Legal advice.

[Magua]

On the 1st of October, I was involved in a accident on my bike with a car. While I believe that I am not at fault, the police disagree. They are not wanting to press any charges and deem a warning to be sufficient, however this leaves me with the bill for my insurance excess.

The accident happened on Gilles Avenue 1pm, 1st of October. I had exited the motorway at Gilles Avenue and I was proceeding away from Newmarket in the right hand lane. Approaching a set of traffic lights (a pedestrian crossing outside a school), the traffic came to a halt. As there was no traffic in the opposing lanes, I moved out to overtake some cars, as I was doing this, a driver turned into my path while entering a driveway in an effort to evade the traffic lights (I know this as this was her statement to the police). The diagram below shows this.

I did not see her indicate, nor did my witness (a car driver a few cars back from the accident), if she had been indicating for the required three seconds, I would have seen it. Regardless of this, she clearly failed to check her mirrors and blind spots before crossing the centre line, and as a result I slammed into the side of her car at around 30-40kph.

While I call this overtaking, the police disagree. Never mind what the road code says, there's nothing in there to fault my maneuver that I can see, nor did the police mention anything, probably why they aren't laying a charge against me. In their eyes, it's 'queue jumping' as I was passing stationary traffic. Last I checked, passing on the right was called overtaking.

In the eyes of the police, this matter is closed. I wrote a letter to the infringement bureau (as I was instructed to do by a letter from the officer who gave me the warning), yet as I have not been fined, they can go no further with it as I've only received a warning, thus they have no documentation to carry up my complaint. :P

What other avenues are open to me?

[geoffc]

Go to your local Citizens Advice Bureau. They should be able to tee up free legal advice. Community Law also provide a free service. Best of luck.

[Mully]

Hmm, seems a bit sticky to me.

Looks like mutual fault to me (you shouldn't have been there, but she should have looked & indicated).

Have you spoken to the bint about paying your excess? I presume she has got to pay her own excess?

[AllanB]

Sorry but it looks a bit like a tough-shit-call to me.

I say a 50-50 call on error - your 50% was the 'passing' maneuver, and not being vigilant enough about the possibility of a vehicle pulling out. Her 50% was for not indicating.

Tough break, but it really shows how careful we need to be on the road.

Did the officer mention anything about Safer Communities Working Together?

[Cheshire Cat]

If people dont indicate it IS their fault! you get fined for not indicating at a roundabout for godsakes!!!


I was knocked off my bike on the 23rd of october by this dude in a surf doing a U-turn.

Was it his wife who knocked you off? lol bloody well sounds like it!:angry2:

[marty]

your diagram would tend to show you have some fault. even though this is dated 01 November, i believe it was the same in the revoked legislation.


Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004/427) (as at 01 November 2009)


.7 Passing on right

A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the right of another vehicle moving in the same direction when—

(a) approaching or crossing an intersection unless—

(i) the roadway is marked in lanes and the driver can make the movement without the driver's vehicle encroaching on a lane available for opposing traffic; or

(ii) in any other case, the driver can make the movement with safety and with due consideration for users of the intersecting road; or

[marty]

Or even worse:

10 Passing at school crossing point or pedestrian crossings.

A driver must not pass or attempt to pass a vehicle that has stopped or slowed down at a school crossing point or pedestrian crossing in order to comply with clause 3.9 or subclause 10.1(1).

[Magua]

Or even worse:

10 Passing at school crossing point or pedestrian crossings.

A driver must not pass or attempt to pass a vehicle that has stopped or slowed down at a school crossing point or pedestrian crossing in order to comply with clause 3.9 or subclause 10.1(1).

I did see this in the road code, however the diagram provided shows a car passing another car at the crossing. I was well back from the crossing, so I don't think this would apply, a grey area perhaps.

I'm not sure if the first rule counts, as it wasn't technically an intersection as they seem to have defined it, as intersecting roads, in any other case, the driver can make the movement with safety and with due consideration for users of the intersecting road; or.

