Who's in the wrong? [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

FROSTY

15th April 2010, 10:48

You're blasting along a suburban street on your yamasukida 698. Its a lovely day and you're wearing all the right gear. reflective vest n all.
yea its sighnposted at 50km/h but you're safe and comfortable at the 76 you're riding at. Heck the yamasukida 698 has the best brakes in the world anyway.
Round a bus stopped letting off passengers and some bloody cager pulls out of a side street 100m up the road.
You grab the anchors right on a tar snake and smack into the side of the cage.
Who's wrong in this situation ?

bogan

15th April 2010, 10:52

assumption is the mother of all fuck ups, you assumed the cager would judge your correct speed and not pull out, the cager assumed you were sticking to the speed limit. Both at fault.

Though I had a mate in exact same situation, two cager crash though, other guy speeding left huge skidmarks which showed he was way over the speed limit, wrote off both cars, and mate had to use his diversion to get off the charge (forget what the charge was now)

Ronin

15th April 2010, 10:54

Well, since Skiddy could stop from 50 in 2 metres it's clearly you.

That and your 50% over the posted speed limit.

onearmedbandit

15th April 2010, 10:56

The rider. Can't blame any other factor, tar snake, bus, car driver. The responsibility lies in your hands (or hand as the case may be).

Bald Eagle

15th April 2010, 11:06

If you need to ask you should be a pedestrian.

onearmedbandit

15th April 2010, 11:18

Actually I've thought about this a bit further, and I now firmly believe it is the local councils fault. By failing to realise how motorcycles reduce congestion, consume less fossil fuels, do less damage to the road surface and can decrease the time required for a journey, they have therefore failed to build motorcycle riders their own private roading system. One where those damn cagers, ridiculous cyclists, gas-guzzling SUV's, and toxic-fume belching buses and trucks are not allowed. This would instantly eliminate all motorcycle vs cage/truck/bus incidents. By ensuring only motorcycles can use this private road network the roads would last a lot longer and be in better condition over all, therefore even further reducing accidents and road repairs. ACC claims would drop dramatically from our fraternity (because it's always someone else's fault and if we remove all other road users we of course will never crash), productivity would be increased (less people off work), and most importantly, our friend in the above scenario would still be tootling along, being a responsible road user wearing ATGATT.

CookMySock

15th April 2010, 11:26

The rider. Can't blame any other factor, tar snake, bus, car driver. The responsibility lies in your hands (or hand as the case may be).Yup. If you're dead, or your bike is fucked, you were wrong. Figure it out, do the maths, and do something different.

There is also the situation of the law - you have to be able to stop in the clear distance ahead of you, you must ride to the conditions, and you must not conduct yourself in a careless or dangerous fashion. All three I'd say the courts would have something to say about.

Steve

Jonno.

15th April 2010, 11:37

I would have thought no matter if you were speeding (75 isn't warp speed) it's still fail to give way?

onearmedbandit

15th April 2010, 11:41

I would have thought no matter if you were speeding (75 isn't warp speed) it's still fail to give way?

I'm sure that will put a smile on your face in hospital, knowing that you had the right of way...

Gremlin

15th April 2010, 11:43

how is passing a stopped bus at 76 in a 50 ever going to be safe? Trying to blame the road surface while speeding is hardly a winning argument either.

MSTRS

15th April 2010, 11:55

Clearly it's the council's fault. They should have put the bus stop just past the intersection, so that vehicles pulling out would not have the view to their right compromised by a bloody great bus parked there...

p.dath

15th April 2010, 11:58

I'd say both parties have some fault, but the rider more so. With 100m of visibility and travelling at 50km/h about 7s to 8s of time would elapse between the two impacting should the bike not slow down in anticipation of the danger in front (and if you perceive danger in front of you you naturally drop a little bit of speed anyway).

The cage would normally have been able to pull out into the other lane in probably 3s, still leaving a healthy safety margin.

