly, had the insured be riding or driving outside their license conditions, they wouldn't have got a cent, where the 3rd party (who didn't contribute a dollar to the premium) was fully covered. Quite funny really. :sunny:

Steve

Not really 'more' rights... If her insurance company had decided to push it in court, he could have very quickly ended up in the situation where the benefit far outweighed the cost for a lot of people. In that case an insured person could still get their vehicle replaced, they'd only be quibbling about the excess...

I do agree that he may not have bothered pushing for this outcome if he had been insured, but that doesn't mean he was better off without insurance.

For the record, it's still a goddamn stupid thing to do in my opinion.

[breakaway]

Not really 'more' rights... If her insurance company had decided to push it in court

Doubt it. The fact that they paid out means that they know if they go to court they're going to get fucked. Look at the evidence.

[CookMySock]

Not really 'more' rights... If her insurance company had decided to push it in court, he could have very quickly ended up in the situation where the benefit far outweighed the cost for a lot of people.Which people? How much did he spend? I'd like to see some insurance company argue the point with the bailiff after the small claims court applied to have their judgement enforced. It would be easy to plaster that all over the news and the internet, and make their happy-families company look like hairy smelly arse. :sunny:


In that case an insured person could still get their vehicle replaced, they'd only be quibbling about the excess...Not if they were outside their license conditions they won't. They can quibble all they like and they wont get a brass razoo.


I do agree that he may not have bothered pushing for this outcome if he had been insured, but that doesn't mean he was better off without insurance.Well thats what you get isn't it. You pay your money or you take the risk - that's the basic idea behind insurance. I submit that you are no better off with insurance than without it.


For the record, it's still a goddamn stupid thing to do in my opinion.Splitting? Each to their own. Don't split then. For myself, I watch stopped cars like a hawk, or stay away from them. I don't remotely trust them.

Steve

[Patrick]

@Patrick, you are always going to defend your industry, and that is not surprising.

You don't have all the facts about the aforementioned teenage driver whatsoever, but you make sweeping generalisations about his general ability, poor attitude, and previous driving convictions. On this forums that means that means nothing, but you reveal quite a lot about how a police officers' mind works, and this is exactly the problem we are referring to.

WRONG....... Epic FAIL. That is what the JUDGE looks at.............

People like you with a small amount of authority who already know everything but actually know nothing,

LMFAO........... A pot caslling kettle black moment there if ever there was one. Your many previous bad advice posts prove that...............

usually proceed to court on that basis,

WRONG.... AGAIN.... I proceed to court because someone broke the law. End of story. Past history has nothing to do with it, which is why juries do not hear of past histories either......

and don't want to hear anything other than what they believe. If we have anything to do with it, it will be at least egg on your face, but if it comes to blood on the floor then we are up for that.

Drama queen strikes again.......................

Best to shut up, I think, when you don't know the history or the person.

Steve

No I dont. The judge would have. Hence the record breaking $900 fine..........

[jono035]

Which people? How much did he spend? I'd like to see some insurance company argue the point with the bailiff after the small claims court applied to have their judgement enforced. It would be easy to plaster that all over the news and the internet, and make their happy-families company look like hairy smelly arse. :sunny:

Not if they were outside their license conditions they won't. They can quibble all they like and they wont get a brass razoo.

Well thats what you get isn't it. You pay your money or you take the risk - that's the basic idea behind insurance. I submit that you are no better off with insurance than without it.

Splitting? Each to their own. Don't split then. For myself, I watch stopped cars like a hawk, or stay away from them. I don't remotely trust them.

Steve

I "split" all the time but I'm a chicken and only do it slightly faster than jogging pace and only between cars that are actually travelling but stopped at lights, I try to stay well away from parked cars.

I was referring to riding without insurance and by extension riding outside of license conditions.

My point wasn't that in this case he would have been any better off insured because he was already breaking both the law and terms of insurance, so that is obvious. However, in every other situation I can think of, he would have been better off by being both insured and within his license conditions. Remember that most of the laws that govern these situations have 'if blah manoeuvre can be completed safely'... All you need is an argument over that point and it can very quickly ruin things if talking about a lot of damage or an expensive vehicle...

[jono035]

Doubt it. The fact that they paid out means that they know if they go to court they're going to get fucked. Look at the evidence.

Should have made it clearer that I was talking in hypotheticals... I just took issue with the blanket 'better off un-insured' statement. In this case, it all comes out in the wash.

In the case where it was less clear cut, you're talking about risking the difference between paying insurance excess and paying full repair cost. Given that I'm helping a friend through a similar situation where a cracked bumper is having $1500 claimed off one of his family members, I am accutely aware how badly this situation can turn out and how quickly, particularly if it plays out in such a way that it isn't obvious who is at fault.

[CookMySock]

No I dont. The judge would have. Hence the record breaking $900 fine..........All your assumptions are broken. None of what you have stated is remotely connected with the truth. Why did I think I would get more than that by talking to a cop? All you achieve is show how arrogant you pigs really are, and why we would never want to discuss anything with you.

Steve

[Patrick]

All your assumptions are broken. None of what you have stated is remotely connected with the truth. Why did I think I would get more than that by talking to a cop? All you achieve is show how arrogant you pigs really are, and why we would never want to discuss anything with you.

Steve

Yeah.............. right...............