[Bass]

It's a bloody long time ago, but when I got my licence, overtaking traffic stopped at a pedestrian crossing was a no no

[CookMySock]

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004/427) (as at 01 November 2009)

.7 Passing on right

A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the right of another vehicle moving in the same direction when—

(a) approaching or crossing an intersection unless—

(i) the roadway is marked in lanes and the driver can make the movement without the driver's vehicle encroaching on a lane available for opposing traffic; or

(ii) in any other case, the driver can make the movement with safety and with due consideration for users of the intersecting road; or[/I]Whoaaaa, is this the end of filtering to the front at traffic lights?

Steve

[Winston001]

Thank your lucky stars you were only warned. I can't imagine lawfully passing on a pedestrian crossing.

As for the insurance excess, you can lodge a claim against the car driver in the Disputes Tribunal. Simple cheap and easy. The odds in the Tribunal are 50/50 even in good cases :D but thats your answer.

[Ixion]

Whoaaaa, is this the end of filtering to the front at traffic lights?

Steve

No. see sub-sub-clause (1)

[Ixion]

Thank your lucky stars you were only warned. I can't imagine lawfully passing on a pedestrian crossing.

..

But he wasn't

[Mom]

What other avenues are open to me?


I am assuming you have the drivers details?

This is one of those things, the cops are not penalising either of you so there is no official blame being laid. Insurance will no doubt come to the same conclusion. One option is to take the driver to small claims court and ask for the excess to be paid. You get to put your point of view and they get to put theirs. Then an adjudicator makes a decision. Having had a bit of experience in these things you will be lucky to get half your premium awarded to you. Only one small problem with that.

The car driver will be in the same boat, they will also have to pay an excess to insurance for repairs. They may counter claim. Be aware that this could cost you more than the excess on your insurance. Bugger!

Only other thing you might want to consider is not filtering up the outside in a situation like that? Perhaps up the middle would have been a better option?

[Magua]

Only other thing you might want to consider is not filtering up the outside in a situation like that? Perhaps up the middle would have been a better option?

Hindsight's a wonderful thing.

[CookMySock]

Hindsight's a wonderful thing.well yeah, it did occur to me as well - why be on the outside when you could be on the inside.

If cars CAN turn across unimpeded in front of me, then I expect them to. If they are UNABLE to turn - I pass them. Sometimes its safer to split where they CANT pass but you can.

Steve

[BikerDazz]

The same thing happened to me in the 80's - I ended up eating this car driver's window as he suddenly turned right into a driveway while I was overtaking.
Ze pigs blamed me and I went to Court - fucked if I was paying for a lawyer - so I just denied it.
I had to go to 2 hearings but the charge of careless driving was dropped in the end, although I was stuck with the insurance excess, and 2 days off work without pay.
Shit happens.

[Ender EnZed]

I don't know much about the Disputes Tribunal but I can quite readily imagine a bunch of non-motorcycle people taking a dim view of passing cars unless there's some very clear law on your side. If that happened you could end up having to pay her's as well.

[discotex]

I did see this in the road code, however the diagram provided shows a car passing another car at the crossing. I was well back from the crossing, so I don't think this would apply, a grey area perhaps.

I'm not sure if the first rule counts, as it wasn't technically an intersection as they seem to have defined it, as intersecting roads, in any other case, the driver can make the movement with safety and with due consideration for users of the intersecting road; or.

Assuming I've found the right spot with Google Street view there's no doubt it's an intersection as defined by the law.

Link to StreetView (http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?geocode=Ca7rG5rRReWkFVVkzf0d7NhqCikZwRuQ1UcNb TF7WR3W3oWdyw&q=school&f=l&sll=-36.876209,174.773206&sspn=0.002073,0.004801&ie=UTF8&radius=0.13&rq=1&ev=zo&hq=school&hnear=&ll=-36.876042,174.773228&spn=0,359.995199&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-36.875951,174.773253&panoid=OwnZyoKu5e-khhw-3wWwuA&cbp=12,190.7,,0,12.94)

But...