So in this case, I think the rider was going too fast for the conditions. The visibility that the rider had did not afford them sufficient distance to bring the bike to a safe stop - despite the environmental conditions. If they were going at 50km/h, even with gentle braking they should have been able to safely stop.

And the ultimate nail. If you put yourself in the position of being injured then you have to accept responsibility for that. Never put your safety in the hands of someone else - especially a cage in front of you that you have never met or seen before.

Owl

15th April 2010, 12:23

I would say the car driver is at fault (failing to give way), but the rider's actions were contributory.

Murray

15th April 2010, 12:33

yea its sighnposted at 50km/h but you're safe and comfortable at the 76 you're riding at.
Round a bus stopped letting off passengers

The legal speed limit for passing a bus (or school bus) when it is unloading passengers is 20kph so in affect you were doing over 3 times the speed limit and I would think you would be at fault.

Ixion

15th April 2010, 12:43

bogan

15th April 2010, 12:45

20kph thing is only school buses. OP didn't specify a school bus. But, what's the point of saying 'whose wrong'. Regardless of the answer it's the biker lying on the road. Rectitude doesn't mend broken limbs.

exactly, but the question was asked, and from a legal viewpoint my theory is they're both fucked.

Eyegasm

15th April 2010, 13:40

The motorcyclist is in the wrong.

If they had of been doing 100 then they would have been futher up the road and missed the
situation completely.

thealmightytaco

15th April 2010, 15:57

The motorcyclist is in the wrong.

If they had of been doing 100 then they would have been futher up the road and missed the
situation completely.

Unless the cage arrived 5 seconds earlier.

All in the wrong but I'd say motorcycle created the problem. Giving way can get trickier when you've done it hundreds of times with only folks obeying the rules approaching, and then suddenly have a speeder on your hands who when you looked at in a roughly straight line didn't really seem to be until he was in your door. Still wrong though. And speeding will just invite people to cock up giving way to you.

Berries

15th April 2010, 16:42

The rider is at fault. The car driver could not be expected to to tell that an approaching vehicle was travelling that fast in a 50km/h area. I bet the bike hypothetically had its headlight on as well making it even harder to judge its speed. The rider is also at fault for approaching an intersection half hidden by a parked bus and placing himself on the bit of road that has the least skid resistance. He is also quite clearly at fault for wearing a hi/viz vest.

The car driver will get done for failing to give way and careless causing injury, and it will be another one of those "bloody cagers" who caused the crash and will be used to justify the claim that car drivers cause most bike crashes when really the rider gave him little chance to avoid it. Like many have said here and in other threads, the rider will come off worse so in the end it doesn't matter who is in the wrong.

Rectitude doesn't mend broken limbs.
A broken rectitude is quite possibly one of the most uncomfortable injuries you can get.

Bikernereid

15th April 2010, 16:51

Bike rider was in the wrong. How can you expect the cage driver to know that the bike rider is (a) speeding for the speed limit in that area. In the 'if not but for' legal argument the accident would not have happened if the bike rider had not been speeding and was in the position in the road when they were. If the rider has been riding at the legal limit I would have thought that the car would have been out of the way before the bike would have had chance to get to the position of the accident (IMO).

carbonhed

15th April 2010, 17:11

Both at fault but the motorcyclists a cock and in pain.... richly deserved IMHO.

bogan

15th April 2010, 17:23

If the rider has been riding at the legal limit I would have thought that the car would have been out of the way before the bike would have had chance to get to the position of the accident (IMO).

Turns out not, well as I figure it anyway.