So arrogant I helped your mate sort it all out. What arrogance.......

And what is this "why we would never want to discuss anything with you" - especially the "we" part? You have "your" issues.

You wanted legal aid, war on the pigs, drama queen ranting and raving.....

All it took was a phone call and an email from me and a visit from one other member and it was sorted, to your mates satisfaction.

Maybe my assumptions are broken. Who knows. Who cares. $900 for a "minor bumper rub" is a world record fine. But what would I know, after nearly 25 years experience.........

BUt we go off topic. This isn't about you and your obvious hate on for cops...

Go on.... admit it.... sometimes a copper can help out.....

[pritch]

While there are glimmers of common sense in this thread, and once again Patrick goes out of his way to help someone he doesn't even know, it's apparently all about a conspiracy.

DB, you know you aren't supposed to stop taking your medication. Take the pills and have a lie down and give us all a break... :whistle:

[Patrick]

While there are glimmers of common sense in this thread, and once again Patrick goes out of his way to help someone he doesn't even know, it's apparently all about a conspiracy.

DB, you know you aren't supposed to stop taking your medication. Take the pills and have a lie down and give us all a break... :whistle:

Bizarre is DB.....

Thanks for that Pritch - well said.

Twas a pleasure to help the young fella who was wronged. Twas a pleasure to help out and right the wrong, along with anothers "legal" help - you know who you are..... Can't fix em all, but this was an easy one.

The young fella approached me direct and wants to remain anonymous. He hasn't told me of the outcome directly, we only have DB's account on that. It is a good result in the end and was actually an easy fix, without the need to declare World War Three.

[JimO]

Why did I think I would get more than that by talking to a cop? All you achieve is show how arrogant you pigs really are, and why we would never want to discuss anything with you.

Steve

fucks sake someone your age with teenage children needs to really stop refering to the police as PIGS what you need to do is grow the fuck up

[red mermaid]

Well said Jimjim.

DB has issues I would say from the image he gives out and then again he is more likely just full of it.

[Patrick]

fucks sake someone your age with teenage children needs to really stop refering to the police as PIGS what you need to do is grow the fuck up

:clap::clap::clap:

Childish, he is... (In my best "Yoda" voice....)


Well said Jimjim.

DB has issues I would say from the image he gives out and then again he is more likely just full of it.

MIght be right on both counts there.

Had contact and full story from the wronged one. Sorted:niceone::banana:

[peasea]

fucks sake someone your age with teenage children needs to really stop refering to the police as PIGS what you need to do is grow the fuck up

Have to agree with you, some cops are simply cops going about their duties. However, SOME (like Patrick) have a holier than thou attitude and are most definitely pigs.

I refer to the police as 'the police' or 'coppers' or 'cops' but when it is deserved the word 'pig' can and should be used.

[Patrick]

Have to agree with you, some cops are simply cops going about their duties. However, SOME (like Patrick) have a holier than thou attitude and are most definitely pigs.

I refer to the police as 'the police' or 'coppers' or 'cops' but when it is deserved the word 'pig' can and should be used.

You still stalking me....???

Just going about my duties, fixing the wrong....

Holier than thou.... :niceone: OK.....:sleep:

[avgas]

After doing a massive scan of the thread again I feel now I have a better pic.

DB you are correct - insurance payout was req'd

However with NZ attempting the rules from the states, and the principles of europe - you can't help but see where the failure points are.
Here is hoping all future life lessons are less painful.

I do however have to agree about the bashing here - but I guess its one of those "do on to others as you want done to you"

[breakaway]

It *REALLY* bothers me that all it took to fuck up the guy who got knocked off his bike is a bunch of incompetent cops who didn't give a fuck about what was in the road code, and they wouldn't listen to reason, and were more interested in pointing him out as the one who was at fault. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it was arrogance, or they were trying to protect the door opener since she was a cop. Even now, the door opener didn't get careless causing injury, she only got some bullshit $150 ticket for "carelessly opened car door". Pathetic.

He had to fight for nearly 6 months. Hundreds of hours spent worrying. All because of a couple of incompetent cops.

If that doesn't piss you off, then there's something wrong with you. Yeah yeah, I know that cops are people too and they make mistakes, but they need to be more careful when they are dealing with ruining people's lives like this and potentially making them lose thousands in lost wages and hundreds of hours of lost time trying to put something right that should have been sorted by the common sense of a two year old.

Now imagine a bloke who doesn't have the time and money to fight this, and doesn't have mates like DB and Patrick, and doesn't have/know of resources such as Kiwibiker. What would he have done? He would simply have to pay up. All because of incompetent cops. It took ALL THIS WORK to reach the outcome. And don't any of you dare fuck around and say it was a "tough case", and so the at fault party wasn't able to be easily identified. Anyone with half a clue that looks at the diagram posted on the earlier pages can clearly see whos fault it is.

[Patrick]

I guess some of the difficulty arises with, was it a lane or a parking lane? Was it an "available lane to traffic...? Then there were license breaches.... Even using this case as a training tool, I got varying answers, and from experienced cops at that!

Fair to say though, KBers pointed out some good facts and the answer was clear... in hindsight.

Perhaps they were looking after a mate, or perhaps the advice given to the junior staff was just mistakenly wrong.

Careless Injury was quite on the cards for the door opener.

Perhaps that needs looking into......