If there was no on-coming traffic you are legally allowed to pass at an intersection according to the road code for motorcycles.

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/motorcycle-road-code/about-riding/passing.html#passing-intersection

Go to the end and it looks like what you were doing to me.

Given she pulled right into the driveway one could assume there was no on-coming cars for at least 100m.

So I believe you are totally in the right (even if it was a stupid place to put yourself for personal safety reasons).

Might pay to provide the above to your insurance company and see if they'll try to prove she's at fault.

[Magua]

So I believe you are totally in the right (even if it was a stupid place to put yourself for personal safety reasons).

Might pay to provide the above to your insurance company and see if they'll try to prove she's at fault.

Thanks, I'll pass it on.

[discotex]

Thanks, I'll pass it on.

Good luck :)

[st00ji]

yar i'd be tempted to try it out with your insurance first

if you can convince them you were not at fault then they will chase the other person for the excess

[jaykay]

From your diagram and Google street view it looks as if you were over a solid centre line, if so I think that's where your problem lies, at least some of the fault is yours.
It's one of those situations where 99.99% of the time it isn't an issue, but this time it was. The car driver (IMHO) is probably more to blame (an emergency vehicle could have been coming for example) and an indicator may have helped - but at the end of the day I doubt any sort of tribunal or court is going to say the car driver was 100% wrong.

[kwaka_crasher]

...at the end of the day I doubt any sort of tribunal or court is going to say the car driver was 100% wrong.


Looks like mutual fault to me (you shouldn't have been there, but she should have looked & indicated).


I say a 50-50 call on error - your 50% was the 'passing' maneuver, and not being vigilant enough about the possibility of a vehicle pulling out. Her 50% was for not indicating.

I concur - shared responsibility. She turned without indicating and checking for passing vehicles - you overtook crossing the centreline without 100m of clear road (presumably there were cars on the other side of the crossing...). Pay your own excess.

30-40km/h is far too fast for that particular situation IMO - that's 10m/s. Next time split between the lanes of cars.


From your diagram and Google street view it looks as if you were over a solid centre line, if so I think that's where your problem lies, at least some of the fault is yours.

Unless it's yellow and on your side, that's actually irrelevant.


It's one of those situations where 99.99% of the time it isn't an issue, but this time it was. The car driver (IMHO) is probably more to blame (an emergency vehicle could have been coming for example)...

but with lights and sirens...


...and an indicator may have helped

Certainly.

[discotex]

I concur - shared responsibility. She turned without indicating and checking for passing vehicles - you overtook crossing the centreline without 100m of clear road (presumably there were cars on the other side of the crossing...). Pay your own excess.


Actually given the oncoming traffic was stopped at the traffic lights and she pulled out that's probably not relevant. One could argue the road was clear.

It's all technicalities on this one. Worth fighting over as there's nothing to lose.

[mud boy]

look if you wanna grow pot dont tell the cop you have it and if you do make sure its real good skunky shit hah:woohoo:

[mattian]

It's a bloody long time ago, but when I got my licence, overtaking traffic stopped at a pedestrian crossing was a no no

Yes, it still is. As far as I can remember (havent read the road code in a wee while but,) A paedestrian crossing is a place where you are not allowed to filter to the front of the queue or overtake there. I'm sure somebody will check that.

[kwaka_crasher]

Actually given the oncoming traffic was stopped at the traffic lights and she pulled out that's probably not relevant. One could argue the road was clear.

Not for 100m....

[discotex]

Not for 100m....

Are you working for the woman in the cage or something?

If it was a head-on that might matter but it wasn't.

The person who turned in front of the OP clearly felt they had enough clear road to do so safely due to the red light so I'm sure you could get small claims to overlook that technicality.

The point is who is *more* at fault. Being 25-40m short of the 100m requirement (easy to misjudge going by the bus lanes) is a far less of a deal than turning right without a) indicating and b) looking.