If the biker had been traveling at 55kmhr (thats considered pretty legal) as opposed to 76kmhr, they would have taken an extra 1.8seconds to get to the intersection from 100m, also at 55kmhr 100m is 6.6 secs away. However if we go furthur, it takes approx 20m to stop from 50kmhr, or 40m from 76kmhr. So for the biker to be unable to stop the cager must have pulled out when the biker was 40m away.
Oops, just re-read first post, was it really a hundred meters? thats plenty of room to stop...speed up....and stop again....if you wanted. So fully the bikers fault if they can't stop in a hundred meters!
Anyway, back to dathifying the thread some more :D
40m away then gives 0.72 second difference between the two speeds. So for the driver to clear the intersection and avoid a 55kmhr rider hitting them, but still have the 76kmhr rider hit them it is a fine line indeed, assuming that the car is 5m long and has an average speed of 10k, itll occupy most of the intersection for around that time anyway, so in the hypothetical case (not the 100m one) the car is definetely at fault for failure to give way.

FROSTY

15th April 2010, 17:48

BINGO --and the chocky fish goes to....

FROSTY

15th April 2010, 17:52

Sorry guys The point I was trying to make was if you're speeding on a suburban road then eventually ya gotta expect someone to pull out in front of ya. How it ends well heck thats up to luck.

Bikernereid

15th April 2010, 17:52

Turns out not, well as I figure it anyway.

If the biker had been traveling at 55kmhr (thats considered pretty legal) as opposed to 76kmhr, they would have taken an extra 1.8seconds to get to the intersection from 100m, also at 55kmhr 100m is 6.6 secs away. However if we go furthur, it takes approx 20m to stop from 50kmhr, or 40m from 76kmhr. So for the biker to be unable to stop the cager must have pulled out when the biker was 40m away.
Oops, just re-read first post, was it really a hundred meters? thats plenty of room to stop...speed up....and stop again....if you wanted. So fully the bikers fault if they can't stop in a hundred meters!
Anyway, back to dathifying the thread some more :D
40m away then gives 0.72 second difference between the two speeds. So for the driver to clear the intersection and avoid a 55kmhr rider hitting them, but still have the 76kmhr rider hit them it is a fine line indeed, assuming that the car is 5m long and has an average speed of 10k, itll occupy most of the intersection for around that time anyway, so in the hypothetical case (not the 100m one) the car is definetely at fault for failure to give way.

But did the cage driver see the bike when he pulled out or was it behind the bus?

bogan

15th April 2010, 18:04

BINGO --and the chocky fish goes to....

:wait:

But did the cage driver see the bike when he pulled out or was it behind the bus?

irrelevant, you don't pull out if you can't see whats coming, could have been a milk tanker coming, dunno if they can stop in 40m :shit:

FROSTY

15th April 2010, 18:08

100m is a pretty good bit of visible road at 50km/h

MSTRS

15th April 2010, 18:08

:wait:

irrelevant, you don't pull out if you can't see whats coming, could have been a milk tanker coming, dunno if they can stop in 40m :shit:
You (and I) mightn't...

NinjaNanna

15th April 2010, 18:19

Kickaha

15th April 2010, 18:29

Sorry guys The point I was trying to make was if you're speeding on a suburban road then eventually ya gotta expect someone to pull out in front of ya. How it ends well heck thats up to luck.

If you are travelling at the legal limit or even below the limit you have to expect that as well

bogan

15th April 2010, 18:30

simple maths

76km/hr = 21.1m/sec ( means 100m equates to a 4.74 sec gap)
50km/hr = 13.9m/sec ( means 100m equates to a 7.19 sec gap)

a 7sec gap would be fine to pull into, a 4.74 sec gap is not - the driver could not know that the gap would be reduced by a speeding driver, also isn't 100m the "clear" distance provided for in law.

Riders fault.

4secs is ample time if you're pulling into the other lane, and 100m is for passing into oncoming traffic (combined speed of 200kmhr) not intersections round town (combined speed of 50kmhr)

And from the other perspective, don't assume other vehicles aren't speeding and pull out, you'll get owned, and charged with failure to give way.

rustic101

15th April 2010, 18:30

and some bloody cager pulls out of a side street 100m up the road.