[kwaka_crasher]

Are you working for the woman in the cage or something?

No. I'm being objective.


If it was a head-on that might matter but it wasn't.

Now, that's what you call irrelevant. The motorcyclist was somewhere he shouldn't have been.


The person who turned in front of the OP clearly felt they had enough clear road to do so safely due to the red light so I'm sure you could get small claims to overlook that technicality.

You don't need 100m of clear road ahead to perform a turn.


The point is who is *more* at fault. Being 25-40m short of the 100m requirement (easy to misjudge going by the bus lanes) is a far less of a deal than turning right without a) indicating and b) looking.

Her actions do not negate that of the motorcyclist's in being in the wrong position on the road.

[Hopeful Bastard]

However, If she was turning into a driveway, Was it her own? Or was she U-turning? If she was doing a U-turn, It is illegal to do one within a certain Distance of a Pedestrian Crossing

[Magua]

However, If she was turning into a driveway, Was it her own? Or was she U-turning? If she was doing a U-turn, It is illegal to do one within a certain Distance of a Pedestrian Crossing

It was a u-turn to avoid the traffic and lights.


I concur - shared responsibility. She turned without indicating and checking for passing vehicles - you overtook crossing the centreline without 100m of clear road (presumably there were cars on the other side of the crossing...). Pay your own excess.

There was no oncoming traffic, nothing at the lights ahead either.

[crazyhorse]

Sure hope you find a solution and are not out of pocket with the insurance

[Hopeful Bastard]

It was a u-turn to avoid the traffic and lights.


If thats the case, She was in the wrong as it is Illegal to U turn within 100m of a Pedestrian Crossing

[Magua]

If thats the case, She was in the wrong as it is Illegal to U turn within 100m of a Pedestrian Crossing

Do you have a link to any relevant legislation or section of the rode code? Thanks.

[The Pastor]

I did see this in the road code, however the diagram provided shows a car passing another car at the crossing. I was well back from the crossing, so I don't think this would apply, a grey area perhaps.

I'm not sure if the first rule counts, as it wasn't technically an intersection as they seem to have defined it, as intersecting roads, in any other case, the driver can make the movement with safety and with due consideration for users of the intersecting road; or.

Road code is not law, wont stack up in court (be ok if you are infront of a JP - they have no formal law training).


I don't know much about the Disputes Tribunal but I can quite readily imagine a bunch of non-motorcycle people taking a dim view of passing cars unless there's some very clear law on your side. If that happened you could end up having to pay her's as well.

JP's can go either way.


Assuming I've found the right spot with Google Street view there's no doubt it's an intersection as defined by the law.

Link to StreetView (http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?geocode=Ca7rG5rRReWkFVVkzf0d7NhqCikZwRuQ1UcNb TF7WR3W3oWdyw&q=school&f=l&sll=-36.876209,174.773206&sspn=0.002073,0.004801&ie=UTF8&radius=0.13&rq=1&ev=zo&hq=school&hnear=&ll=-36.876042,174.773228&spn=0,359.995199&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-36.875951,174.773253&panoid=OwnZyoKu5e-khhw-3wWwuA&cbp=12,190.7,,0,12.94)

But...

If there was no on-coming traffic you are legally allowed to pass at an intersection according to the road code for motorcycles.

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/motorcycle-road-code/about-riding/passing.html#passing-intersection

Go to the end and it looks like what you were doing to me.

Given she pulled right into the driveway one could assume there was no on-coming cars for at least 100m.

So I believe you are totally in the right (even if it was a stupid place to put yourself for personal safety reasons).

Might pay to provide the above to your insurance company and see if they'll try to prove she's at fault.

I disagree, the law clearly states you are not allowed to over take at a pedestrian crossing, and this IS where it happened. Law over rides road code.

This accident was 100% the car drivers fault. No question about it. Failure to look before pulling out its simple, and defined in law. DISREGARD the fact that magua was also performing an illegal maneuver.

This is the same situation if you are totally pissed behind the wheel, waiting at the lights and someone runs up the back of you.

This is why I tried to get him to get her done with a careless/dangerous driving charge - but no one ever listens to my experience.:innocent:

IMO Magua should of got a ticket for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the car driver should have been given full liability of the accident.

A similar situation would be someone is speeding and someone pulled out in front of them. Whos at fault?

At any rate, if this were to go to court, it would require a lawyer to get 100% liability put on the car driver, that will cost more than the excess.

[Hopeful Bastard]

Bugger it.. I cant find anything.. Maybe it isnt law :Oops::whistle:

But i remember being told by my driving instructor that it was illegal to U-Turn with that distance of a crossing :bash:

[discotex]

No. I'm being objective.


Ok then lets get some facts on the table?

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/10.0/DLM302188.html

I can't find a legal requirement that says passing requires 100m. That's just a road code convention as far as I can see.

The law for passing on the right is:


Passing on right
A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the right of another vehicle moving in the same direction when—

(a) approaching or crossing an intersection unless—

(i) the roadway is marked in lanes and the driver can make the movement without the driver's vehicle encroaching on a lane available for opposing traffic; or

(ii) in any other case, the driver can make the movement with safety and with due consideration for users of the intersecting road; or

(b) approaching or passing a flush median, unless the driver—

(i) intends to turn right from the road marked with the flush median into another road or vehicle entrance; or

(ii) has turned right onto the road marked with the flush median; or

(iii) can make the entire movement without encroaching on the flush median



However RM is on the money about this bit...


I disagree, the law clearly states you are not allowed to over take at a pedestrian crossing, and this IS where it happened. Law over rides road code.


Passing at school crossing point or pedestrian crossings
A driver must not pass or attempt to pass a vehicle that has stopped or slowed down at a school crossing point or pedestrian crossing in order to comply with clause 3.9 or subclause 10.1(1).


I checked out the definition of a "pedestrian crossing" and although this is controlled by lights it's marked correctly (checked StreetView for the signs etc) to be considered a pedestrian crossing.

So sorry Magua you're basically screwed. Passing at a pedestrian crossing carries a 20 demerit point penalty so maybe consider yourself lucky?

[kwaka_crasher]

There was no oncoming traffic, nothing at the lights ahead either.

On a Thursday at 1pm on Gillies Ave? Having lived on Owens Road, I find that very difficult to believe. By your account, there was enough traffic heading towards Epsom to make her want to turn around to avoid it.

Either way, what you did was a bit dumb.

[kwaka_crasher]

I can't find a legal requirement that says passing requires 100m. That's just a road code convention as far as I can see.

No. See here (http://tinyurl.com/y9e6u8g).

[jono035]

No. See here (http://tinyurl.com/y9e6u8g).

He was breaking the law. It's obvious. There are about 4 different ways that this could be argued. This doesn't actually matter.

The question is whether what he was doing caused the accident. This is the only question that is relevant to finding out who was at fault thereby figuring out who should be the one paying the insurance excess. This could also go either way.

In my opinion you cannot assume that everyone else is following the law at all times, therefore you still have to carry out due diligence when making a maneuvre like that, which should have consisted of indicating for 3 seconds and checking to make sure that there was noone coming up along side you. This is what actually caused the accident.

[p.dath]

Ok then lets get some facts on the table?

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/10.0/DLM302188.html

I can't find a legal requirement that says passing requires 100m. That's just a road code convention as far as I can see.

...

There is plenty of info in the Wiki about this:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/Category:Motorcycle_Laws

Specifically:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/Passing_other_vehicles

This is covered in clause 1(d) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004/427), section 2.6.

[GOONR]

There is plenty of info in the Wiki about this:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/Category:Motorcycle_Laws

Specifically:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/Passing_other_vehicles






This is covered in clause 1(d) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004/427), section 2.6.


Isn't the law different if the cars have come to a halt (as mentioned in OP) , ie parked.