My first question is, What type of intersection was it? I.e was it a 'controlled intersection' e.g Give way, Stop etc. or?

The Bus, so far is a red hearing. It only contributed by acting as a Hazard. Initially the rider should have applied their Observation and Hazard Identification skills

p.dath

15th April 2010, 18:42

One thing that has been overlooked is the cage driver who commenced pulling out would not have seen the rider until they rounded the corner. The cage driver had a maximum of 100m to make their choice.

Presumably the road was built for a standard of 50km/h, and hence why the side road was spaced that far away.

The Stranger

15th April 2010, 18:55

Technically.
The rider - if it can be established he was speeding.
If not, the car is gunna wear it.
Reality.
The "give way to biggest vehicle" rule applies.

nothingflash

15th April 2010, 19:22

Who's wrong in this situation ?

Anyone who thinks you're serious, surely.

Smifffy

15th April 2010, 19:57

The point is that 5-0 can probably ticket both, and maybe the bus driver too, they should probably pat down the passengers on the bus too, just in case they're carrying, or holding, or woteva the current phrase is.

$$$ KA-CHING $$$

Safer communities together & a welcome boost to the consolidated fund.

Hitcher

15th April 2010, 20:48

Personally, I blame the Labour Government.

NinjaNanna

16th April 2010, 08:55

Personally, I blame the Labour Government.

I blame the National Government - they should have fixed it by now :)

The Stranger

16th April 2010, 09:26

I blame the National Government - they should have fixed it by now :)

Come on, it takes a while to undo 9 years of fuck ups.

FROSTY

16th April 2010, 11:53

nope its everybodys fault but the bikers.

onearmedbandit

16th April 2010, 12:25

If a motorcyclist falls over in a forest, and no one else is there, is it the trees fault?

Maha

16th April 2010, 12:35

BikerDazz

16th April 2010, 19:11

If you don't speed you won't need to wear a poofy vest, although it seems to have not worked anyways.

Ixion

16th April 2010, 19:18

If you don't speed you won't need to wear a poofy vest, although it seems to have not worked anyways.

Hm. By corollary, does that mean that if you DO wear a poofy vest, you are allowed to speed?

BikerDazz

16th April 2010, 20:11

Hm. By corollary, does that mean that if you DO wear a poofy vest, you are allowed to speed?

no, it just means you're uncool

DesmoDAZ

16th April 2010, 21:44

:bash:::Nearly 80kph in a 50 zone!, busses, cars, side streets, kids, driveways,....... Excuse me but F*#k off noddy.bash

enigma51

16th April 2010, 21:48

Yup. If you're dead, or your bike is fucked, you were wrong. Figure it out, do the maths, and do something different.

There is also the situation of the law - you have to be able to stop in the clear distance ahead of you, you must ride to the conditions, and you must not conduct yourself in a careless or dangerous fashion. All three I'd say the courts would have something to say about.

Steve

This coming from the retart who said if someone pulls out in front of him he will aim for the driver .... or passenger door?

You fuckwit shut the fuck up!

enigma51

16th April 2010, 21:49

Sorry guys The point I was trying to make was if you're speeding on a suburban road then eventually ya gotta expect someone to pull out in front of ya. How it ends well heck thats up to luck.

And that frosty is why you should race your on race on the road

swbarnett

17th April 2010, 05:16

The road rules are a set of conventions that you accept when you get your license (or at least you say you do). It is legally reasonable (although pretty stupid in today's driving environment) for any given driver to expect that all other road users will adhere to these conventions.

If you drive/ride outide these conventions then, legally, the onus is on you to ensure your own safety. This is why I've had no accidents in the past 3.5 years and 8 years in the 80's and 90's commuting in Auckland traffic.

In short - the rider is at fault because they were riding outside legally accepted norms and could not compensate. The fact that a tar snake ruined their braking effort only goes to show that they did not have an appropriate awareness of the road surface under them.